[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 82 (Thursday, June 10, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H4039-H4094]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
200, the Chair announces that she will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes 
the period of time in which a vote by electronic device will be taken 
on the additional amendment on which the Chair has postponed further 
proceedings.


               Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Traficant

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) 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 will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242, 
noes 181, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 186]

                               AYES--242

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--181

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Armey
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chenoweth
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa

[[Page H4040]]


     Hoeffel
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Larson
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bliley
     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Conyers
     Hilleary
     Holt
     Kasich
     Lofgren
     Manzullo
     Olver
     Wynn

                              {time}  1153

  Messrs. CRAMER, OXLEY, and DEUTSCH changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). It is now in order to debate 
the subject of the policy of the United States relating to the conflict 
in Kosovo.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).
  Mr. SPENCE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, as the 3-month air war appears to be winding down and 
NATO operations in Yugoslavia appear headed for a new and, in my 
opinion, perhaps more troubling phase for our country, I think it is 
entirely appropriate that the House have a debate over various aspects 
of our Kosovo policy.
  Over the past few months, the issue of this administration's policy 
has been contentious and confusing not only to the Congress but to the 
American people, as well. Under such circumstances, I do not understand 
why debate is a bad thing.
  In my personal opinion, the conflict in Kosovo and the wider wars in 
the Balkans do not directly impact on core United States national 
security interests. Our interests in the current conflict are primarily 
humanitarian.
  Madam Chairman, in the words of NATO Secretary General Solana, 
Operation Allied Force is ``a war fought for values.'' I am not 
minimizing the importance of values. They mean a lot to the American 
people and to me personally.
  Americans take their political values seriously. We declared our 
independence from Great Britain on the basis of inalienable rights. 
Yet, as a Nation, when it comes to matters of national security and 
foreign policy, when it comes to matters of these kind, we have always 
tempered our values with an appreciation of our broader national 
interests, as did the Founding Fathers, who were especially weary of 
foreign entanglements.
  The need for a clear right assessment of the national interest is 
especially important when it comes to the use of United States military 
force. Committing our Armed Forces to combat should never be done 
without an objective reckoning of interest, cost, and benefits. Indeed, 
that ought to be our solemn obligation to the men and women in uniform 
who place their lives at risk to protect and promote American interests 
all around what remains a dangerous world.
  We cannot afford to simply ask whether the cause is just but whether 
we are willing and able to pay the many direct and indirect costs 
necessary to achieve victory if victory can be clearly defined.
  The costs to our Armed Forces of ongoing operations in the Balkans 
from 1995 until today has been substantial and continues to rise 
exponentially. Also, there is no end in sight.
  Including the funds recently approved by Congress in the Kosovo 
supplemental and in this bill, the cost of operations in the Balkans is 
approaching $20 billion.

                              {time}  1200

  That figure represents just the incremental costs to the Department 
of Defense, the costs of the additional fuel, munitions, spare parts, 
personnel and other associated costs with operations in the Balkans. It 
does not begin to cover the capital costs associated with raising, 
equipping, training and maintaining our armed forces.
  Put simply, American military commitments in the Balkans have risen 
to the level of a third major war, over and above the two potential 
major wars facing us in Korea and Southwest Asia, and form the basis of 
our United States national strategy. We are involved in an 
unanticipated major war in Europe with a military force that in my view 
is overextended and underresourced to the point where it cannot 
effectively protect our national interests around the world, nor can it 
execute the Nation's military strategy in time of war.
  These basic realities have shaped my position in regard to our 
operations in the Balkans over the past several years. I do not 
downplay the humanitarian tragedy that has befallen the Balkans. None 
of us do. With our military already overextended, I have long 
maintained that it is unwise to commit our forces, especially United 
States ground forces, to an open-ended commitment in Southern Europe 
that would place our other vital interests around the world at 
immediate and, in my opinion, unacceptable risk. Parenthetically I note 
that the two new incoming Chiefs of Staff of the Army and the Marine 
Corps have expressed similar concerns about this matter.
  Mr. Chairman, despite the fact that our armed forces are at a 
fraction of their Gulf War strength of the late 1990s, it seems that 
the administration has approached this entire Balkans policy for the 
past several years and certainly the past several months in isolation 
from Korea or the Persian Gulf. We must first and foremost consider our 
security and foreign policy with our heads, not just our hearts. And we 
cannot consider the signals we send to Serbia separately from the 
signals we send to Iraq and Iran and North Korea or any other nation 
that is or might become our adversary where the threats posed are a 
higher degree than that in the Balkans.
  I urge my colleagues to bear in mind our global interests and 
responsibilities and the ability of our military forces to protect all 
of these interests as we debate the Kosovo policy today and in the 
future.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let us speak of Kosovo today. We have achieved, our country has 
achieved, NATO has achieved a victory in the field of battle in the 
Balkans. The issues we debate today and the votes taken today will tell 
whether we keep that victory or whether we sour it or whether we throw 
ashes on it and tell those young men and young women who have been in 
harm's way that their efforts were for good or whether they were for 
naught.
  Mr. Chairman, never in the history of this country has a Congress 
voted to deprive America of a military victory in the field after it 
has been achieved. It is my sincere hope that this Congress today will 
not deprive America, will not deprive the NATO nations of a victory 
that it has achieved by placing young men and young women in harm's 
way.
  The House is now going to consider a series of amendments concerning 
our involvement in NATO operations in Yugoslavia. The House should 
approve my amendment to delete section 1006(a) of the bill and we 
should approve the Taylor amendment which outlines the goals for our 
military and peacekeeping operations in Yugoslavia. However, we should 
reject the Souder amendment, which is even more restrictive than the 
flawed language that is in the bill, and we should reject the Fowler 
amendment because the House debated and rejected a similar Fowler 
amendment in March by a vote of 178-237.

[[Page H4041]]

  Mr. Chairman, when I spoke during general debate on this bill, I 
mentioned that my only reservation about this legislation concerns 
section 1006 relating to budgeting for operations in the Federal 
Republic of Yugoslavia. This provision, which prohibits the use of 
funds authorized by this legislation for the conduct of combat or 
peacekeeping operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, is too 
restrictive and can result in funds being cut off while our troops are 
in the field. I agree with the necessity to fund our operations in the 
Balkans with supplemental appropriations and I have so stated. However, 
if the bill's provisions are left in place, we could have a situation 
where the funds from one supplemental run out before another is 
enacted. In that case, the section in question would prevent the use of 
these Department of Defense funds authorized by this bill to support 
our troops in the region whether in combat or peacekeeping. Moreover, 
if this language remains in the authorization bill, this otherwise 
excellent legislation that we have will be subject to a presidential 
veto.
  The amendment which I offer will delete subsection (a) of section 
1006 while leaving in place subsection (b) which requires the President 
to request supplemental appropriations in order to conduct combat or 
peacekeeping operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. 
Subsection (b), standing alone, adequately protects the funding 
authorized in this bill without running the risk of undermining 
America's and NATO's military peacekeeping efforts in Kosovo.
  Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago when we were first scheduled to take this 
bill up on the floor, I would have argued that the language in the bill 
sent the wrong message at the wrong time. Now with the withdrawal of 
Serbian forces from Kosovo scheduled to begin today, the message we 
would send by rejecting my amendment and the timing of that message 
would be even worse. Specifically, retaining that harmful section would 
send a signal to U.S. and allied military personnel in the region that 
their superb performance to date may be cut off at a fiscally-driven 
date having nothing to do with operational or diplomatic 
considerations.
  It would send a signal of uncertainty to our NATO allies at a time 
when American leadership on the ground, in the air and in various 
diplomatic venues is carrying Operation Allied Force and related 
efforts forward.
  It would send a signal to Kosovar refugees depending on America and 
NATO that the Alliances's commitment to returning them safely to their 
homes is wavering.
  It would send a signal to President Milosevic that he need only hold 
on or stall for a few more months before funding for American 
participation in the NATO air campaign or peacekeeping mission is 
accomplished.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very serious issue. It relates not only 
to Kosovo, it relates not only to Yugoslavia, it relates to the 
leadership of this bastion of freedom, of America, in this world.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me respond briefly to my friend from 
Missouri with respect to depriving us of what he calls victory in this 
war.
  The war that I am concerned about, Mr. Chairman, is the next war, and 
I am concerned about the stocks of ammunition that are now very low. I 
am also concerned about those young men and women who have served us so 
well in the air war that has taken place over the last 78 days or so. 
The best way we can serve those men and women in uniform is to see to 
it that we get a large number of them off food stamps. I am talking 
about the 10,000 military families that currently are on food stamps.
  Another way we can serve them is to see to it that we have the spare 
parts to get our mission capability rates up above 70 percent and to 
get that crash rate which last year was 55 aircraft crashing resulting 
in 55 deaths during peacetime operations down to a lower level, if not 
an acceptable level. All of that is going to take money.
  Mr. Chairman, this war will be a disaster if we pay for it out of the 
moneys that would have gone to increase our munitions back to the two-
war requirement, that would have gone to raise the pay of our military 
people up to the level where they can make more than the food stamp 
rate, if the money is taken out of the spare parts coffers where it has 
been taken in the past to leave 40 percent of our aircraft grounded 
because they are not mission capable.
  I just say to my friend from Missouri, let us not pull money out of 
operations in this new euphoria that he thinks we should be engaged in, 
out of operations and out of the spare parts supplies and out of the 
ammunition coffers and out of the personnel benefit coffers. Otherwise, 
the next war will be a disaster for us. I hope that he will work with 
me to see to it that money is not taken out of the defense budget for 
Kosovo.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, we won the war. Now we 
must win the peace. We led NATO into that war in order for us to end 
the atrocities over in Kosovo and now we must be part of NATO to ensure 
that peace is there and that it will stick. Not only do the Republican 
amendments today undermine our efforts in Kosovo but the underlining 
provisions of this bill without the Skelton amendment make it nearly 
impossible to effectively implement the peace agreement because it cuts 
off the funds on September 30. Every major newspaper in the world has a 
peace agreement on the front page of every major newspaper. Why can our 
friends on the Republican side not read what is on the front page of 
every major newspaper in the world and declare that we have peace and 
we have the responsibility to be part of making sure that peace works.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I do commend our young men and women in 
the military for this peace that we hope has been achieved today 
because it is due to their great efforts that we have this opportunity 
for peace.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not often disagree with the gentleman from 
Missouri, he is a Member of this House for whom I have the highest 
regard and affection, but on this particular issue, I think he is 
wrong. Just this last weekend, General Shelton, the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that even with the peace agreement, the 
NATO operation in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is no longer one 
of peacekeeping but of peace enforcement. We are clearly going to be 
placing U.S. forces in a hostile environment.
  On one side of our forces, we will have the Serbs who we have been 
bombing for the last 2\1/2\ months. On the other side we will have the 
Kosovo Liberation Army which will be frustrated by the failure of the 
peace agreement to require a referendum as the Rambouillet accord would 
have done on independence. NATO forces will be defending Belgrade 
sovereignty over Kosovo, a position which is directly at odds with the 
KLA's paramount goal of independence. Moreover, while all the details 
of the peace agreement are not clear, it appears that the Russian 
element will approximate 10,000 troops compared to America's 7,000. 
Their line of command remains undetermined.
  Over the last 2\1/2\ months, the United States has provided the 
lion's share of the effort in the air campaign. The latest figures 
indicate that the United States has had 723 aircraft involved versus 
257 provided by the European states of NATO. The ratio of U.S. to 
European aircraft is almost 3 to 1. Yet the European states of NATO 
combined have more than twice as many active duty troops than we do, 
and their combined gross domestic product of $8.1 trillion is actually 
slightly more than our own GDP of $8.08 trillion.
  The gentleman from Missouri would delete the provision in this bill 
that adds teeth to it, that the President may not spend money in fiscal 
year 2000 authorized by this bill for our military for operations in 
Kosovo but rather must submit a request for supplemental funding to 
meet any cost associated with the Kosovo mission.

[[Page H4042]]

                              {time}  1215

  Given the inadequate funding that our military has received over the 
last 6 years, I believe this would be a grave mistake. I note that just 
this week the incoming chiefs of the Army and Marine Corps are quoted 
in the press as expressing concern about the long-term implications of 
the mission. I quote Army General Shinseki:

       Each additional contingency operation impacts the Army's 
     ability to remain focused on its war-fighting requirements. I 
     am concerned about the prospects of a long-term commitment to 
     Kosovo with ground forces.

  I just want to put it down to home. Earlier this year I visited my 
naval air station in Jacksonville. I was shocked at what I saw. Of 21 
P-3 aircraft on the tarmac, only four could fly. My S-3 pilots were 
only getting 5 hours a month flying time because there were not enough 
planes.
  This House just passed the supplemental appropriations bill to 
reimburse the services for the President's air campaign and provide for 
other urgent service requirements. It was not enough, but it was a 
start. Now that we have met these urgent needs, we must prevent 
readiness from declining again.
  The gentleman from Missouri's amendment would allow that to happen, 
and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a peace plan for Kosovo. Milosevic's troops are 
moving out, peacekeepers are moving in, the refugees are going home. 
America can claim a victory by the outstanding young men and women in 
our armed services. Yet this House could snatch defeat from the jaws of 
victory.
  We must support the agreement, provide the funds, back the 
peacekeepers. Instead, in this bill, the Republican majority has chosen 
to cut the funds, to pull back the peacekeepers.
  This bill prohibits funding after September 30 for any U.S. military 
involvement in Kosovo, even to help secure the peace. Not only that, 
two other Republicans, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) have amendments that would 
undermine the peace plan by banning peacekeepers. We should defeat 
these and approve the Skelton amendment to strike the provisions in the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Chairman, faced with tough choices, the President concluded that 
the risks of action were outweighed by the risks of inaction. Turns out 
he was right and the naysayers were wrong.
  The naysayers said to ignore this ethnic cleansing, it is not our 
problem. The President said Milosevic's brutality must not stand. The 
naysayers said, never mind. The President said, never again. The 
naysayers warned of American battle deaths, but not one American has 
been lost in combat.
  The naysayers said the conflict would spread, but it has been 
contained. The naysayers said it would sever relations with Russia, but 
Russia is our partner in the peace plan. Criticism is easy, but 
leadership takes courage.
  This House has not shown courage on Kosovo. It has acted 
irresponsibly, voting against withdrawing troops, voting against the 
air campaign, yet doubling funds for the campaign. If we vote today to 
cut off funding and renege on our commitment to NATO, Russia and the 
world, we bring further shame to this House.
  Mr. Chairman, we are better than that. Our country deserves more than 
that. Bring peace in the Balkans, preserve America's role as a world 
leader, reject these ill-advised efforts to undermine a peace in 
Kosovo.
  Reject the Souder and Fowler amendments. Vote for the Skelton 
amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Let me respond to the last speaker that talked about the House acting 
irresponsibly. Irresponsible action by this House would be to not 
properly fund the Nation's national military strategy to fight and win 
two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts. That is exactly what 
would be irresponsible.
  To come onto this floor and then to try to claim that if we are not 
funding some peacekeeping operation that does not even test the gut-
wrenching test of vital national security interest, that we can somehow 
then go to sleep with our responsibilities in other areas of the world, 
baffles my mind.
  I mean, let me share with my colleagues what I mean by the gut-
wrenching test. Does the United States have vital interests? None that 
could be debated. Why? Because we see the President and the American 
people were unwilling to put troops on the ground. That is the gut-
wrenching test.
  America understands the test for ``vital'' is if, in fact, we would 
sacrifice or send our own son or daughter into combat. But if people in 
America are unwilling to do that, then there is a strong sense in their 
gut that it must not be vital to our particular interest.
  Now, we are in NATO. Because of our interest in NATO, the United 
States is a leader in NATO, we are in it. That is what is very, very 
clear.
  Now I am going to be a constructive critic, and that is what I have 
tried to do in this process. But there is a clear difference in foreign 
policy between Republicans and Democrats, and that is very clear in the 
enjoinment of this debate.
  Presently, there is a foreign policy of engagement where we have 
265,000 troops in 135 countries all around the world; we have reduced 
the force in half, we have placed great stresses on the force, 
increased the operational tempo. We cannot retain the force, and we 
cannot even recruit to meet the goals of the force structure to meet 
our national military strategy.
  Now let me shift gears. This allegation boggles my mind: Somehow 
achieved a victory? Why are we so anxious to say a victory has been 
achieved? Do my colleagues realize that Milosevic was able to achieve 
his objectives on the ground and that because refugees have now been 
sent to all areas of the world, try to get these refugees back into 
Kosovo at a time when are they going to feel the security to even go 
back?
  Now let me pose another question. Peacekeepers? Do my colleagues know 
what protects a peacekeeper? It is neutrality. I feel much more 
comfortable having an international force on the ground, not NATO. 
NATO, that is not neutral. We have been bombing for 2 months, 3 weeks. 
We are seen as the enemy by the Serbs. That makes us a target. In their 
eyes it makes us the occupiers, and if there is anything we ever learn 
about the Balkans in the thousands of pages I have read it is that a 
bad situation always gets worse in the Balkans when there is an outside 
intervening source, especially one that is seen as the enemy.
  So, yes, there is some apprehension.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman believe that the 
situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina is worse today than it was 3 years ago?
  Mr. BUYER. In Bosnia-Herzegovina it is better today than it was 3 
years ago.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I remind the gentleman Bosnia-Herzegovina is 
in the Balkans.
  Mr. BUYER. I understand that, I understand that. I am just saying 
that what I most fear about is, in Kosovo shots can be taken and that 
has not happened in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The gentleman's point is well 
taken.
  Let me also compliment the gentleman who is the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Military Procurement, and I think the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) understands this. What we are trying to achieve 
here is for the President, if he wants to use moneys for the 
peacekeeping operation, then come with the supplemental appropriation, 
do not take it out of hide. A lot of the things for which we are doing 
here is to fund the national military strategy; that is our goal, and I 
also would want to work with the gentleman.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H4043]]

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, 3 months ago I went with the Secretary of 
Defense to Aviano where, as the first order of business, we were to be 
briefed by Brigadier General Dan Leaf, the commander of our air forces 
there. General Leaf was there to meet us on the runway early that 
morning even though the night before he had flown a mission himself.
  He briefed us with confidence, professional pride. And without 
bluster, he told us that his success to date was due more to the 
discipline and perfection with which his men had executed their 
mission, and, yes, their morale, because they believed in what they 
were doing; and not in the ineffectiveness of our adversary because our 
adversary was formidable. He did not promise us any quick results, but 
he did not shrink from the mission, and he left us believing the 
mission would be accomplished.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, General Leaf and his troops did not disappoint 
us. They did what we asked them to do. They demonstrated the prowess of 
the United States Air Force, once again on a level with the Persian 
Gulf, and let me say I am proud to represent those troops because some 
of them came from my district, from Shaw Air Force Base. They did their 
job, they served us well, they made us proud, and I am here in the well 
of the House to commend them.
  They must wonder, as many of us do, why this bill cut short what they 
have accomplished. The bill itself, the text of the bill, precludes 
further funding for peacekeeping or combat operations next year, and 
not satisfied with that, the majority has made in order three more 
amendments which pound the same issue: no money for military operations 
of any kind. I suppose that means no signal intelligence to see what 
Milosevic is up to, no overhead satellites, no CIA, no search and 
rescue.
  What in the world are we doing considering amendments like this?
  I know peacekeeping is onerous and expensive, I know our forces are 
stretched out around the globe, but I cannot believe that we are 
considering amendments like this at this time. We should be savoring 
our victory. We should voice vote up the Skelton amendment, remove the 
ban on funding, tell the President, sure, send us a supplemental next 
year to pay for the peacekeeping. But we should savor our victory, 
defeat these other amendments and see that our victory is consummated 
by a successful peacekeeping operation.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier).
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment my friends, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the distinguished chairman of 
the full committee for their fine work here, and I would like to say 
that the agreed-to settlement yesterday is, I believe, good news for 
Kosovo, good news for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and good 
news for the American people and for our forces who have fought with 
tremendous professionalism and valor in dealing with what is obviously 
a very, very tough situation.
  We all know that NATO's campaign had a specific goal. It was about 
bringing a political settlement that could be supported by both the 
Kosovar Albanians as well as the Serbs. At the same time, America's 
ultimate goal I believe must be a future which ensures that our troops 
will not be needed in Kosovo or, for that matter, anyplace else in the 
region. That is a very important goal that we need to pursue.
  I frankly am troubled if we look at the historic pattern that we have 
seen in Yugoslavia, in the entire region, which has required that 
presence, but I think that we need to do everything that we can to 
continue to pursue that ultimate goal.
  Now, having said those things, Mr. Chairman, I think it is very 
important for us to realize that we need to proceed with an important 
and rigorous debate on exactly what U.S. national interests are around 
the world; and as we look at the challenge of having deployed troops in 
many parts of the world beyond the Balkans, we need to decide what it 
is that we want to pursue, what our priorities as a Nation are, and I 
hope that in the not too distant future we will be able to proceed with 
that.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Turner).

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, the House will decide today not whether or 
not we will pursue the war, because the war is over and the settlement 
has been signed and the United States and NATO have prevailed. The 
question before the House today is whether, after winning the war, will 
we lose the peace?
  In this bill there is language that would cut off all funding for the 
peacekeeping operations 3\1/2\ months from now. It is my view that we 
must send a very clear signal to the world community and to President 
Milosevic that we intend to keep the peace; that when the world 
community stood united, when our NATO allies stood united, when our 
forces prevailed in the 78 days of the bombing campaign, that this 
House of Representatives also will stand united in supporting those 
troops and supporting that peacekeeping effort.
  There is no question that we all believe in a strong military and we 
all believe that the supplemental appropriation, the emergency 
appropriation that we passed, was important to funding adequately the 
military. But to hide behind that smokescreen and say that we will 
oppose the Skelton amendment and keep the language in the bill that 
cuts off funding 3\1/2\ months from now, just because we want to try to 
get another emergency appropriations bill passed sometime in the 
future, is, in my judgment, a wrong approach to a very serious issue.
  It is my hope that this House will support the Skelton amendment, to 
tell the world community that we intend to do our part, and reject the 
Fowler amendment, which was the subject of legislation we debated back 
on March 11 before the conflict began, when this House agreed to 
authorize forces of the United States to participate in a NATO 
peacekeeping operation. In that debate I offered the amendment that 
would restrict our participation to 15 percent.
  We need to continue on that course today, and we need to adopt the 
Skelton amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the esteemed ranking member 
and anybody else who wants to speak on this, we have heard a number of 
statements about how much you love the troops. I do not have any 
influence with the President. The President is sending budgets down 
that do not pay for ammunition, do not give adequate pay to our troops, 
keep them on food stamps, do not give them spare parts and do not give 
them planes new enough to avoid a 55 crash a year crash rate. We all 
know what we are trying to do. We are trying to keep our money in the 
ammunition coffers so we do not spend that on other things and have 
empty ammunition coffers when the next war comes around.
  I want to ask the gentleman, will the gentleman work to get the $13 
billion ammunition shortage plussed up to where it is at parity with 
what we need to fight the two wars?
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, absolutely.
  Mr. HUNTER. Will the gentleman make a pitch to the President to do 
that?
  Mr. SKELTON. Absolutely.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I will work with the gentleman over the 
next couple of weeks, and I hope all the other leaders and Members who 
have spoken on the Democrat side will use their influence to get this 
funding executed.
  Mr. SKELTON. If the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman will 
recall that I put together just a few short years ago a military budget 
calling for an increase in three successive years. I know full well and 
the gentleman knows full well that we need additional funding for the 
military. We made substantial gains this year. I am very pleased with 
this bill.

[[Page H4044]]

  What I do not want to happen is for this provision to stay in which 
cuts off the funds. We do need a supplemental. I would encourage that. 
That is why I have left section B untouched. We encourage and require 
the President to send a supplemental in the future.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to serve with the gentleman on the 
National Security Caucus, and the gentleman does an outstanding job in 
that. I am going to join the gentleman and the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) and the chairman of the committee in the effort he speaks 
of, but I believe we ought to perceive this on a bipartisan basis.
  I will be speaking about what I think the President's role has been 
and what Congress' role has been, both parties, in terms of under 
funding our defense. We have not passed bills that were adequate to the 
task. The President has not vetoed any bills. We simply have not passed 
them. I want to work with the gentleman, and I appreciate his comments.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey, Mr. Andrews.
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I begin by offering my congratulations and thanks to 
the men and women in uniform who have done such a fantastic job in the 
Balkans. I hope that they and their families are listening and 
understand the unanimous feeling of pride and support for what they 
have done.
  The question before us this afternoon is what do we do next? This 
bill offers a good prescription for what not to do next, because if 
this bill becomes law, on the 30th of September, whatever efforts we 
are making to sustain the peace that has been won will terminate. Now, 
that is a shortsighted and I believe irrational approach to solving 
this problem. So we need to amend the bill.
  With all due respect, I do not think we need to amend the bill in the 
way that our friends from Florida and Indiana have proposed amending 
it, because they say before we could put peacekeeping forces in, as I 
understand it, since they are ground forces, there would have to be 
specific Congressional authorization.
  What clearly has happened is that the objectives of this campaign are 
being realized. The refugees are going home, the Serbian troops are 
being withdrawn, and the objectives are being realized. To force us to 
go through a process now where we cannot follow through on this 
decision that has been made until there has been a debate and vote here 
I think would be a mistake. It would be an equally grave mistake to tie 
the President's hands and to terminate his authority on the 30th of 
September, a truly arbitrary deadline.
  The right amendment to support is the Skelton amendment. It says the 
right thing, that the President in fact should come to this body for a 
supplemental appropriation and not pay for these operations out of the 
regular military budget. I agree with that. But it does not make the 
mistake of unduly tying the hands of the commander-in-chief and 
restraining him and our military leaders from following through on the 
peace that has been won with such valor and distinction in the last few 
weeks and months.
  I strongly support the Skelton amendment; oppose the others.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, years ago when George McGovern ran for 
president, our current President and National Security Adviser worked 
in his campaign. Sandy Berger supposedly even coined the phrase ``come 
home America.'' Our boys of the Vietnam era have now grown up. It has 
gone from come home America to go everywhere America, to stay 
everywhere America.
  We do have the best military in the world. Nobody is disputing that. 
We are proud of them. But they can only do so much with poorly 
conceived political strategies.
  This is certainly no victory. After 11 weeks of bombing, we have less 
world stability than when we started. After 11 weeks of bombing, we 
have a settlement that we probably could have achieved at the 
beginning. If this is a victory, what would a defeat look like? We are 
not snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, we are trying to snatch 
future victories from the jaws of this defeat.
  Let me look at the specifics here. We probably have destabilized 
Montenegro, although hopefully we can get the pro-western government 
stabilized.
  We certainly have put Macedonia at risk, which was a country where 
all the factions had pulled together, watched their trade get 
devastated, and now potentially have changed the mix and the politics 
of Macedonia.
  We have set a precedent on autonomous semi-independent republics, and 
it is not clear whether Kosovo can actually stay under Serbian control. 
What does this mean for Palestine? What does this mean for the Kurds? 
Have we taken a foreign policy change and had a potential impact around 
the world?
  What about internal interventions? What does this mean for Chechnya, 
what does this mean if there are Tiananmen Squares? Are we going to 
intervene in other countries, with terrible tragedies and the genocide 
in those countries. We do not have a clear policy of how and when we 
are going to intervene.
  Furthermore, has this advanced the stability with Russia, has this 
advanced the stability with China, where we clearly have national 
interests and world peace interests. I would argue no.
  Furthermore, we have disproportionately pinned down our forces in an 
area of the world where we do not have clear national interests, and 
where, after 700 or 1,500 or 2,000 years of fighting, we are unlikely 
at the second we pull out not to see reoccurrences. As long as Pristina 
is conceived as the Jerusalem of the Serbian people, they are not 
likely, whether it takes 20 years or 50 years or 200 years, to change 
that attitude.
  Furthermore, why did I say that about the peace settlement? Milosevic 
remains in power. He keeps his military. Furthermore, we now disarm his 
enemies, the KLA. We have Russian troops, his friends, as part of the 
thing. I am not arguing against these points. I am saying this is 
something that he probably would have taken in the beginning.
  Furthermore, it is under UN at this point, under UN control, where 
China has a veto in the Security Council. We do not even know what the 
Russian government is going to be like after the next elections, and we 
probably are going to be there a lot more than 3 months.
  So you look at this and say, why is this peace settlement a defeat 
for Milosevic? He has moved the Kosovars out. He does not have enough 
Serbians to occupy that whole territory. We are looking at 100,000-some 
versus 1 million people. He wanted his enemies disarmed, and we are 
going to do that.
  I do not think this in any way can be called a victory.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the NATO mission in Yugoslavia has prevailed over the 
brutal dictatorship of Slobodan Milosevic. NATO has shown tremendous 
resolve, tremendous persistence, throughout this crisis. Now that this 
diplomatic resolution has been reached on NATO's terms, on NATO's 
terms, this is not the time to show weakness, to cut funding or to 
damage the unity of the western democracies.
  What can the proponents of this bill be thinking by cutting funding 
for peacekeeping? This is not the Republican party of my father or the 
Republican party of my grandfather. I learned around the dinner table 
that the primary rule of foreign policy was politics ends at the 
water's edge.
  The modern Republican Party in this House seems to have forgotten 
that lesson. They seem to be setting foreign

[[Page H4045]]

policy on personal considerations and a personal hatred for the 
President of the United States.
  Important challenges continue to face us in Yugoslavia. We have got 
to return the refugees and house them and clothe them and feed them by 
winter. We have got to avoid partition of Kosovo. We have got to make 
sure that Milosevic does not receive immunity for his war crimes, and 
Serbia must not receive international aid until Yugoslavia becomes 
democratic.
  What we have achieved is that NATO has shown it is willing and able 
to keep the peace in Europe. Until now they have been a defensive 
alliance. For the first time they have had to act militarily, and they 
have succeeded, they have prevailed, and they will keep the peace in 
Europe.
  The central question here all this century has been do free peoples 
in democracies have the self-discipline to prevail against 
dictatorships and all the coercive power they can bring to bear? In 
this century we have answered that question affirmatively, in two world 
wars, in the Cold War, and now in Yugoslavia.
  It is no time to step back. Support the Skelton amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the House Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it is not only prudent but part of a vital 
duty for this Congress to continue to discuss national security and 
policy questions relating to our ongoing operations in Kosovo. As part 
of this debate, I believe we must take a longer view of our foreign 
policy goals using lessons learned in this current crisis. In a 
nutshell, what does our intervention in Kosovo imply for our 
foreseeable future as the world's dominant power? And we are.
  Consider that NATO attacked a sovereign country that offered no 
military threat to the members of the alliance. Consider that NATO 
justified its attack on the basis of morality rather than self-defense, 
and NATO limited the accuracy and effectiveness of its attack to those 
measures that presented the least risk to NATO participants, even 
though this format predictably caused innocent civilians' deaths.
  Where do these actions as a precedent take us? Who else has the 
``right'' to mount such an attack? China? Russia? The Organization of 
African Unity? Some other power? Some rogue Nation?
  Where else should NATO attack? The principles of morality have no 
geographic boundaries. We know that. For every ethnic cleansing in the 
Balkans, there will be several more, in Africa, Indonesia, any other 
headline you want to pick in the paper. How can NATO not intervene in 
the next Liberia, Rwanda or East Timor?

                              {time}  1245

  How committed are we to such attacks? Have standoff smart bombs 
become NATO's version of diplomatic demarche? Is this what we do every 
time negotiations stall at the bargaining table?
  Underlying all these questions is the one most fundamental: What 
effect do such activities have upon our national security? I have, as 
chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, seen 
a divergence of the intelligence capabilities and assets towards the 
Balkans that has left much of the intelligence field elsewhere empty.
  What then is the end game for this and for future Kosovos? What is 
the lesson?
  I have two recommendations on how to get there. First, I suggest we 
look with the wisdom of hindsight at the role of NATO in attacks other 
than for self-defense. I believe that the citizens of NATO countries 
support our purely humanitarian operations outside our territory, but I 
have less assurance that after the bloodshed on the ground in 
Yugoslavia, they will so readily support a military attack outside our 
territory unless it is in clear self-defense.
  Second, I urge that any future interventions never again leave our 
national security, the United States of America, so vulnerable to 
surprise and to compromise. We must not allow such efforts to leave us 
vulnerable to unanticipated crises with our friends or with our 
adversaries.
  We must, in short, have an intelligence and national security 
structure sound enough and broad enough to handle any such matters as 
Kosovo, if that is what the future portends, and still stand watch 
around the world in defense of our national security, which is the 
number one purpose, the number one duty, and the number one objective 
of our military.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the critics were wrong. The headline in 
today's paper says, ``Kosovo Pullout to Start Today.'' NATO's 11-week, 
78-day campaign to stop the genocidal policies of Slobodan Milosevic in 
Kosovo is producing the results we sought. Today's pullout is the first 
step towards a complete victory.
  As William Kristol and Robert Kagan wrote this week in the Weekly 
Standard, the victory in Kosovo should send a message to would-be 
aggressors that the United States and its allies can summon the will 
and force to do them harm.
  Syndicated columnist William Safire hit the nail on the head when he 
wrote recently, ``International moral standards of conduct, long 
derided by geopoliticians, now have muscle,'' said Bill Safire. Why? 
Because of NATO's unified, unwavering action in Kosovo.
  The threat of a NATO ground invasion had a decisive impact on the 
butcher of Belgrade. Not surprisingly, Milosevic capitulated as 
President Clinton consulted his military advisers on options for ground 
troops.
  Like the cowardly bully who picks on the weak and defenseless, 
Milosevic caved when he knew there would be no escape. President 
Clinton's resolve on the Kosovo crisis has enhanced the credibility of 
the United States and the Atlantic Alliance throughout the world.
  Finally, let me state, our efforts to secure a peace in the Balkans 
are not over. Milosevic has properly been branded as a war criminal by 
the International War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague, and he must be held 
accountable. Our credibility has been enhanced, NATO has been 
strengthened, a brutal dictator has been repulsed, and the cause for 
human rights has been advanced. If those are not good causes, I do not 
know what are.
  In that context, Mr. Chairman, I urge that we adopt the Taylor 
amendment, I urge that we adopt the Skelton amendment, and I urge that 
we reject the Souder and Fowler amendments, which will declare defeat, 
not victory, which is appropriately our task today.
  Mr. Chairman, the doomsayers and the critics were wrong. The banner 
headline on today's Washington Post says it all: ``Kosovo Pullout Set 
To Start Today.''
  NATO's 11-week, 78-day air campaign to stop the genocidal policies of 
Slobodan Milosevic in Kosovo is producing the results we sought.
  Today's pullout is the first step toward complete victory.
  Soon we will be able to count these as our accomplishments:
  Success in providing the 1.3 million Kosovars who have been forced to 
flee their own country or displaced within the province with a safe re-
entry to their homeland.
  Success in stabilizing this most unstable region of Europe.
  And, of utmost importance, success in vindicating the credibility of 
NATO--and the United States--in rejecting and punishing Milosevic's 
unbridled barbarism.
  As William Kristol and Robert Kagan wrote this week in the Weekly 
Standard: the victory in Kosovo should ``send a message to would-be 
aggressors that . . . the United States and its allies can summon the 
will and the force to do them harm.''
  With the Serb invaders retreating and the NATO peacekeepers ready to 
restore order, it's not too soon to consider the lessons in this 
campaign and what still must be done.
  First, NATO's air campaign in Kosovo decisively demonstrates that the 
alliance can engage in military action to protect basic human rights 
and to deter aggression on the European continent.
  This policy is not just the right thing to do--it's a strategic 
imperative.
  Syndicated columnist William Safire hit the nail on the head when he 
wrote recently: ``International moral standards of conduct, long

[[Page H4046]]

derided by geopoliticians, now have muscle.'' Why? Because of NATO's 
unified, unwavering action in Kosovo.
  Would-be aggressors everywhere have this message ringing in their 
ears--don't do it.
  If you take aggressive, hostile action against others, you may pay a 
very steep price indeed.
  Further, we have learned that our awesome military might--coupled 
with the will to use it--provides a very real strategic advantage.
  Clearly, the threat of a NATO ground invasion had a decisive impact 
on the butcher of Belgrade--Slobodan Milosevic.
  Not surprisingly, Milosevic capitulated as President Clinton 
consulted his military advisers on options for ground troops.
  Like the cowardly bully who picks on the weak and defenseless, 
Milosevic caved in when he knew there would be no escape.
  President Clinton's resolve on the Kosovo crisis has enhanced the 
credibility of the United States and the Atlantic Alliance throughout 
the world.
  We make good on our word.
  American credibility is a strategic asset of the highest order and 
well worth fighting for.
  Finally, let me state our efforts to secure peace in the Balkans are 
not over.
  Milosevic has properly been branded as a war criminal by the 
International War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague.
  And he must be held accountable.
  Our policy goal now should be his removal from office.
  But we should encourage the Serbs to remove Milosevic and the brutal 
leaders who have caused this unnecessary suffering and misery.
  Serbia also must be clear about this: so long as Milosevic remains in 
power, it will not receive financial assistance for its reconstruction.
  Mr. Speaker, like some of my colleagues who have traveled to 
Macedonia and Albania, I have seen the devastating consequences of 
genocide.
  These images have been seared into my memory forever.
  We will not always be able to intervene to stop injustice wherever it 
occurs.
  But we have laid down a powerful precedent in Kosovo.
  Our credibility has been enhanced, NATO has been strengthened, a 
brutal dictator has been repulsed, and the cause for human rights has 
been advanced.
  If those are not good causes, I frankly don't know what are.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt the Taylor and Skelton amendments and 
reject the Souder and Fowler amendments.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I wanted to respond to one allegation we heard here on the floor 
today, that what is in the bill under the chairman's language would cut 
the funds and pull back peacekeepers, once they are in place. I believe 
such comments are disingenuous and the allegation is false.
  The emergency supplemental that we passed here on the floor is not 
only for 1999, but also for the 2000 cycle. So as we move through the 
1999 cycle and we finish, and now we begin the October 1, the funds are 
not cut off. Yes, there were funds there through the emergency 
supplemental, but those funds were really used to pay the accounts and 
pay for the weapons and ammo and other things for the operations.
  Can they reprogram? Yes. But what we would like and prefer is for 
regular order. That would be for the President to offer the amendment, 
a budgetary amendment in 2000, and to do that with offsets that are 
nondefense offsets and do not spend the social security surplus.
  That is the obligation the Republican Congress has taken up: for 
every dollar of surplus, we will not spend it. That is what we request 
of the President.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. I thank the ranking member for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Skelton 
amendment, and would strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose the 
Fowler and Souder amendments. I believe those are the wrong amendments 
at the wrong time when we are on the brink of peace in the Balkans. I 
believe that the NATO policy in Kosovo has been the right policy for 
the right reasons at the right time.
  There were two overriding concerns that got the NATO democracies 
involved in the Balkans.
  One of these, and not least of which, was the importance of trying to 
contain the conflict so it did not spread into other countries and 
ultimately result in much greater cost and greater sacrifice to the 
western democracies later.
  But the overriding one, Mr. Chairman, was the humanitarian and moral 
concerns involved in trying to help the Kosovar families and end the 
atrocities.
  We were reminded by Elie Wiesel what this was all about. When he was 
asked about the NATO air strike campaign in the Balkans, he responded, 
listen, the only miserable consolation the people in the concentration 
camps had during the Second World War was the belief that if the 
western democracies knew what was taking place, they would do 
everything in their power to try to stop it, bomb the rail lines and 
the crematoriums.
  Unfortunately, history later showed that the western leaders did 
know, but did not take any action. This time it is different. This time 
the western democracies do know what is going on, they are taking 
action, they are intervening. This time, he said, we are on the right 
side of history.
  Mr. Chairman, we woke up this morning with the news that the first 
Serb troops are being withdrawn from Kosovo. The policy is working. I 
think credit should be given where credit is due. It was through the 
perseverance and unity of all 19 democratic nations of NATO that forced 
Milosevic to capitulate and end the atrocities in Kosovo.
  Now we are at the dawn of a new era of peace in the Balkans. Let us 
hope it is a peace that sees the eventual removal of Milosevic from 
power, that sees true democratic reforms take place so the Balkan 
countries can eventually join the European Union, the community of 
democratic nations, and perhaps even the NATO alliance itself.
  A pipe dream? An illusion? I do not think so. Who among us could have 
predicted that within 10 short years, some of the most repressive 
Communist regimes in all of Europe would be today flourishing 
democracies, members of the European Union and NATO itself?
  The same can happen in the Balkans. Let us give this policy of peace 
in the Balkans a chance.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, NATO has achieved not a victory but a cessation of war, 
for now. It is important that Congress maintain a tight rein on the 
administration's policy in the Balkans through not providing a blanket 
authorization past September 30, which the Skelton amendment would 
effect.
  The agreement that was signed is significant for what it does not 
say. The KLA was not a party to the agreement. The KLA is not even 
mentioned in the text of the agreement. The agreement does not limit 
the types and quantities of weapons the KLA must turn in. The agreement 
does not require the KLA to turn in rifles and machine guns purchased 
in Albania and on the black market.
  Keep in mind the KLA's goal is still an independent Kosovo. They will 
not accept NATO's new goal of autonomy. They will return to the 
province well armed and well protected.
  The agreement also provides for Yugoslav forces to be allowed back 
into Kosovo, but it does not say when. This agreement may have 
established a fertile ground for more war. This agreement could 
exchange the ill-fated and ill-advised quest for a greater Serbia for 
an ill-fated and ill-advised quest for a greater Albania.
  It is urgent that Congress keep control in such an undefined and 
unpredictable environment created by an undefined agreement. Our young 
men and women could end up trapped in a ground war in Kosovo. Our young 
men and women could end up in a circular firing squad between an armed 
KLA and Serbs, Serb units trying to get back into the province.
  Only congressional oversight will keep America from getting deeper 
and deeper into a reignited war between the KLA and Serbia. That is why 
I am going to support the Fowler and Souder amendments.
  The administration already has funds appropriated for peacekeepers 
and

[[Page H4047]]

military. There is no cut in funds being affected here. The Skelton 
amendment will permit the administration to have more authority to use 
money to send in troops or peacekeepers after October 1. This is June 
10. Vote against the Skelton amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the Skelton amendment would allow a 
legitimate and proportionate role in peacekeeping, 7,000 troops. 
Earlier the gentleman from Indiana questioned whether that would 
stretch our forces too thin, whether they were overextended.
  I do not believe the short-term commitment of 7,000 peacekeepers is 
an overextension. But the thoughtless, nonstrategic, nontactical 
permanent garrison of 100,000 troops in Europe is expensive and does 
overtax our military resources.
  Ask a military strategist, why a permanent garrison of 100,000 troops 
in Europe? They say, well, to show commitment to Europe. I think we 
have shown commitment. Commitment to what, I might ask? To subsidizing 
and offsetting the legitimate defense obligations of our allies in 
Europe?
  For years we were poised to repel an attack through the Fulda Gap. 
The only invasion going on in Eastern Europe into the former Soviet 
bloc involving the Gap is an invasion by a U.S.-based clothing store 
into that area. There is no threat from the Soviet bloc any longer. We 
no longer need to permanently garrison 100,000 troops in Europe.
  Support the later vote on the Shays-Frank amendment to phase down our 
obligation to 25,000 troops, and help our military to husband its 
resources so they can serve their core obligations to defend our Nation 
against real threats.
  That would be a vote here. If Members are really concerned about the 
military being stretched too thin, vote to stop that permanent, 
thoughtless, anachronistic deployment of 100,000 troops.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, a peace has been negotiated in Kosovo, and 
are we not relieved? And are we not proud of our troops, and are we not 
proud that we did not do this in a unilateral effort, it was a 
multilateral effort?
  But at the same time, we must not overlook the United States' share 
of the burden to reach this agreement. In this effort, the United 
States forces have flown about 65 percent of the air sorties, including 
combat and support operations. The U.S. is also providing at least 25 
percent of refugee and migration assistance, shouldering the major 
burden of the Kosovo conflict.
  Even when this conflict is right in their own backyard, as the 
situation in the Balkans takes its toll, many of our allies are 
continuing to enjoy higher standards of living than our constituents, 
the American people. These nations can support education, health care, 
child care, and vital social programs because we pay their military 
bills.

                              {time}  1300

  Our Europeans have gotten used to the American taxpayer picking up 
the tab for their defense. When they are allowed to do this, we cheat 
our children, we cheat our seniors, we cheat ourselves.
  Mr. Speaker, the time has come for our allies to pay their fair share 
and come to the United States with that share so that we can invest in 
our children, our seniors, and our environment. Vote for Shays-Franks 
this afternoon.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, the Yugoslav surrender is the first mark of 
hope in a long time for more than a million Albanian Kosovars. The 
horror that they have endured has ignited outrage around the world.
  In a recent trip that I took with some of my colleagues to Albania 
and Macedonia and to the border of Kosovo, I talked with refugees 
coming and streaming across the border and into the camps.
  I talked with one 16-year-old boy who told me he watched in horror as 
the paramilitary police tore the eyes out of his father's head.
  I talked to a woman who told me how they came into her home, took her 
jewelry, stole her money, took her documents, and then ordered her out 
of the House as they burned her house with her mother and father still 
in it.
  I talked to a woman, who had five children, who told me they could 
not get food for 4 days. They were locked in their house, afraid to go 
out because of the troops. When they sent the grandfather, who 
volunteered to go out to get them food, he was executed in the street.
  The horrors go on and on and on. From a moral perspective, Mr. 
Speaker, America and our NATO allies had no choice but to hit 
Milosevic, hit him hard, hit his forces in Kosovo hard in order for 
them to withdraw.
  Now, this has not been easy, nor without controversy. Military action 
never is. I respect those in the House whose opinions differ from mine. 
Each of us must answer to our own conscience in these very difficult 
issues.
  I want to thank those Members on this side of the aisle who, under 
tremendous pressure, stood firm in their support for this policy. I 
believe their resolve has been vindicated.
  The Speaker was in a difficult decision in terms of his own 
conference pulled one way and the other way, and he stood up at various 
times throughout this process and helped move it forward, I think, in a 
positive way. I only hope today that he will stand up again.
  I regret to say, though, there are those who have tried to politicize 
the war. For more than 2 months, they have rallied against this war, 
they have called it, quote-unquote, the Clinton-Gore war. This was 
America's effort, not the Clinton-Gore war, America's effort to say 
never again. It was our effort to try to say to those who were trying 
to commit ethnic cleansing, no, you cannot do that. We will not sit 
idly by.
  Now these forces are attacking the peace. Our troops are still 
engaged. Their lives are at risk. From the beginning of this conflict, 
the brave men and women of America's armed forces have performed 
magnificently. They have answered the call of duty with tremendous 
bravery and skill and determination. We owe it to them to support their 
critical work in the months ahead.
  This House of Representatives has not handled, in some instances, 
this matter with dignity. We have sent contradictory signals throughout 
the past several months. We have been divided too long. But today we 
have a chance to set aside these divisions.
  This is an historic moment for NATO and for the strength of our 
alliance. Let us come together today in this House. Let us support the 
peace process. Let us recognize that America has once again stood tall 
for the values that our great-grandparents, our grandparents, our 
fathers and mothers stood for when they fought in the First and Second 
World Wars in Europe.
  The road ahead will be arduous. It is not going to be easy. Kosovo 
must be secured, and nearly half a million of their people must be 
settled in their homes. We owe it to those who fought bravely for us 
and to those who have been persecuted so much, we owe it to finish this 
thing in a responsible way.
  It will not be finished by September. Cutting off their funding would 
only undermine their mission, even as they stand on the bridge of 
success. So let us support our troops and let us support a strong 
peace.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Skelton amendment and no on 
the Fowler and the Souder amendments.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just say a couple of things here. First, the devil is in the 
details. Mr. Milosevic has burned every village in Kosovo, or almost 
every village, and the simple fact is that he is now going to stop 
burning, now that there is nothing left, is not necessarily a victory.
  I have two staff members who, as volunteers, have delivered some 
20,000 packages of food and medicine to the refugee camps. They report 
to me that massive numbers of men are missing. By British estimate, I 
believe it is, 100,000 men from the Kosovar peasant population. We need 
to know what has

[[Page H4048]]

happened to those men. Have they been executed? Are there mass graves? 
Are they in the custody of Serbs?
  So the Serbs are moving back, in theory, or moving back into Serbia, 
but many questions remain.
  But a very important thing has happened here, Mr. Chairman. The 
ranking member has informed me that the President has called just a few 
minutes ago and said, in response to our concerns, that he is not going 
to spend any readiness money on reconstruction or on peacekeeping 
operations, but that he will come to us with a supplemental 
appropriations request.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield, and I would like the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) to make that clear.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, yes, I will restate what the President 
told me just briefly a few moments ago. First is that he fully intends 
to ask for a supplemental from the Congress for peacekeeping.
  Second, after I raised the matter of timeliness with him, he said he 
fully intends to ask for it well before September 30.
  Third, he said it is not his intent to use any readiness funds that 
we are authorizing and appropriating for peacekeeping.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for the clarification, and I hope he will work with me and other 
members on both sides who are concerned about getting our ammunition 
stocks back to where they need to be. I know the gentleman knows they 
are very low right now.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is the 
reason I left section B out of my amendment. It has always been my 
intent that there should be a supplemental request and now, of course, 
fortunately, it is just for peacekeeping as opposed to both combat and 
peacekeeping.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I think that makes very, very clear the 
point of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), which was that 
the President had put nothing for peacekeeping in this defense bill. So 
the logical deduction was that any peacekeeping, absent a supplemental, 
had to come out of ammunition, had to come out of readiness; and that 
is something that would have disserved the country.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for explaining 
the President's recent statement.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the underlying 
bill is worthy of support. However, the language contained within, 
which prohibits funds from being utilized for Kosovo operations next 
year, will destroy the faith in the peace accords that were just 
yesterday agreed to.
  Section 1006, as drafted by the Republican majority, will prohibit 
any funding authorized under this act from being used for the current 
NATO operations in Kosovo. While almost impossible to enforce and 
monitor, this section has a demoralizing effect upon the morale and 
welfare of our troops engaged in the NATO operations. This section is 
completely unnecessary and sends the wrong message to our allies and 
troops. I applaud Congressman Skelton's efforts to strike this 
language.
  The insidious language built into this bill is there for the purpose 
to embarrass the President and his efforts to broker peace in the 
Balkans.
  As this operation was conducted on the basis of coalition forces, it 
is absolutely essential that American forces participate without any 
hesitation. This spending ``road block'' may prevent military peace 
keeping planners and commanders from placing necessary equipment in 
place to do the job and do it right.
  Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate that many may fear that this 
unforeseen operation would place extra burdens on our troops. I can 
also appreciate that the President must be reminded that he should not 
pay for this operation out of hide. But by pinching off this artery of 
military funding, we are removing the flexibility of our commanders to 
make deployment decisions based on practical military and peace keeping 
operations. That is irresponsible.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I do not understand the rhetoric on this 
debate about the need to ``protect the funding of our military.'' I 
would ask my colleagues in opposition to simply read the amendment. 
That is precisely what Mr. Skelton's amendment does--it asks that the 
President return to this body to seek additional funds for Kosovo 
operations.
  Additionally, I do not understand the rhetoric over ``winning'' or 
``losing'' in terms of Operation Allied Force. There was no real 
victory--thousands of Kosovars have been killed in a Serbian campaign 
of genocide--and there was no real defeat--Belgrade has capitulated and 
accepted the peace accords that will bring a durable armistice to the 
Kosovo region. Indeed what we do have is success--the success of 
President Clinton and his leadership, the success of NATO, and the 
success of a measured response--air power--to a complex situation that 
was engineered by a now indicted war criminal, Yugoslavian President, 
Milosevic. My dear colleagues, let us not turn this success into 
failure.
  Mr. Chairman, by passing the Skelton amendment, Congress will send 
two strong messages: First--we let our NATO allies know that our full 
resources are behind the peace accord 1000 percent. Second--we let the 
Administration know of our strong concern to not let this peace keeping 
operation further degrade the readiness of our military. The President 
should return to Congress for an Emergency Supplemental next year to 
pay for this peace accord and our role within it. Mr. Chairman, let's 
choose leadership over fear and pass the Skelton Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  It is now in order to consider the last five amendments printed in 
part A of House Report 106-175 which shall be considered in the 
following order: Amendment No. 17 offered by the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), Amendment No. 18 offered by the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Souder), Amendment No. 19 offered by the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), Amendment No. 20 offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), and Amendment No. 21 offered by 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher), the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Bilbray), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) 
or the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 17 printed in House 
Report 106-175.


         Amendment No. 17 Offered By Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

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

       Part A amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Taylor of 
     Mississippi:
       At the end of title XII (page 317, after line 17), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. ____. OPERATIONS IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution 
     provides that: ``The Congress shall have Power To . . . 
     provide for the common Defence . . . To declare War. . . To 
     raise and support Armies . . . To provide and maintain a Navy 
     . . . To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the 
     land and naval Forces . . .''.
       (2) On April 28, 1999, the House of Representatives by a 
     vote of 139 to 290, failed to agree to House Concurrent 
     Resolution 82, which, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War 
     Powers Resolution, would have directed the President to 
     remove United States Armed Forces from their positions in 
     connection with the present operations against the Federal 
     Republic of Yugoslavia.
       (3) In light of the failure to agree to House Concurrent 
     Resolution 82, as described in paragraph (2), Congress hereby 
     acknowledges that a conflict involving United States Armed 
     Forces does exist in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
       (b) Goals for the Conflict With Yugoslavia.--Congress 
     declares the following to be the goals of the United States 
     for the conflict with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia:
       (1) Cessation by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of all 
     military action against the people of Kosovo and termination 
     of the violence and repression against the people of Kosovo.
       (2) Withdrawal of all military, police, and paramilitary 
     forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from Kosovo.
       (3) Agreement by the Government of the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia to the stationing of an international military 
     presence in Kosovo to ensure the peace.
       (4) Agreement by the Government of the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia to the unconditional and safe return to Kosovo of 
     all refugees and displaced persons.
       (5) Agreement by the Government of the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia to allow humanitarian aid organizations to have 
     unhindered access to these refugees and displaced persons.
       (6) Agreement by the Government of the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia to work for the establishment of a political 
     framework agreement for Kosovo which is in conformity with 
     international law.
       (7) President Slobodan Milosevic will be held accountable 
     for his actions while President of the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia in

[[Page H4049]]

     initiating four armed conflicts and taking actions leading to 
     the deaths of tens of thousands of people and responsibility 
     for murder, rape, terrorism, destruction, and ethnic 
     cleansing.
       (8) Bringing to justice through the International Criminal 
     Tribunal of Yugoslavia individuals in the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia who are guilty of war crimes in Kosovo.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).


 Modification to Amendment No. 17 Offered By Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
the amendment be modified in the form at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi--
       In the text of the matter proposed to be inserted, strike 
     clauses 2 and 3.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Mississippi?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would 
simply like to ask the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) to 
explain his modification.
  I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for that 
purpose.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter) for yielding to me, and I very much appreciate 
his previous remarks about the willingness to work with all parties to 
see to it that the military is adequately funded while we ensure the 
victory that has been won.
  As the gentleman knows, we began this debate 2 weeks ago. At that 
time, American armed forces were at war, as far as I am concerned, with 
the Yugoslav army and Serbians. Because of the Memorial Day district 
work period, because of the other delays in getting this vote to the 
floor, a great many things have happened, all, in my opinion, good for 
the United States and good for NATO and good for the good guys, the 
forces of peace in the world.
  One of the things that was included in the original motion was to 
have Congress admit that a conflict does, indeed, exist between the 
United States of America and Yugoslavia. Because of the good news that 
came out of the Balkans yesterday, that is no longer necessary.
  A second portion that the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) 
and others might have found offensive was a reminder of Congress' 
failure to act on this matter before.
  At the request of the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), I am 
removing those two portions. The first one makes absolute sense 
because, thank goodness, we are no longer involved in armed conflict 
with the people of Yugoslavia.
  The second one, I must admit, was probably done, I felt, to help 
strengthen the cause of what needed to be done then when we were still 
in conflict and no longer is necessary. So, therefore, I have agreed to 
remove it at the request of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell).
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair requests that the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Taylor) provide another copy of his proposed modification to the 
Chair.
  The Clerk will rereport the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Modification to part A amendment No. 17 printed in House 
     Report 106-175 offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi:
       In the text of the matter proposed to be inserted, strike 
     the section heading and all that follows through the end of 
     paragraph (a) and insert in lieu thereof the following:
       At the end of title XII (page 317, after line 17), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 1206. GOALS FOR THE CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC 
                   OF YUGOSLAVIA.

       (a) Finding.--Article I, section 8 of the United States 
     Constitution provides that: ``The Congress shall have Power 
     To . . . provide for the common Defence . . . To declare War 
     . . . To raise and support Armies . . . To provide and 
     maintain a Navy . . . To make Rules for the Government and 
     Regulation of the land and naval Forces . . .''.
       (b) Goals for the Conflict With Yugoslavia.--Congress 
     declares the following to be the goals of the United States 
     for the conflict with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia:
       (1) Cessation by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of all 
     military action against the people of Kosovo and termination 
     of the violence and repression against the people of Kosovo.
       (2) Withdrawal of all military, police, and paramilitary 
     forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from Kosovo.
       (3) Agreement by the Government of the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia to the stationing of an international military 
     presence in Kosovo to ensure the peace.
       (4) Agreement by the Government of the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia to the unconditional and safe return to Kosovo of 
     all refugees and displaced persons.
       (5) Agreement by the Government of the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia to allow humanitarian aid organizations to have 
     unhindered access to these refugees and displaced persons.
       (6) Agreement by the Government of the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia to work for the establishment of a political 
     framework agreement for Kosovo which is in conformity with 
     international law.
       (7) President Slobodan Milosevic will be held accountable 
     for his actions while President of the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia in initiating four armed conflicts and taking 
     actions leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of people 
     and responsibility for murder, rape, terrorism, destruction, 
     and ethnic cleansing.
       (8) Bringing to justice through the International Criminal 
     Tribunal of Yugoslavia individuals in the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia who are guilty of war crimes in Kosovo.

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) 
continue to reserve the right to object?
  Mr. HUNTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I simply wish to be clear and offer the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) a chance to respond if he would 
be so kind. First of all, I express gratitude to the gentleman from 
Mississippi for his kindness. Secondly, I express admiration to him for 
his consistency. Though we disagree on the policy in Kosovo, I note 
that the gentleman and one other Member of our body had the courage of 
his convictions to recognize that what was happening was war and to so 
vote when I brought a resolution to the House floor on April 28. I 
admire him for that. I have so said so publicly and I repeat it today.
  I wish to be clear, and I ask the gentleman from Mississippi if he 
would be so kind as to make it clear that the purpose of his unanimous 
consent to remove clauses 2 and 3 in his amendment is to prevent any 
possible implication of relevance to the pending litigation one way or 
the other, which I commenced with other Members of the Congress 
regarding the legality of this war.
  Mr. HUNTER. Further reserving my right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, let me return the compliment 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell). I thought it was of 
the utmost importance that this body, which has the constitutional duty 
to declare a war, had to vote on that issue. It was the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell) that forced that to happen on the House 
floor.
  Although I regret the outcome of that vote, we did at least what the 
Constitution says that we were supposed to do, which was to vote on 
that. I have no intention of trying to do anything legislatively that 
affects the outcome of the gentleman's lawsuit or any other lawsuit.
  As the gentleman knows, as Members of Congress, things I have to 
remind my constituents on on a regular basis, that we are barred by law 
from getting involved in anything that involves another person's 
litigation as Congresspeople.
  So, therefore, I certainly do not want to adversely affect the 
gentleman's suit in any way. If this helps the gentleman to accomplish 
his goals, which is to clarify the War Powers Act, and reestablishes 
Congress' constitutionally mandated duty to declare a war that is our 
decision, then I want to see to it that that happens.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving my right to object, I 
yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Taylor), and I renew my expression of high regard for him. We 
share this common goal.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi?

[[Page H4050]]

  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Taylor) for 15 minutes.
  Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago yesterday, an extremely high-
ranking member of the American forces in Europe took the time to visit, 
at our request, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and myself.

                              {time}  1315

  At that time, that extremely high-ranking American officer expressed 
his concern that the Congress really had not gotten behind this effort, 
and he felt that it was bad for morale, bad for the troops and quite 
possibly could affect the outcome of the conflict.
  The question, as I recall, from the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) was what can we do; how can we help? If I recall, that 
officer, being the good officer that he is, he said that is not my 
place to tell Congress what to do. So, then, a suggestion was made by 
the gentleman from Missouri, well, what if we came out for something? 
What if after all this time, and at that time it had been over 45 days, 
Congress finally says what we are for in this conflict? That extremely 
high-ranking officer said, yes, that would help; the troops need to 
know that Congress is for something.
  He then went on to say that it would probably be helpful to say that 
we are for the goals already articulated by NATO. And at some point 
someone said, well, what about the war criminals; what about the ones 
who made this happen? Should they not be held accountable? The answer 
was yes, they should be, and that should be one of America's goals. 
With that in mind, the gentleman from Missouri and I drafted this 
amendment.
  I want to take the time to compliment the new Speaker of the House. 
He may not even remember the conversation, but 2 weeks ago today, as 
the rule for this bill appeared to be going down, I took the time to 
ask the Speaker to sit right there, explained to him what had happened, 
and told him how important I thought it was that America's Congress, if 
the 435 elected representatives of the people elected just last 
November, express what we are for in this conflict. I do not think it 
is a coincidence that we are where we are today, and I do thank the 
Speaker for what I think is his help in seeing that this will happen.
  The amendment before my colleagues takes the stated goals of NATO and 
adds to them two additional goals. Number one, Slobodan Milosevic, who 
by all accounts has now started four wars, one in Slovenia, one in 
Croatia, one in Bosnia, one in Kosovo, be held accountable for the 
rapes, the murders, the torture and the destruction caused by him and 
his lackeys in four wars.
  I took the time to research the Gulf War debate from January of 1991. 
I took the time to see what many of my colleagues said then. In almost 
every instance they talked about the rapes, they talked about the 
murders, they talked about innocent lives being taken by a brutal 
dictator and his henchmen. It is the same thing now.
  We are the good guys. And as many of my colleagues have reminded 
their other colleagues, yes, we cannot be the policemen for the world, 
but there are some things that we can do. And those things we can do, 
we should do. And to quote the preacher at Walter Jones, Sr.'s funeral, 
``And with the help of God, we will do.''
  We have proven in Bosnia there are some things we can do. The highest 
reenlistment rates in the United States Army come from people who have 
just been to Bosnia, because they know they are doing good things.
  A couple of years ago I went over there fully intending to come home 
with a notebook full of stories of why we should not be in Bosnia. I 
took the time to stay at the mess halls and visit with the kids. A 
young kid from Ocean Springs, Mississippi, not knowing my agenda, just 
told me what was on his mind. His name was Chuck Rhodes. Should we be 
here? Yes. Why? Because I am keeping women from getting raped, I am 
keeping little kids from getting tortured, I am keeping old people from 
being drug out of their houses and murdered. That is why I joined the 
United States Army, to be a good guy.
  He said it more clearly than any Secretary of State, any admiral, any 
general, any President. In five sentences he articulated what we are 
trying to do as a Nation. It is about time that this Congress, which is 
given the constitutional duty to provide for the troops, to provide for 
the common defense, to raise and support armies, to provide and 
maintain a navy, to make rules for the government and regulation of the 
land and naval forces. That is what this is all about. We are making 
the rules for the peace in Bosnia. And I regret that we are 60 days 
late, but it is never too late to do the right thing.
  So I would ask all of my colleagues, regardless of whatever 
hesitation that they may have had before this started, to recognize the 
fact that Bill Clinton did not win this war, Madeleine Albright did not 
win this war, the brave young Americans who flew over 30,000 sorties, 
and put their lives on the line every time they did so, they won this 
war. Let us do not give away the peace that they have won. And let us 
say as a Nation this is what we are for, and that since they have been 
willing to put their lives on the line to let it happen, let us as a 
Congress make sure that it does happen.
  So I ask all of my colleagues, regardless of whatever hesitations 
they might have had before, let us be for this. Let us be for taking a 
communist tyrant who has raped people, murdered people, forced parents 
to have sex with their own children at gun point, thrown so many bodies 
in the rivers of Yugoslavia that the turbines in the hydroelectric 
plants clogged with their corpses, let us see to it that they are 
brought to justice and that we send a message as a Nation that people 
who do those sorts of things will be held accountable and we are not 
going to let it happen again.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek the time in opposition to the 
amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time set aside for the 
opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter) for 15 minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just say to my colleague, as a Member who did vote to support 
the air operation, and who has a number of members of my staff working 
as volunteers to try to help the people who have been oppressed, who 
have been moved out of Kosovo, that we are not home free; that this is 
a very, very difficult situation; that it can be argued very strongly 
that Mr. Milosevic has accomplished most of his foreign policy goals, 
if in fact those goals were to destroy the homes and the livelihoods of 
the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. Very clearly, that has been almost 
entirely accomplished. I have not gotten the latest reports, but my 
understanding is that most of the villages, and which a substantial 
majority of Kosovo is ethnic Albanian, have in fact been burned. There 
are not many villages, if any, left to burn.
  Now, my friend talked about the troops and about the wonderful 
performance of our men and women in this air war. Let me just reiterate 
this point, because I do not think it can be reiterated enough. I do 
not think many of those folks watch us on television, and I do not 
think many of them read the Congressional Record. I think the place 
where they see the manifestation of our support or lack of support is 
in several ways: One, when they sit at the breakfast table with their 
wives and their children and they look at their paycheck and they 
notice that their paycheck is now 13 percent on the average less than 
the paycheck on the outside. That means if they are an electronics 
technician in the Navy that they are making 13 percent less than if 
they were working in the private sector. I think that says something to 
them about how important they are to us.

  Secondly, when they go out on operations and they discover that they 
do not have the right type of preferred ammunition, and in some cases 
they know the ammunition stocks are almost gone, that says something to 
them about their prioritization within this House of Representatives.
  And lastly, when they have to climb into that piece of equipment, 
whether it is the B-52 bomber that the Clinton administration now says 
we will fly until they are 80 years old, instead of

[[Page H4051]]

new equipment, instead of a B-2, for example, or even a B-1, that says 
something to them also. I think whether a person works for a trucking 
company or whether they work for the U.S. Air Force, the age of the 
equipment that person is supplied with to work with has a large effect 
on their morale.
  Now, we all know now that this budget that the President submitted 
for this year did not put a dime in for the Kosovo operation, so that 
led us to the inescapable conclusion that if the President was going to 
start a peacekeeping operation, he was going to start doing what he has 
done in the past, which is dipping into the cash register and taking 
ammunition money and taking pay money and taking readiness money out of 
that cash register to pay for an ongoing operation. We want to make 
sure that does not happen. And I think the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) wants to make sure that does not happen also.
  So let me say a couple of things. First, the devil is in the detail 
with respect to the Kosovo operation. I want to know what has happened 
to the 100,000 men, and I believe that is the British estimate of men 
who are missing from their family groups. And my own staff stood there 
at the Albanian border and watched thousands of women and children come 
across with no men, and almost all those families had stories of the 
men being separated and taken off to an undisclosed destination by 
Serbian troops. What has happened to those people? Have they been taken 
up into Serbia? Are they at camps? Have they been executed?
  Secondly, what is left of the infrastructure inside Kosovo with 
respect to its ability to accommodate anybody, now that Mr. Milosevic 
has burned most of those villages? Is there anything left for them to 
go back to? We need to look at that very closely.
  Lastly, I think we need to look at the European Community and make 
sure that the European Community, which has budget problems just like 
this community has, the American community, is not looking at a way to 
make the Americans pay for the majority of the restoration of Kosovo. 
Because very clearly we have paid for the majority of the air campaign 
and we know it is very important for our allies to participate in this.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, based on the gentleman's comments, I find 
that he and I are singing from the same sheet of music, and I thank him 
for that.
  My main purpose for rising, however, is to compliment the gentleman 
from Mississippi. I think it is important that the goals for this 
entire challenge be set forth, and he has done that quite well for 
today as well as the challenge for tomorrow. I thank him for his 
thorough review of those goals.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
and I also want to compliment the gentleman for his laying out of the 
goals that the United States as well as other western nations must be 
interested in.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask how much time we have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), the distinguished Navy ace.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  When this whole event started, many of us fought against it; felt it 
was wrong. The total number of people killed in Kosovo, prior to the 
United States bombing, was 2,012. Not saying a single life is not worth 
something, but of that 2,012, one-third of those were Serbs that were 
murdered by the KLA. Their churches were bombed, their police were 
killed and kidnapped. And was there fighting there? Yes. Were both 
sides brutal? Absolutely yes. But was there massive ethnic cleansing? 
No.
  There are 300,000 Serbs that live where the KLA is not, mostly in 
Belgrade. Not a single one has left.

                              {time}  1330

  But the KLA wants a complete separation of Kosovo. They also want 
Montenegro. They also want Macedonia. And they also want part of 
Greece. That is why the Greeks are so adamant about supporting the 
Serbs; they are afraid of expansionism by the KLA.
  And yes, there are atrocities on both sides. And I have no doubt that 
on both sides there have been atrocities, mostly by the Serbs. But for 
us to go over there and do what we have done is unconscionable.
  The President said this is a big win. We have killed more civilians, 
two-and-a-half times, over twice, the amount that the Serbs killed in 
an entire year prior to the bombing. Through the bombing of NATO, there 
have been over twice the number of people killed in Kosovo as were 
killed prior to our bombing.
  If we listen to the people, the Albanians themselves coming out of 
Kosovo, listen to what they are saying, they were forced out of their 
homes after the bombing started. And many of my colleagues say, well, 
Milosevic had a plan, he had a plan, and we had a plan. Well, we 
implemented that plan.
  There are hundreds of thousands of people, in my opinion and, I 
think, the world's opinion that would not be refugees today if we had 
not bombed. That is not a win. And they say there is no loss of life. 
Ask the crew of the Apache that were killed over there in Kosovo, the 
loss of 117s.
  Before we get out of this, conservative estimates say, $50 billion to 
help rebuild Kosovo and what we have destroyed. Jesse Jackson, I do not 
support Mr. Jackson's views most of the time, but I thought he showed 
some real wisdom in the fact that he said that to get into the minds of 
the other side, to understand what the fears are of both sides, not 
just the Albanians, but what the fears of the Serbs are.
  He also said we ought to have as much compassion for the innocent 
men, women and children, the Yugoslavs, as we have for the Serbs. And 
all I hear is that the Serbs are terrible. It is not all true. We 
cannot demonize an entire nation of people. The Nazis were terrible in 
World War II, but all Germans were not Nazis and did not commit those 
crimes.
  From the very first day, I said there were certain things that we had 
to do to bring peace. And if we take a look, the number one fear, put 
ourselves in the Serbs' shoes, where one of three of them died in World 
War II defending Kosovo, their number-one fear was that, under 
Rambouillet, Kosovo was going to become independent.
  There is nothing in this agreement. And I agree that is what should 
have been done. They may have cantonization, but it still should remain 
under former Yugoslavia.
  Second, the Serbs were absolutely petrified. Where the KLA is, they 
are not in mass forces, but there are Mujahedin and Hamas within that 
and they want independence and they are going to cause problems and 
they were afraid. And when Rambouillet said that all their forces had 
to go out and their police, and none of the laws would form under 
Belgrade but from the Albanian civilians, they said, hey, this is 
Serbia.
  That is like Texas falling to Mexico and then saying, hey, 
Washington, D.C., has no laws over that. We would not do that.
  But if we take a look, the Russians in there support it. The Greeks 
in there support it.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not going to debate the exact type of horror that 
was perpetrated on the people of Kosovo. But I would daresay that using 
the analogy that some of my colleagues have used, that World War II was 
a failure because we did not prevent Hitler from killing over 4 million 
Jews, I do not think World War II was a failure. We stopped the horror.
  I do not think what we did in Kosovo was a failure. We stopped the 
horror. We did it with absolute minimum loss of American life.
  Are we somehow disappointed there was not a big body count? Are we 
somehow disappointed there will not be another wall on the Mall with 
50,000 American names? I am not. I am happy. We did not lose one kid.

[[Page H4052]]

  The gentleman from California (Mr. Duncan Hunter) is exactly right, 
we need to get them new weapons, we need to get them the right 
ammunition, we need to pay them like a free society ought to pay 
volunteers. He is exactly right. And none of us are in disagreement on 
that.
  We also need to protect the peace that they have won. We, as the 
Congress of the United States, ought to set the rules for the Army and 
the Navy, and that is what I am asking the Congress of the United 
States to do right now. And we ought to bring those people who have 
done horrible things to justice. They should be held accountable for 
what they have done.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Virginia is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California for 
yielding the time.
  This issue of America's involvement in the Balkans has given me more 
difficulty than any public policy issue I have ever been called upon to 
address. I must tell my colleagues that I have no satisfaction 
whatsoever in the manner in which the Congress of the United States has 
dealt with that terrible issue and the way we have performed consistent 
with what I would regard, if not our constitutional duty, the duty of 
common sense and of good public policy. We have, basically, from the 
beginning sought to insulate ourselves from what was going on.
  I do not have the time to lay out anything other than just a very few 
bullet points that need much more exposition.
  I have a strong point of view that this administration stumbled and 
bumbled through incredible ineptness in their execution of policy that 
got us into the mess we are in. But once we were in that mess, I have 
never understood the unwillingness of the Congress to confront the fact 
that we are there and our forces were engaged. And being engaged, we 
ought to either say, bring them home, or we ought to have supported 
them by a resolution authorizing them to be there and allowing such 
forces as were necessary to accomplish goals that we established as 
being valid goals.
  Because we did nothing of that sort in the four resolutions that were 
offered on the floor of the House, I introduced H.J.Res. 51. I suggest 
my colleagues might want to read it. I am very disturbed by the fact 
that we have not done what we should.
  The amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), as I 
understand it, there is little, if anything, in it that I would 
disagree with. I think it is basically a rhetorical statement. I happen 
to agree with the rhetoric. It gives me no problems at all.
  Let me take what remaining time I have to address the amendment of 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) which I understand will be 
next or soon in order.
  I do not have any disagreement with Mr. Skelton on that because I do 
not think this Congress ought to be saying to the President of the 
United States that he cannot deploy forces that are already deployed, 
he must withdraw. But this amendment, the language which is in the 
bill, is not intended to be an interference with the President's 
constitutional prerogatives. It is intended to be in keeping with the 
constitutional prerogatives that are clearly those of the Congress.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Readiness, I am very, 
weary year after year after year of authorizing and appropriators' 
appropriating funds for stated purposes in areas of concern to be taken 
care of where there are problems, only to find that the administration, 
because of contingencies, has taken the money and spent it somewhere 
else.
  What do we care, or do we even care anymore, about our responsibility 
as the Congress to control the purse strings? What difference does it 
make for us to spend our time authorizing after months of study and 
then appropriating funds if, having done so, the President can go off 
on any operation he chooses, spend the money in ways other than what we 
direct, and say nothing to this?
  I am not against what the President is doing or finally has been 
required to do in Kosovo, and I am delighted with what appears to be a 
reasonable success. But it does not alter the fact that when we 
appropriate hundreds of millions of dollars devoted to specific reasons 
and purposes to look after the readiness and to get the equipment for 
our forces, we want it spent for those reasons.
  If the President's policy takes us in a deployment somewhere, the 
President should come back to us and seek the funds for it, not spend 
it from things that we have otherwise authorized and appropriated. And 
that is what the issue is about and the only reason I would not be able 
to support the Skelton amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me close by thanking the gentleman from California 
for what he did back in April, which was to force the 435 elected 
officials, not one of us was appointed, not one of us was annointed, 
every one of us begged for this job, for forcing us to do what we 
should have done all along.
  I also want to thank him for coming to me with what I thought was a 
very common-sense compromise on this issue. Again, what I had set out 
to do in the beginning was to help that very high-ranking American 
officer and let him and all the troops know that the Congress of the 
United States is behind them in what they are trying to accomplish. We 
have a chance to do that right now.
  And lastly, I want to thank the Speaker of the House, who I do 
believe played a part in seeing to it that that amendment which was 
originally blocked from consideration 2 weeks ago is being voted on 
today. I think that is supporting what we are doing today.
  I think for the sake of the kids who flew the 30,000 sorties and put 
their lives on the line every time that we protect the peace, that they 
risked their lives to gain.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment, as 
modified, offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider Amendment 
No. 18 printed in Part A of House Report 106-175.


                 Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Souder

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

       Part A amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Souder:
       Strike section 1006 (page 270, line 20, through page 271, 
     line 9) and insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1006. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR MILITARY 
                   OPERATIONS IN FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA.

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise available to 
     the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2000 may be used 
     for military operations in the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of our troops and the fundamental 
national security interests of this country. This bill is, in fact, 
about our national defense and readiness. I also want to commend the 
chairman of the Committee on Armed Services for his excellent work and 
commitment in this bill to rebuild our national defense posture.
  It is my strong conviction that the United States' involvement in 
leadership in the conflict in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has, 
in fact, undermined our national interest, not furthered it. The 
President's national security adviser Sandy Berger supposedly, 
according to the President, coined the phrase ``come home, America'' 
for the McGovern campaign in

[[Page H4053]]

1972. Apparently, we changed this to ``go everywhere, America'' and now 
to ``stay everywhere, America.'' While our motives may be good, the 
fact is that that is not much of a national interest policy.
  I would like to also thank our leadership in the committee for 
including a prohibition in the bill restricting the use of funds for 
Kosovo. My amendment simply strengthens the prohibition already in the 
bill against the use of Department of Defense funds towards the 
conflict in Kosovo by applying the prohibition for all defense funds 
for Fiscal Year 2000, not merely to funds authorized in this bill.

                              {time}  1345

  The amendment also eliminates the invitation in the bill to the 
President to request additional funds for the conflict in Yugoslavia. 
We have already given too many taxpayer dollars to this ill-conceived 
operation which would be better used to strengthen our national defense 
and to be put into areas where we actually have direct national 
interests and world peace concerns as well as when we talk about this 
being $15 billion, $20 billion, $80 billion, whatever it turns out to 
be, that also means that domestic expenditures are being reduced which 
is a legitimate taxpayer question as far as where our national interest 
is.
  I want to make clear that I do not intend to limit support for 
refugees, nor does this amendment prevent missions specifically limited 
to rescuing United States military personnel or citizens in the same 
way that the underlying bill was not intended to prevent such activity.
  When given the opportunity a few weeks ago, the House of 
Representatives failed to support U.S. involvement in the bombing 
campaign in Yugoslavia. While we all hope for eventual peace, the many 
reasons to oppose involvement remain today. Reasons to oppose any 
additional funding for Kosovo include:
  The potential permanent placement of U.S. ground troops in a region 
secondary to our national interests where forces will be at risk from 
violence on both sides. The continued redirection of funds essential to 
restoring United States military readiness. Let me address one question 
that we have been debating here, is could funds be diverted from this 
bill. In fact as I pointed out in the supplemental, there are not 
restrictions that keep funds from being moved. We often play in the 
Federal Government these games where, ``Oh, we're not directly funding 
the supplies for the troops, what we do is just replace the supplies 
that were sent.'' So that the supply stream that is in the military 
currently that we were supposedly putting in for military readiness and 
buildup will be diverted over there and the new funds will merely go to 
replace what is being diverted. We have seen billions of dollars that 
were not allocated for Kosovo already spent, and it is disingenuous to 
say that, ``Oh, there would be another supplemental that would take the 
additional funds'' because they are diverting funds that are already 
there for troop training, for the gas, for the armaments and so on, and 
this has disguised the costs of this war and continues to do it. When 
we say we are building the readiness of our armed forces but do not 
restrict the funds from being directly or indirectly transferred to 
Kosovo, it is less than straightforward.
  Furthermore, we are continuing to undermine the U.S. troop morale 
because they are being asked to do more with less and are being 
deployed at a rate like never before. That not only includes our active 
military but it also includes our Reserve and Guard where we are seeing 
a drop in reenlistments.
  The fact that the NATO air war accelerated and augmented the tragic 
refugee crisis which we are and will continue to support financially 
through other areas. That is not arguing that he was not an evil man 
and is not an evil man. I am speaking of President Milosevic. Or that 
other leaders in countries in the Balkans did not practice genocide. 
The fact is it is not clear what was going to happen and to what extent 
it was going to happen.
  Furthermore, the additional confusion which is added to our foreign 
policy priorities when we fail to establish a clear standard for 
humanitarian intervention while clearly undermining our relationships 
with international powers that clearly impact high priority U.S. 
national security interests including China and Russia. Let me explain 
that. It is terrible. I was in the camps in Macedonia, too. I spent a 
whole afternoon talking to refugees. You cannot deny, any citizen 
cannot deny who has talked to these people that throats were slit, that 
there are mass graves, that there were rapes. The question is, that is 
also occurring in many other parts of the world. What is our standard 
for intervention? That is the question here. And when? Is it just 
because they are white? That is a kind of question we have to confront 
with ourselves, just because CNN is in a certain part of the world. Why 
are we not in Sudan? What are the compelling reasons why we would 
intervene in one country and not another? Furthermore, to divert these 
resources like the last carrier over to the Persian Gulf so another 
carrier could be diverted into the Mediterranean leaving us blind in 
Asia where clearly we have potential coming conflicts between India, 
China and China's client states like Pakistan and North Korea and 
Japan, where clearly there are world peace major issues at stake and we 
are bogged down now in Iraq, in Bosnia, now in Haiti and now 
potentially even greater in Kosovo.
  The continuous undermining of the stability of neighboring 
democracies like Macedonia and impeding the democratic position of 
Montenegro.
  The U.S. policy of supporting, at least tacitly, the Kosovo 
Liberation Army which has some established ties to narcotics 
trafficking and terrorism targeted at Americans. One of the fundamental 
questions here in the ironies of this agreement is that we did not 
support the Kosovo Liberation Army and yet at the same time we are now 
going to accomplish for Milosevic one of the goals that he had in 
disarming them, at least temporarily.
  The undermining of NATO when we define its continuing existence as 
dependent upon as the defeat of a sovereign country with a history of 
internal conflict which offers no direct threat to a NATO member. We 
constantly heard about article 5 which was supposedly the stability of 
Europe. Now, how in the world have we advanced the stability of Europe? 
We have Macedonia and Montenegro teetering, we have Greece with 
domestic conflict. We had Romania and Hungary concerned on the northern 
border. We have Russia, a historic ally of Serbia and a rising 
nationalist movement in Russia that we have given credibility to and 
potentially with the switch in the government of Russia having their 
armed troops on the ground in a very dicey type of situation in an area 
where we thought we had expelled them. We have a general and 
potentially and most likely an independent Kosovo in the middle of 
Europe. An armed Muslim state in the center of Europe will not add to 
the stability. I point that out because I did not meet a single Kosovar 
who was ever willing to serve under a Serbian government.
  Furthermore, what does this mean in the concept of independent 
states, if the Kosovars have no intention of ever serving under a 
Serbian government? Does this now mean that in Palestine we are giving 
a blank check to the Palestinians to have an independent state separate 
from Israel? What about the Kurds in Turkey? There is a very difficult 
international policy question underneath this supposed peace settlement 
that I say puts our world positions at greater risk than we had when we 
first went in.
  Furthermore, it is no wonder that China and Russia in the earlier 
question of when we are going to intervene in a humanitarian 
intervention, part of the concern here around the world, this is not a 
Christian moral position. I could argue from a Christian moral position 
that we should intervene anywhere. And when Russians started bombing 
Chechnya we should have gone in. But what are our criterias? If they 
are a big partner, we do not go in? If they are a little trade partner, 
we do go? It is not clear. Because the terror and the murder is 
happening in many places throughout the world and was not 
extraordinarily greater in this area until we started the process. It 
was terrible but it was not extraordinarily greater than anywhere else 
in about 30 to 40 countries.

  Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is if we should not be involved, then 
we should not be involved in either the

[[Page H4054]]

 war or the peacekeeping which is not necessarily the cessation of 
hostilities and may in fact even be an Iraq situation where he plays 
this like a yo-yo.
  My amendment simply provides, if we should not be there and we should 
not stay there, then we should not fund the money. We then bear part of 
that responsibility. My amendment provides Members of this House the 
opportunity to vote in a manner consistent with their consciences and 
the congressional responsibility to use wisely the constitutional 
spending power which is the power of the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I must say, Mr. Chairman, in the words of Mark Twain, the literary 
giant from my State of Missouri, ``The more you explain it to me, the 
more I don't understand it.'' I really have a difficult time in 
understanding this amendment. For if I read it correctly, it is more 
restrictive than the language that is already in the bill. On top of 
that, it prohibits use of any funds, whether they be appropriated as a 
supplemental appropriation or otherwise from being used in the Republic 
of Yugoslavia effort. On top of that, it deletes the subsection which 
invites the President to request additional funds. That was put in by 
the majority, and I agree with it. The President should come forth and 
seek supplemental funds for the year 2000.
  So this amendment is a very drastic one. If you read it very 
carefully, it is a short amendment that has very far reaching, 
difficult results.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) the ranking member for yielding this time to me. 
I would like to respond to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) very 
briefly regarding the question he raised about how we are providing for 
a stable Europe by the actions that have been undertaken.
  Last week I traveled with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) 
to the Oxford Forum in Belfast, Ireland. While there our interlocutors 
were parliamentary officials from Germany and from England. We left 
there and went to London and met with Robin Cook. All along the way, 
including with the Prime Minister of Ireland, all we heard was praise 
for the overall aspect of this particular operation and how it has 
unified the alliance in the new paradigm. I think we really need to 
examine it from that point of view.
  But I do rise in opposition to the amendment from my friend from 
Indiana. It is unfathomable to me that as a peace agreement has just 
been signed and we are about to achieve our goals for ending the ethnic 
cleansing in Kosovo that some Members of this great institution are 
attempting to prevent the United States from participating in an 
international security force. Quite frankly I am not only shocked, I am 
outraged at the lengths to which critics of our Commander in Chief will 
go to embarrass him. Rather than at this time celebrate a triumph and 
applaud our military for having achieved a successful operation, we are 
about the business of continuing to try to hamper the efforts that are 
put forward for peace. First these persons tried to prevent the 
Commander in Chief from stopping genocide in Europe. Now they are 
trying to stop him from securing peace. This simply cannot happen. I 
urge the body to please oppose the Souder amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I yield for a question to my friend, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just wanted to say, 
to get my oar in the water here, that this amendment does do what 
several people thought the base bill does, that is, this amendment 
would in my understanding immediately stop all operations in Kosovo. 
That is, it would paralyze air operations, no moneys of any stripe, 
whether it is this year or supplemental money or money for next year 
would be available. That means that everything would stop.
  Let me just say from my perspective the same thing that I said 
several weeks ago on this, that I think that would be a major mistake. 
This, regardless of how we got here, we are operating this air war, 
bringing it to a conclusion, and I intend and I think a number of other 
Members intend on this side to oppose this amendment as much as we 
respect our friend from Indiana.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
this time. I rise in opposition to the gentleman from Indiana's 
amendment. I believe it creates an entirely unworkable situation which 
could pose grave harm to the men and women in uniform who are serving 
in the Balkans. In order to understand that, we have to understand what 
would happen on September 20th if, as I expect, we have several 
thousand troops in place, conducting peacekeeping activities, and think 
about the options the President would have to continue that operation. 
The first option he would have, and I hope that he would do it, would 
be to come to this body for a supplemental appropriation above and 
beyond the regular defense appropriations for fiscal year 2000 to pay 
for the cost of this. And we could make an honest decision as to 
whether we want to do that and where the money ought to come from. I 
want to underline what the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and many others have said 
this afternoon, that that is the right thing, that is what he ought to 
do. But he may not do it. The President may not do that. And we may not 
act expeditiously if he does.
  About 2 weeks ago, just before the Memorial Day break, we were 
intending to get to work on this bill, and because of various 
legitimate political disagreements in this body, we were unable to pass 
a rule to take up this legislation.

                              {time}  1400

  That could certainly happen again, certainly happen again in the 
context of a supplemental appropriation.
  The second option the President would have under normal circumstances 
would be to reallocate funding in the fiscal year 2000 bill for this 
purpose. Now that is what he would do in the absence of a supplemental 
if this amendment were not the law.
  But if this amendment becomes the law, as I understand it, the 
President cannot do that. It flatly bars any shift of funds, any 
transfer of accounts for the purpose of supporting the ongoing 
peacekeeping operation or any other operation which we may need in the 
Republic of Yugoslavia at that time.
  His third option, as I read it, his only option, would be completely 
unacceptable, and that would be to unilaterally and immediately stop 
any operations that our military is conducting in the Republic of 
Yugoslavia. I think that does not make a lot of sense.
  For those reasons, I would oppose.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the author, the gentleman from Indiana, if he 
has a question.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to clarify the amendment, if I 
may. It only affects fiscal year 2000 funding. It has 4 months for us 
to withdraw. It does not have any immediate impact.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, what does the 
President do on September 28 of 1999 if we have not gotten a 
supplemental through here, and he wants to leave 7- or 8,000 people 
there to do their job? How does he pay for it?
  I yield back for the answer.
  Mr. SOUDER. He would presumably have to overturn this bill.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, he would have to ignore the will 
that we enacted here in the bill?
  With all due respect, I think that proves my point, that it puts the 
President in an untenable situation where our failure to act to enact 
the supplemental, which happens around here a lot, would tie the 
President's hands and create, I think, an irresponsible situation.
  I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. My understanding of the bill, my amendment to the bill,

[[Page H4055]]

would eliminate the invitation that both the chairman and the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) have for a supplemental, but it would not 
prohibit the President from coming with the supplemental. It prohibits 
any funds that we currently have for fiscal year 2000.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, it would though, if I am correct, 
prohibit the transfer of any funds from one account to another for this 
purpose; is that correct?
  Mr. SOUDER. Absolutely.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), and I want to compliment 
him for bringing it forward. But I also want to clarify the discussion 
which just occurred because I think it may have left some ambiguity in 
the minds of Members.
  Let me make it very, very clear. This amendment does not in any way 
prevent the President from coming forward in a straightforward fashion 
and saying to the Congress, ``I want and I request and I ask you to 
appropriate additional funds for the conduct of this war or for the 
conduct of peacekeeping.''
  What this amendment does is say, ``Mr. President, the power we have 
in the Congress is the power of the purse. You have clearly indicated 
that you are going to proceed on your own within your authority.'' So 
be it.
  But we do have the power of the purse, and this amendment would say, 
``Mr. President, you have 4 months to conclude the action, and then if 
in that 4 months you want more money, come back to the Congress and ask 
for it,'' and I think that is a perfectly legitimate role for the 
Congress to play; indeed, it is the role that the Constitution 
contemplates that we should play, and I urge my colleagues to support 
the amendment for that reason.
  But I want to move on to another topic because I think there is going 
to be some additional confusion later in the discussion. Later today, 
on this bill, my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), 
I believe is going to offer an amendment to strike the language in the 
base bill which prohibits funds in fiscal year 2000 from being used for 
the war.
  Specifically, on page 270 in section 1006 he is going to move to 
strike lines 21 through 24. That is the language that specifically 
prohibits the President from using fiscal year 2000 moneys for the 
conduct of this war or peacekeeping without coming back to the Congress 
for permission.
  But in a move which will confuse Members he is going to leave in 
place the following language in subsection B of that section on page 
271 which creates the impression that the President will have to come 
to Congress and ask permission, but not the reality.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Souder amendment and to oppose 
the Skelton amendment, Mr. Chairman. The Skelton amendment appears to 
force the President to come to the Congress for proper budget authority 
for the conduct of this war, but it will not do that.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have always found it important to read what the 
amendments say, and this particular amendment strikes that provision 
which requires the President to come forth with a supplemental. 
Further, it prohibits, it prohibits other appropriated or supplemental 
appropriations by these words:
  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise available to the 
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2000 may be used for military 
operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
  I mean, how much clearer can we get? That cuts it off.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, let me precisely explain. The gentleman is 
right. This language says that this piece of legislation would not 
authorize the President to continue the conduct of the war or the 
peacekeeping mission. That would leave the President with the option, 
which he has at any time, to bring forward a request for a supplemental 
appropriation specifically for the operation of the war. Then we could 
debate that issue, should we fund the war and at what level, or should 
we fund the peacekeeping effort and at what level?
  Nothing in this language says the President is precluded from 
bringing forward such a proposal, and I give the gentleman back his 
time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who offered the amendment 
asked, ``Duke, would you like to speak in favor of the amendment?'' Not 
only a good guy, he has got a good heart, and I would like to talk to 
the gentleman on why I oppose this particular amendment.
  First of all, I have already spoken to why I did not believe that we 
should be in Kosovo in the first place. I have also spoken to why I 
thought that Rambouillet actually caused the war, that there was a no-
win from the start, that the President did not understand that we could 
not have an independent Kosovo, that they would never give that up, and 
that they had fears that the KLA would reprise, and we could not take 
out other military and police, and that there had to be something in 
between.
  Well, now the new agreement said that we will have Russian and Greek 
troops, which I wanted in there, to separate the two sides, and there 
is a difference between war and potential peace and what we do support.
  George Bush in Desert Storm had our allies pay for Desert Storm, and 
I think that NATO ought to pay for this, at least 99 percent of this, 
and let the United States back out of it because we have been into all 
of the other things that we have talked about, from Iraq to other 
areas, as well as in the Sudan.
  I disagreed with my colleague on his amendment because I felt that it 
took money out of the military requirements when our Joint Chiefs said 
we need 148 billion just to come up to a low-ball figure, the 
President, under the Bottom Up Review and the QDR; and I understand now 
that the supplemental will come in and not do that. But I would still 
oppose the gentleman's amendment if it takes the money out, because 
there is never a payback in this business.
  And I would say that under this amendment it totally ties the hands 
of the President as far as our troops, and I do not want to do that. I 
am trying to get us out of Kosovo. I am trying to do it because I do 
not think that we should demonize one side or another on this because 
both sides have been, but at the same time I do not want to totally tie 
the hands of the President if there is hope for peace and we can 
separate those forces.
  And with winter coming on, there is no electricity, no food, no heat, 
and there are innocent Yugoslavians and innocent Albanians at the same 
time. How are we going to handle that? I would like NATO to pay for it 
all. I am not naive enough to think they are going to do that.
  I thank the gentleman from my heart for having given me the time, and 
part of me supports what the gentleman is trying to do, but overall I 
would have to vote against the gentleman's amendment and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend from California (Mr. Cunningham) 
stating this. Obviously he did read the amendment, as I did, and the 
language is pretty clear.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Actually, I had not, but I listened to what the 
gentleman said.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for having yielded this 
time to me.
  And he has pointed out, pointed to the language in his bill that the 
bill refers to 2000 money, and that would not

[[Page H4056]]

necessarily keep the President from spending dollars that are presently 
in the 1999 accounts; and so I want to apologize to the gentleman for 
misconstruing his amendment and saying that it would immediately 
paralyze all air operations. It would not stop for 4 months.
  I still oppose the gentleman's amendment, but I do want to let him 
know that that statement was in error.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, NATO is the alter 
ego of the United States. Whatever NATO does, it means the United 
States does, and what have we done?
  Milosevic is still in power, close to 200 schools in Serbia have been 
destroyed, a half-dozen bridges across the Danube, power plants. We 
have destroyed a country. We have wasted our precious military 
resources. The American people have been asked to pay not only for the 
war, but the President will come back and ask us to rebuild Serbia. It 
is wrong. It is fiscally wrong and it is morally wrong.
  The President needs to be stopped in this unwanted use of taxpayers' 
dollars. That is the purpose of the Souder amendment, to bring some 
sanity to what is going on in the world. This war never should have 
been started, and the American taxpayers should not be called upon to 
complete it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Connecticut is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) 
for coming together in opposition to this amendment.
  The logic, at this point, as we have begun a process which ends the 
horror and extermination that was going on in Kosovo, to suddenly 
believe that we can crawl into some isolationist shell just does not 
make sense. The President and the Secretary of State, Sandy Berger, and 
the Secretary of Defense have done a spectacular job. They have kept 
NATO united, and frankly, as we are skeptics by nature in this 
Congress, I was skeptical that we could keep NATO united. They were 
successful in an air campaign, and so many experts told us we could not 
be successful with just an air campaign.
  To come to the floor today and blame us for the devastation wrought 
on the Serbs would be akin to blaming the allies for the bombing that 
occurred on Germany in World War II. We have a responsibility in this 
Congress. It is to critically examine the actions of the executive.
  But what I am fearful of here is that the hostility to this 
administration carries over in legislative attempts that defy America's 
basic national interest. Whether one believes the campaign could work 
or not, whether one believes we ought to have been there or not, at 
this stage to argue that America should simply remove itself is 
unacceptable and unwise for America's national interest.

                              {time}  1415

  America, under this President's leadership with our Secretary of 
State and their foreign policy team, has gotten an agreement for the 
smallest percentage of American participation in any action since the 
end of World War II that I can remember, less than 15 percent, a little 
over 7,000 of the troops. Our other NATO allies are taking a 
substantial portion, as they should, because it is Europe. That never 
happened before.
  We should be in the well congratulating our military and our 
political leadership for having stood up to a tyrant and stopped the 
killing. Yes, there was a price paid, a price paid on civilians on both 
sides, but no one has any right to criticize our response in fighting 
for the lives of men and women being raped and murdered, being taken 
from their homes.
  Was America to sit by and build one more monument? I have said this 
before. I have seen virtually every one of our colleagues at ceremonies 
for the Holocaust and Armenian genocide. This time we acted. We did not 
wait afterwards to wring our hands. I support the efforts of the 
chairman and the ranking Democrat to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Indiana is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, a couple of points: One is I do not think 
it is helpful to take really serious deep disagreements about the 
validity of this particular war and imply that it has a political 
motive. I think I can stand here with the respect of this House and say 
I am not obsessed with removing this President or blaming everything on 
this President. I have deep reservations and opposition, not only to 
the war, but what we are potentially going to get into in 
destabilization in the peacekeeping force, not because horror is not 
terrible, just like in Sudan and many other places around the world, 
but I fear greater consequences in the other places in national 
interest.
  Let me make clear again, this is the hardest core amendment. The 
amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) is more 
moderate. If the Skelton amendment passes to the Spence amendment, the 
House will have no way to vote for those of us who oppose this war 
because the Skelton amendment would gut the Spence amendment.
  My amendment does not remove that, although there is a question 
whether some of the supplemental funds would be affected. In my 
opinion, and I believe in most people's opinion, it would allow the 
funds to be expended for the rest of this year. We would have four 
months to make whatever transfer over of a European problem to the 
Europeans in the case of funding the peacekeepers after this.
  If one does not favor the extended intervention in the Balkans 
through whatever, whether it is peacekeeping or in fact a continuation 
of the war or an Iraq-type situation, this amendment gives one the 
ability to say in the fiscal year 2000 funds, after October 1 and for 
that year, unless the President comes to this House and says, ``This is 
an emergency, I need to waive what you previously passed, I need 
additional money,'' but it restricts the funding we are now putting out 
and have put out for fiscal year 2000 and says you cannot use that, 
yes, not only for air war and ground war, but you cannot use it for the 
peacekeepers either.
  I do not expect a lot of support for this amendment, but for those of 
us who have deep concerns, this is our chance to cast that vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 97, 
noes 328, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 187]

                                AYES--97

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Crane
     Cubin
     Danner
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ewing
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Largent
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Souder
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Vitter
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)

                               NOES--328

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger

[[Page H4057]]


     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Clayton
     Dickey
     Engel
     Hilleary
     Holt
     Lofgren
     Olver

                              {time}  1443

  Messrs. FRANKS of New Jersey, NEY, and BLAGOJEVICH changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SHAYS, WATTS of Oklahoma, HERGER, PITTS, HULSHOF, EWING, GARY 
MILLER of California, SCARBOROUGH, SUNUNU, and Ms. McKINNEY changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably detained on 
official business in my congressional district in central New Jersey. 
During that time, I missed three rollcall votes.
  Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 185 and 
``no'' on rollcall Nos. 186 and 187.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19 printed 
in Part A of House Report 106-175.


                Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Skelton

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

       Part A amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Skelton:
       In section 1006--
       (1) strike subsection (a) (page 270, lines 21 through 24);
       (2) in the section heading (page 270, line 20), strike 
     ``BUDGETING FOR'' and insert ``SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS 
     REQUEST FOR''; and
       (3) in subsection (b), strike ``(b) Supplemental 
     Appropriations Request for Operations in Yugoslavia.--''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it rather ironic; no, I find it rather sad that 
in the wake of a military victory for America and for the NATO forces, 
we find ourselves in this excellent authorization bill discussing 
language that cuts off funding for the troops on September 30 of this 
year.

                              {time}  1445

  The amendment which I offer will delete subsection A of section 1006, 
while leaving in place subsection B. Subsection B requires the 
President to request supplemental appropriations in order to conduct 
combat or peacekeeping operations in the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia. Subsection B, standing alone, adequately protects the 
funding authorized by this bill without running the risk of undermining 
America's and NATO's military and peacekeeping efforts in Kosovo.
  Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago, when we were first scheduled to take this 
bill up, I would have argued that the language in this bill sent the 
wrong message at the wrong time. Now the withdrawal of Serb forces, 
which is under way from Kosovo today, the message that we would send by 
rejecting my amendment would be a horrific message. The timing of the 
message would make it even worse.
  We must pass this amendment so that we can proceed further and not 
cut off the troops for the wonderful job that they have done. We cannot 
cut them off on September 30 of this year.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Ortiz).
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Skelton 
amendment to the defense authorization bill, an amendment this House 
should pass for many reasons.
  The gentleman's amendment strips the present language out of the bill 
which prohibits funds being expended in Yugoslavia after September 30, 
1999. The current language in the bill does not reflect the best that 
this country and this Congress can offer in our defense policy bill.
  The House Committee on Armed Services struggled long and hard to get 
this bill to the floor. It is generally an outstanding bill, a very 
good bill. But this language will garner a presidential veto, and our 
purpose here is to pass a bill that the President will sign, as well as 
safeguard our troops and the security interests of the United States of 
America.
  Leaving the restrictive language on Yugoslavia in this bill puts its 
passage in jeopardy, and that is bad enough. But worse, it puts our 
troops in jeopardy, those young men and women fighting for the 
strategic interests of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot try to run this conflict, this war, like we 
run a regular business. We cannot do that. We are dealing with a man 
who is a vicious killer. Soldiers in the field, I do not think will 
appreciate it if we do not support this amendment.
  Lastly, we would be terribly ill-advised to include this language in 
our bill because it sends a mixed message to Milosevic, the latest 
hate-monger of the 20th century. The very last person to whom we want 
to provide aid and comfort is Milosevic, a devoted enemy of peace in 
Central Europe.
  I urge my friends and colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Government of the Republic of China announced on 
June 7 that it would provide a grant aid equivalent to about US$300 
million to help the Kosovar refugees. The aid will consist of emergency 
support for food, shelters, medical care, and education for

[[Page H4058]]

the refugees. In addition, short term accommodations will be provided 
for some of the refugees in Taiwan. Most important of all, Taipei will 
support the rehabilitation of the Kosovar area in coordination with 
other international agencies.
  Taipei's offer of help drew a favorable response from our State 
Department and I think Taiwan's plan to assist Kosovar refugees and 
Macedonia is praiseworthy and demonstrates Taiwan's commitment to play 
a helpful role in the international community.
  President Lee Teng-hui of the Republic of China on Taiwan should be 
commended for his willingness to commit his country's resources to help 
other countries in need. President Lee's aid initiative to the Kosovar 
refugees is yet another demonstration of the Republic of China's 
support of U.S. policies in the Balkans.

         Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the 
           United States,
                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 1999.
     Hon. Solomon Ortiz,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Ortiz: As we are all eagerly awaiting a 
     peaceful resolution of the Kosovo conflict, I am writing 
     today to direct your attention to my country's efforts to aid 
     the huge numbers of Kosovar refugees currently residing in 
     other countries.
       As a member of the world community committed to protecting 
     and promoting human rights, the Republic of China on Taiwan 
     is deeply concerned about the plight of the Kosovars and 
     hopes to contribute to the reconstruction of their war-torn 
     land. To that end, President Lee Teng-hui announced on June 
     7, 1999 that our country will grant U.S. $300 million in an 
     aid package to the Kosovars. The aid package will consist of 
     the following:
       1. Emergency support for food, shelters, medical care, and 
     education, etc. for Kosovar refugees living in exile in 
     neighboring countries.
       2. Short-term accommodations for some of Kosovar refugees 
     in Taiwan, with opportunities of job training to enable them 
     to be better equipped for the restoration of their homeland 
     upon their return.
       3. Support for the restoration of Kosovo in coordination 
     with international long-term recovery programs once a peace 
     plan is implemented.
       We earnestly hope that our aid will contribute to the 
     promotion of the peace plan for Kosovo and that all the 
     refugees will be able to return safely to their homes as soon 
     as possible. In this regard, we hope that we may rely on your 
     continued support and friendship as we seek to fulfill our 
     obligations as a responsible member of the international 
     community.
       With best regards,
           Sincerely yours,
                                               Stephen S. F. Chen,
                                                   Representative.

  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley) is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak directly to my 
friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) on his amendment. He 
is my friend, but I thought it was unfair to characterize this as a 
vote against our troops. As I see it, what our original base bill did 
was prevent the President from taking supplemental money that the House 
and the Senate voted for and passed for emergency supplemental, which 
was going directly to take care of many of the ills our military had.
  The gentleman's amendment would allow the President to take money out 
of that fund and use it to expand Kosovo. Our position is that no money 
should come out of that which would detriment readiness for our 
military, and secondly, that it would not expand Kosovo.
  Now, as I see it, the situation today, and I will have the gentleman 
correct me, he has had a phone call from the President that says he 
will not take money out of readiness. Secondly, he will come back to 
this Congress for a supplemental to pay for this, and the money will 
not come out of the hide of defense. That is good.
  If that is the case, this gentleman would be willing to accept the 
amendment of the gentleman from Missouri.
  But I have feared, and to me there is a difference between expanding 
a war and being able to pay to keep people separated and prepare for 
the problems that we have over there, even though I think NATO ought to 
pay for this, not the United States.
  I also want to make it clear that any supplemental is going to come 
out of the things that both sides want to do. Those are the social 
issues.
  So if the gentleman has that guarantee in writing, and I say writing 
because I would tell the gentleman I know what ``is'' is. Just a verbal 
acknowledgment that the President has promised, this is not enough.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for 
yielding me this time. Just for the record, the gentleman's word is 
good enough for me. It does not have to be in writing.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I did not 
say the word of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) was not good. 
I said I did not believe the word of the President without its being in 
writing.
  I totally take the word of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California 
clearing that up.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment to 
strike the Kosovo language from this bill.
  Like many of my Democratic colleagues on the House Committee on Armed 
Services, my main concern with the underlying bill language has been 
and continues to be the inclusion of language which would basically 
require us to cease our operations in the Kosovo region at the end of 
this fiscal year.
  Although I voted for the bill in the committee, I was greatly 
concerned with the message we were sending to Milosevic, to our 
military and the rest of the world. Although I do agree with the funds 
that we are providing in this bill, the manner in which the language is 
currently written will cause an unnecessary crisis on October 1 in the 
Balkans.
  Having recently returned from that region and having heard from the 
refugees the horrors that they have experienced, I believe that we need 
to be in Kosovo and assist with the peace process.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Skelton amendment and to make 
this defense authorization a truly comprehensive bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining on 
each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has 10 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley) has 13 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul).
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This 
is a very important amendment, and what we do on it will be with us for 
a long time.
  We are endorsing, if we vote in favor of this amendment, a policy of 
occupation of Kosovo for an endless period of time. We have now been 
fighting an undeclared war for more than 70 days. We have endlessly 
bombed a country the size of Kentucky killing many, many civilians.
  It is an undeclared war. It is an immoral, illegal war. It violates 
the Constitution. It violates the War Powers resolution.
  It is claimed now that we have had a great victory. But what we are 
doing now, after bombing a country to smithereens, is laying plans to 
occupy it. We are asking the American people to make an endless 
commitment to occupying this country.
  A few years back, we were going to occupy Bosnia for a short period 
of time. We are still occupying Bosnia, spending between $10 billion, 
$20 billion already, depending on the estimate.
  A few years back it was in our national interests to be involved in 
the Persian Gulf. We had to do a lot of bombing there and a lot of 
fighting. We are still bombing in the Persian Gulf. I mean, when will 
it end? Where do our borders end? What are the limits to our 
sovereignty? Where is our responsibility? It seems like it is endless 
anyplace, anywhere we have to go. We are now supporting an empire.
  No wonder there is anti-American hostility existing around the world, 
because we believe that we can tell everybody what to do. We can 
deliver an

[[Page H4059]]

ultimatum to them. If they do not do exactly what we say, whether it is 
under NATO or the United Nations or by ourselves stating it, what 
happens, we say, ``If you do not listen to us, we are going to bomb 
you.''
  I think that policy is a bad policy. If we vote for this amendment, 
we endorse this policy, and we should not. This is not the end of the 
Kosovo war; it's only the beginning of an endless occupation and the 
possibility of hostilities remain. The region remains destabilized and 
dangerous. Only a policy of non-intervention and neutrality can serve 
the interest of the American people. The sooner we quit accepting the 
role of world policemen, the better. We cannot afford to continue our 
recent policy of intervention to satisfy the power special interest 
that influences our foreign policy.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt).
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, after 78 long days, the United States and 
its NATO allies have won a major victory over the forces of instability 
and inhumanity. Today, we are trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of 
victory.
  We have won the war. Serbian troops are withdrawing from Kosovo under 
the exact terms that we have held out since the beginning of this 
action. We now have an opportunity to win the peace finally in the 
Balkans.
  A vote against the Skelton amendment would prevent us from achieving 
the fruits of our success, restoring peace and stability to Kosovo, 
returning 1 million refugees to their homeland, and making sure that 
the bloodshed will finally end.
  Even if one was against the military action, one should be for the 
peacekeeping effort. If one cares about the humanitarian catastrophe 
that has happened in the Balkans, if one cares about the future 
stability in Europe, the peacekeeping effort is the best way to 
continue this success.
  Our heroic young people, men and women, for 74 days led this air 
campaign against the Serbian military, and therefore, we must be part 
of the peacekeeping effort.

                              {time}  1500

  The President has said that the peacekeeping force will be 
overwhelmingly made up of European troops. We must continue to fulfill 
our obligation to NATO through our participation in this effort. 
Turning our backs on this effort now would send a horrible signal to 
NATO and to the rest of the world that the United States is turning to 
an isolationist stance.
  Congress has been criticized for our erratic policy on Kosovo. This 
is our chance today to be consistent and to be united behind the policy 
of peace and responsible American leadership in the world. We have a 
responsibility to our troops, to NATO, and to the refugees to fulfill 
our role in this peacekeeping effort.
  I pray that Congress can put aside the actions of the last several 
months and join together to support this effort. It is the right thing 
to do, it makes sense, and it is worthy of our bipartisan support.
  I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to back the Skelton 
amendment, to back peacekeeping, and to back what is right for the 
world.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  What the Skelton amendment does is not what was just described. What 
the Skelton amendment does is give an absolute blank check.
  Let me make it very, very clear. The language of the bill does not 
snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Indeed, nothing in the language 
of the bill would in any way hamper the peacekeeping effort or the 
effort of our troops. What the language of the bill does, which the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) would like to strip out, is to 
say that the Congress has a proper role in deciding what our 
expenditures in support of the operations in Kosovo and in Yugoslavia 
ought to be.
  It says that, in subsection (a), the President cannot spend these 
monies appropriated for other purposes in Kosovo. But it says in 
subsection (b) that the President has to, instead, come back to the 
Congress and ask for a supplemental appropriation in which he specifies 
what he wants for the operation in Kosovo.
  That is perfectly logical, and I defend the product of the committee. 
It makes sense. It defines the proper policy and gives the Congress the 
role it ought to have.
  But here is the problem with the Skelton language. The Skelton 
language would delete subsection (a), taking away the prohibition, 
giving the President the ability to do what he wanted to do with those 
funds. But then it leaves Pyrrhic language which does not protect 
anyone. It says if the President wants to use those monies in 
Yugoslavia, in Kosovo, he can go ahead the minute he transmits a 
request for a supplemental appropriation.
  It does not say he has to get a supplemental appropriation, it does 
not say that Congress has to pass a supplemental appropriation. Indeed, 
any court reading the fact that this Congress had in the base bill 
subsection (a) saying the funds cannot be used and subsection (b) 
saying he must ask instead for a supplemental appropriation, and 
watching that on this floor we strip subsection (a), would read what we 
had left to say there is no prohibition. The President can do whatever 
he wants. He has a blank check.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the Skelton amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important here for the 
Members to hear the language that is in the bill that the gentleman 
from Missouri seeks to strike. It says:

       Section 1006. Budgeting For Operations In Yugoslavia. (a) 
     In General. None of the funds appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorizations of appropriations in this act may be used for 
     the conduct of combat or peacekeeping operations in the 
     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  Now, the gentleman from Missouri wants to strike that language, and I 
think every Member of this House should want to strike that language. I 
am on the Committee on Appropriations. It is not easy to get a 
supplemental appropriations bill through the Congress, and it may take 
us extra time to do it. We have had supplementals that get stalled for 
weeks.
  I just think that to have an amendment like this that basically says 
we do not support either our troops in combat or our troops in 
peacekeeping is a mistake. But this one really bothers me.
  We should strike this out of here. We know we are going to have our 
Marines going into Kosovo to conduct a peacekeeping mission, and all 
the legislative strategists on the other side there may say, well, but 
we will get a supplemental that will then do it, but we really do not 
support it because we passed this amendment.
  Why do we not strike this thing out so it removes any ambiguity about 
our support for our troops in the field? That is what is wrong with 
this. It sends this mixed message that somehow we are not really for 
this and, therefore, we are going to come up with language that says we 
do not support either combat or peacekeeping.
  Now, I do not see why we have to have this in this. This war is over. 
The peace is about to be established, and I think the Skelton amendment 
should be passed overwhelmingly; should be accepted by the majority.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  First, I want to address my friend from Washington (Mr. Dicks). When 
the President asked for $6 billion within a supplemental for this 
operation, I wanted to give him $28.7 billion. We ended up, on this 
side of the aisle, giving the people in uniform, the people who count, 
$12 billion. We came up with twice as much for combat operations and 
for military accounts, for ammunition, for spare parts, for equipment 
than the President wanted. In fact, he complained he had too much.
  The gentleman knows what the problem is here. The problem is in the 
fiscal year 2000 budget the President did not come up with a doggone 
cent for this operation. Everything that we

[[Page H4060]]

have got in that $280-some billion budget is designated for certain 
things, like ammunition, where we are extremely low. We are $13 billion 
low on ammunition; spare parts. We crashed 55 aircraft last year in 
peacetime operations. We have got 10,000 troops on food stamps. We are 
18,000 sailors short in the Navy.
  The gentleman knows, as my good friend who works these issues with 
me, that we have a lot of deficiencies. And yet when the President came 
up with the budget, he did not put a dime toward Yugoslav operations.
  Now, what does that mean? It means he is going to reach into the cash 
register and he is going to take money out that was going to go for M-
16 bullets; it means he is going to reach into the cash register and 
take money out that would have gone for cruise missiles.
  Now, I have voted with the gentleman on every single one of the 
amendments that have come up with respect to supporting the air war. We 
have, on this side of the aisle, when it really counted, we have given 
the men and women in uniform twice what the President wanted in terms 
of money. All we want is the assurance that the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton), I believe now has received from the President, where the 
President called up and said, Okay, I am going to come with a 
supplemental appropriation, I will not take money out of readiness 
accounts.
  And the gentleman knows as well as I do that we will have disserved 
the men and women in uniform if we force them to continue to fly in 
unsafe aircraft. In many cases we have aircraft that are much older 
than they should, be; if we continue to make them go into conflict with 
inadequate munitions and all the other things, we are worried about the 
next war.
  So I would just agree with the gentleman that we need to spend money 
on supporting the troops. We want to make sure money is spent on 
supporting the troops.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I 
think we are aiming at the same destination.
  The problem is that should a supplemental be 1 day, 1 week, 1 month 
or whatever late, whatever flows from this bill cannot be spent. They 
would be without food, without ammunition, without uniforms, and it 
would make a laughing stock out of the Congress of the United States. 
We do not intend that.
  Mr. HUNTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me make one 
statement, and then I will yield to my friend.
  I think the gentleman from Missouri would agree with me that we will 
have done a great service for the men and women in uniform if in fact 
the President says, Okay, on top of this year's appropriation and 
authorization for maintaining the military, I will come with extra 
money for the Yugoslav operation, for the peacekeeping operations, so 
we will not be dipping into ammunition accounts to fund that.
  Would the gentleman agree with me?
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
that has been my intent all along. Now, the gentleman asked what the 
President told me a few minutes ago.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me take back my time for just a minute. 
I appreciate the gentleman's intent, he is my good friend from 
Missouri, but the President committing to do it is another step that 
goes beyond the gentleman's intent.
  If the gentleman from Missouri had his way, we would be spending an 
additional $20 billion in defense this year. If I had my way, and I 
think if most people on my side of the aisle had our way, we would be 
spending an additional $20 billion in defense this year. The commitment 
from the President to come with a supplemental is, I think, a very 
important thing.
  And I understand the gentleman now has a letter from the President 
that assures that?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield very briefly to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the point I am making, I would like to see 
us say, Mr. President, send up a supplemental to take care of the 
peacekeeping and the combat because we support the effort; not saying 
we do not support it, or no money shall be spent on it. It is not a 
positive way of dealing with the problem.
  Mr. HUNTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman 
saw the results of the amendment that was just offered and saw the 
number of folks on both sides of the aisle who opposed the support of 
that amendment. I think that sends a message.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Skelton amendment, 
which would strike from this bill a dangerous Republican provision that 
bars the use of funds for operations in Yugoslavia after September 30 
of this year.
  I would ask my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle to please 
stop the political micromanagement of this conflict. We should be on 
this floor congratulating the President, giving support to our troops, 
and commending our negotiators and NATO for ethnic cleansing and 
genocide.
  This provision could not be more untimely than it is today. Just 
yesterday, Yugoslavian and NATO officials signed an agreement that 
requires a demonstrable withdrawal of Yugoslavian military forces from 
Kosovo by this afternoon and a complete withdrawal within 11 days. The 
agreement also requires an immediate cease-fire by Yugoslav forces and 
a suspension of NATO air strikes once the withdrawal of forces has 
begun. NATO officials are monitoring developments in Kosovo as we speak 
to ensure that Yugoslavia abides by its agreement.
  Stop undermining our troops and the President. Let us have all of us 
get together on this issue.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Skelton amendment, and let me just say I have my deep admiration for 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). I am sure he is very 
sincere, but here we are, in the last minutes or last hours of this 
debate on such an important piece of legislation, and then at the last 
minute we get a call from the President of the United States saying a 
letter is on the way.
  The gentleman from Missouri does not even have the letter in his 
possession. We have seen letters from the President of the United 
States before. We have seen letters from this President that had so 
many holes in them they leaked like a spaghetti strainer, for Pete's 
sake. We do not know what kind of guarantee we have from the President.
  I am sure the gentleman from Missouri is sincere. I want to see 
exactly what the President has to say before we give him a blank check 
to spend billions of dollars out of readiness, putting our other people 
in jeopardy, to spend it down in the Balkans.
  The American people want us to be responsible and be very careful in 
our consideration of the lives of these people that are defending our 
country. I do not believe the President of the United States has 
demonstrated that same type of consideration, as he has sent our troops 
all over the world, stretched them so thin that our people are in 
jeopardy now.
  I say if the President is truthful, and the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) does believe that his commitment is true, I would ask him 
to withdraw his amendment. It is not necessary. The gentleman's 
amendment is not necessary if the gentleman believes the President's 
word. If the President's word, if we trust the President's word that he 
is not going to spend it out of this bill and that he will come to us 
with a supplemental, the gentleman should withdraw his amendment. It is 
not necessary.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).
  (Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the 
amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.

[[Page H4061]]

Skelton). I commend the gentleman for offering this amendment and I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  We must stand behind our American troops who have spent the past 72 
days in harm's way.

                              {time}  1515

  Through their valiant actions and service, Mr. Milosevic has conceded 
to NATO's demands to withdraw Serb troops from Kosovo. While America 
celebrates this victory, our fighting men and women in Yugoslavia would 
be out of the resources and support that they need.
  They have served willingly and honorably, and we must ensure that 
they are able to carry out the peace plan and stabilize this vulnerable 
region. We must take our role as the defender of democracy seriously so 
that all citizens of the world are empowered to speak freely out 
against totalitarian regimes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment offered by my 
colleague from Missouri, Mr. Skelton, Ranking Member on the Armed 
Services Committee. This amendment would delete the provision currently 
in H.R. 1401 which would prohibit the use of any FY2000 funds for 
operations in Kosovo after September 30.
  I commend Mr. Skelton for offering this amendment and urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of it. We must stand behind our American 
troops who have spent the past 72 days in harm's way. Through their 
valiant actions and service, Mr. Milosevic has conceded to NATO's 
demands and announced that Serb troops will begin their withdrawal from 
Kosovo immediately.
  While America celebrates victory, our fighting men and women in 
Yugoslavia would be without the resources and support that they need. 
They have served willingly and honorably, and we must ensure that we 
are able to carry out the peace plan and stabilize this vulnerable 
region. The United States must stand firm at this point to ensure that 
the Albanians are able to return to Kosovo and to put America's 
strength behind the agreement with Milosevic.
  Besides supporting our troops, we must also be sure that we continue 
our humanitarian aid to this area. Over a million refugees are 
depending on assistance from several countries to survive the brutality 
inflicted upon them by the Kosovar military. Without shipments of food, 
clothing, and medical supplies, these refugees would be in even worse 
conditions than the squalor that currently pervades the camps they are 
living in. We must not desert these people.
  As the last ``superpower'' in the world, the United States must take 
its role as the defender of democracy seriously. We must not allow 
dictators like Milosevic to wipe out whole populations in order to 
``purify'' the areas they rule. We must demand that all citizens of the 
world are empowered and free to speak out against totalitarian regimes.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the gentleman from 
Missouri and support our troops.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, on April 28, when we were debating the 
resolutions regarding Kosovo, the President of the United States sent a 
letter to the floor of the House, and many represented that that letter 
meant he would obtain the approval of Congress before inserting ground 
troops. And then over the subsequent weeks we discovered he really did 
not mean it.
  In testimony by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State 
and their designees, they said, well, no, the President was not going 
to wait for a vote of approval by the House before sending in ground 
troops, if he felt ground troops were needed.
  The point is that the mission in Yugoslavia can change. So if we 
accept the Skelton amendment and the mission changes and we have to 
send ground troops in, hear me, my colleagues, the President will say 
that this vote gives him the authorization. He will do it. My 
colleagues know he will do it, because he said he could send in ground 
troops without getting a vote by Congress.
  What else can we do? I have tried in court. The Constitution gives 
Congress the right to declare war. But the court has said that a Member 
of Congress does not have standing. Even though the President carried 
on the war past the 60 days, in violation of the War Powers Resolution, 
we do not have standing to contest it.
  The restriction in the bill, that the Skelton Amendment would remove, 
is all we can do to assert our right in the constitutional scheme.


                Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a preferential motion.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The Clerk will report the 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
     the bill back to the House with a recommendation that the 
     enacting clause be stricken.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the Committee for not 
informing them ahead of time of this motion, but I made the motion in 
order to obtain the time to respond to some of the comments that I have 
just heard.
  I think if this institution is to regain an ounce of credibility in 
the way it has dealt with this entire issue of the war in Kosovo, it 
must pass the Skelton amendment.
  I simply do not understand what I have seen in this House in the last 
2 months on this issue. I have seen our good friends in the majority 
first vote against substituting a ground war for the air war that NATO 
is conducting. Then I have seen them vote against supporting the air 
actions that were being taken by our forces in the field.
  And then, in a double reverse that would make Barry Sanders proud, 
they voted to double the amount of money that they wanted to spend on 
the same war they said they did not want to see fought.
  I saw one member of the majority leadership in the other body stand 
up twice in meetings that we had with the President and tell the 
President that he was wrong to conduct military operations of any kind 
against Mr. Milosevic, and he even suggested that the United States was 
guilty of attacking a sovereign country.
  That same Senator, the day the peace accord was signed, then attacked 
the President because Mr. Milosevic was being allowed to stay in power 
under the agreement that was just signed. I guess that means he 
believes that new governments can be brought into being in Yugoslavia 
through immaculate conception. I do not quite understand how that is 
possible, but I guess some people think it is. That kind of double 
reverse is enough to give anybody watching, a bad case of whiplash.
  What is important here at this time is for the Congress not to make a 
negative statement about what is happening in Yugoslavia but to make a 
positive statement. Of all times, it is necessary for us to be unified 
if we are going to be in the strongest possible position to carry out 
our opportunity and our duties and our responsibilities because of the 
apparent ending of military action in Kosovo.
  It seems to me that the way that we can assert a positive position at 
this time is to eliminate the language that the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) is trying to eliminate and, on a bipartisan basis, see to 
it that the way we handle our forces in that area is consistent with 
our national interest and consistent with stabilizing that area so we 
do not have to go through this again.
  I urge support for the Skelton amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my motion.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HUNTER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, does this side have an additional 5 minutes 
as a result of the request of the gentleman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The motion has been withdrawn by unanimous consent.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise respectfully to oppose the Skelton 
amendment.
  NATO has achieved a victory, but it is really not a victory. It is a 
cessation of war, a cessation for now. The war is stopped not because 
of bombing but because Congress did not give wholesale authorization to 
the war.

[[Page H4062]]

  It is important that Congress maintain its constitutional duty to 
reign the administration's war policies through not providing a blanket 
authorization past September 30, which the Skelton amendment would 
affect.
  The agreement that was passed involving the war does not involve the 
KLA, and the fact that it does not involve the KLA ought to give pause 
to Members of this Congress, because the KLA's goal is still an 
independent Kosovo. We could end up in a situation where our young men 
and women whom we all support would be in a circular firing squad with 
KLA members being arrested and Serb units trying to get back into the 
province.
  A vote against the Skelton amendment would be a vote to support the 
troops. The only way that we are going to have peace in the end is to 
make sure that there continues to be congressional oversight. Let us 
not give that up.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of 
the Skelton amendment.
  I would remind the Members of this body when President Bush stood up 
to another thug in the person of Saddam Hussein, every Member of the 
Republican leadership voted to give maximum executive authority to 
enable President Bush to act as Commander in Chief regardless of the 
War Powers Act.
  Then after the vote was taken on which the Democrats were divided, we 
requested another vote; and we voted nearly unanimously to give maximum 
authority to President Bush to act as Commander in Chief. And on every 
single subsequent vote, it was nearly unanimous that this entire House 
voted to support the President. But now the Republican majority wants 
to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
  We have prevailed in this war. We have a more resolute, a stronger 
NATO. We have worked in coordination with 19 nations. We have achieved 
something nearly miraculous. We have not lost one soldier, sailor, or 
airman to enemy fire. We have shown that we can wage an air war alone 
and be successful. We have won.
  Let us sustain this victory. Let the President act responsibly with 
the advice of the military and not politically with the advice of the 
Republican majority of this Congress who are absolutely and 
irresponsibly wrong on this issue. Support the Skelton amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 30 seconds remaining.
  Let me just put the playing ground where it is right now. At this 
point, we have in this bill a provision that makes the President come 
to the Congress for a supplemental instead of taking Kosovo money out 
of ammunition accounts, out of spare parts accounts.
  The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has advised us that the 
President has now made that commitment to us. I think that is something 
that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the chairman should 
take up shortly and discuss.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Objection, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, under the rule, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Hunter) did not have the right. That is the reason 
for the objection.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I express my appreciation to the chairman of 
the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in somewhat of a dilemma here regarding the 
Skelton amendment. If he were to suggest striking the language having 
to do in this proposal with section 106 relating to peacekeeping 
operations rather than the entire section, I would be in support of it. 
But as I was when we voted 213-213 back at the start of these 
activities in Yugoslavia, I continue to see no reason to be engaged in 
combat in Yugoslavia.
  I am ready, willing, and able to support peacekeeping operations 
there, but I must draw the line on combat. I am supporting not doing 
combat in Yugoslavia. I am supporting doing peacekeeping in Yugoslavia.
  If the gentleman would be so kind as to amend his request to only 
strike the combat portion so that, and I do not know the technical 
details, but if we would be allowed to do peacekeeping, I would be in 
support accordingly.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPENCE. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I think it is moot because the combat is 
over. That is in the past. Peacekeeping is the only thing in front of 
us. And I appreciate his support for that position.
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
have great admiration for the gentleman from Missouri. My concern is 
that combat is just beginning.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think that the gentleman from Missouri has a very valid and sincere 
concern when he offers this amendment. But I, too, must oppose it and 
am opposing it because I still do not feel comfortable the way this 
administration has handled this aggressive NATO action.
  NATO, as we know, is a defensive alliance and has been using an 
aggressive posture in Kosovo. For 78 days we have bombed the heck out 
of a country which is the size of Kentucky. We have 855,000 refugees 
that have left the border that have to be brought back, 500,000 within 
the borders. These people will be returning home within a month, but to 
homes that are not there, on roads that they cannot drive on, to jobs 
that no longer exist because the businesses have been blown up.
  Ten thousand people have been killed. And what is worse, we have not 
gotten rid of Milosevic. I do not feel comfortable the way this 
administration has handled this.
  Now, I like the idea that the administration will have to come back 
to Congress and ask us for additional funding or ask us for one thing 
or the other. It seems to be the only thing that attempts to keep this 
administration in check. We do not have international unity. We do not 
have national unity. We do not have the central question answered, 
which is, why are we in Kosovo to begin with?

                              {time}  1530

  To say that these 50,000, quote, peacekeeping forces are going to be 
in there only keeping peace is ridiculous. What happens when the people 
do not want to give up their guns and their ammunition? We know that we 
are going to be right back in a warlike posture.
  I think, that being the case, it is very important that the 
administration continues to stay close to the Committee on Armed 
Services, to the Members of Congress, and to be accountable to us of 
what more money they want and what they want to spend and so forth. I 
am rising in opposition of the gentleman from Missouri's amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I have been hearing a lot of talk today on 
this amendment and on other amendments about cutting funds. I would 
like to remind this body that we are talking about funds in the fiscal 
year 2000 budget. No funds have been requested in the fiscal year 2000 
budget for Kosovo. You cannot cut what you have not requested for. I 
think that is a big misunderstanding on the part of some people on the 
other side. I repeat, for clarity, you cannot cut what you have not 
already asked for in next year's budget. This is next year's budget.


               Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Hunter

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer a motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Hunter moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
     the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
     enacting clause be stricken out.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, is that motion renewable at 
this time?
  The CHAIRMAN. It is in order. The last motion of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was withdrawn by unanimous consent.

[[Page H4063]]

  The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence).
  Mr. SPENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we are in the process of negotiating a settlement of 
this matter. In the meantime, I would like to take this additional time 
to explain what we have before us today.
  As I said a few moments ago, this budget that we have before us that 
we are considering is for the year 2000. There are no funds requested 
by the President for 2000 for Kosovo in this budget.
  We have recently, as my colleagues remember, passed a supplemental 
for Kosovo that took us up to the end of this fiscal year. You cannot 
do it for the next fiscal year.
  We have had over a number of years now similar provisions to this one 
in our defense authorization bills. These provisions simply say that if 
any contingencies arise which are unbudgeted for, that the President 
should come before the committee and ask for funding for that. In the 
year that we are in right now, this fiscal year, that is what happened.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I would 
just point out that I think there is a problem, because it could well 
be that the Committee on Appropriations would appropriate money for the 
Kosovo peacekeeping, for this operation. If you have not authorized it, 
it would be subject to a point of order on the floor of the House. So 
the lack of authorization would have an impact.
  Mr. SPENCE. The problem is, getting back to the point I was making, 
that the funds were not requested for. This provision is nothing new. 
It has been in other bills before now. Nothing unforeseen has happened 
because of them. As a matter of fact, as I just stated, the President 
came to us for a supplemental for funds up until the end of this fiscal 
year, it was passed and things keep on going. I suspect the same thing 
is going to happen again. This provision was put in the bill just like 
it has in the ones before, thinking no problem would arise because of 
it, and then this came up.
  Now, we are in the position where we have to assume that the 
President is going to come back to us, as a matter of fact, he has said 
so before, that he will come to us with an additional request for funds 
for Kosovo for the year 2000, and that is where we are today. Nothing 
has changed. This provision in the law, as I said, is in the law right 
now and it is just repeating it again.
  I will say something else again. The people here today in this body 
who are arguing on the other side of this issue have voted for this 
provision in other bills. As a matter of fact, they have voted for this 
provision in the context of a bill that we reported out of the 
Committee on Armed Services by a vote of 55-1. This issue came up in 
our committee, we voted on it, it was disposed of, and then when we 
voted a bill out of committee, those members by a vote of 55-1 voted 
for the bill with this provision in it. So we have the unconscionable 
position some people are taking today of opposing something they have 
already themselves voted for. I am just trying to explain why we have 
this provision in the bill and why nothing is wrong with it. People are 
trying to make it out as a cutting off of funds when you cannot cut off 
funds that have not even been requested for and are not provided for in 
next year's budget.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) 
has expired.
  Does the gentleman from California seek withdrawal of his motion?
  Mr. HUNTER. No, Mr. Chairman; I would be happy to have the other side 
proceed.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, my first question is how much time is left 
under the regular order for debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri controls 2 minutes. There 
is no time left on the opposition.
  Mr. SKELTON. My second question is, do I have 5 minutes in opposition 
to the gentleman's request?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman controls 5 minutes in opposition to the 
gentleman from California's motion.
  Mr. SKELTON. Then I so claim.
  My third inquiry is, would I be entitled to an additional 5 minutes 
should I seek to strike the last word at a later moment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the point I was trying to make, and I would 
like to hear the gentleman from South Carolina respond to it, if in 
fact the Committee on Appropriations appropriated money for Kosovo, 
that money would be subjected on the floor of the House, according to 
the Parliamentarian, to a point of order because it would lack 
authorization. So to say that this does not have any impact I believe 
is incorrect. And in fact our committee has put money in the 
appropriations bills for various peacekeeping operations before, so 
that it would not be taken out of readiness, which is the same thing 
that the gentleman from South Carolina wants to do.
  I understand that good people here can have a differing view of this, 
and I certainly respect the gentleman's perspective on this. But I do 
believe that this amendment, if it is enacted, anybody in this House 
could stand up on the floor unless a rule were enacted and object on a 
point of order and the money in the appropriations bill would be 
stricken.
  So I do not think we should take that risk. I think we should vote 
for the Skelton amendment.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SKELTON. The 1 minute that was just eaten up came out of the 5 
minutes in opposition to the gentleman from California's motion, is 
that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time was consumed on the motion of the gentleman 
from California. The time was consumed by the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. So I have 4 minutes left of that 5 minutes, am I 
correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  I just wanted to note to my friend that we had one speaker who did 
not have an opportunity to speak because of the oversight of this side, 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and I would ask the gentleman's 
indulgence to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the generous 
concession. As I look at this, both sides are right. You obviously are 
correct in that this is a terrible time to pull the plug on the 
operations over in Kosovo when we are on the verge of solving the most 
volatile part of that entire operation, and this is not the time to 
give signals of uncertainty as to where we stand or what abilities our 
commanders will have in the field.
  On the other hand, they are perfectly correct over here in saying why 
are you not paying for this, why are you divesting and draining quality 
of life accounts, modernization accounts, ammunition accounts, 
readiness accounts. You are doing no favor to the cause of 
international stability by weakening and debilitating the rest of the 
military to pay for something going on in Kosovo.
  Now, that ought to be resolved and should be resolved. We really 
should not be at loggerheads here. You are right and you are right. I 
just do not see why you cannot get together and have the administration 
ask for the money to pay for Kosovo and not keep draining the readiness 
accounts.

[[Page H4064]]

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention to my friend from 
Illinois that the time for the President to make such a supplemental is 
hardly here. Number one, we have not even passed this bill. Number two, 
peace just broke out yesterday. I fully believe, based on my 
conversation with the President, that he is going to ask for a 
supplemental for peacekeeping in Kosovo in a very timely manner. I am 
convinced of it. He said so to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair advises the gentleman from Missouri that he 
has 1 minute remaining on his time in opposition to the motion of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). That is the matter on which the 
Chair is dealing at this time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SKELTON. I have 1 minute in opposition to the motion made by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), I have 2 minutes in regular 
time, and should I seek additional time on a striking of the last word, 
I would have 5 minutes there?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. However, the Chair will need 
to have a disposition of the gentleman from California's motion as soon 
as this 1 minute is complete.
  Mr. SKELTON. I understand that.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman from Missouri's 
amendment which would delete the language that would prohibit funding 
military operations, be they offensive or defensive, in Yugoslavia.
  In the tradition of the home State of the gentleman from Missouri, it 
is time that the United States show the world and Slobodan Milosevic 
that we as a Nation of peacekeeping people are committed to ensuring 
peace in Kosovo by continuing to fund the military operations in this 
region of the world.
  Congress must support this important amendment. Now is not the time 
to blink. To cut off military funding in Yugoslavia during this initial 
stage of Serb troop withdrawals is not only bad policy for Kosovo but 
also for America and for the world. Support this amendment. Our Nation 
must show the world that we follow through on our promises to ensure 
peace in Kosovo now and for the future.

                              {time}  1545

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw this amendment?
  Mr. HUNTER. No, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Then the question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Skelton 
amendment.
  I have seen the refugee camps in Albania, the refugee camps in 
Macedonia. They are unlike anything I have ever seen, and I cannot do 
an adequate job of recounting to my colleagues the horror that the 
ethnic Albanians have been through.
  I do want to quote to my colleagues from a letter written to the 
President from Elie Weisel, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and himself a 
Holocaust survivor, in terms of his observations as he visited the 
camps on behalf of President Clinton.

       What I saw and heard there was often unbearable to the 
     survivor that still lives in my memory. In fact, I never 
     thought I would hear such tales of cruelty again. Now I must 
     share them with you in this brief report, which began in 
     anguish and ended in qualified, vacillating hope. While I sat 
     in my last session with the former prisoners of Milosevic's 
     police, the Yugoslav parliament approved NATO's conditions 
     for surrender.

  Mr. Chairman, we know much has happened since then to advance that 
fragile hope for peace. Milosevic agreed to the terms, the G-8 agreed 
to the terms, U.N. language, U.N. Security Council language, was 
negotiated and agreed to across the G-8.
  We know in the negotiation with the Serbian generals they had nothing 
but trouble. The generals tried to renege, more bombs were dropped, 
more Serbs were killed. Ultimately, the generals reconsidered and are 
back on the agreement.
  The only doubt raised this afternoon on this peace is raised on the 
floor of this House, and that is an incredible thing. Across this 19-
nation alliance, engaged in trying to address these horrors, this 
House, the People's House of the United States of America, would raise 
a doubt about our commitment to see this peace treaty go forward.
  Support the Skelton amendment. Without passage of this amendment, we 
leave open the question, come October 1, whether the United States will 
continue to provide the vital leadership in bringing this matter to an 
end.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
has expired.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, it seems like this 
provision in this bill has become like a piece of Super Glue we are all 
trying to shake off our hand and just cannot quite figure out how to do 
it.
  With regard to what the chairman of the committee talked about, the 
55 to 1 vote, being one of the 55, I thought we had some assurances 
during that fairly painful discussion that there would be work on this 
language. We are all trying to figure out a way to get around it, and 
in fact, the original rule that came to the House floor had a self-
executing provision, the majority's rule, to get rid of this language, 
and the rule was defeated, I believe, or did not have the support only 
because of some other extraneous problems depending on some amendments 
that did not get on the floor under that rule.
  So, I mean, this thing has been a problem from the very beginning, 
and I would hope that we could take care of it today.
  As my colleagues know, after we had that 55-to-1 vote, we were all 
very proud of this bill, and what was the headline in the paper? 
``House Votes to Cut Off Funds for Kosovo.''
  That is what will happen again if this bill passes today.
  I woke up this morning excited about all the work we put in this bill 
and finishing it and heard a radio report that the House will vote 
today on cutting off funds for Kosovo. That is the way this provision 
is going to be interpreted if we do not strike it, and I fear that we 
have got ourselves into an anti-commander-in-chief feeling, meaning 
anti-Bill-Clinton feeling in our partisan divide. I believe that is 
unfortunate.
  I hope that we will vote for the amendment of the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and put out the good authorization bill we have.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, a number of years ago the famous author 
Barbara Tuchman wrote a book, ``March of Folly,'' wherein she set forth 
a good number of examples where governments made actions and decisions 
contrary to their own best interests. It is my intent today to keep 
that from happening.
  We in this Congress, this great deliberative body in which I am 
thrilled to be a Member, we should not, number one, send a signal not 
just our troops, but to the world, that we wish to cut off funds, but 
we should not gamble with this matter at all.
  I fully intend to seek the President's offering of a supplemental to 
us. He told me he would. He also told me he would do it in a timely 
fashion. I certainly hope that comes to pass. Even if he does, it is a 
very timely request for a supplemental.
  What happens if there is a long holiday or it gets hung up in the 
Senate, or there is a disagreement over putting another supplemental 
together with it? What happens if we run out of time on September 30? 
Congress will be the laughing stock of the world, and we would all have 
very embarrassed faces.
  We do not want that to happen. We do not want that to happen at all.
  So, with that in mind, I would certainly hope that my amendment would 
be adopted, that we can get on with our business. And, Mr. Chairman, 
the sad problem is, the real sad analogy is that this is a great bill, 
the best one I have seen, the best one I have seen since early 1980s. 
It really helps the young people in uniform. And to mess it up with an 
issue like this, sending wrong signals, and as a practical legal 
matter, we would have young men and young women doing peacekeeping; if 
a supplemental gets hung up for 2 weeks, we cannot feed them, we cannot 
clothe

[[Page H4065]]

them, we cannot give them ammunition.
  That would be a terrible reflection upon this wonderful deliberative 
body.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson).
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, the good news is 
that the rest of the world is figuring out this institution is not on 
the level. When we had the earlier votes, somebody said it better than 
I can, we voted not to go backwards, not to go forward and not to do 
what we were doing.
  Now we are in the process of implementing what I think is a broad-
based goal of the American people and the Congress, stopping the 
killing of the Kosovar Albanians, getting them back in their homes, and 
we are in this dance. I am not sure what we do here has the meaning or 
the impact because of the irresponsible nature of these actions.
  If we compare what the opposition in this Congress did during the 
Gulf War, once that initial vote was taken, the Democratic side of the 
aisle stood with the President every step of the way. One would get the 
sense here that every opportunity, there is an attempt to undermine a 
policy simply because it is successful.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Taylor and 
Skelton amendments. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
will refrain from offering amendments aimed at undermining the hard-won 
peace agreement in support of human rights and basic human dignity in 
Kosovo.
  In bases across the United States and Europe, our men and women in 
uniform can be proud of the role they played in bringing peace and 
security to a suffering people. Their dedication and commitment not 
only ended the campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Kosovar 
Albanian people, but also reshaped the social and political landscape 
of Europe.
  While only time will reveal the future of Kosovo, of the Balkans and 
of Europe as a whole, we do know this campaign marks a turning point in 
U.S.-European affairs.
  Surely, there is a great deal left to be done in Kosovo. The most 
complicated, and perhaps the most dangerous, tasks still remain: 
ensuring the security of returning refugees, disarming the KLA, 
cleaning landmines and booby-traps set by Serbian troops, prosecuting 
war criminals who committed unspeakable acts against defenseless 
civilians, providing a framework to allow the Kosovar people--of all 
ethnicities--to govern themselves, and rebuilding the infrastructure 
and economies of the region. I believe the nations of Euripe will and 
should bear the greatest responsibility for achieving these objectives, 
but the United States will also play an important role. Once again, we 
shall ask much of our service men and women; and once again, I know 
they will carry out their duties with honor and distinction.
  Celebration is not appropriate as we reflect on this hard-won peace. 
The horrors inflicted on the Kosovar people over the past months are 
too painful. The destruction of their homes, livelihoods and security 
will haunt the future. The tasks ahead of us are sobering. It is a 
moment to remember and honor their sacrifices. And most especially, to 
honor and to express our appreciation for the members of the U.S. Armed 
Forces and our NATO allies whose efforts demonstrated to the world 
community that the words ``Never Again'' are more than hollow rhetoric.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of 
Representative Skelton's amendment. This amendment will strike the 
prohibition on the use of funds for operations in Yugoslavia.
  The prohibition currently contained in H.R. 1401 requires that the 
administration submit supplemental budget in the event military 
operations continue into FY 2000. This statutory prohibition preventing 
the President from using funds contained in the FY 2000 defense 
authorization sends the wrong message to the Yugoslavian President 
Slobodan Milosevic. As negotiations continue to proceed towards a 
settlement, this body should resist the temptation to remove another 
bargaining chip from the peace table. Our sustained bombing of the 
Yugoslavian army and police units has began to take a toll. When we are 
so close to helping NATO achieve its objectives we should not relent. 
The bill as currently written will only encourage Milosevic to hold out 
against the terms of NATO.
  This provision sends the wrong message to friend and foe alike. When 
we have stood by our NATO partners in this conflict or restore peace to 
the Balkans we should not now turn our collective backs on our 
partners. It should be clear that America still has a significant role 
in the security of Europe. Our NATO partners look at the United States 
for leadership and direction.
  I believe that our leadership through this current crisis has brought 
Milosevic to the table of peace. When I visited the refugee camps last 
month in Albania, I had the chance to ask many of the ethnic 
Alabanians, if they thought NATO's actions where to blame for their 
situation. Mr. Chairman, to a person they all agreed that the 
responsibility for this crisis rests squarely at the feet of Milosevic. 
The Kosovar refugees are depending on the U.S. and NATO to fulfill 
their commitment of returning them safely to their homes. This body 
cannot relent from our mission of peace and must ensure that Milosevic 
pays a heavy price for his present policy of repression.
  Every time that Congress says it will not fund this or that our 
troops should be out of the region by this date, we only embolden the 
forces of Milosevic. Our message should be singular in nature, 
committed to restoring peace in the Balkans. This provision establishes 
a fiscally driven date with no consideration of operational or 
diplomatic concerns. It sends a message to Milosevic that he need only 
to hold on for a few more months before funding for U.S. participation 
in the NATO air campaign or a peacekeeping mission is thrown into 
question.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, if this provision remains in the bill, the 
President has promised to veto this bill. This promised veto would come 
because of the negative effect on this provision on our troops, on the 
refugees to whom we have made commitments, and on the alliance which 
has provided security in Europe for fifty years.
  I ask the members of this body to vote--``yes'' on the Skelton 
Amendment, which demonstrates strong support for our national security.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, 
and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The Chair understands that Amendment No. 20 will not be offered.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 21 printed in Part A of 
House Report 106-175.


                 Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Shays

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

       Part A amendment No. 21, offered by Mr. Shays:
       At the end of title XII (page 317, after line 17), add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1206. REDUCTION AND CODIFICATION OF NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF 
                   THE ARMED FORCES AUTHORIZED TO BE ON PERMANENT 
                   DUTY ASHORE IN EUROPEAN MEMBER NATIONS OF NATO.

       (a) In General.--(1) Section 123b of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 
     (c) and (d), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsection (b):
       ``(b) European End-Strength Limitation.--(1) Within the 
     limitation prescribed by subsection (a), the strength level 
     of members of the armed forces assigned to permanent duty 
     ashore in European member nations of the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization may not exceed approximately--
       ``(A) 100,000 at the end of fiscal year 1999;
       ``(B) 85,000 at the end of fiscal year 2000;
       ``(C) 55,000 at the end of fiscal year 2001; and
       ``(D) 25,000 at the end of fiscal year 2002 and each fiscal 
     year thereafter.
       ``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the following members 
     are not counted:
       ``(A) Members assigned to permanent duty ashore in Iceland, 
     Greenland, and the Azores.
       ``(B) Members performing duties in Europe for more than 179 
     days under a military-to-military contact program under 
     section 168 of this title.
       ``(3) In carrying out the reductions required by paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary of Defense may not reduce personnel 
     assigned to the Sixth Fleet.''.'';
       (3) in subsection (c), as redesignated by paragraph (2), by 
     adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Subsection 
     (b) does not apply in the event of declaration of war or an 
     armed attack on any member nation of the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization.''; and
       (4) in subsection (d), as redesignated by paragraph (2), by 
     striking ``The President may waive'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``The President may waive the operation of 
     subsection (a) or (b) if the President declares an emergency. 
     The President shall immediately notify Congress of any such 
     waiver.''.

[[Page H4066]]

       (b) Conforming Repeal.--Section 1002 of the Department of 
     Defense Authorization Act, 1985 (22 U.S.C. 1928 note), is 
     repealed.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, before using my time, I want to just point out there 
are many cosponsors, and I would like to yield half of my time to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) to give out as he chooses.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Condit), the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Upton), and the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers) are also 
cosponsors.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield half of my time to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank) will be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes and will be permitted 
to control that time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, to explain the amendment, first, this is a 
bipartisan amendment that is offered by Members from both the 
Republican and the Democrat side of the aisle and spans the ideological 
spectrum from liberal to moderate to most conservative member. It calls 
for a gradual decrease in the level of permanent stationed troops in 
Europe from 100,000 to 25,000, beginning with a troop reduction of 
15,000 by September 30 next year, and then 30,000 troops the year 
after, September 2001, and 30,000 the year 2002, bringing us to a total 
of 25,000.
  This amendment does not pull the rug out from under the Europeans, it 
does not reduce the overall U.S. troop levels, and it does not affect 
operations such as the operations in Bosnia or Kosovo. It simply says 
that we will have 25,000 troops instead of 100,000 and ask for our 
allies to pay more.
  In the past, we have had burdensharing amendments. And we have had 
burdensharing amendments because the Japanese pay $3.4 billion for the 
40,000 troops that we have in Japan. The Europeans now pay for 100,000, 
less than $70 million, a gigantic difference, and yet those European 
nations are quite wealthy.
  The spending on military is a percent of our budget; we spend 17.4 
percent. The European NATO nations spend 5.6 percent, and it is 
interesting to note that the leaders of the 15 European countries 
decided last Thursday to make the European unit a military power for 
the first time in its 42-year history with command headquarters staff 
and force for its own peacekeeping and peacekeeping missions in future 
crisis like those in Kosovo and Bosnia.
  We are asking the Europeans to step up and pay more and do more, and 
we are asking that we be able to allocate our troops in a more 
efficient way and not spend so much of our money in Europe.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am in no way unsympathetic with its purposes. I 
certainly hope that the opposition I will speak is a bipartisan 
opposition. I certainly do not oppose it, certainly for any partisan 
reasons; I oppose it because I think it is impractical and I think it 
is unnecessary. I think it is counterproductive to our national 
security interests.
  We do not deploy our forces in Europe to defend someone else; we put 
them there because of our national security interest and concerns.

                              {time}  1600

  It is an error to say that we have a permanent force of 100,000 
people there. We have a force that is as large as we choose it to be, 
as small as we choose it to be. We have no treaty obligation that 
commits us to a precise number of 100,000 or any other number. Those 
who are there are there because our military have determined it is in 
our national security interests for them to be there.
  With reference to the cost, I can tell you that with the authorized 
force levels of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and Marines, none of 
them have as much manpower authorized to them as they need to execute 
the missions being assigned to them, so you can bring every one of the 
100,000 home and you will not have reduced the number of people in the 
military by one.
  We are even in the very sad situation where we cannot even maintain 
the presently authorized end strength of the Army, Navy and Air Force 
because of problems in recruiting and in retention.
  We are not going to reduce the cost to the defense budget one iota by 
this amendment. In fact, we will increase it by this amendment because 
you will force us to bring more of the troops home, even though our 
military believes they are better in our national security interests to 
be there than to be back in the Continental United States. At least in 
NATO, the NATO investment security account, we participate in by 
something like 23 percent. The rest of it on these bases in Europe is 
absorbed by the Nato Security Investment Account. We are not paying for 
it at all. If they come back and are garrisoned in the United States 
where the military do not think they serve our national security 
interests as well, we will pay more, not less.
  So I do not understand, other than some sort of symbolism, what it is 
we are supposed to gain by reducing the number of our troops in Europe. 
If you want to argue there is not a fair burdensharing when we have had 
missions and deployments on the Continent of Europe, I am entirely in 
agreement with you. I do not think we should have had nearly the burden 
in Bosnia that we bore. I do not think we should have had the burden in 
Kosovo that we have borne. I think that was unfair and 
disproportionate.
  But this amendment is not about any of that and would have no bearing 
upon any of that. This amendment is simply saying to the United States 
Department of Defense, you are going to have an arbitrary ceiling that 
is set legislatively on how many people you deploy somewhere, 
notwithstanding your views as to what serves the national security 
interests of the United States, and which will have zero implications 
in terms of the defense budget of the United States.
  It is well intended, but ill-conceived. I hope it will be the 
pleasure of the House to defeat it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), a cosponsor of the 
amendment.
  (Mr. Condit asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. In the 
last few years the Europeans have increased their social spending while 
steadily decreasing the defense spending. Why? Because they rely on us 
to pick up their costs and to defend them. Our friends in Europe can 
afford the cost of defending themselves, and I think it is about time 
that they did that.
  This amendment also has been criticized that maybe it will restrict 
our ability to put forces in Europe around the world if we need to in a 
timely fashion. This amendment does not remove our ability to respond 
to a worldwide European crisis. Under the current doctrine, we are able 
to leave the equipment there. As a matter of fact, currently we will 
have, with this amendment passing, we will have the ability to keep the 
equipment, tanks, three brigades' worth of equipment in Europe, which 
will mean that we will have the equipment there, and all we will have 
to do is send the men or the military in a short period of time. This 
amendment does not touch those reserve stocks. We are able to respond 
in just a matter of hours because the equipment will be there. We are 
only removing the personnel.
  So with that, I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment. We 
are having a hard time getting burdensharing passed. This is one way 
for us to do it. This is one way for us to make the point that it is 
time that our European allies and European friends paid their fair 
share. This will force them to do that by paying for their own defense.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I think we 
ought to take a hard look at some very serious issues regarding the

[[Page H4067]]

defense of Europe and this amendment squarely focuses us on that.
  Along with my friends, the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays; the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank; my colleagues from California, 
Mr. Rohrabacher and Mr. Bilbray; the gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. 
Rivers; the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Sanders; the gentleman from 
Florida, Mr. Foley; and the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton; I am 
offering this common sense amendment to gradually reduce our forward 
military presence in Europe. Our goal is to decrease the number of 
troops in Europe from the current level of 100,000 to 25,000 between 
now and 2002.
  It's not a secret that the United States has been the primary 
defender of Europe for the better part of this century. After World War 
2 we adopted the Marshall Plan to help us defend our allies who were 
facing incredible economic times following six long years of war.
  In those days the mission was to defend our European allies from an 
invasion by the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact nations. Mr. Chairman, as 
important as that mission was, it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to 
figure out the Cold War has been over for a decade, yet, here we are 
continuing to subsidize Europe's defense. It just doesn't make sense 
that we should continue to do this.
  I want to stress this amendment will not reduce overall U.S. troop 
levels, nor will it preclude the United States from participating in 
military operations in Europe. However, it finally restores European 
responsibility for defending its own borders. While U.S. subsidies for 
Western Europe's defense made sense during the Cold War, these 
expenditures are no longer necessary.
  Is it any wonder that while Great Britain saw fit to decrease its 
government's defense spending from 24 percent to their GNP in 1951 to 
less than seven percent in 1997, it boosted social spending from 22 
percent to 53 percent during the same time period?
  The answer is a resounding NO. Our wealthy European allies--whose 
GNP-growth has actually outpaced our own economic growth--deliberately 
underfund their defense spending because they fully expect us to bear 
the costs of protecting them when they are fully capable of doing so 
themselves. It's time to let them do so.
  Why is it that we spend $100 billion more than all the other NATO 
nations combined when their GNP and population base is larger than 
ours? It just doesn't pass the common sense test. Not now. Not ever.
  I know there are some who may question whether this leaves us in a 
precarious situation as far as defending Europe is concerned. I want to 
be very clear about this. This amendment doesn't remove our ability to 
respond to world wide or European crises such as the current military 
operations in Yugoslavia. In fact, it enhances our ability by ensuring 
our forces remain mobile and prepared to respond to emergencies around 
the globe.
  This amendment doesn't effect our prepositioned War Reserve Stocks in 
Europe. Currently we have 3 Brigades' worth of equipment--tanks and 
mechanized infantry--assigned to Europe. The methodology of placing 10 
battalions' worth of equipment and material in strategic locations is 
sound. Our amendment doesn't affect these reserves. Those numbers do 
not change under this legislation. The equipment that is currently 
readily available to U.S. forces in the event of war or other emergency 
will continue to be readily available with this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks), in demonstration of the bipartisan support of 
this amendment.
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think this would be a very 
major mistake on the part of our country to reduce by 75 percent our 
force structure in Europe.
  The reason we are in Europe is because it is in our national security 
interests to be in Europe. I believe the force structure we have there 
adds to stability in the area.
  I would like to mention a few reasons why the Department of Defense 
opposes this. The proposed legislation is contrary to current guidance 
articulated in the national security strategy and force level 
recommendations in the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review. The 1997 
National Military Strategy states that current force structure and 
overseas presence posture are the minimum, minimum, force capabilities 
required to execute military responsibilities. Without detailed 
analysis of current and future requirements, it is impossible to 
determine if the existing force structure is adequate to accomplish our 
task. There is also a possibility that such a study may recommend force 
reductions based on changes in priorities and objectives.
  The current U.S. overseas presence posture in Europe serves a number 
of critical concerns. First of all, as I mentioned, is regional 
stability. As evidenced by operations in the Balkans, regional 
stability in Europe is not a given. Eastern Europe in particular may 
see an increase in the number of failed and failing states, rogue 
actors and non-state entities that will threaten European stability as 
a whole.
  U.S. forces serve as both a bulwark to existing security agreements 
and a deterrent to opportunistic aggression in the region. The 
credibility of this deterrent capability must be unquestioned in the 
eyes of those who would threaten our interests in the region: major 
U.S. staging areas, as we have seen in this operation, for EUCOM, 
CENTCOM, PACOM areas of responsibility. The proximity of U.S. forces to 
critical regions outside of Europe improves our capability to respond 
to crisis. The presence of U.S. forces in Europe serves to enhance 
deterrence and provide secure locations from which U.S. forces can 
operate in central Asia, southwest Asia, and south Asia.
  Just for example, I was in England at Fairford to see our B-52 pilots 
and our B-1B pilots and KC-135s operating out of that area. Now, you 
have got to have these four deployed bases and U.S. forces there in 
order to be able to move forces from the United States to a place like 
Fairford and then into the area of responsibility in Yugoslovia. The 
fact that we have these troops forward based, in my mind, is exactly 
the right thing to do, because they can train in the area of 
responsibility and they add stability to the area. So I think this is a 
very drastic amendment and it should be, as it always has been in the 
past, overwhelmingly defeated by this House.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following information paper for the 
Record.

                           Information Paper

       Subject: Amendment Number 16 by Representative Shays 
     mandates a phased reduction of European overseas presence 
     force structure from current levels by 75% at the end of 
     fiscal year 2002.
       DoD Position: Oppose.
       Proposed legislation is contrary to current guidance 
     articulated in the National Security Strategy and force level 
     recommendations in the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review.
       The 1997 National Military Strategy states that current 
     force structure and overseas presence posture are the minimum 
     force capabilities required to execute military 
     responsibilities.
       Without detailed analysis of current and future 
     requirements, it is impossible to determine if the existing 
     force structure is adequate to accomplish our taskings. There 
     is also a possibility that such a study may recommend force 
     reductions based on changes in priorities and objectives.
       Talking Points: The current U.S. overseas presence posture 
     in Europe serves a number of critical concerns:
       Regional stability: As evidenced by operations in the 
     Balkans, regional stability in Europe is not a given. Eastern 
     Europe in particular may see an increase in the number of 
     failed and failing states, rogue actors, and non-state 
     entities that will threaten European stability as a whole. 
     U.S. forces serve as both a bulwark to existing security 
     agreements and a deterrent to opportunistic aggression in the 
     region. The credibility of this deterrent capability must be 
     unquestioned in the eyes of those who would threaten our 
     interests in the region.
       Major U.S. staging area for EUCOM, CENTCOM, and PACOM AORs. 
     The proximity of U.S. forces to critical regions outside of 
     Europe improves our capability to respond to crises. The 
     presence of U.S. forces in Europe serves to enhance 
     deterrence and provides secure locations from which U.S. 
     forces can operate in Central Asia, Southwest Asia, and South 
     Asia.
       NATO Leadership and commitments. The stability of the NATO 
     alliance is a vital U.S. national interest as stated by both 
     the President and Secretary of Defense. The presence of 
     sizable U.S. forces in theater is a visible demonstration of 
     our commitment to NATO. The United States would abrogate its 
     leadership role and significantly reduce its influence on the 
     shape of European security were we to sizably reduce our 
     presence in Europe.
       Partnership for Peace. As with NATO, the U.S. plays a vital 
     leadership role in the Partnership for Peace (PfP). By 
     increasing transparency and mutual understanding among 
     Partners, PfP contributes immeasurably to stability in 
     Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Because U.S. forces based in 
     Europe routinely engage with Partner nations, they constitute 
     the vanguard of a larger effort to build confidence and 
     enhance security among PfP member nations.

[[Page H4068]]

       Reassurance to Europeans in the event of Russian resurgence 
     or instability. The future of Russia is uncertain. Economic 
     and political instability remain a critical concern to 
     European and U.S. security. A significant reduction in U.S. 
     forces in Europe could contribute to further instability on 
     the continent.
       Integrated regional approach (complementing other U.S. 
     elements of power). Military forces help to establish the 
     conditions of peace and security that enable the application 
     of other elements of power. We remain economically and 
     politically committed to Europe. A significant reduction of 
     our overseas presence would diminish our capacity to develop 
     and implement a comprehensive regional approach.
       Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). 
     The presence of U.S. forces overseas as a demonstrable 
     commitment of U.S. resolve and leadership bolsters the 
     effectiveness of international institutions like OSCE.
       Finally, allies in other regions may see a large reduction 
     of forces in Europe as a precursor of a more broad-scale 
     withdrawal and the beginnings of a more neo-isolationist U.S. 
     policy. This would serve to decrease our global influence and 
     may encourage aggression elsewhere.

  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, our colleague from Washington has it 
right, this is a drastic proposal. We have seen some burden-sharing 
amendments here in the past, but this is draconian. I am shocked by it.
  As a matter of fact, I chair the delegation to the NATO Parliamentary 
Assembly, and so I follow NATO issues carefully, as do many of my 
colleagues who are here involved in this debate. I think this proposed 
reduction over 3 fiscal years is simply bad national security policy.
  The U.S., as mentioned, is not in Europe to protect European 
interests, but to defend American national interests. Our borders are 
more secure because we kept the threat far from American shores through 
our worldwide forward-based military presence. The real threat to our 
interests is broad, such as the potential conflict in Korea or 
southwest Asia where U.S. vital interests lie.
  The U.S. recently completed a reduction in Europe of our troops from 
the 320,000 to 100,000 level. I would ask the question, is this really 
sufficient to protect American interests there? It probably is. But if 
you reduce it systematically to 25,000, the practical effect is we 
cannot have even one combat division in Europe under those numbers.
  Our vital security interests in Europe and globally have not been 
delineated since the end of the Cold War, but I think it is incumbent 
on us to understand what our interests are before we begin additionally 
modifying our force posture in Europe or anywhere else.
  Remember the core of U.S. forces in the Gulf War. They were deployed 
from Europe. Many more months and much more capital would have been 
required to deploy to the Gulf without those forward-based forces. 
Today we are using airfields in Turkey for operations in northern Iraq. 
Forward deployment based out of Europe enhances U.S. readiness to 
respond expeditiously, which can increase our potential for success.
  Even making a decision to reduce U.S. forces in Europe at this point, 
I think, would be premature. DOD is in the early stages of its European 
Posture Review. In it, DOD is evaluating options to reduce stress on 
U.S. forces in Europe. The impact of these changes in force numbers, 
types and equipment, I am told is quite seriously being examined. 
Included will be review of U.S. commitments to Kosovo. It is prudent to 
wait for the completion of this study, which will be grounded in 
empirical data and be subject to careful examination. Completion is 
expected in the next several months.
  In addition, over time, the European Union's new ESDI, European 
Security and Defense Initiative, has, I think, great potential to 
contribute meaningfully to Europe's defense and to allied burden-
sharing. But, let us face it, the gap in weapons technology is growing 
between our European and Canadian partners in NATO, rather than 
shrinking. At this point our force commitment is really needed in 
Europe.
  I urge defeat for this amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to just point out 
our amendment contains a conforming repeal of section 1002 of the 
Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1995. There at C(1) it says 
the end strength level of members of the Armed Forces of the United 
States assigned to permanent duty ashore in Europe member nations in 
NATO may not exceed a permanent ceiling of approximately 100,000 in any 
fiscal year. The number exists and we are amending that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment. Simply put, it reduces our troop strength in Europe from 
100,000 to 25,000 over a 3-year period. This makes a lot of sense, does 
it not? The Cold War is over. The threat that we tried to deter for 
such a long time, the Soviet Union, is no longer a threat. It is time 
for us to say to our troops, good job, come on home. It is not time to 
say let us find another way to spend money, let us find another way of 
using these troops.
  That is ridiculous. NATO was meant, and we carried a burden for 4 
decades, it costs us hundreds of billions of dollars, to protect 
Europe. Yes, the argument was correct, we were protecting ourselves, 
because there might have been a Soviet invasion. That has been handled 
now. Now it is time to decrease the number of troops in Europe so that 
we can spend that money elsewhere, whether it is in Social Security or 
Medicare, or whether it is for our readiness and troops someplace else 
in the world, like Asia, where there may be a threat to our national 
security.
  But we do not need to subsidize Europe's defense anymore. In fact, 
this is not subsidizing Europe's defense, we are subsidizing stability. 
Is that not great? If we do not reduce our troops in Europe, if we do 
not reevaluate our position in NATO, there will be many more Balkan 
adventures, whether it is Moldova or elsewhere, draining tens of 
billions of dollars, putting us in jeopardy because we will spend 
ourselves into a position where we are vulnerable to our real enemies 
and we will break our bank. We will just not be able to do it.
  Let us have no apologies. We have no apologies about watching out for 
America's interests, spending money for our defense. But this amendment 
makes it clear that the Cold War is over and it is a waste of our money 
to be defending Europe, spending billions of dollars putting troops in 
Europe to protect their stability. They are richer than we are. Let 
them pick up their own price tag.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding time to me.
  The current situation regarding U.S. troop presence in Europe is very 
strange, because many countries in Europe are now far wealthier than 
the United States and are more than able to defend themselves. They do 
not need us.
  In Europe, because their countries invest in health care, almost all 
Europeans have free or inexpensive health care. Yet in our country, 43 
million Americans lack health care. In Europe, almost all young people 
are able to go to college free or very inexpensively. In our country, 
young people and their families are going deeply into debt.
  It seems to me absolutely appropriate that Europe provide more funds 
for their own defense. If they do that, maybe we can join them and 
provide health care to all of our people, and free and inexpensive 
college education to our young people.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Bateman), a member of our Committee on Armed Services, for 
yielding.
  Though I have the highest respect for the author of this amendment, 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and his underlying 
intentions, I am strongly opposed to this measure. I base my opposition 
on two concerns.

[[Page H4069]]

  First, I believe the notion that we would be reducing the burden of 
our Armed Forces to our taxpayers by agreeing to the amendment is based 
upon a false impression. We have invested significantly over the past 
50 years in our military infrastructure in Europe. It is this 
investment that is now paying dividends which allowed us, such as the 
air strikes in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, to utilize our bases 
in Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom, and in other countries.
  It is also paying off in the NATO mission in Bosnia, where we were 
able to rotate in units from our Armed Forces in Germany and to protect 
them with air power based in Italy at a much lower cost than having 
them flown in from the United States, as we appear to be facing an 
imminent new NATO mission in Kosovo, and we will see our investment 
recouped there as well.
  The reductions in Armed Forces required by this amendment simply mean 
that we will have to forfeit our investment in infrastructure.
  The second basis for my concerns about this amendment arise from the 
implications in the message that sends, particularly to our newest 
allies in Central and Eastern Europe and those in that region that 
aspire to become our allies. We would forfeit our leadership within the 
North Atlantic Council and send a disturbing signal to our allies about 
the nature of our commitment to our common security requirements.
  Since the end of the Cold War, we have already reduced our troop 
levels by over two-thirds, from more than 300,000 to just over 100,000. 
While that sizeable reduction is warranted, the drastic cuts called for 
in this amendment are not.
  I most of all would like to emphasize to my colleagues that our Armed 
Forces are not in Europe because they serve Europe's interest, but 
because they serve our Nation's interest. So I urge my colleagues to 
vote no on this amendment and preserve our Nation's vital role in 
Europe.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia a member of our 
Armed Services Committee, Mr. Bateman, for yielding. Although I have 
the highest respect for the author of this amendment, Mr. Shays, and 
his intentions, I am strongly opposed to this measure.
  I base my opposition on two concerns. First I believe that the notion 
that we would be reducing the burden to our armed services and to our 
taxpayers by agreeing to this amendment is based upon a false 
impression. We have invested significantly over the past fifty years in 
our military infrastructure in Europe.
  It is this investment that is now paying off which allows NATO air 
strikes in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia utilizing our bases in 
Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom and in other countries. It also was 
paying off in the NATO mission in Bosnia where we are able to rotate in 
units from our armed forces in Germany and protect them with air power 
based in Italy at a much lower cost than having to fly them in from the 
United States. As we appear to be facing an imminent new NATO mission 
in Kosovo, we will see our investment recouped there as well.
  We not only face missions in Europe that our forward deployments 
there make easier. We have our on-going effort in the Persian Gulf for 
which we rely on the air base we share with Turkey, and in recent years 
we have been called upon to respond to humanitarian emergencies in 
Africa.
  The reductions in armed forces required by this amendment simply mean 
that we will have to forfeit our investment in infrastructure.
  The second basis for my concerns about this amendment arises from the 
implications of the message it sends, particularly to our newest allies 
in central and eastern Europe and those from that region that aspire to 
become our allies.
  We would forfeit our leadership within the North Atlantic Council, 
and send a disturbing signal to our allies about the nature of our 
commitment of our common security requirements. Since the end of the 
Cold War we have already reduced our troop levels by two-thirds--from 
more than 300,000 to just over 100,000. While this sizeable reduction 
was warranted, the drastic cuts called for in this amendment are not.
  I most of all would like to emphasize to this House that our armed 
forces are not in Europe because they serve Europe's interest, but 
because they serve the United States' interests. I urge my colleagues 
to vote no on this amendment and preserve the U.S. vital role in 
Europe.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia said that he agrees that 
the Europeans are not doing enough on the ground. There is virtual 
unanimous agreement here that it is an inappropriate strain on the 
American taxpayer and the American defense establishment for us to be 
providing the ground troops that will have to be contributed from 
America in Kosovo and Bosnia. We are told time and again we should not 
have to do it, but the Europeans are not capable without us.
  There is only one way we will reach a situation where the Europeans 
are able to provide the ground troops for European activity. That is by 
beginning a 3-year process. This begins a 3-year process of a drawdown 
in American troops. At the end of the first year, we will still have 
85,000 there. Then we will go down to 60,000, then to 25,000.
  The fact is that the remaining lavish welfare program in the world is 
the one by which American taxpayers allow our European allies not to 
bear a fair share of the burden. Members say, oh, we wish the Europeans 
would do it. We can wish and we can wish and we can wish, and it is not 
going to happen. It will happen when we bring down our troops.
  By the way, this amendment leaves the Sixth Fleet in place. We are 
not abandoning Europe. Members say, well, we need the forward bases. 
Are they telling us that if we leave the Sixth Fleet and 25,000 troops, 
our European allies will deny us access to these bases? They will not 
deny us access to these bases, although there have been times in the 
past, particularly when the Middle East was involved, when they have 
restricted our use of those bases.
  We are not talking about shutting down the bases, necessarily, 
although I must say, when it comes to shutting down bases, I do not 
understand why this Congress should always be willing to shut bases in 
America and never shut bases overseas.
  The gentleman says, what about the spending? It is also, by the way, 
one of our major foreign aid programs. I am for more foreign assistance 
to the poor, but substantial foreign assistance in the billions and 
billions of dollars to Europe, to Germany, and Italy, does not make 
sense.
  As to whether or not it saves defense money, we are not here reducing 
overall strength. But if they are not pinned down there, if there is 
more flexibility, and in particular, if this leads the Europeans to 
have the ground troops, then we could at the end of this period perhaps 
reduce our troops.
  Is there a Member of the House who thinks it is legitimate that the 
United States, that has all the burden in South Korea, most of the 
burden in the Middle East, that did most of the air war in Kosovo, that 
we should also have to have thousands of American peacekeeping troops, 
at the cost of billions, in Bosnia and Kosovo?
  If Members vote down this amendment, then please do not, in the 
future, lament the fact that American ground troops were necessary as 
part of the peacekeeping forces in Kosovo and Bosnia, because as long 
as we make the Europeans this gift of welfare, they will never have the 
capacity.
  Let us do a little capacity-building. Let us follow the principles we 
have tried in some parts of welfare reform. Let us tell the Europeans 
that within 3 years, they are going to be on their own and we will stop 
enabling them not to do their own job.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from San 
Diego, California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I 
would like to echo, for once I would like to echo the position of my 
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank): Let us not be 
enablers. We are enabling Europe not to bear their fair share of the 
responsibility of defending their neighborhood.
  The United States has restructured our presence all over the world, 
but explain to the people of America, where we are going have 100,000 
troops in Europe to defend Europe, but we are now not going to have any 
troops in the Panama Canal Zone; that the Western Hemisphere is somehow 
not quite as important as Europe.
  We have gone through changes. I will remind my colleagues, we have 
gotten out of the Philippines, we have pulled out of places all over 
the world where

[[Page H4070]]

we have found now we need to restructure.
  We went into Europe with NATO with a plan of defending Europe and to 
keep NATO from being overrun within a week. I ask my colleagues, who is 
planning to overrun Europe within a week? Who can constitute the threat 
to justify the American presence? In fact, it is not there.
  The most important issue is this: We continue to subsidize the 
European community at the price of American taxpayers. We not only have 
a right, we have a responsibility to expect our allies to tow their 
fair share. Being an ally does not mean how many troops we put on their 
soil. Australia is a major ally of this country. There are 300 U.S. 
troops in Australia. Does that make them less of an ally than Europe? 
Let us use that as an example: Fair share. Help Europe do the right 
thing and defend themselves on their soil, and use us as an aid, but 
not a crutch.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Sisisky).
  (Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very popular issue. We have had this issue 
before, of course, in the name of burdensharing. But I want to remind 
my colleagues, this is not a goal, this is the real thing. In 
burdensharing we had a goal.
  I listed a number of points here that hopefully will convince most of 
the people that this is a bad deal.
  Number one, the force level we have now is a minimum requirement, 
according to the current national security strategy, which is the QDR.
  Number two, the Secretary of Defense right now is conducting a 
European posture review to re-evaluate force requirements in Europe.
  Number three, the presence of U.S. forces helps Europe to preserve 
regional stability and recover from instability.
  Number four, there is no substitute for being there. Europe is a 
major staging area for surrounding regions.
  Number five, the presence of sizeable U.S. forces in theater is a 
visible demonstration of our commitment to NATO.
  Number six, U.S. forces in Europe play a vital role in rebuilding 
Eastern Europe through a partnership for peace.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say this, the troops that we have in Europe 
are there for our convenience, not the Europeans' convenience, with 
stability and other things, and the ability to go from Europe to 
anyplace, along with families who travel with our troops. I would 
remind this body that we reduced from about 350,000 troops in 5 years 
to 100,000, and we should never forget that.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask this body, please vote no on this 
amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our 
time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding, and I 
want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), for their 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I took this well back in 1991 on this very bill and I 
offered an amendment, and did not tell anybody I was going to do it, 
did not tell our leadership, I did not tell anybody on this side of the 
aisle. I certainly did not tell the Japanese government.
  I offered an amendment on burdensharing. We had 50,000 troops 
stationed in Japan at that time. We were paying 75 percent of the cost 
for those troops to be there, defending basically Japanese interests, 
and our interests as well, but the Japanese interests, in addition to 
that. That seemed to me to be an unfair ratio.
  I offered an amendment to change that ratio or to bring American 
troops home. Within 3 months, and by the way, that passed on the floor 
350 to 50, something like that, it passed in the Senate and the 
President signed it into law. Three months later, Secretary Baker 
signed an agreement with the Japanese to pick up 50 percent of the 
cost. Now we are moving closer to the 75-25 reversal in sharing of 
those costs of American troops in Japan.
  We need to do the same thing in Europe. This amendment will help us 
get there. This amendment will help our European allies continue to 
meet their responsibilities within Europe. They have begun to, after a 
shaky start in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in a very positive way throughout 
this process that we have just gone through with NATO in the Balkans, 
in Kosovo, in Southeastern Europe. They need to pick up the financial 
burden, as well.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to continue where the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior) ended and to say that what he did and because of 
what the Members did supporting him, we now get $3.6 billion in cash 
from the Japanese. When we started these burdensharing amendments a few 
years ago, the Europeans were paying $300 million for over 100,000 
troops.

                              {time}  1630

  Now, they dropped down to $200 million, and now the latest number is 
$66 million. They are getting the message from us. We are fools. Yes, 
we are fools. They are just going to keep asking us to pay more.
  I am sure our troops in Europe are there for our convenience and 
because we want them there, but they are there because the law says 
that we have to be up to 100,000. We want to move it to up to 25,000 
over 3 years.
  We want the European nations, which are as wealthy as we are, to 
defend themselves. We do not need 100,000 troops to defend from a 
Soviet attack. It is just not there. This has to someday be added, and 
the sooner we do it, the better.
  Our military is not as strong as it should be because we are 
oversubscribed in weapons systems. Our military is not as strong as it 
should be because our allies are not paying their fair share. Our 
military is not as strong as it should be because we have too many 
bases at home and abroad. We had better cut them in order to survive as 
the nation of power.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues that there is a world of 
difference between not exceeding which is a floor, not a ceiling. I 
would further remind my colleagues that everything they have heard on 
behalf of this bill or this amendment is really not going to accomplish 
anything that was said on its behalf.
  It is certainly not going to achieve flexibility for deployment of 
our forces. It is inflexible when my colleagues say we cannot put 
people there that our military says they want there for our national 
security purposes. My colleagues are not accomplishing anything. My 
colleagues are not adding one troop to any European subcountry's army. 
My colleagues are only detracting from the flexibility of our own 
government to defend its interests.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Shays-Frank amendment which would reduce 
American troops in Europe from 100,000 to 25,000. If American troops 
were deployed in Europe only for the purpose of defending Europe, I 
might support the amendment. However, the fact is that an overseas 
presence in Europe is in the interest of the United States because it 
is an essential element for our engagement in the world. Despite the 
fact that it entails costs, it carries risks. There is no alternative 
but to have continued American engagement in the world.
  We have a responsibility to use our unchallenged position of global 
leadership in a fashion that will make the universeal hope for peace, 
prosperity and freedom the norm of international behavior.
  Engagement is essential to our military security. Military engagement 
abroad is essential to build and enforce a more peaceful, cooperative 
world in which human rights, fair trade practices, and other interests 
and values can flourish.
  Effective international engagement requires an active and extensive 
military involvement abroad, especially in Europe. A military presence 
in Europe

[[Page H4071]]

 serves us in many ways. It contributes to regional stability. U.S. 
forces serve both as a bulwark to existing security agreements and, in 
turn, to aggression in the region.
  It enhances our ability to respond to crises around the globe. It is 
a visible demonstration of our committment to NATO and alliance that 
has maintained the peace and stability for Europe for 50 years. I might 
mention, Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to be present when the three new 
nations joined NATO just a number of weeks ago in Independence, 
Missouri.
  Mr. Chairman, the U.S. policy of engagement has been a success 
largely due to the performance of our military. Although the struggle 
for international peace may never be concluded, we must continue to 
make this effort. It is an effort we cannot make without a well-
equipped, highly trained, and ready military force. Deployment in 
Europe is essential to our readiness and to our ability to meet and 
deter other threats.
  We should reject, Mr. Chairman, this amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member 
for yielding to me, and I thank him for the great courtesy that he has 
shown in this debate.
  I would just point out the amendment that we have offered hardly 
disengages from Europe. Our amendment would leave in Europe, untouched, 
the Sixth Fleet, one of the great fighting forces in the history of the 
world. It would also leave 25,000 troops and a cooperative effort on 
the bases.
  The question we have to face is this is, there is virtual unanimity 
in this Chamber lamenting the need for American ground troops to be 
part of the ongoing peacekeeping force in Bosnia and Kosovo.
  By the way, this amendment leaves in place language that allows the 
President at any time to dispatch troops in an emergency and to waive 
the restriction.
  The point we have is this: We believe there ought to be a European 
capacity not to duplicate the Sixth Fleet, which will be there, not to 
duplicate our air power, but to provide peacekeeping ground forces. We 
are convinced that as long as America has 100,000 troops there year in, 
year out, no matter what, there will never be the capacity in Europe to 
do it.
  One of the opponents of our amendment said, well, the Europeans are 
fully behind us in capacity, do not allow them to fall further behind. 
Give them a 3-year notice. Three years from now this wealthy 
concentration of sophisticated industrial nations will be responsible 
for the ground forces on their own in all but emergency circumstances.
  We believe in the Sixth Fleet. They will be there if we need them. 
Otherwise, be prepared to continue American ground forces as part of 
peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and Bosnia ad infinitum.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, despite the eloquence of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), I feel compelled to say that I still 
remain opposed to his amendment. I will vote against the amendment. It 
is essential that America remain engaged in Europe.
  We have cut back our troop strengths so very, very much. One hundred 
thousand, quite honestly, in my opinion, is the minimum amount that we 
should have.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut will be 
postponed.


                Amendments En Bloc Offered By Mr. Spence

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
200, I offer amendments en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  The text of the amendments en bloc is as follows:

       Amendments en bloc to H.R. 1401 as reported offered by Mr. 
     Spence, amendments in Part B of House Report 106-175: 
     Amendment No. 22, amendment No. 23, amendment No. 24, 
     amendment No. 25, amendment No. 26, amendment No. 27, 
     amendment No. 28, amendment No. 29, amendment No. 30, 
     amendment No. 31, amendment No. 32, amendment No. 33, 
     amendment No. 34, amendment No. 35, amendment No. 36, 
     amendment No. 37, amendment No. 38, as modified, amendment 
     No. 39, amendment No. 40, amendment No. 41, amendment No. 42, 
     as modified, amendment No. 43, amendment No. 44, amendment 
     No. 45, as modified, amendment No. 46.

    Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Gallegly of 
                               California

                  (Amdt B-22 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title I (page 32, before line 15), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 152. PROCUREMENT OF FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT FOR THE AIR 
                   NATIONAL GUARD AND THE AIR FORCE RESERVE.

       The Secretary of the Air Force may carry out a procurement 
     program, in a total amount not to exceed $16,000,000, to 
     modernize the airborne firefighting capability of the Air 
     National Guard and Air Force Reserve by procurement of 
     equipment for the modular airborne firefighting system. 
     Amounts may be obligated for the program from funds 
     appropriated for that purpose for fiscal year 1999 and 
     subsequent fiscal years.
                                  ____


  Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Spence of South 
                                Carolina

                  (Amdt B-23 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title I (page 32, before line 15), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 152. COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY PROGRAM.

       (a) Authority To Proceed.--Cooperative engagement equipment 
     procured under the Cooperative Engagement Capability program 
     of the Navy shall be procured and installed into commissioned 
     vessels, shore facilities, and aircraft of the Navy before 
     completion of the operational test and evaluation of 
     shipboard cooperative engagement capability in order to 
     ensure fielding of a battle group with fully functional 
     cooperative engagement capability by fiscal year 2003.
       (b) Funding.--The amount authorized to be appropriated in 
     section 102(a)(1) for E-2C aircraft modification is hereby 
     increased by $22,000,000 to provide for the acquisition of 
     additional cooperative engagement capability equipment. The 
     amount authorized to be appropriated in section 102(a)(4) for 
     Shipboard Information Warfare Exploit Systems is hereby 
     reduced by $22,000,000.
                                  ____


    Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Hall of Ohio

                  (Amdt B-24 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of subtitle B of title II (page 37, after line 
     13), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 213. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING DEFENSE SCIENCE AND 
                   TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.

       (a) Failure To Comply With Funding Requirements.--It is the 
     sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense has failed to 
     comply with the funding objective for the Defense Science and 
     Technology Program, especially the Air Force Science and 
     Technology Program, as required by section 214(a) of the 
     Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261; 112 Stat. 1948), thus 
     jeopardizing the stability of the defense technology base and 
     increasing the risk of failure to maintain technological 
     superiority in future weapons systems.
       (b) Funding Requirements.--It is further the sense of 
     Congress that, for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 
     2009, it should be an objective of the Secretary of Defense 
     to increase the budget for the Defense Science and Technology 
     Program, including the science and technology program within 
     each military department, for the fiscal year over the budget 
     for that program for the preceding fiscal year by a percent 
     that is at least two percent above the rate of inflation as 
     determined by the Office of Management and Budget.
       (c) Certification.--If a proposed budget fails to comply 
     with the objective set forth in subsection (b), the President 
     shall certify to Congress that the budget does not jeopardize 
     the stability of the defense technology base or increase the 
     risk of failure to maintain technological superiority in 
     future weapons systems.
                                  ____


Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Reynolds of New York

                  (Amdt B-25 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of subtitle B of title III (page 45, after line 
     13), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 312. REPLACEMENT OF NONSECURE TACTICAL RADIOS OF THE 
                   82ND AIRBORNE DIVISION.

       Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
     301(1) for operation and maintenance for the Army, $5,500,000 
     shall be available to the Secretary of the Army for the 
     purpose of replacing nonsecure tactical radios used by the 
     82nd Airborne Division with radios, such as models AN/PRC-138 
     and AN/PRC-148, identified as being capable of fulfilling 
     mission requirements.
                                  ____


  Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Evans of Illinois

                  (Amdt B-26 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of subtitle F of title V (page 138, after line 
     13), insert the following new section:

[[Page H4072]]

     SEC. 553. AUTHORITY FOR AWARD OF MEDAL OF HONOR TO ALFRED 
                   RASCON FOR VALOR DURING THE VIETNAM CONFLICT.

       (a) Waiver of Time Limitations.--Notwithstanding the time 
     limitations specified in section 3744 of title 10, United 
     States Code, or any other time limitation with respect to the 
     awarding of certain medals to persons who served in the Army, 
     the President may award the Medal of Honor under section 3741 
     of that title to Alfred Rascon, of Laurel, Maryland, for the 
     acts of valor described in subsection (b).
       (b) Action Described.--The acts of valor referred to in 
     subsection (a) are the actions of Alfred Rascon on March 16, 
     1966, as an Army medic, serving in the grade of Specialist 
     Four in the Republic of Vietnam with the Reconnaissance 
     Platoon, Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 503rd Infantry, 
     173rd Airborne Brigade (Separate), during a combat operation 
     known as Silver City.
                                  ____


 Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Sweeney of New York

                  (Amdt B-27 in House Report 106-175)

       Page 142, line 12, strike ``may'' and insert ``shall''.
       Page 142, line 13, insert ``qualified'' after ``to 
     support''.
       Page 142, line 15, before the closing quotation marks 
     insert the following:

     The Secretary shall prescribe by regulation standards for 
     determining what nongovernmental organizations are qualified 
     for purposes of this subsection, the type of support that may 
     be provided under this subsection, and the manner in which 
     such support is provided.
                                  ____


  Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Buyer of Indiana

                      or Mr. Abercrombie of Hawaii

                  (Amdt B-28 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of subtitle E of title VI (page 207, after line 
     5), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 655. DISABILITY RETIREMENT OR SEPARATION FOR CERTAIN 
                   MEMBERS WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS.

       (a) Disability Retirement.--(1) Chapter 61 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 
     1207 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 1207a. Members with over eight years of active 
       service: eligibility for disability retirement for pre-
       existing conditions

       ``(a) In the case of a member described in subsection (b) 
     who would be covered by section 1201, 1202, or 1203 of this 
     title but for the fact that the member's disability is 
     determined to have been incurred before the member becoming 
     entitled to basic pay in the member's current period of 
     active duty, the disability shall be deemed to have been 
     incurred while the member was entitled to basic pay and shall 
     be so considered for purposes of determining whether it was 
     incurred in the line of duty.
       ``(b) A member described in subsection (a) is a member with 
     at least eight years of active service.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     1207 the following new item:
``1207a. Members with over eight years of active service: eligibility 
              for disability retirement for pre-existing conditions.''.

       (b) Nonregular Service Retirement.--(1) Chapter 1223 of 
     such title is amended by inserting after section 12731a the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 12731b. Special rule for members with physical 
       disabilities not incurred in line of duty

       ``In the case of a member of the Selected Reserve of a 
     reserve component who no longer meets the qualifications for 
     membership in the Selected Reserve solely because the member 
     is unfit because of physical disability, the Secretary 
     concerned may, for purposes of section 12731 of this title, 
     determine to treat the member as having met the service 
     requirements of subsection (a)(2) of that section and provide 
     the member with the notification required by subsection (d) 
     of that section if the member has completed at least 15, and 
     less than 20, years of service computed under section 12732 
     of this title.
       ``(b) Notification under subsection (a) may not be made 
     if--
       ``(1) the disability was the result of the member's 
     intentional misconduct, willful neglect, or willful failure 
     to comply with standards and qualifications for retention 
     established by the Secretary concerned; or
       ``(2) the disability was incurred during a period of 
     unauthorized absence.''
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     12731a the following new item:

``12731b. Special rule for members with physical disabilities not 
              incurred in line of duty.''.

       (c) Separation.--Section 1206(5) of such title is amended 
     by inserting ``, in the case of a disability incurred before 
     the date of the enactment of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000,'' after 
     ``determination, and''.
                                  ____


 Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Gilman of New York

                  (Amdt B-29 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title XII (page 317, after line 17), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 1206. REPORT ON THE SECURITY SITUATION ON THE KOREAN 
                   PENINSULA.

       (a) Report.--Not later than February 1, 2000, the Secretary 
     of Defense shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report on the security situation on the Korean 
     peninsula. The report shall be submitted in both classified 
     and unclassified form.
       (b) Matters To Be Included.--The Secretary shall include in 
     the report under subsection (a) the following:
       (1) A net assessment analysis of the warfighting 
     capabilities of the Combined Forces Command (CFC) of the 
     United States and the Republic of Korea compared with the 
     armed forces of North Korea.
       (2) An assessment of challenges posed by the armed forces 
     of North Korea to the defense of the Republic of Korea and to 
     United States forces deployed to the region.
       (3) An assessment of the current status and the future 
     direction of weapons of mass destruction programs and 
     ballistic missile programs of North Korea, including a 
     determination as to whether or not North Korea--
       (A) is continuing to pursue a nuclear weapons program;
       (B) is seeking equipment and technology with which to 
     enrich uranium; and
       (C) is pursuing an offensive biological weapons program.
       (c) Appropriate Congressional Committees.--In this section, 
     the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
       (1) the Committee on International Relations and the 
     Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; 
     and
       (2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on 
     Armed Services of the Senate.

     
                                  ____
   Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Thune of South 
                    Dakota or Mr. Stenholm of Texas

                  (Amdt B-30 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of subtitle B of title VII (page 224, after line 
     24), insert the following new sections:

     SEC. 713. ELECTRONIC PROCESSING OF CLAIMS UNDER THE TRICARE 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 1095c of title 10, United States Code, as added by 
     section 711, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(c) Incentives for Electronic Processing.--The Secretary 
     of Defense shall require that new contracts for managed care 
     support under the TRICARE program provide that the contractor 
     be permitted to provide financial incentives to health care 
     providers who file claims for payment electronically.''.

     SEC. 714. STUDY OF RATES FOR PROVISION OF MEDICAL SERVICES; 
                   PROPOSAL FOR CERTAIN RATE INCREASES.

       Not later than February 1, 2000, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit to Congress--
       (1) a study on how the maximum allowable rates charged for 
     the 100 most commonly performed medical procedures under the 
     Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services 
     and Medicare compare with usual and customary commercial 
     insurance rates for such procedures in each TRICARE Prime 
     catchment area; and
       (2) a proposal for increases of maximum allowable rates 
     charged for medical procedures under the Civilian Health and 
     Medical Program of the Uniformed Services should the study 
     conducted under paragraph (1) find 20 or more rates which are 
     less than or equal to the 50th percentile of the usual and 
     customary commercial insurance rates charged for such 
     procedures.

     SEC. 715. REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVISION OF CARE IN 
                   GEOGRAPHICALLY SEPARATED UNITS.

       (a) Contractual Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall require that all new contracts for the provision of 
     health care under TRICARE Prime include a requirement that 
     the TRICARE Prime Remote network, to the maximum extent 
     possible, provide health care concurrently to members of the 
     Armed Forces in geographically separated units and their 
     dependents in areas outside the catchment area of a military 
     medical treatment facility.
       (b) Report on Implementation.--Not later than May 1, 2000, 
     the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the extent 
     and success of implementation of the requirement under 
     subsection (a), and where concurrent implementation has not 
     been achieved, the reasons and circumstances that prohibited 
     implementation and a plan to provide TRICARE Prime benefits 
     to those otherwise eligible covered beneficiaries for whom 
     enrollment in a TRICARE Prime network is not feasible.

     SEC. 716. IMPROVEMENT OF ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE UNDER THE 
                   TRICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) Waiver of Nonavailability Statement or 
     Preauthorization.--In the case of a covered beneficiary under 
     chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, who is a TRICARE 
     eligible beneficiary not enrolled in TRICARE Prime, the 
     Secretary of Defense may not require with regard to 
     authorized health care services (other than mental health 
     services) under any new contract for the provision of health 
     care services under such chapter that the beneficiary--
       (1) obtain a nonavailability statement or preauthorization 
     from a military medical treatment facility in order to 
     receive the services from a civilian provider; or

[[Page H4073]]

       (2) obtain a nonavailability statement for care in 
     specialized treatment facilities outside the 200-mile radius 
     of a military medical treatment facility.
       (b) Notice.--The Secretary may require that the covered 
     beneficiary provide appropriate notice to the primary care 
     manager of the beneficiary.
       (c) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if--
       (1) the Secretary can demonstrate significant cost 
     avoidance for specific procedures at the affected military 
     treatment facilities;
       (2) the Secretary determines that a specific procedure must 
     be maintained at the affected military treatment facility to 
     ensure the proficiency levels of the practitioners at the 
     facility; or
       (3) the lack of nonavailability statement data would 
     significantly interfere with TRICARE contract administration.

     SEC. 717. REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN COSTS INCURRED BY COVERED 
                   BENEFICIARIES WHEN REFERRED FOR CARE OUTSIDE 
                   LOCAL CATCHMENT AREA.

       The Secretary of Defense shall require that any new 
     contract for the provision of health care services under 
     chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, shall require 
     that in any case in which a covered beneficiary under such 
     chapter who is enrolled in TRICARE Prime is referred by a 
     network provider or military treatment facility to a provider 
     or military treatment facility more than 100 miles outside 
     the catchment area of a military treatment facility because a 
     local provider is not available, or in any other respect not 
     within the terms of a new managed care support contract, the 
     beneficiary shall be reimbursed by the network provider or 
     military treatment facility making the referral for the cost 
     of personal automobile mileage, to be paid under standard 
     reimbursement rates for Federal employees, or for the cost of 
     air travel in amounts not to exceed standard contract fares 
     for Federal employees.

     SEC. 718. IMPROVEMENT OF REFERRAL PROCESS UNDER TRICARE.

       (a) Elimination of Preauthorization Requirements for 
     Certain Care.--Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary 
     of Defense, and in all new managed care support contracts the 
     Secretary shall eliminate requirements in certain cases under 
     TRICARE Prime that network primary care managers preauthorize 
     covered beneficiaries under chapter 55 of title 10, United 
     States Code, to receive preventative health care services 
     within the managed care support contract network without 
     preauthorization from a primary care manager.
       (b) Covered Services.--Should such a covered beneficiary 
     choose to receive care from a provider in the network, the 
     covered beneficiary shall not be required to have a referral 
     from a primary care manager--
       (1) for receipt of preventative obstetric or gynecological 
     services by a network obstetrician or gynecologist;
       (2) for mammograms performed by a network provider if the 
     beneficiary is a female over the age of 35; or
       (3) for provision of preventative specialty urology care 
     from a network urologist if the beneficiary is a male over 
     the age of 60.
       (c) Notice.--The Secretary may require that the covered 
     beneficiary provide appropriate notice to the primary care 
     manager of the beneficiary.
       (d) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe the 
     regulations required by subsection (a) not later than May 1, 
     2000 and implement the regulations not later than October 1, 
     2000.
                                  ____


  Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Traficant of Ohio

                  (Amdt B-31 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title VIII (page 246, after line 18), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 809. COMPLIANCE WITH BUY AMERICAN ACT.

       (a) Compliance with Buy American Act.--No funds authorized 
     by this Act may be expended by an entity of the Department of 
     Defense unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds 
     the entity will comply with the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 
     10a et seq.).
       (b) Sense of Congress Regarding Purchase of American-Made 
     Equipment and Products.--It is the sense of Congress that any 
     entity of the Department of Defense, in expending funds 
     authorized by this Act for the purchase of equipment or 
     products, should purchase only American-made equipment and 
     products.
       (c) Debarment of Persons Convicted of Fraudulent Use of 
     ``Made in America'' Labels.--If the Secretary of Defense 
     determines that a person has been convicted of intentionally 
     affixing a label bearing a ``Made in America'' inscription, 
     or another inscription with the same meaning, to any product 
     sold in or shipped to the United States that is not made in 
     the United States, the Secretary shall determine, in 
     accordance with section 2410f of title 10, United States 
     Code, whether the person should be debarred from contracting 
     with the Department of Defense.
                                  ____


Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Bereuter of Nebraska

                  (Amdt B-32 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title X (page 305, after line 5), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1040. ASIA-PACIFIC CENTER FOR SECURITY STUDIES.

       (a) Waiver of Charges.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may 
     waive reimbursement of the costs of conferences, seminars, 
     courses of instruction, or similar educational activities of 
     the Asia-Pacific Center for military officers and civilian 
     officials of foreign nations of the Asia-Pacific region if 
     the Secretary determines that attendance by such persons 
     without reimbursement is in the national security interest of 
     the United States.
       (2) In this section, the term ``Asia-Pacific Center'' means 
     the Department of Defense organization within the United 
     States Pacific Command known as the Asia-Pacific Center for 
     Security Studies.
       (b) Authority To Accept Foreign Gifts and Donations.--(1) 
     Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of Defense may 
     accept, on behalf of the Asia-Pacific Center, foreign gifts 
     or donations in order to defray the costs of, or enhance the 
     operation of, the Asia-Pacific Center.
       (2) The Secretary may not accept a gift or donation under 
     paragraph (1) if the acceptance of the gift or donation would 
     compromise or appear to compromise--
       (A) the ability of the Department of Defense, any employee 
     of the Department, or members of the Armed Forces to carry 
     out any responsibility or duty of the Department in a fair 
     and objective manner; or
       (B) the integrity of any program of the Department of 
     Defense or of any person involved in such a program.
       (3) The Secretary shall prescribe written guidance setting 
     forth the criteria to be used in determining whether the 
     acceptance of a foreign gift or donation would have a result 
     described in paragraph (2).
       (4) Funds accepted by the Secretary under paragraph (1) 
     shall be credited to appropriations available to the 
     Department of Defense for the Asia-Pacific Center. Funds so 
     credited shall be merged with the appropriations to which 
     credited and shall be available to the Asia-Pacific Center 
     for the same purposes and same period as the appropriations 
     with which merged.
       (5) If the total amount of funds accepted under paragraph 
     (1) in any fiscal year exceeds $2,000,000, the Secretary 
     shall notify Congress of the amount of those donations for 
     that fiscal year. Any such notice shall list each of the 
     contributors of such amounts and the amount of each 
     contribution in that fiscal year.
       (6) For purposes of this subsection, a foreign gift or 
     donation is a gift or donation of funds, materials (including 
     research materials), property, or services (including lecture 
     services and faculty services) from a foreign government, a 
     foundation or other charitable organization in a foreign 
     country, or an individual in a foreign country.
                                  ____


Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Bereuter of Nebraska

                  (Amdt B-33 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title X (page 305, after line 5), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1040. REPORT ON EFFECT OF CONTINUED BALKAN OPERATIONS ON 
                   ABILITY OF UNITED STATES TO SUCCESSFULLY MEET 
                   OTHER REGIONAL CONTINGENCIES.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to Congress a report describing the effect of continued 
     operations by the Armed Forces in the Balkans region on the 
     ability of the United States, through the period covered by 
     the current Future-Years Defense Plan of the Department of 
     Defense, to prosecute to a successful conclusion a major 
     contingency in the Asia-Pacific region or to prosecute to a 
     successful conclusion two nearly simultaneous major theater 
     wars, in accordance with the most recent Quadrennial Defense 
     Review.
       (b) Matters To Be Included.--The report under subsection 
     (a) shall set forth the following:
       (1) In light of continued Balkan operations, the 
     capabilities and limitations of United States combat, combat 
     support, and combat service support forces (at national, 
     operational, and tactical levels and operating in a joint and 
     coalition environment) to expeditiously respond to, 
     prosecute, and achieve United States strategic objectives in 
     the event of--
       (A) a contingency on the Korean peninsula; or
       (B) two nearly simultaneous major theater wars.
       (2) The confidence level of the Secretary of Defense in 
     United States military capabilities to successfully prosecute 
     a Pacific contingency, and to successfully prosecute two 
     nearly simultaneous major theater wars, while remaining 
     engaged at current or greater force levels in the Balkans, 
     together with the rationale and justification for each such 
     confidence level.
       (3) Identification of high-value platforms, systems, 
     capabilities, and skills that--
       (A) during a Pacific contingency, would be stressed or 
     broken and at what point such stressing or breaking would 
     occur; and
       (B) during two nearly simultaneous major theater wars, 
     would be stressed or broken and at what point such stressing 
     or breaking would occur.
       (4) During continued military operations in the Balkans, 
     the effect on the ``operations tempo'', and on the 
     ``personnel tempo'', of the Armed Forces--
       (A) of a Pacific contingency; and
       (B) of two nearly simultaneous major theater wars.

[[Page H4074]]

       (5) During continued military operations in the Balkans, 
     the required type and quantity of high-value platforms, 
     systems, capabilities, and skills to prosecute successfully--
       (A) a Pacific contingency; and
       (B) two nearly simultaneous major theater wars.
       (c) Consultation.--In preparing the report under this 
     section, the Secretary of Defense shall use the resources and 
     expertise of the unified commands, the military departments, 
     the combat support agencies, and the defense components of 
     the intelligence community and shall consult with non-
     Department elements of the intelligence community, as 
     required, and other such entities within the Department of 
     Defense as the Secretary considers necessary.
                                  ____


Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Castle of Delaware, 
            Mr. Bishop of Georgia, or Mr. Roemer of Indiana

                  (Amdt B-34 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title X (page 305, after line 5), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1040. REPORT ON SPACE LAUNCH FAILURES.

       (a) Report Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to the President and the specified congressional committees a 
     report on the factors involved in the three recent failures 
     of the Titan IV space launch vehicle and the systemic and 
     management reforms that the Secretary is implementing to 
     minimize future failures of that vehicle and future launch 
     systems. The report shall be submitted not later than 
     February 15, 2000. The Secretary shall include in the report 
     all information from the reviews of those failures conducted 
     by the Secretary of the Air Force and launch contractors.
       (b) Matters To Be Included.--The report shall include the 
     following information:
       (1) An explanation for the failure of a Titan IVA launch 
     vehicle on August 12, 1998, the failure of a Titan IVB launch 
     vehicle on April 9, 1999, and the failure of a Titan IVB 
     launch vehicle on April 30, 1999, as well as any information 
     from civilian launches which may provide information on 
     systemic problems in current Department of Defense launch 
     systems, including, in addition to a detailed technical 
     explanation and summary of financial costs for each such 
     failure, a one-page summary for each such failure indicating 
     any commonality between that failure and other military or 
     civilian launch failures.
       (2) A review of management and engineering responsibility 
     for the Titan, Inertial Upper Stage, and Centaur systems, 
     with an explanation of the respective roles of the Government 
     and the private sector in ensuring mission success and 
     identification of the responsible party (Government or 
     private sector) for each major stage in production and launch 
     of the vehicles.
       (3) A list of all contractors and subcontractors for each 
     of the Titan, Inertial Upper Stage, and Centaur systems and 
     their responsibilities and five-year records for meeting 
     program requirements.
       (4) A comparison of the practices of the Department of 
     Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
     and the commercial launch industry regarding the management 
     and oversight of the procurement and launch of expendable 
     launch vehicles.
       (5) An assessment of whether consolidation in the aerospace 
     industry has affected mission success, including whether 
     cost-saving efforts are having an effect on quality and 
     whether experienced workers are being replaced by less 
     experienced workers for cost-saving purposes.
       (6) Recommendations on how Government contracts with launch 
     service companies could be improved to protect the taxpayer, 
     together with the Secretary's assessment of whether the 
     withholding of award and incentive fees is a sufficient 
     incentive to hold contractors to the highest possible quality 
     standards and the Secretary's overall evaluation of the award 
     fee system.
       (7) A short summary of what went wrong technically and 
     managerially in each launch failure and what specific steps 
     are being taken by the Department of Defense and space launch 
     contractors to ensure that those errors do not reoccur.
       (8) An assessment of the role of the Department of Defense 
     in the management and technical oversight of the launches 
     that failed and whether the Department of Defense, in that 
     role, contributed to the failures.
       (9) An assessment of the effect of the launch failures on 
     the schedule for Titan launches, on the schedule for 
     development and first launch of the Evolved Expendable Launch 
     Vehicle, and on the ability of industry to meet Department of 
     Defense requirements.
       (10) An assessment of the impact of the launch failures on 
     assured access to space by the United States, and a 
     consideration of means by which access to space by the United 
     States can be better assured.
       (11) An assessment of any systemic problems that may exist 
     at the eastern launch range, whether these problems 
     contributed to the launch failures, and what means would be 
     most effective in addressing these problems.
       (12) An assessment of the potential benefits and detriments 
     of launch insurance and the impact of such insurance on the 
     estimated net cost of space launches.
       (13) A review of the responsibilities of the Department of 
     Defense and industry representatives in the launch process, 
     an examination of the incentives of the Department and 
     industry representatives throughout the launch process, and 
     an assessment of whether the incentives are appropriate to 
     maximize the probability that launches will be timely and 
     successful.
       (14) Any other observations and recommendations that the 
     Secretary considers relevant.
       (c) Interim Report.--Not later than December 15, 1999, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the specified congressional 
     committees an interim report on the progress in the 
     preparation of the report required by this section, including 
     progress with respect to each of the matters required to be 
     included in the report under subsection (b).
       (d) Specified Congressional Committees.--For purposes of 
     this section, the term ``specified congressional committees'' 
     means the following:
       (1) The Committee on Armed Services, the Select Committee 
     on Intelligence, and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate.
       (2) The Committee on Armed Services, the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
                                  ____


 Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mrs. Fowler of Florida

                  (Amdt B-35 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title X (page 305, after line 5), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1040. REPORT ON AIRLIFT REQUIREMENTS TO SUPPORT NATIONAL 
                   MILITARY STRATEGY.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than June 1, 2000, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report, in 
     both classified and unclassified form, describing the airlift 
     requirements necessary to execute the full range of missions 
     called for under the National Military Strategy prescribed by 
     the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under the postures 
     of force engagement anticipated through 2015.
       (b) Content of Report.--The report shall address the 
     following:
       (1) The identity, size, structure, and capabilities of the 
     airlift requirements necessary for the full range of shaping, 
     preparing, and responding missions demanded under the 
     National Military Strategy.
       (2) The required support and infrastructure required to 
     successfully execute the full range of missions required 
     under the National Military Strategy, on the deployment 
     schedules outlined in the plans of the relevant commanders-
     in-chief from expected and increasingly dispersed postures of 
     engagement.
       (3) The anticipated effect of enemy use of weapons of mass 
     destruction, other asymmetrical attacks, expected rates of 
     peacekeeping and other contingency missions, and other 
     similar factors on the mobility force and its required 
     infrastructure and on mobility requirements.
       (4) The effect on mobility requirements of new service 
     force structures, such as the Air Force's Air Expeditionary 
     Force and the Army's Strike Force, and any foreseeable force 
     structure modifications through 2015.
       (5) The need to deploy forces strategically and employ them 
     tactically using the same airlift platform.
       (6) The need for an increased airlift platform capable of 
     deploying outsize equipment or large volumes of supplies and 
     equipment.
       (7) The anticipated role of host nation, foreign, and 
     coalition airlift support and requirements through 2015.
       (8) Alternatives to the current mobility program or 
     required modifications to the 1998 Air Mobility Master Plan 
     update.
                                  ____


    Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Gilchrest of 
                                Maryland

                  (Amdt B-36 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title X (page 305, after line 5), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1040. OPERATIONS OF NAVAL ACADEMY DAIRY FARM.

       Section 6976 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Lease Proceeds.--All money received from a lease 
     entered into under subsection (b) shall be retained by the 
     Superintendent of the Naval Academy and shall be available to 
     cover expenses related to the property described in 
     subsection (a), including reimbursing nonappropriated fund 
     instrumentalities of the Naval Academy.''.
                                  ____


    Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Goodling of 
                 Pennsylvania or Mr. Traficant of Ohio

                  (Amdt B-37 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title X (page 305, after line 5), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1040. INSPECTOR GENERAL INVESTIGATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH 
                   BUY AMERICAN ACT IN PURCHASES OF FREE WEIGHT 
                   STRENGTH TRAINING EQUIPMENT.

       (a) Investigation Required.--The Inspector General of the 
     Department of Defense shall conduct an investigation to 
     determine whether the purchases described in subsection (b) 
     are being made in compliance with the Buy American Act (41 
     U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
       (b) Purchases Covered.--The investigation shall cover 
     purchases made during the three-year period ending on the 
     date of the

[[Page H4075]]

     enactment of this Act of free weights for use in strength 
     training by members of the Armed Forces stationed at defense 
     installations located in the United States (including its 
     territories and possessions).
       (c) Report.--The Inspector General shall prepare a report 
     for the Secretary of Defense on the investigation. Not later 
     than six months after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress such 
     report, together with such additional comments and 
     recommendations as the Secretary considers appropriate.
       (d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``free weights'' means dumbbells or solid metallic disks 
     balanced on crossbars, designed to be lifted for strength 
     training or athletic competition.
                                  ____


    Modification to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Skelton of Missouri

                  (Amdt B-38 in House Report 106-175)

       The amendment as modified is as follows:
       At the end of title X (page 305, after line 5), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1040. PERFORMANCE OF THREAT AND RISK ASSESSMENTS.

       Section 1404 of the Defense Against Weapons of Mass 
     Destruction Act of 1999 (title XIV of Public Law 105-261; 50 
     U.S.C. 2301 note) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1404. THREAT AND RISK ASSESSMENTS.

       ``(a) Threat and Risk Assessments.--(1) Assistance to 
     Federal, State, and local agencies provided under the program 
     under section 1402 shall include the performance of 
     assessments of the threat and risk of terrorist employment of 
     weapons of mass destruction against cities and other local 
     areas. Such assessments shall be used by Federal, State, and 
     local agencies to determine the training and equipment 
     requirements under this program and shall be performed as a 
     collaborative effort with State and local agencies.
       ``(2) The Department of Justice, as lead Federal agency for 
     crisis management in response to terrorism involving weapons 
     of mass destruction, shall conduct any threat and risk 
     assessment performed under paragraph (1) in coordination with 
     appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and shall 
     develop procedures and guidance for conduct of the threat and 
     risk assessment in consultation with officials from the 
     intelligence community.
       ``(b) Pilot Test.--(1) Before prescribing final procedures 
     and guidance for the performance of threat and risk 
     assessments under this section, the Attorney General shall 
     conduct a pilot test of any proposed method or model by which 
     such assessments are to be performed. The Attorney General 
     shall conduct the pilot test in coordination with appropriate 
     Federal, State, and local agencies.
       ``(2) The pilot test shall be performed in cities or local 
     areas selected by the Attorney General in consultation with 
     appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies.
       ``(3) The pilot test shall be completed not later than one 
     month after the date of the enactment of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.''.
                                  ____


 Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Hobson of Ohio or 
                            Mr. Hall of Ohio

                  (Amdt B-39 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title XI (page 307, after line 13), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC 1104. TEMPORARY AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE EARLY RETIREMENT AND 
                   SEPARATION INCENTIVES FOR CERTAIN CIVILIAN 
                   EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Early Retirement Incentive.--(1) An employee of the 
     Department of Defense is entitled to an annuity under chapter 
     83 or 84 of title 5, United States Code, as applicable, if 
     the employee--
       (A) has been employed continuously by the Department of 
     Defense for more than 30 days before the date that the 
     Secretary of Defense made the determination under 
     subparagraph (D);
       (B) is serving under an appointment that is not time-
     limited;
       (C) is not in receipt of a decision notice of involuntary 
     separation for misconduct or unacceptable performance;
       (D) is separated voluntarily;
       (E) has completed 25 years of service or is at least 50 
     years of age and has completed 20 years of service; and
       (F) retires under this subsection before October 1, 2000.
       (2) As used in this subsection, the terms ``employee'' and 
     ``annuity'' shall have the same meaning as the meaning of 
     those terms as used in chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United 
     States Code, as applicable.
       (b) Voluntary Separation Incentive.--(1) The Secretary of 
     Defense may, to restructure the workforce to meet mission 
     needs, correct skill imbalances, or reduce high-grade, 
     managerial, or supervisory positions, offer separation pay to 
     an employee under this subsection subject to such limitations 
     or conditions as the Secretary may require. Such separation 
     pay--
       (A) shall be paid, at the option of the employee, in a lump 
     sum or equal installment payments;
       (B) shall be equal to the lesser of--
       (i) an amount equal to the amount the employee would be 
     entitled to receive under section 5595(c) of title 5, United 
     States Code, if the employee were entitled to payment under 
     such section; or
       (ii) $25,000;
       (C) shall not be a basis for payment, and shall not be 
     included in the computation, of any other type of Government 
     benefit;
       (D) shall not be taken into account for purposes of 
     determining the amount of any severance pay to which an 
     individual may be entitled under section 5595 of title 5, 
     United States Code, based on any other separation; and
       (E) shall terminate, upon reemployment in the Federal 
     Government, during receipt of installment payments.
       (2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``employee'' 
     means an employee serving under an appointment without time 
     limitation, who has been currently employed for a continuous 
     period of at least 12 months, except that such term does not 
     include--
       (A) a reemployed annuitant under subchapter III of chapter 
     83, chapter 84, or another retirement system for employees of 
     the Government; or
       (B) an employee having a disability on the basis of which 
     such employee is or would be eligible for disability 
     retirement under any of the retirement systems referred to in 
     subparagraph (A).
       (c) Additional Contributions to Retirement Fund.--(1) In 
     addition to any other payments which it is required to make 
     under subchapter III of chapter 83 of title 5, United States 
     Code, the Department of Defense shall remit to the Office of 
     Personnel Management for deposit in the Treasury of the 
     United States to the credit of the Civil Service Retirement 
     and Disability Fund an amount equal to 26 percent of the 
     final basic pay of each employee of the Department of Defense 
     who is covered under subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 
     84 of title 5, United States Code, to whom a voluntary 
     separation incentive has been paid under this section.
       (2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``final basic 
     pay'', with respect to an employee, means the total amount of 
     basic pay which would be payable for a year of service by 
     such employee, computed using the employee's final rate of 
     basic pay, with appropriate adjustments if the employee last 
     served on other than a full-time basis.
       (d) Applicability.--The provisions in this section shall 
     only apply with respect to a civilian employee of the 
     Department of Defense who--
       (1) is employed at the military base designated by the 
     Secretary of Defense under subsection (e), or who is 
     identified by the Secretary as part of a competitive area of 
     the civilian personnel service population of such military 
     base, during the period beginning on October 1, 1999, and 
     ending on October 1, 2000;
       (2) is one of 300 employees designated by the Secretary of 
     the military department with jurisdiction over the designated 
     base; and
       (3) elects to receive an annuity or separation incentive 
     pursuant to such provisions during such period.
       (e) Designation of Military Base.--Not later than 30 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall designate a military base to which the 
     provisions of this section shall apply. The base designated 
     by the Secretary shall--
       (1) be a base that is undergoing a major workforce 
     restructuring to meet mission needs, correct skill 
     imbalances, or reduce high-grade, managerial, supervisory, or 
     similar positions; and
       (2) employ the largest number of scientists and engineers 
     of any other base of the military department that has 
     jurisdiction over the base.
                                  ____


   Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Ortiz of Texas

                  (Amdt B-40 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title XI (page 307, after line 13), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 1104. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE HEALTH 
                   INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF 
                   DEFENSE EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Extension of Authority.--Clauses (i) and (ii) of 
     section 8905a(d)(4)(B) of title 5, United States Code, are 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) October 1, 2003; or
       ``(ii) February 1, 2004, if specific notice of such 
     separation was given to such individual before October 1, 
     2003.''.
       (b) Offset.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated in 
     section 301(5) for Defense-wide activities--
       (1) $9,100,000 shall be available to continue health 
     insurance coverage pursuant to the authority provided in 
     section 8905a(d)(4)(B) of title 5, United States Code (as 
     amended by subsection (a)); and
       (2) the amount available for the Defense Contract Audit 
     Agency shall be reduced by $9,100,000.
                                  ____


     Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Ney of Ohio

                  (Amdt B-41 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of title XII (page 317, after line 17), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 1206. ANNUAL REPORT ON MILITARY POWER OF THE PEOPLE'S 
                   REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

       (a) Annual Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall prepare 
     an annual report, in both classified and unclassified form, 
     on the current and future military strategy and capabilities 
     of the People's Republic of China. The report shall address 
     the current and probable future course of military-
     technological development in the People's Liberation Army and 
     the tenets and probable development of Chinese grand 
     strategy, security

[[Page H4076]]

     strategy, and military strategy, and of military 
     organizations and operational concepts, through 2020.
       (b) Matters To Be Included.--The report shall include 
     analyses and forecasts of the following:
       (1) The goals of Chinese grand strategy, security strategy, 
     and military strategy.
       (2) Trends in Chinese political grand strategy meant to 
     establish the People's Republic of China as the leading 
     political power in the Asia-Pacific region and as a political 
     and military presence in other regions of the world.
       (3) The size, location, and capabilities of Chinese 
     strategic, land, sea, and air forces.
       (4) Developments in Chinese military doctrine, focusing on 
     (but not limited to) efforts to exploit a transformation in 
     military affairs or to conduct preemptive strikes.
       (5) Efforts, including technology transfers and espionage, 
     by the People's Republic of China to develop, acquire, or 
     gain access to information, communication, space, and other 
     advanced technologies that would enhance military 
     capabilities.
       (c) Submission of Report.--The report under this section 
     shall be submitted to Congress not later than March 15 each 
     year.
                                  ____


   Modification to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Boehlert of New York

                  (Amdt B-42 in House Report 106-175)

       The amendment as modified is as follows:
       In the table in section 2301(a) (page 339, after line 18), 
     insert an item relating to the Rome Research Site, New York, 
     in the amount of $3,002,000, and strike the amount identified 
     as the total in the amount column and insert 
     ``$635,272,000''.
       Page 343, line 3, strike ``$602,270,000'' and insert 
     ``$605,272,000''.
       Page 344, line 6, strike ``$6,600,000'' and insert 
     ``$9,602,000''.
       At the end of title XXIII (page 344, after line 10), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 2305. PLAN FOR COMPLETION OF PROJECT TO CONSOLIDATE AIR 
                   FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY, ROME RESEARCH SITE, 
                   NEW YORK.

       (a) Plan Required.--Not later than January 1, 2000, the 
     Secretary of the Air Force shall submit to Congress a plan 
     for the completion of multi-phase efforts to consolidate 
     research and technology development activities conducted at 
     the Air Force Research Laboratory located at the Rome 
     Research Site at former Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, New 
     York. The plan shall include details on how the Air Force 
     will complete the multi-phase construction and renovation of 
     the consolidated building 2/3 complex at the Rome Research 
     Site, by January 1, 2005, including the cost of the project 
     and options for financing it.
       (b) Relation to State Contributions.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to limit or expand the authority 
     of the Secretary of a military department to accept funds 
     from a State for the purpose of consolidating military 
     functions within a military installation.
                                  ____


  Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Ose of California

                  (Amdt B-43 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of part III of subtitle D of title XXVIII (page 
     399, after line 7), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 2865. LAND CONVEYANCE, MCCLELLAN NUCLEAR RADIATION 
                   CENTER, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Conveyance Authorized.--Consistent with applicable 
     laws, including section 120 of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620), the Secretary of the Air Force may 
     convey, without consideration, to the Regents of the 
     University of California, acting on behalf of the University 
     of California, Davis (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Regents''), all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States in and to the parcel of real property, including 
     improvements thereon, consisting of the McClellan Nuclear 
     Radiation Center, California.
       (b) Inspection of Property.--The Secretary shall, at an 
     appropriate time before the conveyance authorized by 
     subsection (a), permit the Regents access to the property to 
     be conveyed for purposes of such investigation of the 
     McClellan Nuclear Radiation Center and the atomic reactor 
     located at the Center as the Regents consider appropriate.
       (c) Hold Harmless.--(1)(A) The Secretary may not make the 
     conveyance authorized by subsection (a) unless the Regents 
     agree to indemnify and hold harmless the United States for 
     and against the following:
       (i) Any and all costs associated with the decontamination 
     and decommissioning of the atomic reactor at the McClellan 
     Nuclear Radiation Center under requirements that are imposed 
     by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or any other appropriate 
     Federal or State regulatory agency.
       (ii) Any and all injury, damage, or other liability arising 
     from the operation of the atomic reactor after its conveyance 
     under this section.
       (B) The Secretary may pay the Regents an amount not exceed 
     $17,593,000 as consideration for the agreement under 
     subparagraph (A). Notwithstanding subsection (b) of section 
     2906 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 
     (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 
     note), the Secretary may use amounts appropriated pursuant to 
     the authorization of appropriation in section 2405(a)(7) to 
     make the payment under this subparagraph.
       (2) Notwithstanding the agreement under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary may, as part of the conveyance authorized by 
     subsection (a), enter into an agreement with the Regents 
     under which agreement the United States shall indemnify and 
     hold harmless the University of California for and against 
     any injury, damage, or other liability in connection with the 
     operation of the atomic reactor at the McClellan Nuclear 
     Radiation Center after its conveyance under this section that 
     arises from a defect in the atomic reactor that could not 
     have been discovered in the course of the inspection carried 
     out under subsection (b).
       (d) Continuing Operation of Reactor.--Until such time as 
     the property authorized to be conveyed by subsection (a) is 
     conveyed by deed, the Secretary shall take appropriate 
     actions, including the allocation of personnel, funds, and 
     other resources, to ensure the continuing operation of the 
     atomic reactor located at the McClellan Nuclear Radiation 
     Center in accordance with applicable requirements of the 
     Nuclear Regulatory Commission and otherwise in accordance 
     with law.
       (e) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property to be conveyed under 
     subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory 
     to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by 
     the Secretary.
       (f) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.
                                  ____


   Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mr. Scarborough of 
                                Florida

                  (Amdt B-44 in House Report 106-175)

       At the end of section 3162 (page 445, after line 17), 
     insert the following:
       (d) Additional Agency Contributions to the Retirement 
     Fund.--For purposes of this section, the requirement of an 
     agency remittance of an amount equal to 15 percent in 
     paragraph (1) of section 663(d) of the Treasury, Postal 
     Service, and General Government Appropriations Act, 1997 
     (Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-383; 5 U.S.C. 5597 note) 
     shall be deemed to be a requirement of an agency remittance 
     of an amount equal to 26 percent.
                                  ____


Modification to the Amendment Offered by Mr. McIntyre of North Carolina

                  (Amdt B-45 in House Report 106-175)

       The amendment as modified is as follows:
       At the end of title XXXI (page 453, after line 15), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 3167. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER COORDINATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF 
                   ENERGY NATIONAL LABORATORIES.

       (a) Technology Transfer Coordination.--Within 90 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Energy shall ensure, for each national laboratory, the 
     following:
       (1) Consistency of technology transfer policies and 
     procedures with respect to patenting, licensing, and 
     commercialization.
       (2) That the contractor operating the national laboratory 
     make available to aggrieved private sector entities a range 
     of expedited alternate dispute resolution procedures 
     (including both binding and nonbinding procedures) to resolve 
     disputes that arise over patents, licenses, and 
     commercialization activities, with costs and damages to be 
     provided by the contractor to the extent that any such 
     resolution attributes fault to the contractor.
       (3) That the expedited procedure used for a particular 
     dispute shall be chosen--
       (A) collaboratively by the Secretary and by appropriate 
     representatives of the contractor operating the national 
     laboratory and of the private sector entity; and
       (B) if an expedited procedure cannot be chosen 
     collaboratively under subparagraph (A), by the Secretary.
       (4) That the contractor operating the national laboratory 
     submit an annual report to the Secretary, as part of the 
     annual performance evaluation of the contractor, on 
     technology transfer and intellectual property successes, 
     current technology transfer and intellectual property 
     disputes involving the laboratory, and progress toward 
     resolving those disputes.
       (5) Training to ensure that laboratory personnel 
     responsible for patenting, licensing, and commercialization 
     activities are knowledgeable of the appropriate legal, 
     procedural, and ethical standards.
       (b) Definition of National Laboratory.--As used in this 
     section, the term ``national laboratory'' means any of the 
     following laboratories:
       (1) The Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New 
     Mexico.
       (2) The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, 
     California.
       (3) The Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New 
     Mexico, and Livermore, California.
                                  ____


   Amendment to H.R. 1401, as Reported Offered by Mrs. Wilson of New 
                                 Mexico

                  (Amdt B-46 in House Report 106-175)

       Page 452, line 22, strike ``subsection (c)'' and all that 
     follows through ``indicates'' on line 24 and insert 
     ``subsection (c), notwithstanding Rule 6(e) of the Federal 
     Rules of Criminal Procedure, that the Secretary has received 
     information indicating''.
       Page 453, strike lines 7 through line 10 and insert the 
     following:

[[Page H4077]]

       (c) Specified Committees.--The committees referred to in 
     subsection (a) are the following:
       (1) The Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (2) The Committee on Armed Services and the Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modifications.
  The Clerk proceeded to read the modifications.
  Mr. SPENCE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendments as modified be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the en bloc amendments, and 
I want to speak specifically to amendment No. 32 briefly.
  The purpose of this amendment is to permanently authorize that the 
Asia Pacific Center for Security studies the waiver authority for some 
attendance costs that were granted to it in the fiscal year 1999 
Defense Authorization Act and to enact new, permanent legislation for 
the Center that expands its ability to fund its crucial work in the 
region.
  Specifically, the provisions in this amendment will permit the Asia 
Pacific Center, a component of Pacific Command, to accomplish two 
important objectives:
  First, the provisions will permit the Center to waive reimbursement 
for certain costs of conferences, seminars, and courses of instruction 
for participants of foreign countries when the Secretary of Defense 
determines that such participation is in the national security 
interests.
  This Member strongly concurs with both Admiral Prueher, the previous 
Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command, and Admiral Blair, who recently 
assumed this position, that this waiver of charges is critical to the 
Center's ability to attract participants from developing and developed 
countries in the region. The Center complements the Command's strategy 
of maintaining positive security relationships with all nations in the 
region. It enhances cooperation and builds relationships through mutual 
understanding and study of the range of security issues among military 
and civilian representatives of the U.S. and other Asia-Pacific 
nations.
  Second, the provisions will permit the acceptance of foreign gifts 
and donations. No such authority currently exists for the Center, and 
such is key to providing an alternate source of income to defray costs 
or to enhance operations. It will permit the acceptance of donations in 
the form of funds, materials, property, or services from foreign 
sources, within ethical guidelines to be developed by the Secretary of 
Defense.
  Amending H.R. 1401 to permanently authorize the waiver of 
reimbursement and the acceptance of foreign gifts and donations will 
mirror legislative authority previously granted to the George C. 
Marshall European Center for Security Studies. In addition, 
significantly, enactment of these provisions will impose no increase in 
DoD budgetary requirements.
  Secondly, for amendment No. 33, the purpose of this amendment is to 
direct the Secretary of Defense to evaluate and report to Congress the 
U.S. armed forces' ability to successfully prosecute a conflict on the 
Korean Peninsula or a 2-major-theater-war strategy over the next 5 
years while simultaneously engaged in continued operations in the 
Balkans.
  Anyone who has been watching our combat strength erode over the last 
decade or the juggling of equipment and forces to meet Kosovo 
requirements will understand why this is a vitally important national 
security issue.
  U.S. military operations in the Balkans, in this Member's view, will 
include Kosovo for the foreseeable future. U.S. efforts there clearly 
are stretching the already ample divide between our global security 
obligations and military capabilities. The argument that we have heard 
for years--that with the Cold War over, we can spend less on our Armed 
Forces--would be true only if we expected less of our military. 
However, this has not been the case--indeed, our forces have been asked 
to do more and more with less and less.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, President Reagan 
used the military abroad 17 times; President Bush, 14 times, including 
the Persian Gulf conflict. President Clinton, however, has called on 
the military over 45 times, including the ongoing Kosovo operations. 
Such extensive use is unprecedented; moreover, it has been presided 
over by an Administration that not only has trimmed the fat in our 
Armed Forces--to its credit--but has, in the view of many senior 
military officials with whom this Member agrees, cut considerably into 
its ``muscle'' as well. The dramatic increase in ``operations tempo'' 
has taken a significant toll on an already substantially downsized, 
underfunded, and inadequately equipped force. Moreover, the results of 
the Quadrennial Defense Review, recently concluded by the DoD, projects 
an increasing number of military commitments into the next century.
  This is a dangerous situation, in this Member's opinion, and calls 
into serious question U.S. capabilities to successfully prosecute one 
or more major contingencies over at least the next several years--major 
contingencies, such as on the Korean Peninsula or in Southwest Asia, 
that are in this nation's vital interests.
  We in Congress first must be fully informed as to our Armed Force's 
capabilities and limitations. Then, we must be willing to address the 
challenges they face if we expect them to continue to meet our global 
challenges. This amendment, requiring the Secretary of Defense to 
report on the U.S. Armed Forces capability to respond to other regional 
contingencies while remaining engaged in the Balkans, will provide the 
baseline analysis we need to ``right-size'' and ``right-equip'' our 
forces in the future.
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the en bloc 
amendment to H.R. 1401. This amendment includes an amendment which I 
propose along with the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune). Our 
amendment makes needed improvements to TriCare, the military managed 
health care program.
  Our amendment complements the excellent work done by the Committee on 
Armed Services to better military health care. The Thune-Stenholm 
amendment will improve the claims processing system, reduce paperwork 
and financial burdens to TriCare beneficiaries, and improve coverage 
for active duty members of the armed services. Our amendment has the 
support of the Military Coalition and the National Military and 
Veterans Alliance.
  As we increase military pay and benefits, it is important that we 
also continue in our efforts to provide the highest quality medical 
care for military members and their families, retirees and their 
families, and survivors.
  I urge the support for the Thune-Stenholm amendment as included in 
the en bloc amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  (Mr. WELDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I have a great announcement 
to follow up the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), who 
announced this earlier.
  For all those naysayers, today the THAAD program had a very 
successful intercept. We hit a bullet with a bullet. Not only did we 
hit the target, we hit it right in the spot where that target would be 
eliminated so that the trajectory of the missile would not continue on 
into where our troops would be held.
  So for all of those people who stood on the House floor and said 
missile defense does not work, the technology is not there, it is a 
failure, guess what, Mr. Chairman, today we hit a bullet with a bullet. 
We solved the problem that people said we could not solve.
  I just want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who had 
the good common sense to understand that American technology can do 
anything, and we are never going to have a case where those 28 brave 
young Americans, half of whom were from my State, came back to their 
homeland in a body bag because we could not defend a missile attack 
against them.
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).

[[Page H4078]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Evans).
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the en bloc 
amendment. It contains my amendment to waive the statutory time limit 
and authorize the President to present the Congressional Medal of Honor 
to Alfred Rascon for his brave and heroic actions during the Vietnam 
War. He truly embodies the spirit and sacrifices made by those gallant 
individuals who have earned our Nation's highest military honor.
  In 1966, he was a paramedic and risked his life many times to save 
the lives of his colleagues. When his unit came under intense enemy 
attack, Mr. Rascon on three separate occasions ran through enemy fire 
to jump on soldiers to protect them from exploding grenades or incoming 
rifle and machine gun fire.
  On one occasion, he suffered grenade shrapnel and wounds while 
protecting another solder he was caring for. On two other occasions, he 
dove on soldiers to shield them from several incoming exploding 
grenades, observing the full blast himself each time.
  Regardless of these wounds and an additional wound to his face from 
an exploding grenade, he retrieved the point squad's abandoned machine 
gun and its ammunition while drawing heavy fire.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the en bloc amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Chairman's En Bloc 
amendment. The En Bloc package contains my amendment to waive the 
statutory time limit and authorize the President to present the 
Congressional Medal of Honor to Alfred Rascon for his heroic and brave 
actions during the Vietnam War. His case embodies the spirit and 
sacrifice made by those gallant individuals who have earned our 
nation's highest military honor.
  On 16 March 1966, Sp4 Alfred Rascon, distinguished himself by a 
series of extraordinarily courageous acts while assigned as a medic to 
the Reconnaissance Platoon, Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion 
(Airborne), 503d Infantry, 173d Airborne Brigade. While moving to 
reinforce a sister unit under intense enemy attack, the Reconnaissance 
Platoon came under heavy fire from a numerically superior enemy force.
  The intense fire severely wounded several soldiers and repulsed 
repeated attempts by fellow soldiers to rescue their fallen comrades. 
Ignoring this and directions to stay behind shelter, Mr. Rascon 
repeatedly tried to crawl forward to assist the wounded soldiers but 
was driven back each time by the withering enemy fire. Despite the 
risks to his own safety and realizing that the point machine-gunner was 
severely wounded and still under direct enemy fire, he dashed through 
gunfire and exploding grenades to reach his comrade. To protect him 
from wounds, Mr. Rascon intentionally placed his body between the 
soldier and the enemy machine guns and in doing so sustained numerous 
shrapnel injuries and a serious hip wound from an enemy bullet. Despite 
his wounds, he dragged him from the fire-raked trail and then crawled 
back through the area of heaviest fire with ammunition for a machine 
gunner, allowing the soldier to resume life protecting covering fire 
for the beleaguered squad. As Mr. Rascon crawled through the murderous 
fire to retrieve an abandoned machine gun and ammunition, a grenade 
exploded directly in front of him, severely wounding him in the face 
and torso.
  Although weakened by loss of blood and his painful wounds, he 
recovered the machine gun and ammunition for another soldier who was 
then able to provide badly needed suppressive fire for the pinned-
downed unit. As Mr. Rascon went forward to aid a badly wounded 
grenadier, he saw grenades fall near the stricken soldier. With 
complete disregard for his own life, he dove on the wounded man and 
covered him with his body, absorbing the full force of the grenade 
explosion but saving the soldier's life. Although he sustained 
additional fragmentation wounds to his face, back and legs, Mr. Rascon 
continued to treat the wounded. Seeing grenades land near the wounded 
point squad leader, and without regard for the consequences, he again 
rose to his feet and dove on the wounded man, again absorbing the blast 
of the grenades with his own body and suffering additional multiple 
fragmentation wounds. After treating the wounded sergeant, Mr. Rascon 
remained on the battlefield, providing medical aid to the wounded and 
inspiring his fellow soldiers to continue the battle.
  After the enemy broke contact, he treated and directed the evacuation 
of the wounded, and only then allowed himself to be treated. While 
making his way to the evacuation zone, Mr. Rascon collapsed from the 
result of his wounds and blood loss, and was carried from the 
battlefield.
  Because of the selflessness and bravery he demonstrated that day, Mr. 
Rascon's unit members submitted a recommendation for him to receive the 
Medal of Honor. Unfortunately, the written recommendation never made it 
up the chain of command. While we can't arase the mistake that deprived 
him of this award over thirty years ago, we can today finally do 
justice to Mr. Rascon.
  There are many people to thank for their work to recognize Alfred 
Rascon's extraordinary heroism. Gil Coronado, Director of the Selective 
Service System, brought this case to my attention over six years ago 
and has been a consistent champion of this cause. Ken Smith, Colonel, 
US Army (Ret.), President of the Society of the 173rd Airborne Brigade, 
has been a steadfast supporter and brought his years of military 
experience as well as his dogged determination to the table. He and the 
Society were critical to the success of this effort. Gordon Sumner, 
COL, USA Ret., the Chairman of the DC Chapter of the 82nd Airborne 
Division, also assisted at critical times and deserves credit.
  Kelli R. Willard West, former legislative director of the Vietnam 
Veterans of America, helped bring the voice of Vietnam Veterans to this 
endeavor. Her hard work and steadfast support made an impact on this 
effort. John Fales, known as Sgt. Shaft to Washington Times readers, 
let the public know of Mr. Rascon's bravery and the efforts to properly 
honor him.
  Chairman Buyer and Ranking Member Neil Abercrombie should be 
commended for their assistance on bringing this amendment to the floor. 
I would also like to thank the staff of the Military Personnel 
Subcommittee, in particular Mike Higgins, for their efforts over the 
many years of work it took to bring this case to its logical 
conclusion.
  I also thank my colleagues who signed the numerous letters and joined 
in my efforts to honor Mr. Rascon. Specifically, Representatives Roscoe 
Bartlett and Luis Gutierrez should be noted for their support as well 
as Members of Congress who served in the 173rd, including 
Representatives Duncan Hunter, Mike Thompson and Charlie Norwood. My 
colleagues on the Senate side, Senators Spencer Abraham and Strom 
Thurmond must also be commended. Their efforts led to this amendment 
being included in the Senate's version of the FY2000 DOD Authorization 
Act. Stuart Anderson of Senator Abraham's staff should be particularly 
thanked for his efforts.
  Above all, members of Mr. Rascon's unit, the 1-503d Reconnaissance 
Platoon, must be recognized. Without their dogged efforts and those of 
Jacob R. Cook, SFC, USA Ret., Willie Williams, SFC, USA Ret., James K. 
Akuna (Deceased), SFC, USA Ret., Forrest Powers, SFC, USA Ret., Elmer 
R. Compton, SGT, SP4 John Kirk, Neil Haffey, PFC and Larry Gibson, PFC 
(MSG, USANG) this oversight never would have been brought to the 
attention of Congress and the public. Other members up and down the 
chain of command of the 173rd should be thanked as well, including Paul 
F. Smith, MG, USA Ret., John Tyler, COL, USA Ret., Bill Vose, CPT, USA 
Ret., Frank Vavrin, LTC, (Chaplain), USA Ret., Tom Marrinan, SFC, USA 
Ret., Jess Castanon, SGT (Deceased), Bob Berruti, SGT, Bob McCarthy, 
SGT, Ray Penzon, SGT, and Dan Ojeda. A special thanks should go to Roy 
Lombardo, LTC, USA Ret., who initially resubmitted the MOH packet to 
the Department of Defense. Mr. Lombardo, a Captain in the 173rd's 2nd 
Battalion during 1966, took this action when he was made aware, by Mr. 
Rascon's platoon members during the 173d's 1990 25th reunion, that the 
nomination never went forward.
  Other individuals and organizations who deserve credit and thanks 
include: Bishop Joseph Madera, Brig. Gen. Michael F. Aguilar, USMC, 
Suzanna Valdez, the National Council of La Raze, Daniel B. Gibson, Bill 
Dunker, the Heroes and Heritage Foundation, Raul Yzaguirre, Ken 
Steadman, Richard Boylan, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and Robert 
Stacy.
  It is my true belief that we do not live up to our nation's sacred 
commitment to our veterans if we do not properly honor the sacrifices 
made by those who went above and beyond the call of duty. Again, I urge 
my colleagues to support the Chairman's En Bloc amendment and this 
important effort to honor Alfred Rascon, a true American hero.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Stump).
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of a colloquy with 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Military Procurement.
  Mr. Chairman, section 151 of the authorization bill would prevent the 
Department of Defense from buying a commercial communications satellite 
system or leasing a communications service unless independent testing

[[Page H4079]]

proves that the system or service will not cause harmful interference 
to collocated global positioning system receivers used by the DOD.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the efforts to protect DOD technology, 
including GPS, from harmful interference. However, I am concerned that 
the independent testing requirement in section 151 could have the 
inadvertent effect of precluding DOD's purchase of cellular telephones, 
two-way radios, and other communication services until new standards 
and testing protocols are developed.
  I ask the gentleman if this is the intent of section 151, and I yield 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Stump) that the purpose of section 151 is not to delay the 
acquisition of needed communications or to impose new and unnecessary 
regulations. Our military forces rely very heavily on GPS signals for 
navigation, precision munitions, and other purposes. This section is 
intended to assure that communication systems using the spectrum close 
to that used by GPS do not interfere with GPS receivers.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I believe this 
clarification will help us address DOD needs while being mindful of 
private sector concerns.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the 
gentleman on this matter.
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Military Research and Development of the Committee on Armed Services in 
a colloquy regarding the defense of the United States electric power 
grid against information attacks, something that is very prominent at a 
large regional institution in our area, Drexel University.

                              {time}  1645

  A growing number of my constituents have expressed concern over the 
reliability of the U.S. electric power grid when challenged by natural 
disaster, terrorist attack or other threats. A major outage in the 
national electric power grid could severely cripple our society and 
significantly impact the national defense capabilities of this country.
  I raise this issue today because all Department of Defense facilities 
in the contiguous United States depend to a greater or lesser extent 
upon commercially owned and operated electric power grids that are 
managed through computer networks that are increasingly using the 
Internet as a communication and control network. Because of the 
interconnection of the Nation's electric power grid, the increased 
dependence on information systems and technology for control of the 
grid, and the potential threat of cyber-terrorism to the Nation's 
information infrastructure, I have personal concerns about the 
potential threat that targeted or massive outages could pose to the 
national security of the United States.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's 
concerns and applaud him for his outstanding national leadership on 
this issue. The committee's report states that the protection of the 
Nation's critical infrastructure against strategic information warfare 
attacks will require new tools and technology for information assurance 
and dominance. The ability to assess the vulnerability of the domestic 
electric power grid infrastructure to information attack will require 
the development of integrated models that can be used to develop 
strategies and procedures to detect and respond to terrorist attacks on 
the national electric power grid. Because defense information 
infrastructure is closely linked and dependent upon the domestic 
information infrastructure, I believe, and the committee report states, 
and I reinforce, that government, industry and academia should form 
partnerships to cooperatively develop information assurance solutions 
to protect the Nation's critical information systems infrastructure.
  Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman because he has taken a 
leadership role in developing such a model in the Philadelphia 
metropolitan region.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
and look forward to working with him and I thank him for his 
leadership.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Riley).
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities 
of the Committee on Armed Services in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, during the markup of H.R. 1401 by the Committee on 
Armed Services, I offered an amendment that would have conveyed real 
property at military installations closed under the base closure laws 
at no cost to those communities still in the process of negotiating 
agreements with the Department of Defense governing the terms under 
which the property would be disposed and put back into effective reuse. 
In return, communities which would have received property in this 
manner would be required to invest in reuse that provides job creation, 
effective economic redevelopment, and other public purposes.
  This is an issue of fundamental fairness to me. Base closures can 
have a disastrous effect on communities. As one example, the largest 
county in my district may lose 2 out of every 5 jobs as a result of the 
closure of Fort McClellan. The last thing we should be doing now is 
kicking an area like Calhoun County when it is already down.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdrew my amendment in full committee based on the 
commitment of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) to work with me 
to try to find a solution to this problem. I am hopeful that the 
committee will soon hold a hearing on the subject. It is terribly 
important to the communities in Alabama and across the country who 
continue to struggle to recover from the effects of base closures.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RILEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to note the support of the Department of Defense for the basic 
concept articulated by the gentleman from Alabama. Current law compels 
the Department of Defense to maintain these properties at enormous cost 
while expending considerable resources to negotiate acceptable purchase 
prices.
  In my hometown of Fort Smith, Arkansas, the former army installation 
of Fort Chaffee was closed in 1995. Lately, the local redevelopment 
authority has been working diligently with the DOD to negotiate an 
acceptable purchase price. However, it is now clear that if the 
property is transferred at current market value, the purchase price 
will exceed the expected revenues generated from redevelopment.
  A number of unique characteristics of the property make redevelopment 
a costly endeavor. There is little incentive to pursue a redevelopment 
plan if the public trust is unable to recoup the cost of purchasing the 
property.
  Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment similar to that 
proposed by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley), but I understand 
the concerns expressed by the chairman of the subcommittee that his 
subcommittee has not had adequate time. So I hope we can move forward 
and resolve this issue promptly and look forward to working with the 
chairman.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his comments.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RILEY. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado, the chairman of 
the subcommittee.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I am acutely aware of the problem which the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Riley) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) have 
raised today. The Department of Defense has also made a proposal to 
expedite the reuse process. I am very sympathetic to the desire of the 
local communities

[[Page H4080]]

to see effective economic reuse of former military installations and 
see it happen at the earliest possible time.
  As both gentlemen know, this is a complicated area of law. I regret 
the administration did not forward the formal proposal in this area to 
our committee in time for us to really take action on it. We have not 
had the opportunity to have adequate hearings, but we fully intend to 
have those hearings, to have them in a timely fashion, and to have them 
prior to the time that we go to conference on this. I would like for 
both of my colleagues, and others that are interested, to participate 
in these hearings with us.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, because this 
is an important issue and we do intend to address it. I appreciate both 
of my colleagues bringing it to my attention.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I wish to thank the 
chairman for his assurances.
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to cosponsor the amendment requiring the 
Secretary of Defense to report to the Congress on the results of 
investigations into the rash of recent failures of several of our space 
launch vehicles.
  I serve on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and while 
this committee does not have jurisdiction over the Department of 
Defense space launch vehicles, it does exercise oversight over the 
National Reconnaissance Office, which is a primary customer of Air 
Force launch vehicles. Indeed, one of the 4 recent Titan IV launch 
failures involved an extremely expensive NRO satellite and another 
involved the loss of a missile early warning satellite that is of 
considerable interest and importance to the intelligence community.
  I know that many of my colleagues, as well as many individuals in the 
executive branch and industry, and the public at large, are gravely 
concerned about these failures. Within the last year there have been 4 
failures of the Titan IV, two failures of the newly designed Delta III, 
and one failure of the Athena rocket.
  While 4 of these 6 failures entail the loss of commercial satellites 
and, therefore, did not cost the taxpayers anything, the other 4 
failures were extremely costly to the government, in the neighborhood 
of $3 billion, I am told.
  I understand very well that launching large satellites in space is 
inherently risky, and it is inevitable failures will occur from time to 
time, but this many failures in so short a time compels us to question 
our practices. It is doubly important to do so now since we are close 
to the first launches of the new Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, and 
since we have another dozen of the old Titan IVs remaining to be 
launched over the next 5 years. If we need to learn new lessons or 
rediscover old verities, now is the time.
  It appears that there are no common causes for any of these failures, 
although the failure investigations are incomplete. However, I believe 
it is the case that all of the failures involve two companies, the two 
companies that are the prime contractors for all of the government 
launch vehicles.
  It is certainly possible that this string of failures is merely some 
statistical aberration and does not reflect any systemic type of 
problem, or maybe there is really a systemic problem only within one 
program, like the Titan IV or the Delta III, or maybe the Delta III 
failures are just teething pains of a new system and the Athena failure 
is an isolated event.
  Alternatively, and of utmost concern, is the possibility that the 
various pressures operating on the industry at this time are somehow 
causing problems that pose a threat to national security.
  We know that launch rates in the industry for existing boosters are 
up substantially at the same time that new vehicles are being 
developed, which conceivably could stretch available managerial and 
engineering talent and attention. We also know that competition is 
keener than ever, which combined with government pressure to reduce 
costs, conceivably could tempt some unwise cost cutting.
  We also need to consider the potential impact of changes in 
acquisition processes, such as the level of oversight and inspection 
conducted by the government, performance incentives by our contractors, 
buying launch services, and even private insurance for government 
launches.
  I know the executive branch and industry are anxious as we get to the 
bottom of this matter, and so I urge that this amendment be adopted.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask for the help of my 
colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), in bringing 
just compensation and closure to the surviving families of a tragic 
accident involving United States servicemen.
  On September 13 of 1997, a German Tupelov aircraft veered off course 
and collided with a United States Air Force C-141 off the coast of 
Namibia. Nine American servicemen perished in the collision. Accident 
investigations conducted by both the United States Air Force and the 
German Ministry of Defense both concluded that the fault of the 
collision lay with the German crew, who had not only filed an 
inaccurate flight plan, but were also flying at the wrong altitude.
  Five months after this accident, as we all know, a United States 
aircraft clipped a ski gondola cable in Italy, causing the deaths of 
20, 7 of whom were German nationals. As has been customary, the United 
States Government is preparing to make financial settlement with the 
families of those victims. Unfortunately, the German Government has 
been slow to show a reciprocal sense of responsibility and concern for 
the loss of 9 American lives.
  Senator Strom Thurmond has attached a resolution to the Senate 
defense authorization bill calling for the German Government to make a 
prompt, fair settlement with the families lost in this tragedy. This is 
similar to a resolution that I, along with 15 other bipartisan 
cosponsors, have introduced in the House.
  I appreciate the strong support the chairman of the Committee on 
Armed Services has already given the surviving families of this 
accident, and I ask that when the Defense Authorization Act comes to 
conference the gentleman will accede to the Senate position with regard 
to the families of our lost airmen.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANFORD. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank the gentleman for raising this important issue.
  As the gentleman indicated, I have had a long-standing interest in 
seeing justice done in this case. The gentleman can be assured that I 
support the timely payment of compensation from the German Government 
in response to claims from surviving family members. Accordingly, I 
will support legislation that seeks to achieve that objective when it 
is considered for inclusion in the National Defense Authorization Act 
for the Year 2000.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his support.
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the committee accepting my 
``buy American'' amendment. If we do not make it here and we go to war, 
who will we buy from; our enemy?
  So I wish to thank the committee for its continued support, and I 
also want to thank the members of the committee for accepting the 
amendment from the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and 
myself that deals with weights bought for training measures from China.
  Let me just advise Members of Congress that they have a $67 billion 
trade surplus, and they are buying submarines, tanks and aircraft with 
our money and pointing their missiles at us. So I thank my colleagues 
for accepting my amendments.

                              {time}  1700

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) has 2 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from

[[Page H4081]]

South Carolina (Mr. Spence) has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment, 
particularly that portion that pertains to the subject the gentleman 
from Georgia moments ago was talking about, the failures of the Titan 
4-A and 4-B rockets and/or their upper stages, resulting in the loss of 
valuable military and intelligence satellites. This is $3 billion we 
have lost in these satellites, and we are counting with respect to 
that.
  As a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and as 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, I 
also have jurisdiction over this matter from the intelligence 
perspective, and we have had meetings with the Air Force and other 
personnel concerning this, including the companies involved in the 
failures. And there are investigations under way from the executive 
branch's perspective.
  But the national security interests and billions in costs required 
that appropriate committees in Congress, we believe, received detailed 
reports on failures as well as the reforms being implemented to prevent 
future failures.
  As my colleagues can see, the amendment would require the Secretary 
of Defense to report to Congress and the President on factors involved 
in these failures and what systemic and management reforms are being 
implemented to minimize future failures. This oversight is not only 
desired, but required by us in the Congress to appropriate funds for 
these launches.
  This amendment's requirements, we think, are prudent, and we thank 
the committee for considering them.
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McIntyre-Cramer 
amendment and would like to express my appreciation to the chairman, 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), and the ranking member, 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their inclusion of this 
amendment in the en bloc package.
  I thank my colleagues for allowing this amendment to go forward. I am 
committed to working with all parties concerned.
  The thrust of the amendment is good government, three components: a 
positive relationship between our national laboratories and small 
business; a proper technology transfer program that enhances efficiency 
and integrity and maintains our global competitiveness in technology; 
and a productive partnership and level playing field between the 
Federal Government and the private sector. A positive relationship, 
proper technology transfer, productive partnership, three ingredients 
that will have a successful relationship between the Federal Government 
and small business.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in a continuing, 
constructive dialogue as we move forward to conference and including 
this in the DOD bill.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentlemen from California, Mr. 
Calvert and Mr. Horn, want to engage me in a colloquy.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPENCE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would like to engage in a colloquy.
  It is my understanding that the Department of Defense has been 
authorized to purchase a total of 120 C-17s as a follow-on aircraft to 
the C-141, which is in the process of a complete drawdown. It is also 
my understanding that the C-17 aircraft is a key component for 
modernizing our Nation's Active Duty and Reserve component's air 
mobility resources.
  I ask the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), what 
is his opinion of the effectiveness of the C-17 aircraft, especially 
during the current high level of operations.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
want to thank my good friend from California, who happens to have the 
March Air Reserve Base in his district, I want to thank him for 
involving me in this important discussion of the future air mobility 
needs of our military.
  I also agree with him that the C-17 is a very vital tool for our 
Nation's air mobility needs. In fact, it has performed beyond the high 
expectations of the committee and the Department of Defense. With our 
increased reliance on Reserve components, coupled with technological 
advancements, we will become further reliant on flexible, multipurpose 
aircraft, such as the C-17.
  Mr. CALVERT. Finally, would the gentleman comment on what role he 
thinks the Reserve units will play in our military's air mobility 
capacity?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, of course, this is a conversation, too, 
that I know the chairman of the full committee is very interested in; 
he is a very important part of this, and I appreciate this opportunity 
to respond to this inquiry.
  As many Members with Reserve components in their district know, such 
as the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) with March Air Reserve 
Base, the Nation's Reserve components currently play a very key role in 
our Nation's air mobility capacity. We could not be involved in the air 
campaign right now without that Reserve component.
  As has been displayed in this recent conflict, the Reserve units are 
being heavily utilized both in air mobility and other key areas. I 
believe that this trend of relying on Reserve components will only 
continue to increase. But we should ensure that these units are 
outfitted with the most technologically advanced resources available. 
And once again, the C-17 has done a great job.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPENCE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my two colleagues from California.
  The C-17, as we all know, is one of the great success stories. I am 
proud to say it is built in Long Beach, California. It started with 
Douglas Aircraft, now owned by Boeing Aircraft. They won the top award 
for quality in America last year in manufacturing. That is the Malcolm 
Baldrige Quality Award administered by the United States Department of 
Commerce.
  In Kosovo, C-17s showed that they can deliver both humanitarian goods 
and military goods on time in small airports with short runways. It is 
my hope that we will have more and more C-17s sold to foreign 
governments so their military groups can build up their capacity in air 
mobility and bring needed equipment, supplies, and personnel to the war 
zone.
  I would also hope that civilian cargo airlines could use the C-17s on 
the very small landing fields we have around the world. The C-17 is a 
success story. It ought to be shared. Those sales would help us lower 
the per-unit cost.
  I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for all that he 
has done to procure the C-17.
  Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) believe that the 
Secretary of Defense should explore the recent offer to drastically 
reduce the price of additional C-17s as a means for addressing some of 
the future needs at home and abroad?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, yes. 
And I want to thank both gentlemen from California for their interest 
in this important discussion.
  It is my understanding the Secretary is currently exploring all 
options to modernize our air mobility forces, including the need to 
acquire additional C-17s.
  With respect to selling some of these to our allies, often the answer 
given to us by them when we ask for their support in operations like 
the air campaign that is currently being undertaken where we are doing 
the lion's share of the work and paying the lion's share, that often 
the answer to us is that we have the resources, we have the aircraft. 
And if we can sell some of these C-17s to our allies, with that, along 
with the possession of high-capability aircraft, will go the 
responsibility to use them in joint operations and take some of the 
burden off American forces. I think that is a good thing.

[[Page H4082]]

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Ose).
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  The amendment I am rising to speak on in favor of is that which 
allows the transfer of the reactor at McClellan Air Force Base to the 
University of California.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence) has expired.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spence).
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ose).
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  The amendment allows the transfer of the unwanted reactor at 
McClellan Air Force Base to the University of California (Davis) and 
provides the funding for decommissioning it. This is a reactor owned 
presently by the Air Force for which they have no further use. The 
expectation is that they will pay the decommissioning cost.
  This transfer allows our region, which is suffering through base 
closures, to realize the benefit of 25 additional years of use of this 
small reactor without any additional cost.
  I appreciate the committee making this amendment in order. I look 
forward to its passage. This is a win in our very difficult base 
closing process, and I applaud the Congress for making us part of this.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota 
(Mr. Thune).
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the committee's 
cooperation and the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence), and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for making in order the Thune-Stenholm amendment 
and agreeing to accept it.
  It is very important to a lot of the current members of active duty 
forces in the armed services, military retirees, and their dependents. 
This amendment seeks to help make TriCare, the military health care 
system, a more efficient, more user-friendly military health care 
system.
  Since 1987, 35 percent of the military hospitals in the United States 
have closed. Similarly, the number of doctors, nurses, and medical 
technicians in military services dwindles. However, the number of 
beneficiaries is not dropping at nearly that rate.
  As a result, defense medical leaders needed to find a way to deliver 
health care that would combine military and civilian resources into a 
system that would maintain or improve quality, increase access, and 
control costs for beneficiaries and taxpayers. TriCare is intended to 
fill that need.
  My State, the State of South Dakota, is home to the fine men and 
women of Ellsworth Air Force Base, as well as to a sizable military 
retiree population. Each of those individuals and the many health care 
providers in western South Dakota have a direct interest in TriCare.
  This amendment does not make massive changes in the TriCare system. 
Rather, it is about fine-tuning the system to make it better for all 
those involved. The language deals with specific areas of concern 
expressed by constituents, military service organizations, health care 
providers, contractors, and the Department of Defense.
  The amendment will help ensure contracts allow for best business 
practices, help provide for a better understanding of the reimbursement 
rate structure in rural areas, improve health care access for military 
personnel deployed in remote and rural locations, and reduce some of 
the paperwork burdens for beneficiaries of the military fee-for-service 
program.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and I have spent hours 
receiving comments and reworking the amendment to address many of the 
concerns that we have heard. And again, I would like to thank the 
chairman for including and accepting it.
  These amendments have the support of the National Military and 
Veterans Alliance and the Military Coalition, which together represent 
over 40 military veterans' organizations with a combined membership of 
well over five million people.
  It is important change. It is not going to make the TriCare system 
perfect. But I do believe it will make it better for those who have 
served and continue to serve our great Nation.
  So I thank the chairman for yielding and appreciate his acceptance of 
this amendment.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) had 
to leave, but he was concerned about the multipurpose processor 
program, a program that was developed in his district in one of the 
premier high-tech companies in the country, which is located in 
Northern Virginia, that has reinstated to a large degree the 
superiority of American submarines, giving us some 200 times the 
capability we had in the past with about one-tenth of the cost. It has 
really been a great breakthrough.
  The committee likes this program.
  We want to apologize to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and 
to the Navy because due to a technical error, the program fell out of 
our budget. The other body does have it in their budget. And so, when 
we go into conference, we are going to make sure that we work to 
restore that. It is an outstanding program. It provides enormous 
leverage for the U.S., and we will work during the conference to 
restore it.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Riley).
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), 
section 141 of the National defense authorization bill for fiscal year 
2000 contains a provision that would allow nonstockpile chemical 
agents, munitions, or related materials specifically designated by the 
Secretary of Defense to be destroyed at chemical stockpile facilities 
once the affected States have issued the appropriate permits.
  One of those facilities is located in my district at Anniston, 
Alabama. I am concerned and strongly believe that local jurisdictions 
should have a voice in any decision to use chemical stockpile 
destruction facilities for purposes other than the purpose for which 
they were originally constructed, destruction of the stockpile of 
lethal agents and munitions that are stored at the site.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his expression of 
concern and for his leadership in this area.
  In discussing the chemical agents and munitions weapons destruction 
program, the committee report notes and has emphasized the increasing 
practice of meaningful involvement by State and local jurisdictions in 
the development of programmatic and policy decisions that are specific 
to their local stockpile storage sites.
  We will work with the gentleman in this area.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express some concerns that I 
have with the McIntyre Amendment, which is included in the en bloc 
amendment offered by Mr. Spence.
  The McIntyre Amendment would direct DOE laboratories to make 
available a range of expedited dispute resolution procedures to resolve 
differences with private sector entities. The goal of this amendment is 
good. Given the nature of technology transfer, and the demands of 
bringing new technologies to the marketplace in a timely manner, it is 
important that disputes are settled quickly and amicably.
  But I am worried that this amendment's focus on expedited resolutions 
would sometimes exclude more appropriate forums for the resolution of 
disputes. I also believe we need to keep in mind the interest of the 
American taxpayer and not subject federally funded institutions to 
dispute resolution procedures that fail to protect their interests. In 
an effort to provide a speedy resolution to disagreements, I am 
concerned that this amendment may unintentionally fail to ensure access 
to the appropriate venue for resolution.
  There is no evidence, Mr. Chairman, that system-wide deficiencies 
exist in the federal

[[Page H4083]]

technology transfer process. Indeed, technology transfer laws have made 
it possible for important federally developed technologies to reach the 
commercial marketplace. It is important that we not threaten the 
success we have had in technology transfer by making changes in the 
process that might restrict the ability of our laboratories to 
participate.
  I appreciate the dialogue that Mr. McIntyre and I have had on this 
amendment in recent days and I look forward to working with him to 
address my concerns as this legislation moves forward.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc 
amendment and want to thank the Chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, the Ranking Democrat, and the Chairman of the Procurement 
Subcommittee for their support of my amendment which provides an 
authorization of funding for the procurement of important fire fighting 
equipment used by the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.
  Currently, there are twelve Modular Airborne Firefighting Systems 
known as MAFFS in operation, two of which operate in California. These 
units, which are twenty-six years old and which are used exclusively on 
military aircraft to help fight forest fires across the country, are 
now at the end of their useful life and are in urgent need of 
replacement. Our Air Force Reserve and National Guard believe that each 
year these aged and outdated systems continue to be used, the more they 
become a danger to the C-130s they are flown in and the crews that man 
them.
  As you know California and many other areas of the Southwest suffer 
from severe wildfire damage every year. These units are extremely 
important in helping to fight these fires and the replacement of these 
MAFFS units is a high priority among our National Guard.
  Last year, for Fiscal Year 1999, the Defense Appropriations bill 
included $6 million for the procurement and replacement of the first 
several MAFFS units. I understand the Air Force has already begun the 
process of competing these funds for the replacement units.
  My amendment simply authorizes the Secretary of the Air Force to 
carry out the remainder of this procurement.
  I understand the many competing, and important programs for which the 
Committees must provide funding and I appreciate the Committee's 
willingness to help support this critically needed firefighting 
equipment by accepting my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment was inspired by a House Science 
Committee Democratic Staff report entitled ``Spinoff or Ripoff,'' 
released on April 9 of this year, which examined many aspects of the 
technology transfer program at a government-owned contractor-operated 
National Laboratory. I would like to submit to the record Chapter C of 
the Committee Staff report, which reviews an intellectual property 
dispute, and the technology transfer practices at one of our National 
Laboratories.
  This amendment will help ensure that the transfer of technology from 
our National Labs to American business is working hard as well as it 
should. It will make alternative dispute resolution and mediation 
available to small companies that simply can't afford the time or costs 
associated with a prolonged legal dispute with the government-owned 
Labs. Avoiding a prolonged legal battle will not only save money and 
resources for American companies, but it will also save money for the 
American taxpayers.
  This amendment will hold the contractor that operates the Lab liable 
for damages to the extent that they are found at fault. This is simply 
assuring appropriate accountability for those who participate in 
technology transfer practices that may cause harm to commercial 
businesses.
  This amendment also addresses the structure of the technology 
transfer policies at each of the DOE National Laboratories. Today, if 
any company in this Nation wanted to enter into technology transfer 
partnerships with multiple DOE National Laboratories, they would have 
to deal with a different set of procedural requirements at each Lab. 
This amendment will ensure consistency of technology transfer policies 
and procedures across the Labs. We hope that this will encourage 
maximum utilization of tax-payer funded research and development by 
commercial industry.
  I would like to make it clear that I believe that most of the people 
working at our National Laboratories are among our most talented and 
patriotic citizens. We are concerned that the technology personnel at 
these Labs receive sufficient training in U.S. law governing technology 
transfer. This amendment requires that personnel responsible for 
patenting, licensing, and commercialization activities--all of which 
are fundamental to a successful technology transfer program--be 
knowledgeable about the appropriate legal, procedural, and ethical 
standards.
  This amendment is intended to help ensure that future technology 
transfer activities at the National Labs are carried out in a manner 
befitting a taxpayer-funded entity, with the goal of strengthening the 
competitive, scientific, and economic stature of American companies and 
research organizations. This amendment will strengthen the role that 
the National Laboratories will play in bringing this great Country into 
the 21st Century. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the 
future of technology transfer and our National Laboratories by 
supporting the McIntyre-Cramer amendment.

                           Spinoff or Ripoff?


technology transfer at department of energy national laboratories: the 
development & commercialization of micropower impulse radar at lawrence 
                     livermore national laboratory

     (C) The Intellectual Property Dispute with TDC
       There are four stories that can be told relating to the 
     intellectual property dispute between the Laboratory and TDC. 
     The first story, and the one that attracted Congressional 
     attention, was a claim by TDC that Thomas McEwan and the 
     LLNL/UC had appropriated TDC's technology and passed it off 
     as their own. The second story is Mr. McEwan's story; not 
     surprisingly, it lies approximately 180 degrees away from the 
     TDC claims. While Democratic Staff will briefly recount these 
     two claims, we do not have the capability to determine where 
     the truth lies. We simply cannot ascertain whose version of 
     the truth is right, and we repeat the tales simply to aid 
     those who would take up further investigation and to create a 
     context in which the third and fourth stories make more 
     sense.
       It is the third and fourth stories, regarding technology 
     transfer practices at the National Laboratories and the 
     Laboratories' response to complaints such as TDC's, that 
     raise important policy questions: Is there adequate guidance 
     for inventors on what prior art they are required to cite 
     when crafting patent applications? Are the Laboratory 
     technology transfer attorneys doing a reliable job of 
     scrubbing and perfecting those applications before submitting 
     them to the PTO? \1\ Is there a policy in place at the 
     Laboratories that directs what the response of a Laboratory 
     should be when it is faced with a complaint like TDC's?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       If the technology transfer process at the Laboratories 
     allows incomplete applications to go forward, it may be that 
     there are cases out there, still unidentified, where the PTO 
     has assigned a patent in good faith to the Laboratory based 
     on incomplete disclosure of prior art. In this event, the 
     taxpayers are at risk for legal costs and damages should a 
     private firm or individual challenge that patent and win at 
     trial. Without judging the merits of the TDC claim against 
     the Laboratory, there may be a system in place at LLNL that 
     could create more TDC-type complaints in the future.\2\
       Finally, a fourth story can be told about the response of 
     LLNL/UC to TDC's claim as well as to repeated requests by 
     Members of Congress both for information and for a resolution 
     to the problem. TDC first brought this matter to the 
     attention of DOE in fall, 1995. It was not until December 
     1997 that LLNL/UC submitted the patent for reexamination to 
     the PTO. Moreover, LLNL/UC have consistently supplied both 
     TDC and Members of Congress misleading or factually incorrect 
     information regarding several aspects of the 
     commercialization of MIR technology, and their submission of 
     this information has consistently taken much longer than it 
     should have. The policy issue raised by this aspect of the 
     case is whether there are options available to a small 
     private sector entity when making a complaint against a 
     National Laboratory to ensure that the complaint is addressed 
     promptly and in good faith by the Laboratory in question.
     (1) TDC's account of intellectual property theft
       In essence, the TDC account is that Thomas McEwan and LLNL/
     UC stole technology from TDC and Larry Fullerton. As Ralph 
     Petroff of TDC stated in a February 9, 1999 letter to Dr. 
     Michal Freedhoff: ``(t)his is not technology transfer; this 
     is the `evil twin' of technology transfer--the government 
     knowingly appropriates technology that it did not invent, 
     sells licenses for technology that does not work, and 
     declares the whole process ``the most successful technology 
     transfer project in DOE history.''
       TDC argues that Mr. McEwan began working on his MIR project 
     immediately upon his return from the March, 1990 LANL meeting 
     on UWB radar where he had heard at least one presentation 
     involving Fullerton, and that ``Mr. Fullerton presented two 
     papers at the Symposium.'' \3\ TDC describes this symposium 
     as a ``small conference'' and quotes another attendee as 
     saying that ``(y)ou could not have attended that conference 
     without being exposed to the Fullerton technology.'' \4\ TDC 
     also notes that Aviation Week & Space Technology, ``a 
     publication that is widely read at LLNL,'' ran two articles 
     subsequent to the conference that emphasized Mr. Fullerton's 
     work and patents.\5\ Finally, TDC notes that several other 
     publications that would probably have been seen by those in 
     the UWB radar community in the early 1990s also mention Larry 
     Fullerton and his inventions.\6\ In short, Mr. McEwan had to 
     have known who Larry Fullerton was, the nature of Mr. 
     Fullerton's work and that Mr. Fullerton held patents in the 
     UWB radar field.
       More proof of Mr. McEwan's awareness of Fullerton is 
     offered by TDC: ``The `never-

[[Page H4084]]

     heard-of-Fullerton' explanation was further contradicted by 
     the comments of two customers (one commercial, one 
     government) who claimed that Lawrence Livermore personnel 
     (including McEwan himself) had contacted them in an attempt 
     to take potential business away from Time Domain. The basic 
     message was `You don't want to (sic) business with Time 
     Domain. Our technology is the same as Fullerton's--only 
     better.' '' \7\
       TDC also claimed that ``McEwan himself made the comment 
     that the `MIR technology was the same as Fullerton's--only 
     better.'' \8\
       Finally, TDC points to a September, 1990 funding proposal 
     co-authored by Thomas McEwan and David Christie. This 
     presentation, titled ``Ultra-Wideband Time Domain Imaging 
     Radar,'' included a graph that TDC's attorneys concluded was 
     a reconstruction of a graph included in the paper co-authored 
     by Fullerton and presented at the March, 1990 LANL 
     meeting.\9\ That presentation, according to TDC: ``utiliz(ed) 
     only slightly reformatted graphs of the same information 
     (emphasis in original) that Fullerton presented at Los 
     Alamos! . . . This proves McEwan knew of the Fullerton 
     technology and was busily preparing presentations within 
     weeks after the Los Alamos Symposium . . . (T)his document 
     proves that McEwan had access to Fullerton's work, and 
     therefore that McEwan derived his invention from Fullerton.'' 
     \10\
       TDC goes on to say: ``This blatant misappropriation of 
     intellectual property was the beginning, we believe, of the 
     pattern of `inventions' by McEwan. McEwan's successful 
     solicitation of financial support from LLNL led the Lab into 
     the field of `reverse technology transfer'--taking technology 
     from the private sector and using public funds to compete 
     against the original inventor (emphasis in original).\11\
       Review of Laboratory documents and other materials by 
     Democratic Staff revealed at least two other occasions when, 
     prior to his 1993 patent application, Mr. McEwan cited the 
     work of Larry Fullerton. A June 27, 1990 internal memo from 
     T.E. McEwan to E.M. Campbell stated: ``A recent Aviation Week 
     article brought out another new area for fast impulses--
     covert and spread-spectrum communications. Apparently some 
     outfit perfected a time-domain encoder which uses picosecond 
     timing to convey information and is both undetectable and 
     undecipherable with conventional gear.'' This quote describes 
     the substance of the June 4, 1990 Aviation Week & Space 
     Technology article that pointed to Fullerton's work in UWB 
     communications.\12\
       On February 11, 1992, Thomas McEwan faxed a copy of a 
     Fullerton paper entitled ``Ultra-Wideband Beamforming in 
     Sparse Arrays'' to Mr. Bruce Winker of Rockwell 
     International.\13\ Mr. Winker had been in discussions with 
     Mr. McEwan and LLNL about licensing a shockline 
     technology.\14\ Mr. McEwan had apparently promised to send 
     Mr. Winker a paper that spoke to a technical issue that 
     Winker had raised--Fullerton's paper is what was faxed out.
       This additional example confirms Mr. McEwan's knowledge of 
     Fullerton and TDC's work in this area as of February, 1992. 
     In August, 1992, McEwan filed his first Invention Disclosure 
     form; in 1993 he filed his first patent applications on UWB 
     for motion-sensing radar technology. As TDC notes, neither 
     the Invention Disclosure nor the patent application makes any 
     mention of Larry Fullerton despite the many occasions on 
     which McEwan was exposed to Fullerton's work. TDC goes on to 
     claim that McEwan was engaged in ``terminology tactics'' 
     designed to obscure the similarities between the device he 
     was submitting for patent protection and the inventions that 
     Fullerton already had patents on--patents going back to 
     1987.\15\
       In sum, TDC argues that Mr. McEwan knew about Mr. 
     Fullerton's work; Mr. McEwan felt Fullerton's work was 
     important enough to cite or mention to others at the 
     Laboratory and to an outside party with whom he was 
     negotiating; Mr. McEwan neglected to cite any of that work in 
     his Invention Disclosure form or patent applications to try 
     to obscure from the PTO the similarity between his and 
     Fullerton's work. With a patent in hand, Mr. McEwan and LLNL/
     UC could then proceed to license ``their'' technology and 
     reap the enormous profits that would come--all at the expense 
     of TDC. To defend its intellectual property, TDC would have 
     to bear the costs of litigation against a Federally-funded 
     entity and the State of California.
     (2) Thomas McEwan's account of intellectual creativity
       Mr. McEwan's account of events is extraordinarily different 
     from the TDC version. It is difficult to form a coherent 
     picture of the McEwan and LLNL/UC account because of 
     differences in claims that have come to us from Mr. McEwan 
     and LLNL/UC and because of holes in the documentary record 
     provided by LLNL/UC. Consequently, some of the following is 
     based on piecing that record together, largely from 
     communications from Mr. McEwan to others, including 
     Democratic Staff.\16\
       Mr. McEwan became interested in UWB applications and 
     decided to attend the March, 1990 LANL meeting. He wrote in 
     his trip report on the symposium that his interest was piqued 
     by an article in Aviation Week & Space Technology \17\ that 
     ``it could defeat stealth technology and the stealth 
     community regards impulse radar as a `very very touchy 
     issue.' '' \18\ In preparation for the March session at LANL, 
     he began reading relevant literature in January, 1990. His 
     Task Progress Report (TPR) for January reads (in part): 
     ``Impulse radar was surveyed in the library, with some papers 
     on subsurface probing found.'' Mr. McEwan's February, 1990 
     TPR reads (in part): ``Impulse radar range calculations were 
     made, and related survey work continued.''
       Mr. McEwan attended the March, 1990 LANL meeting along with 
     10 other LLNL employees. This Symposium included more than 
     200 official participants with 74 papers presented. Mr. 
     McEwan maintains that: ``I did not see or hear Mr. Fullerton 
     at the conference, and can only assume that he made an oral 
     presentation, if any, during the classified session, which I 
     can prove I missed except for the opening paper by Col. 
     Taylor (as I recall).''
       Mr. McEwan also adds that: ``I believe Forrest Anderson 
     orally presented the first [Fullerton] paper on antenna 
     arrays, with Mr. Fullerton cited as a co-author. Mr. 
     Fullerton is not listed as an author or co-author on the 
     second paper,\19\ so I'm confused about TDC's claim that 
     it's Fullerton's paper (don't you have to be an author to 
     claim it's your paper?). Neither paper was mentioned in my 
     extensive trip report, nor Dave Christie's.'' \20\
       Mr. McEwan is right to raise a question about the TDC claim 
     that Fullerton presented two papers. There are references to 
     Fullerton in the text of the Bretthorst paper, but he is not 
     listed as a co-author; TDC's assertion that he had two papers 
     at the conference is misleading. In any case, Mr. McEwan's 
     trip report does not offer clear evidence that he attended 
     either presentation. However, he does mention work being done 
     at Washington University, stating ``They ran probability of 
     detection studies on 300 ps impulse returns.'' \21\ This is 
     certainly a reference to the Bretthorst (Washington 
     University) et al. paper. Whether McEwan attended the 
     presentation or saw a poster regarding this work, or learned 
     of it in some other way, is unclear. But even if he had 
     attended the presentation, it was not given by Mr. 
     Fullerton.\22\
       Mr. McEwan submitted a very detailed, six-page trip report 
     that mentions 23 different organizations or presentations, 
     though it isn't always clear whether he was at a 
     presentation, saw a poster, collected a paper or learned 
     about the work he mentioned in another fashion. One could 
     probably fairly characterize the majority of his discussion 
     regarding applications that relate the possibility that UWB 
     could defeat stealth technology.
       Mr. McEwan returned from LANL excited about the 
     possibilities of developing UWB technologies. In his trip 
     report, he writes: ``There was virtually no mention of work 
     below 100 ps and no mention of high power avalanche shock-
     wave devices. By all appearances, our work in the Laser 
     Program places us well in the lead for high power sub-100-ps 
     pulses . . .'' \23\
       ``Our work in the Laser Program positions us in the areas 
     of waveform generation and transmitters with our avalanche 
     shock-wave devices and in the receiver area with our high 
     speed instrumentation work, e.g., photoconductive sensors and 
     sampling devices. Avalanche shock-wave pulse generation is an 
     area where LLNL retains international leadership. We are 
     currently generating 100 kW pulses with a 25ps risetime and 
     expect to be near the 1MW level within six months. . . . It 
     is possible that avalanche shock-wave techniques could 
     satisfy virtually all impulse radar requirements.'' \24\
       Mr. McEwan wasn't the only one from the group who saw some 
     possibility of applying the work they had been doing for the 
     NOVA laser to solving challenges to UWB applications. Mr. 
     David Christie's trip report reads in part: ``My assessment 
     is that this technology is still in its infancy . . . 
     Clearly, the message was that everything is at an early stage 
     of development, not just the high average power, high rep-
     rate impulse generator technology. This leaves both time and 
     room for us to get involved . . . My opinion is that the 
     `bulk avalanche' GaAs [gallium arsenide] switch is a good 
     candidate for further examination. Its availability at a 
     significant peak power and rep-rate could serve to shape the 
     direction of the impulse radar business. At a minimum, it 
     would give us a clear entry into the early development of 
     impulse radar technology. Power Spectra [a private firm] is 
     known to be developing this technology for radar, 
     countermeasure, and detonator applications. My impression is 
     that they are still struggling with life and reliability 
     issues. The University of Texas has one graduate student 
     working on the avalanche mode switch, and LLNL, as you know, 
     has a small effort funded by Engineering. The physics of the 
     `bulk avalanche' switch are not yet understood, and . . . 
     would be the most important thing to address first.'' \25\
       Mr. McEwan did apply or internal Laboratory funding to 
     develop this technology; he and LLNL/UC have maintained that 
     he never received funding and had to work on the UWB 
     technology in this spare time. However, Democratic Staff are 
     in possession of a series of documents that indicate that he 
     not only proposed and received funding for these efforts in 
     FY 91, FY92, and FY 93, but was also involved in a series of 
     marketing presentations in 1991 and 1992\26\ (see appendix 2 
     for citations). These presentations raise the possibility 
     that Mr. McEwan possessed the elements for his invention well 
     before the date on his invention Disclosure Form. However, 
     we were unable to examine his lab notebooks to track the 
     progress of his work.
       In any case, Mr. McEwan did not file an Invention 
     Disclosure until August 28, 1992. He

[[Page H4085]]

     portrays the moment as coming from a flash of insight. A July 
     24, 1998 letter from Mr. McEwan to Mr. Ron Cochran states: 
     ``I invented MIR during 1992 while experimenting with a 
     classic impulse radar that is well-described in the technical 
     literature; the radar was similar to ground penetrating 
     radar, but employed sampling technology that I developed for 
     the Nova laser program at LLNL. The idea for MIR came quite 
     by accident and in a flash of inspiration--I still remember 
     the moment. Its subsequent development and refinement relied 
     heavily on my extensive background in high speed electronics, 
     electronic warfare and sampling technology.'' \27\
       After this insight, he reportedly began and completed his 
     30-page Invention Disclosure form (over a very short ten-day 
     period) and worked with the LLNL patent office to prepare his 
     first MIR patent application.
       Mr. McEwan has not denied knowing something about Fullerton 
     and his work. However, he denies that he had an obligation to 
     cite Fullerton in his patents or Invention Disclosure: ``As I 
     understand it, TDC's position is that I should have cited 
     Fullerton on my MIR motion sensor patent. I agree--had I 
     known about the Fullerton motion sensor patent. I disagree 
     with the idea that knowing someone was working in radar would 
     be sufficient grounds to search their patent records. By that 
     logic, I should have searched all 100 presenters at the LANL 
     '90 conference, and (sic) well as 1000s of others in the 
     field of radar. After all, radar is a greatly diversified 
     field.'' \28\
       He goes on to say that: ``The LLNL patent group did not 
     perform a prior art search on the disputed MIR patent. As I 
     understand it, LLNL patent group generally relies on the PTO 
     to conduct a minimal prior art search. There's nothing 
     illegal in not performing a prior art search--you are only 
     required to submit known relevant art.'' \29\
     (3) LLNL/UC technology transfer practices may be inadequate
       It is impossible to determine, based on the materials in 
     our possession, whose version of the story is accurate. But 
     from a policy perspective, our concern rests with the 
     adequacy of the LLNL/UC patenting process. In this sense, 
     this third story begins where Mr. McEwan's defense leaves 
     off.
       Mr. McEwan's defense for not citing TDC rests on his 
     understanding that relevant prior art resides only with 
     patents. It is clear that even as late as October, 1998, 
     three years after the intellectual property dispute with TDC 
     had begun, he was still defending his failure to cite TDC 
     based on his lack of awareness of the TDC patents. The duty 
     of candor that comes with a patent application includes a 
     much broader conception of prior relevant art than Mr. 
     McEwan's position reveals.\30\
       Independent patent experts contacted by Democratic Staff 
     have said that material information could include articles in 
     the press, white papers, presentations at conferences, or 
     publicly available information from any other source, 
     including but not limited to patents.\31\ Consequently, Mr. 
     McEwan's knowledge of the Fullerton patent portfolio is not 
     the sole universe of prior art which he should have been 
     concerned about citing in a patent application. Mr. McEwan 
     could reasonably have been expected, had he understood this 
     broader definition of prior art, to have cited the Fullerton 
     work that he was aware of that TDC can point to as proof that 
     Mr. McEwan had knowledge of Mr. Fullerton's efforts.
       To put this another way, if Mr. Fullerton's work was 
     important enough to cite in internal Laboratory memoranda and 
     faxes to third parties, it was probably something an attorney 
     would suggest be included in his patent applications. The 
     evidence that Mr. McEwan may not, even now, understand this 
     broader responsibility lies in the language of his defense; 
     he does not say he didn't cite Mr. Fullerton's body of work 
     because it was not relevant prior art, nor does he deny that 
     he at least knew something about Mr. Fullerton. He rests his 
     defense on ignorance of Mr. Fullerton's patents. This 
     suggests that neither at the time he was preparing his 
     patents nor to this day has Mr. McEwan been properly 
     instructed by a LLNL/UC patent attorney on the subject of 
     prior relevant art.
       LLNL/UC's technology transfer office had a duty to vet Mr. 
     McEwan's work in a meaningful fashion.\32\ Their guidance and 
     questioning of the inventor should have made clear the scope 
     of materials that would constitute prior relevant art. 
     Further, we would expect that the technology transfer office 
     should have engaged in their own review of the literature and 
     existing patents and Fullerton should have shown up 
     prominently in one place or the other (or both), leading to 
     follow-up with Mr. McEwan.\33\
       This apparently did not happen. If LLNL/UC's patenting 
     process was more rigorous, it is highly likely that at least 
     some of Mr. Fullerton's work would have been cited as prior 
     art. It is also likely that any one of those citations would 
     have triggered the patent reviewers to find and examine Mr. 
     Fullerton's patents for comparison and all parties in this 
     dispute would have had a clearer, fuller ruling from the PTO 
     many years ago. If these is fault here, it perhaps lies not 
     with Mr. McEwan, but with LLNL/UC's patenting process. We 
     strongly recommend that this process be reviewed by DOE and 
     Laboratory management, and that steps be taken to insure that 
     a) every disputed patent owned by LLNL/UC is thoroughly 
     reviewed, and the PTO and general public be immediately 
     notified of any failures to cite relevant prior art and b) 
     every future patent application is thoroughly reviewed and 
     appropriate prior art searches done before the attorneys for 
     LLNL/UC move patents forward to the PTO.
     (4) LLNL/UC's response to TDC and Members of Congress was 
         inadequate
       The fourth story associated with the intellectual property 
     dispute between LLNL/UC and TDC is LLNL/UC's response, both 
     to the dispute and to Congressional inquiries associated with 
     it.
       In September, 1995, a meeting was held in Senator Shelby's 
     office which included DOE personnel and representatives of a 
     precursor entity to TDC. LLNL/UC personnel were reportedly 
     invited but unable to attend. This meeting was the first 
     known instance in which DOE was made aware that the MIR 
     patent claims granted to Mr. McEwan and LLNL/UC were being 
     contested by TDC. It also appears clear from the Taylor/
     McEwan paper cited earlier that Mr. McEwan and LLNL/UC 
     personnel knew about TDC's patents by fall, 1995.\34\
       Appendix 4 lists more than 40 additional attempts by 
     Members of Congress and TDC and/or its precursor entities to 
     resolve this matter with correspondence, meetings and 
     conversations with LLNL/DOE. In the words of TDC: ``Neither 
     LLNL-UC nor DOE has made any serious attempt to resolve the 
     situation. Indeed, there is little incentive for LLNL-UC to 
     ``do the right thing'' under the present structure because 
     they can outlast any private sector challenge by using the 
     almost unlimited legal and financial resources of the state 
     of California and the U.S. Government.'' \35\
       Several of the contacts listed in Appendix 4 are worthy of 
     some mention. The June 19, 1997 document entitled ``Summary 
     of the Dispute Between Time Domain and LLNL'' is 21 pages 
     long with a very lengthy appendix, and was provided by TDC to 
     LLNL at the request of Dr. C. Bruce Tarter.\36\
       On February 2, 1998, Dr. C. Bruce Tarter responded to the 
     June 19, 1997 submission from TDC with a 5-page reply. The 
     response stated that: ``In response to the initial complaint, 
     the matter was fully investigated and no evidence was found 
     to support any of the allegations. . . . Upon receipt of the 
     ``new material,'' we took all the papers and exhibits you 
     submitted and reviewed them in detail. I sought input from 
     several associates, with knowledge of the patenting process 
     and the technical fields. Our unanimous conclusion, after 
     that review, was that the material did not support your 
     representations.''
       When LLNL/UC personnel were asked to provide copies of this 
     investigation, Committee Staff were informed that the results 
     of these endeavors were conveyed to Dr. Tarter orally, and 
     that correspondence between LLNL/UC and its counsel was 
     privileged and could not be shared.
       On September 25, 1998, Congressmen Brown, Cramer, Roemer, 
     Aderholt and Callahan submitted 9 pages of detailed questions 
     to both LLNL/UC and DOE.\37\
       On December 21, 1998 LLNL/UC responded to this letter. The 
     response contained few specific answers to the variety of 
     technical and legal questions posed, referring the requesters 
     to submissions by LLNL/UC to the PTO and other documentation. 
     On February 23, 1999, the DOE responded with no specific 
     answers to these questions.
       The LLNL/UC MIR web site continues to make no mention of 
     this dispute or the status of the PTO reexamination. A 
     prospective licensee who was perusing the site would know 
     neither that the intellectual property was being challenged, 
     nor that the PTO had issued a First Office Action.
       TDC attempted to resolve this matter with LLNL/UC in 1995; 
     Nearly four years later and after numerous attempts on the 
     part of Members of Congress to expedite the resolution of 
     this problem, it remains tied up in what could be a lengthy 
     and costly ruling and appeals process in the PTO--a process 
     that was only started two and a half years after the 
     beginning of the dispute. Dr. C. Bruce Tarter does state, in 
     a September 17, 1998 letter to Congressmen Brown, Cramer and 
     Roemer, that: ``For example, the allegation that LLNL has not 
     done what it should to resolve this issue as quickly as 
     possible is especially troubling in light of the special 
     efforts LLNL has made toward expeditious resolution. In fact, 
     shortly after initial questions were raised more than two and 
     one-half years ago, a request for re-examination was proposed 
     by LLNL. Filing this re-examination request was delayed at 
     the urging of a predecessor to TDS in this area, Pulson, and 
     subsequently of TDS in order to explore other approaches. 
     Nevertheless, in LLNL's view, this PTO process continued to 
     provide the only feasible means available to us to effect an 
     objective and expedient resolution to this issue by an entity 
     with the expertise to deal with the highly technical subject 
     matter.'' \38\
       Democratic Staff believes that if a private sector entity 
     enters into dispute with a Federally Funded entity, that the 
     Federally Funded entity should behave with the utmost haste 
     and integrity in order to see that the matter is resolved as 
     expeditiously as possible and with the least possible expense 
     to the private sector entity. This may not have happened in 
     this case. We believe that before resorting to a PTO process 
     which can take years and cost hundreds of thousands of 
     dollars, Federally Funded entities should attempt to enter 
     into a less expensive, less time-consuming solution such as 
     alternative dispute resolution (ADR). We have been told that 
     both TDS and DOE were willing in principle to enter into some 
     sort of ADR, but

[[Page H4086]]

     that LLNL/UC was not; we don't know the degree to which the 
     option was explored by LLNL/UC before it was rejected, nor do 
     we know why it was ultimately rejected.
       We also note that since beginning to examine the 
     allegations made by TDC against LLNL/UC we have been made 
     aware of three additional disputes, two of which involve 
     LLNL/UC, that have also been in progress for several years 
     without any resolution.\39\
       Another issue is the manner in which LLNL/UC responded to 
     inquiries made by TDC, Members of Congress, and Democratic 
     Staff. The responses were generally late, generally lacking 
     specific answers to the questions asked, and at times 
     including information later established to be incorrect or 
     misleading. One such example (discussed in an earlier 
     section) involves LLNL/UC's response to a question regarding 
     the way the FCC licensing requirements were portrayed. 
     Another involves the genesis of early UWB radar work at LLNL, 
     as Thomas McEwan and LLNL/UC personnel have maintained a 
     version of the circumstances surrounding the development and 
     commercialization of MIR that is often at odds with other 
     documentation obtained by Democratic Staff (see Appendix 2).


                Appendix 2, The Early Development of MIR

       The discovery of MIR was said to have been accidental, not 
     to have been a result of targeted UWB radar R&D, and to have 
     taken place in 1992 during a flash of inspiration experienced 
     by Mr. McEwan. LLNL/UC and Mr. McEwan have made the following 
     statements in regard to this discovery: ``Since the MIR 
     technology was developed in conjunction with work being 
     performed for laser fusion research, there was no separate 
     request for funding in the early stages of the work.\40\
       ``After the LANL `90 conference, LLNL turned down my radar 
     funding requests in the `90-`93 time frame. I ended up 
     developing MIR after hours.'' \41\
       During a meeting with Committee Staff at LLNL on December 
     8, 1998, Dr. Michael Campbell, Director of Laser Programs at 
     LLNL, reiterated the claim that no targeted development of 
     UWB radar technology was funded prior to Mr. McEwan's 
     reportedly accidental discovery of MIR in 1992. According to 
     Dr. Campbell, Mr. McEwan's sole responsibility until the date 
     of that discovery in 1992 was the development of the 
     transient digitizer used in NOVA experiments, and no UWB 
     radar work done by Mr. McEwan or anyone else in the Laser 
     Programs division at LLNL until after the accidental 1992 
     discovery of MIR.
       However, LLNL/UC documents obtained by Democratic Staff 
     indicate that funding was obtained to conduct this work in 
     FY91, FY92 and FY93:
       January, 1990: ``Impulse radar was surveyed in the library, 
     with some papers on subsurface probing found.'' Tom McEwan's 
     Task Progress Report.
       February, 1990: ``Impulse radar range calculations were 
     made, and related survey work continued.'' Tom McEwan's Task 
     Progress Report.
       March, 1990: ``Attended the four day ``First Los Alamos UWB 
     Radar Conference. . . Several basic impulse radar antennas 
     were built and pulses were propagated. . . Met with other Lab 
     researchers on impulse radar and decided we could all be of 
     mutual benefit.'' Tom McEwan's Task Progress Report.
       April, 1990: ``Wrote an IR&D [Industrial Research and 
     Development] proposals on impulse radar and presented the 
     proposal to the Lucifer group.'' Tom McEwan's Task Progress 
     Report.
       May, 1990: ``A prototype solid-state pulser was built and 
     tested. Pulse amplitude was 1.28 kV into 25m at 200ps FWHM. 
     An annual report was written. Fast pulse/impulse radar 
     potential users were surveyed and related proposal work 
     took.'' Draft of Tom McEwan's Task Progress Report.
       May 10, 1990: ``Mike, this is in response to your recent 
     memo. . . . With the development of higher power avalanche 
     diodes (10MW), we could meet virtually all future impulse 
     radar requirements. . . . Receiver development--picosecond 
     amplifier, detector and sampler design work using the ERD 
     foundry. . . Licensing would be a particularly sensitive 
     issue since to some extent all the individual elements of our 
     pulser have been published by others and so far the 
     technology is completely off-the-shelf. . . we probably don't 
     have a case for a patent. . . What we have is very close to a 
     profitable product which would normally be deemed proprietary 
     in private industry. . . we need some time to work with the 
     Patent Office and the technology transfer people. . .'' Memo 
     entitled Impulse Radar R&D Proposal from Thomas E. McEwan to 
     E. M. Campbell.
       June 27, 1999: ``A recent Aviation Week article brought out 
     another new area for fast impulses--covert and spread-
     spectrum communications. Apparently some outfit perfected a 
     time-domain encoder which uses picosecond timing to convey 
     information and is both undetectable and undecipherable with 
     conventional gear.'' Memo entitled Avalanche Pulser Update 
     from Thomas E. McEwan to E.M. Campbell.
       June 27, 1990: ``Concerning impulse radar interest, I 
     talked to Rick Ziolkowski of ERD's Electromagnetics Group. He 
     said he mentioned our work to several impulse radar funding 
     committee members in Washington, and they are very 
     interested.'' Memo entitled Avalanche Pulser Update from 
     Thomas E. McEwan to E.M. Campbell.
       September 12, 1990: ``The objective of this project is to 
     create a unique capability at LLNL in ultra-wideband time 
     domain imaging radar. . . FY `91 efforts will result in a 
     demonstration of imaging with time domain radar. . . This is 
     an opportunity to generate new programs in a growing 
     technology. . .'' Internal funding proposal entitled ``Ultra-
     Wideband Time Domain Imaging Radar,'' Thomas McEwan and David 
     Christie.\42\
       February 28, 1991: A presentation by Thomas McEwan to 
     General Motors entitled ``Ultra-Short Pulse Radar Proximity 
     Sensor'' described a device that was ``Low cost, <$10 
     projected, Low power (1 microwatt) spread spectrum operation, 
     small size & low cost, Environmental, safety and FCC approval 
     should be assured'' whose applications were the same as those 
     claimed by what would become known as MIR technology to be: 
     ``position sensing, fluid levels, trunk lid position, side & 
     rear obstacle detection, smart highway vehicle spacing, 
     motion sensing, wheel motion, security alarm, and collision 
     detection.'' Also, the presentation stated that LLNL was 
     ``funded to develop a prototype chip,'' \43\ was 
     ``building a short-pulse radar security alarm,'' and had 
     ``most of the base technology in place.''
       March 1, 1991: ``We are moving closer to making serious 
     proposals both within the Lab and through tech. Transfer, in 
     the area of transient digitizers and impulse radars,'' memo 
     entitled ``Monolithic Shock Line Feasibility Study'' from 
     Thomas McEwan to Don Meeker, also at LLNL. The memo also 
     requested funding.
       May 21, 1991: ``Vast market potential exists for these 
     systems,'' that ``Impulse radar shows potential for future 
     automotive sensors'' due to its ``simplicity and low cost,'' 
     and that ``covert operation [of a spread spectrum 
     communications system] is possible, especially if receiver 
     has timing knowledge for multiple pulse integration.'' \44\ 
     Thomas McEwan and Gregory Cooper, also of LLNL, research 
     proposal for an internal Lab-Wide IR&D Competition entitled 
     ``Development of a Transmit/Receive Element for New Sensor, 
     Radar and Communications Systems.''
       July 1, 1991: Thomas McEwan wrote a letter to W.R. Coggins, 
     Commander, Naval Sea System Command, describing the UWB 
     equipment that LLNL ``currently uses or have in design'' to 
     include an ``ultra-low cost, compact 50ps system in design 
     for short range mass-market applications'' in response to the 
     Commander's June 20, 1991 request for such information.
       March 19, 1992: ``A transmit/receive version will be used 
     in a very compact ultra-wideband (UWB) radar sensor,'' ``Mass 
     market UWB radar applications'' include ``door opener, stud 
     detector, motion detector/security alarm,'' the proximity 
     sensor ``antenna and electronics module fit in 1" package,'' 
     ``low cost, <$10 projected,'' ``Low power (1 microwatt) 
     spread spectrum operation'' and ``FCC approval should be 
     assured.'' Excerpts from a presentation by Thomas McEwan and 
     Gregory Cooper, in a Laboratory Directed Research and 
     Development (LDRD) Midyear Review \45\ entitled ``Development 
     of a Transmit/Receive Element for New Sensor, Radar and 
     Communications Systems.''
       May 1, 1992: ``Electrical pulse compression techniques 
     developed under LDRD '92 funding \46\ (short title: 
     ``transmit Element'') provide the foundation for a new sensor 
     technology based on the direct radiation of picosecond pulses 
     for pulse-echo radar. The sensor is expected to have a 2M 
     range, 2mm resolution, physical dimensions on the order of 2 
     cm and a cost of less than $10 . . . Signal processing 
     enhancements will allow extremely low power operation for 
     environmental, safety and FCC compatibility. A fully 
     functional prototype will be built as a precursor to a 
     miniaturized version based on custom integrated circuits. . . 
     .'' FY 93 funding proposed entitled ``Development of a 
     Miniature Ultra-Short Pulse Radar Sensor'' by Thomas McEwan 
     and Gregory Cooper.
       October, 1992: A LLNL viewgraph entitled ``FY93 RISE 
     Electronics Engineering Technology Base Plan'' dated October, 
     1992, lists a project entitled ``Ultra wideband radar motion 
     sensors'' with T. McEwan as the lead researcher. The proposed 
     funding for FY93 was $70,000--which was said to equal the 
     FY92 level.
       August 28, 1992: The first known MIR Invention Disclosure 
     by Thomas McEwan entitled ``Ultra Wideband Radar Motion 
     Sensor'' was filed on August 28, 1992. This 30-page document 
     states that funding had already been provided for the 
     project. The disclosure also states that the earliest 
     documentation of the invention was the first sketch or 
     drawing describing it, done on August 18, 1992, only 10 days 
     before the Invention Disclosure document was written. The 
     first model prototype was said to have been completed 4 days 
     later, on August 22, 1992. So, in the course of 10 days, Mr. 
     McEwan had his idea for MIR, drew complicated circuit and 
     block diagrams describing it, built a working prototype, 
     analyzed operational test data and prepared a 30-page 
     Invention Disclosure document. The disclosure states that 
     ``no past disclosures'' of ``documents that describe the 
     invention, that you have published or prepared for 
     publication, or presented on the subject'' had taken place 
     despite the February, 1991 and March, 1992 UWB radar 
     presentations which also contained verbal and pictorial 
     descriptions of a technology that seems extremely similar if 
     not identical to MIR. No dated pages from laboratory 
     notebooks are included in the Invention Disclosure 
     submission, and no other patents or publications or 
     references thereto are included as prior art references.

[[Page H4087]]

                               footnotes

     \1\ Democratic Staff would certainly agree that a Laboratory 
     stealing the innovations of a private sector firm and passing 
     them off as their own would raise a significant policy issue. 
     However, given the documentation in our possession, the facts 
     are not conclusive and we are reluctant to do more than 
     simply recount the competing claims of both sides.
     \2\ In fact, one such complaint has recently been brought to 
     the attention of Democratic Staff. Biosource, a small company 
     with ten issued patents in a particular water purification 
     technology, believes that LLNL/UC has patented and marketed a 
     similar technology without citing the relevant prior art and 
     with full knowledge of the existence of that prior art. 
     Democratic Staff have not conducted a thorough investigation 
     of this claim.
     \3\ TDC's June 19, 1997 submission to Dr. C. Bruce Tarter, 
     Director of LLNL, entitled ``Summary of the dispute between 
     Time Domain and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,'' 
     page 11.
     \4\ ``Summary of the Dispute,'' page 11. The quote used by 
     TDC on the impossibility of attending the conference without 
     seeing Fulllerton is unattributed.
     \5\ Excerpts from these articles, both published in Aviation 
     Week & Space Technology and authored by William B. Scott 
     include: ``Larry R. Fullerton, president of Time Domain 
     Systems, Inc., said his company has secured two patents on 
     UWB-based communications techniques and one for a radar 
     concept. Additional patent applications are `in progress' in 
     the U.S., Europe, Japan, India, Brazil and other countries, 
     he said. These ultra-wideband techniques are applicable to 
     covert communications, commercial/consumer products and an 
     area security system, in addition to standard radar 
     applications. All of these were `reduced to practice' before 
     he filed for patents, Fullerton said . . . Fullerton is part 
     of a small group of researchers that has been working on UWB 
     technologies and applications since the late 1970s.'' March 
     26, 1990, Vol. 132, No. 13, page 55. ``For example, Larry 
     Fullerton, president of Time Domain Systems, Inc., built his 
     first UWB communicator in 1976 and currently has a 
     functioning analog breadboard system in a Huntsville, Ala., 
     laboratory. It comprises a transmitter, receiver with cross-
     correlation front end, antennas, time-coding and all the 
     necessary components and subsystems required of a military-
     glass UWB communications system. Fullerton recently 
     demonstrated short-range, end-to-end transmission, reception 
     and processing of voice information . . .'', June 4, 1990, 
     Vol. 132, No. 23, Page 40. ``GRAPHIC: Photograph, Time Domain 
     Systems-developed ultra-wideband or impulse communicator 
     would find immediate applications as a covert communication 
     device for special forces. A laboratory demonstration system 
     currently is being tested; Graph, Time Domain Systems 
     President Larry Fullerton demonstrates breadboard version of 
     a basic UWB link. Cross-correlator, lock error and modulation 
     recovery circuit boards are at lower center.'' June 4, 1990 
     Vol. 132, No. 23, page 40.
     \6\ (a) A panel convened to assess the state of UWB 
     technology issued its report, ``Assessment of Ultra-Wideband 
     (UWB) Technology,'' OSD/DARPA Ultra-Wideband Radar Review 
     Panel, on July 13, 1990. The report, which examined public, 
     private and classified work in the field, indicates that 
     Larry Fullerton made a presentation to the panel, and that 
     TDC was working in the UWB-related areas of Switches, 
     Sources, Receivers, Antennas and Ranges. (b) ``The panel [the 
     1990 DARPA panel] listened to many proponents of and 
     contributors to the field of Impulse Radar . . . It heard of 
     interesting, creative work in the field by some of the 
     principal contributors: Gerry Ross of ANRO, Roger Vickers of 
     SRI, Larry Fullerton of Time Domain Systems, to mention some. 
     It learned that commercially available impulse radars were 
     doing terrain profiling, finding buried pipes and doing other 
     jobs where the combination of good range resolution, 
     relatively low frequency and a impulse, inexpensive systems 
     was a clear winner for such short range applications,'' 
     Charles A. Fowler, Chairman, DARPA UWB Radar Panel, in ``The 
     UWB Impulse Radar Caper or Punishment of the Innocent'', IEEE 
     AES Systems Magazine, December 1992 issue, page 3. (c) 
     ``Other panelists included . . . Larry Fullerton of Time 
     Domain Systems . . .'' Yale Jay Lubkin, ``illuminating the 
     Scene with Impulse Radar,'' A&DS, September/October 1990 
     edition, page 15.
     \7\ Summary of the Dispute,'' page 12.
     \8\ Summary of the Dispute,'' page 15.
     \9\ Wideband Beam Patterns from Sparse Arrays,'' by Forrest 
     Anderson, Consultant; Larry Fullerton, TDS; and Wynn 
     Christensen and Bert Kortegaard, LANL, Proceedings of the 
     First Los Alamos Symposium, March, 1990.
     \10\ Summary of the Dispute,'' page 12.
     \11\ ``Summary of the Dispute,'' page 13.
     \12\ There is no definitive proof that Mr. McEwan read the 
     March 26, 1990 Aviation Week & Space Technology article--
     though he did read prior articles and cites the June 4, 1990 
     piece in his memo. The March 26, 1990 article specifically 
     cites Fullerton for having secured two patents on UWB-based 
     communications techniques and one for a radar concept. 
     Additional patent applications were described as being in 
     progress.
     \13\ F. Anderson, W. Christensen, L. Fullerton and B. 
     Kortegaard, ``Ultra-wideband Beamforming in Sparse Arrays,'' 
     IEE Proceedings II, Vol. 138, No. 4, August 4, 1991. This 
     paper appears to be an updated version of the paper bearing 
     the same title that was presented at the March, 1990 LANL 
     meeting. An excerpt of this paper reads ``This research is 
     also of importance to wideband radar. Medical ultrasound 
     steered phase arrays use transmitted pulses consisting of 
     from one to three cycles of a damped sinusoid, which is 
     similar to certain ultra-wideband radar systems . . . This 
     type of transmitted pulse is use in an impulse radar that is 
     commercially available for geophysics applications . . . 
     Wide-band arrays have been constructed and tested by Time 
     Domain Systems . . .''
     \14\ As we understand it, this technology is an impulse 
     generation technology. Rockwell was also, unbeknownst to 
     LLNL, talking to TDC about using their signal processing 
     receiver design, placing Rockwell at the crossroads of 
     integrating LLNL and TDC technologies for the purpose of 
     developing a landmine detection and imaging system.
     \15\ ``Summary of the Dispute,'' page 13.
     \16\ We have chosen to tell Mr. McEwan's version as much as 
     possible, rather than the pre-masticated story LLNL/UC has 
     offered up. Mr. McEwan, as the LLNL inventor, is the central 
     figure and has neither the management nor political concerns 
     to temper his message that may play a role in shaping LLNL/
     UC's pablum. LLNL/UC's role will be discussed in a later 
     section.
     \17\ Early articles that discuss the potential ability of UWB 
     radar to defeat stealth aircraft include ``UWB Radar Has 
     Potential to Detect Stealth Aircraft,'' William B. Scott, and 
     ``Radar Networks, Computing Advances Seen As Keys to Counter 
     Stealth Technologies,'' David F. Bond, Aviation Week & Space 
     Technology, December 4, 1989.
     \18\ T.E. McEwan to J.D. Kilkenny, ``Report and Commentary on 
     the Ultra-Wideband Radar Symposium, March 12, 1990, page 1.
     \19\ ``Radar Target Discrimination Using Probability 
     Theory,'' C. Ray Smith, U.S. Army Missile Command; Lloyd S. 
     Riggs, Auburn University; and G. Larry Bretthorst, Washington 
     University at St. Louis. This second paper references Mr. 
     Fullerton's work, stating that ``The impulse radar used to 
     gather the experimental data used in this simulation is 
     briefly described in the introduction. Due to proprietary 
     restrictions, a complete description of the system cannot be 
     given at this time--contact Mr. Larry Fullerton for further 
     information.''
     \20\ October 7, 1998 email from Mr. Thomas McEwan to Dr. 
     Michal Freedhoff, page 5.
     \21\ T.E. McEwan to J.D. Kilkenny, ``Report and Commentary on 
     the Ultra-Wideband Radar Symposium, March 12, 1990, page 6.
     \22\ While Mr. Fullerton was not a presenter or co-author on 
     this paper, he is reported to have taken an active role in 
     the discussion following the presentation from his seat in 
     the audience. A February 2, 1998 affidavit from Mr. William 
     B. Moorhead, consultant, states ``. . . Fullerton bluntly 
     emphasized that he had some patents on his work . . . 
     Similarly, I observed Larry Fullerton answer questions from 
     his seat when another paper entitled `Radar Target 
     Discrimination Using Probability Theory' was being presented. 
     It was apparent to me that he was fielding the really 
     difficult questions . . .''
     \23\ T.E. McEwan to J.D. Kilkenny, ``Report and Commentary on 
     the Ultra-Wideband Radar Symposium, March 12, 1990, page 4.
     \24\ T.E. McEwan to J.D. Kilkenny, ``Report and Commentary on 
     the Ultra-Wideband Radar Symposium, March 12, 1990, page 6.
     \25\ March 26, 1990 Memorandum from David J. Christie to 
     Georg F. Albrecht entitled ``First Los Alamos Symposium on 
     Ultra-Wideband Radar,'' page 2.
     \26\ While some of these were specifically about the 
     shockline technology (which would be used to generate impulse 
     signal), as in the Rockwell negotiations discussed in the 
     above section, others appear to be general presentations on a 
     complete UWB radar system--not just an impulse source. For 
     example, a February 28, 1991 presentation by Thomas McEwan to 
     General Motors entitled ``Ultra-Short Pulse Radar Proximity 
     Sensor'' described a device that was ``Low cost, <$10 
     projected, Low power (1 microwatt) spread spectrum operation, 
     small size & low cost, Environmental, safety and FCC approval 
     should be assured'' whose applications were the same as those 
     claimed by what would become known as MIR technology to be: 
     ``position sensing, fluid levels, trunk lid position, side & 
     rear obstacle detection, smart highway vehicle spacing, 
     motion sensing, wheel motion, security alarm, and collision 
     detection.'' Also, the presentation stated that LLNL was 
     ``funded to develop a prototype chip,'' was ``building a 
     short-pulse radar security alarm,'' and had ``most of the 
     base technology in place.'' See Appendix 2 for other 
     citations.
     \27\ July 24, 1998 letter from Mr. Thomas McEwan to Mr. Ron 
     Cochran, page 1.
     \28\ October 25 email from Mr. Thomas McEwan to Dr. Michal 
     Freedhoff, page 3.
     \29\ October 25 email from Mr. Thomas McEwan to Dr. Michal 
     Freedhoff, page 3.
     \30\ Mr. McEwan was clearly aware of Mr. Fullerton's patents 
     by November 29, 1995, when Colonel James D. Taylor sent 
     McEwan a draft of an article on MIR that McEwan and Taylor 
     had agreed to co-author the previous winter. The draft 
     article states: ``MIR provides a convenient implementation of 
     a impulse radio link. An impulse radio system using these 
     principles was described by Mr. Larry Fullerton in his 
     patient descriptions for a time domain radio transmission 
     system [25] and a spread spectrum radio transmission [26].'' 
     James D. Taylor and Thomas E. McEwan, draft article. ``The 
     Micropower Impulse Radar.''
     \31\ Chapter 2000 on Duty of Disclosure of the Manual of 
     Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), used as the statutory 
     guideline by all patent examiners handling patent 
     applications at the U.S. PTO, states that: ``All individuals 
     covered by 37 CFR 1.56 (reproduced in MPEP Sec. 2001.01) have 
     a duty to disclose to the Patent and Trademark Office all 
     material information they are aware of regardless of the 
     source of or how they become aware of the information. 
     Materiality controls whether information must be disclosed to 
     the Office, not the circumstances under which or the source 
     from which the information is obtained. If material, the 
     information must be disclosed to the Office. The duty to 
     disclose material information extends to information such 
     individuals are aware of prior to or at the time of filing 
     the application or become aware of during the prosecution 
     thereof. Such individuals may be or become aware of material 
     information from various sources such as, for example, 
     coworkers, trade shows, communications from or with 
     competitors, potential infringers, or other third parties, 
     related foreign applications (see MPEP Sec. 2001.06(a)), 
     prior or co-pending United States patent applications (see 
     MPEP Sec. 2001.06(b), related litigation (see MPEP 
     Sec. 2001.06(c)) and preliminary examination searches.''
     \32\ Chapter 2000 on Duty of Disclosure of the Manual Patent 
     Examining Procedure (MPEP), used as the statutory guideline 
     by all patent examiners handling patent applications at the 
     PTO, states that: ``While it is not appropriate to attempt to 
     set forth procedures by which attorneys, agents, and other 
     individuals may ensure compliance with the duty of 
     disclosure, the items listed below are offered as examples of 
     possible procedures which could help avoid problems with the 
     duty of disclosure. Though compliance with these procedures 
     may not be required, they are presented as helpful 
     suggestions for avoiding duty of disclosure problems. 1. Many 
     attorneys, both corporate and private, are using letters and 
     questionnaires for applicants and others involved with the 
     filing and prosecution of the application and checklists for 
     themselves and applicants to ensure compliance with the duty 
     of disclosure. The letter generally explains the duty of 
     disclosure and what it means to the inventor and assignee. 
     The questionnaire asks the inventor and assignee questions 
     about--the origin of the invention and its point of departure 
     from what was previously known and in the prior art--possible 
     public uses and sales--prior publication, knowledge, patents, 
     foreign patents, etc. The checklist is used by the attorney 
     to ensure that the applicant has been informed of the duty of 
     disclosure and that the attorney has inquired of and cited 
     material prior art. The use of these types of aids would 
     appear to be most helpful, though not required, in 
     identifying prior art and may well help the attorney and the 
     client avoid or more easily explain a potentially 
     embarrassing and harmful ``fraud'' allegation. 2. It is 
     desirable to ask questions about inventorship. Who is the 
     proper inventor? Are there disputes or possible disputes 
     about inventorship? If there are questions, call them to the 
     attention of the Patent and Trademark Office.''
     \33\ Professor Donald Chisum (a nationally recognized expert 
     on patent law whose treatise is often cited in case law), 
     clarifies the duty of candor requirements further in ``A 
     Review of Recent Federal Circuit Cases and a Plea for Modest 
     Reform,'' published in 1997 by the Santa Clara Computer & 
     High

[[Page H4088]]

     Tech. Law Journal: ``The duty of candor requires persons who 
     are substantively involved in a prosecution to disclose only 
     what they know. Courts decisions do not impose a duty to 
     conduct a search of the prior art, but they caution that a 
     person may not cultivate ignorance, that is, `disregard 
     numerous warnings that material information or prior art may 
     exist, merely to avoid knowledge of that information or prior 
     art.' '' It isn't clear from this guidance whether Mr. 
     McEwan, who had at least general knowledge of Mr. Fullerton's 
     work, should have engaged in a more thorough effort to search 
     for his patents. However, we would argue that the patent 
     attorneys at LLNL/UC had a duty to go beyond the bare minimum 
     requirements for prior art searches because of the 
     competitiveness consequences of filing and prosecuting a 
     patent that treads upon existing patents held by private 
     entities. In this regard, the Laboratories should establish 
     patent review and application processes that are so thorough 
     and rigorous so as to be above suspicion.
     \34\ It is worth noting that 18 MIR patents (see appendix 3 
     for a list) that did not include citations of TDC's patents 
     were prosecuted by and granted to Mr. McEwan and LLNL/UC 
     subsequent to fall, 1995, and 19 new MIR license agreements 
     granting rights under LLNL/UC's patents were signed. The 
     Democratic Staff has not attempted to determine which, if 
     any, of the MIR patents granted subsequent to November, 1995 
     should have included citations of TDC's patents, and the PTO 
     has not yet been asked to reexamine any of these patents.
     \35\ February 9, 1999 letter from Mr. Ralph Petroff, 
     President and CEO of TDC to Dr. Michael Freedhoff.
     \36\ The document contains: (1) the history of TDC's 
     inventions and the dispute with LLNL/UC; (2) two claim--by-
     claim patent comparisons of TDC's patents with the MIR 
     patents; (3) estimation of damages to TDC' (4) a proposal for 
     a settlement agreement; and (5) documentation to substantiate 
     their allegations.
     \37\ The questions included requests for: (1) detailed and 
     specific technical differences that led LLNL/UC to state that 
     the MIR inventions were patentably distinct from TDC's; (2) 
     substantiations of statements made by LLNL/UC that the 
     allegations made by TDC were false, including all 
     documentation surrounding the complete investigation into the 
     matter that LLNL/UC claimed to have made; (3) information on 
     how the First Office Action made by the PTO would, if upheld, 
     impact the rest of the LLNL/UC MIR patent portfolio; (4) 
     information on how LLNL/UC would respond to a Final Office 
     Action by the PTO should it be substantially similar to the 
     First Office Action; (5) clarifications of statements made by 
     LLNL/UC in light of the materials in the June 19, 1997 
     package submitted by TDC to LLNL; (6) clarifications of 
     statements made by LLNL/UC at a July 29, 1998 briefing with 
     Committee Staff; and (7) export control documentation for 
     international LLNL/UC MIR licensees.
     \38\ September 17, 1998 letter from Dr. C. Bruce Tarter to 
     Congressmen Brown, Cramer and Roemer, page 1.
     \39\ The claims have been made by: Ultratech, a stepper 
     company who believes that LLNL/UC illegally disclosed their 
     intellectual property in September, 1997; Biosource, a 
     company with ten issued patents in the area of capacitive 
     deionization of water, who believes that LLNL/UC filed and 
     obtained a similar patent in 1995 even though the LLNL 
     inventor knew about Biosource's prior art; and Mr. Sanford 
     Rose, who has been in litigation with Brookhaven National 
     Laboratory (BNL) since 1993 because he believes he acquired 
     an exclusive license to a cleanup technology developed by BNL 
     that BNL later reneged on in order to further develop and 
     commercialize the technology on its own. We have not 
     attempted to determine the validity of these claims and cite 
     them only to point out that the TDC dispute is not an 
     isolated one. We believe that DOE and the Laboratories 
     involved should take immediate steps to investigate and 
     resolve these additional disputes in the fairest and most 
     expeditious way possible, perhaps through the use of 
     independent mediators.
     \40\ September 17, 1998 letter from Dr. C. Bruce Tarter, 
     Director LLNL, to Congressmen Brown, Cramer and Roemer.
     \41\ October 25, 1998 e-mail from Mr. Thomas McEwan to Dr. 
     Michael Freedhoff.
     \42\ According to Mr. Christie's recollection, the proposal 
     was partially funded for FY 1991. However, Mr. Christie left 
     LLNL in early 1991, and Democratic Staff have not been able 
     to determine how much money was received or what it was used 
     for.
     \43\ It is not clear whether the funding discussed in this 
     presentation was related to the September 12, 1990 funding 
     proposal by Christie and McEwan.
     \44\ Interestingly, the part of the June 4, 1990 article in 
     Aviation Week & Space Technology that Mr. McEwan chose to 
     highlight in his June 27, 1990 memo to Dr. E.M. Campbell was 
     TDC's covert and spread spectrum UWB communications device. 
     This article also described the patented timing system used 
     by TDC in its UWB receiver.
     \45\ The fact that this was a mid-year review suggests that 
     his project did receive funding in FY 1992.
     \46\ This also suggests that funding was received in FY 1992.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Reynolds, and appreciate his concern for 
the operational readiness of the 82nd Airborne Division.
  The 82nd Airborne Division is the jewel in the crown of the Army, and 
I'm proud that this elite division makes its home at Ft. Bragg in the 
8th District of North Carolina. When conflict arises in any corner of 
the world, it's a safe bet that the United States will call on the 82nd 
Airborne first to defend her interests. Since its inception in 1942 
when it contributed greatly to the Allied victory of WWII, the 82nd 
Airborne has amassed a record of military successes unrivaled by any 
fighting force in the world.
  To maintain the integrity of the 82nd Airborne's warfighting 
capability, Congress must provide them the equipment, weapons and 
training necessary to accomplish the many missions with which they are 
charged. Currently, two obsolete, non-secure hand held radios are in 
use by the 82nd, representing what I believe is an operational risk. As 
outlined in an Operational Needs Statement by the commanding officer of 
the XVIII Airborne Corp, Lt. General Buck Kernan, secure means of 
communications are a critical element of reconnaissance operations. To 
ensure the safety of 82nd Airborne scouts whose surveillance missions 
bring them in close proximity to the enemy, we must provide the our 
reconnaissance teams with lightweight, secure radios.
  I commend my colleague's efforts to see to it that our forces have 
the equipment they need, and I will certainly support his amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendments en bloc by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence).
  The amendments en bloc were agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 47 printed 
in House Report 106-175.


           Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida

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

       Part B amendment No. 45 offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida:
       At the end of subtitle B of title III (page 45, after line 
     13), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 312. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF AIR FORCE SPACE LAUNCH 
                   FACILITIES.

       (a) Additional Authorization.--In addition to the funds 
     otherwise authorized in this Act for the operation and 
     maintenance of the space launch facilities of the Department 
     of the Air Force, there is hereby authorized to be 
     appropriated $7,300,000 for space launch operations at such 
     launch facilities.
       (b) Corresponding Reduction.--The amount authorized to be 
     appropriated in section 301(4) for operation and maintenance 
     for the Air Force is hereby reduced by $7,300,000, to be 
     derived from other service-wide activities.
       (c) Study of Space Launch Ranges and Requirements.--(1) The 
     Secretary of Defense shall conduct a study--
       (A) to access anticipated military, civil, and commercial 
     space launch requirements;
       (B) to examine the technical shortcomings at the space 
     launch ranges;
       (C) to evaluate oversight arrangements at the space launch 
     ranges; and
       (D) to estimate future funding requirements for space 
     launch ranges capable of meeting both national security space 
     launch needs and civil and commercial space launch needs.
       (2) The Secretary shall conduct the study using the Defense 
     Science Board of the Department of Defense.
       (3) Not later than February 15, 2000, the Secretary shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
     containing the results of the study.

                              {time}  1715

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the Cox Commission report in recommendation No. 24 
recommended that it is in the national security interests of the United 
States that we expand our domestic launch capacity. My amendment 
addresses this issue. I would like to point out that we have no other 
proposal being put forward to address that. The Air Force in its IPT 
report indicated that with $7.3 million--I say million dollars, not 
billion dollars-- you can increase the domestic launch capacity of the 
United States by 20 to 30 percent, a remarkable achievement with such a 
small amount of money. Indeed, the other body has already funded this 
priority in their appropriation bill.
  Now, the Air Force in their unfunded priority list listed this as one 
of their priorities. I believe it was their fourth priority. I believe 
it is the responsibility of this body to decide what are the 
priorities. I believe that we need to ask ourselves what are we going 
to do to address the issue of all of these launches going overseas and 
going overseas particularly to China.
  This amendment is very, very simple. It authorizes the $7.3 million. 
It additionally calls for a study to be conducted by the Secretary of 
Defense to look at how we are going to offer our launch ranges to these 
commercial users in the future years. I would encourage all of my 
colleagues to vote in support of this amendment if they want to do 
something to address this particular recommendation in the Cox 
Commission report. I think it is also well worth pointing out that many 
of the other recommendations in the Cox Commission report, which we are 
ultimately going to try to implement, they are going to cost millions 
and millions more than this recommendation. Indeed some of them will 
cost hundreds

[[Page H4089]]

 of millions. Some of them may actually cost billions of dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reinforce the 
point that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) just made. One of 
the central recommendations of the Cox-Dicks report is that we need to 
beef up domestic launch capacity here in the United States as a matter 
of national security. We have a very direct, simple opportunity to do 
that by investing in increased launch capacity in the Vandenberg Air 
Force Base in California and in the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. 
This amendment provides additional funding for a second shift, will 
increase the ability of the Kennedy Space Center and the Vandenberg Air 
Force Base to engage in other commercial launch capacity, exactly what 
is being recommended by the Cox-Dicks report. This should be the first 
in a series of steps we take to directly respond to that 
recommendation. I urge adoption of the Weldon amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. If there were a national security issue that 
needs addressing any more important, I cannot quite understand how it 
could be here on the floor. This is a readiness issue and it should 
allow, as does Cox-Dicks, for robust, versatile and capable handling of 
our current demand as well as our future demand. The fact of the matter 
is what my colleague from Florida is proposing will add a second crew 
to cut the 48-hour turnaround time in half and it will result in nine 
additional launches in the United States that may otherwise be launched 
overseas. Do we want them to launch from over yonder or do we want them 
to launch from here?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. I understand that the work of this committee is very 
difficult, that we are operating under very tight budget constraints 
and priorities have to be set. But it is really the will of the 
People's House that sets the ultimate priorities. That is the way the 
Founding Fathers intended it. If you support this amendment, you will 
not be helping China's missile program. You will be helping immediately 
to expand our domestic capacity by 20 to 30 percent. You will promote 
more satellites being launched from U.S. soil. It is a very, very 
modest amount of money. I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to support the amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, today Congress takes definitive 
action on addressing the recommendations in the Cox Report. My 
amendment addresses the issue that was the catalyst for the 
establishment of the Select Committee--the transfer of missile 
technology under the commercial satellite launch agreements.
  One of the principle reasons American satellites were being launched 
from communist China is due to the fact that our national launch ranges 
(the Eastern and Western Range) could not accommodate these launches--
they simply did not have the capacity. This is because our ranges are 
operating under a tight budget with outdated equipment and they are 
unable to reduce turnaround time. Turnaround time is the amount of time 
it takes to reconfigure the range from one launch to the next launch.
  With the appropriation of $7.3 million for an additional crew at the 
Eastern and Western range will cut turnaround time in half. This will 
lead to a 20% to 30% increase in American launch capacity. This will 
immediately translate into 9 more launches taking place from American 
soil rather than from countries like China.
  Providing this funding is the most important thing we can do in the 
short-term to reduce launches from foreign soil and keep them in the 
U.S. Adoption of this amendment will have a direct and immediate 
positive impact. This is probably the best bang we will get for our 
buck in addressing the issues raised in the Cox Report. This is not the 
long-term solution. It is a short-term action we can take today that 
will have a positive impact toward stemming the flow of critical 
technology to China.
  Due to the fact that range upgrade money has been raided again and 
again, our ranges have fallen into disrepair. This has reduced the 
launch capacity of our ranges, meaning that they cannot accommodate the 
launch demand. Range Standardization and Automation (RSA) program was 
to be completed in 2003. Because of excessive diversions of these 
funds, RSA will not be completed until 2006.
  The failure to adequately fund our ranges also means we have delayed 
the efficiencies we had hoped to achieve. This means the savings we had 
anticipated seeing because of the range upgrades is also delayed.
  My amendment will help to stem the flow of American technology going 
overseas by ensuring that our national launch ranges are robust and 
capable of handling the demand of both government and non-government 
launches.
  Unlike many other military installations, Cape Canaveral Air Station 
(Eastern Range) and Vandenberg Air Force Base (Western Range) provide 
vital, one-of-a-kind services to the United States. Nowhere else in the 
entire United States can military, civil, and commercial assets be 
launched into space.
  Over the past few years, I have devoted a considerable amount of my 
time to issues relating to our national ranges. I cannot over-emphasize 
how important this is for our national security interest.
  My amendment also directs the Secretary of Defense, through the 
Defense Science Board of the Department of Defense to conduct a study 
of our space launch ranges and requirements and report back to the 
Congress by February 15, 2000.
  This study is critical as the ranges' unique position requires the 
Air Force to manage them and make them adaptive along two tracks. The 
first track has been and will continue to be the development and 
testing of national security launch systems and assets. There are and 
will continue to be numerous national security payloads that will be 
launched from the ranges and it is imperative that we maintain these 
critical national security assets.
  The second track--a more recent mission--includes commercial space 
ventures. As these dual purposes continue to mature, Congress and the 
Department of Defense must assess how best to operate the ranges. 
Specifically, we must set forth a plan for managing the ranges in a 
manner that best accommodates the ranges' critical role in meeting our 
national security needs while accommodating a growing commercial 
market. The study requested in my amendment would provide the Congress 
with additional insight on how to move forward on this matter.
  I would like to address the various aspects of the ranges that the 
Science Board is to review under my amendment.
  First (subsection A), the board is to assess anticipated military, 
civil, and commercial space launch requirements. This assessment will 
help us better understand the current and future users of the launch 
ranges. This study is to estimate the number of military payloads, NASA 
and other civil payloads as well as the number of commercial launches. 
This is important as we try to determine how to ensure that the range 
is more user friendly to all of these customers and to determine how we 
can best accommodate the growing demand for launch services.
  Second (subsection B), my amendment directs the board to examine the 
technical shortcomings at the space launch ranges. This recognizes that 
fact that the equipment at our ranges is antiquated and has 
deteriorated. It is simply too old to be operated efficiently and 
hinders the expansion of range capacity. We must move forward with 
modernization in a manner that improves the ranges with interests of 
all parties in mind.
  Third (subsection C), the study is particularly important as we seek 
to gain efficiencies. The Joint Base Operations and Support Contract 
(JBOSC) is generating significant savings for the Air Force and NASA. 
Also, NASA established a contract with United Space Alliance (USA) to 
operate the Space Shuttle program. Similar consolidations and new 
contractual arrangements could help the Air Force operate the ranges 
more efficiently and increase our domestic launch capacity. The study 
should examine ways that will help the Air Force reduce its long-term 
costs and involvement by enhancing the likelihood that some components 
and operations at the ranges can be commercialized, privatized, or 
contracted out for better management, efficiency, and range scheduling.
  Finally (subsection D), the study is to assess the costs associated 
with being able to meet the domestic launch needs of military, civil, 
and commercial users at the ranges. This review should include an 
assessment of the costs that the military might incur if they were to 
upgrade the systems in order to accommodate the increased launch 
demands. Also, the assessment may include an assessment of the costs to 
the private sector and/or state agencies if they were to assume some of 
the operations as the ranges. The study shall examine the use of and/or 
procurement of government space launch assets by commercial or state 
launch entities. Such study should also include an assessment of the 
likelihood, willingness or ability of industry or a state agency to 
assume any operation and/or costs

[[Page H4090]]

associated with them. In conducting this part of the study, the board 
should receive input from industry and state agencies that might be 
interested in any such contract.
  Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I thank you for your time 
and attention to this matter.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 303, 
noes 118, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 188]

                               AYES--303

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--118

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Baker
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Capuano
     Chabot
     Coble
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ewing
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kilpatrick
     Kuykendall
     Latham
     Lee
     Lipinski
     Lucas (KY)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McNulty
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Neal
     Nussle
     Obey
     Owens
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Porter
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Roukema
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Stump
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thune
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Whitfield
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Blunt
     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Graham
     Hilleary
     Kasich
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Olver

                              {time}  1745

  Messrs. WAMP, SMITH of Washington, SLAUGHTER, OBEY, TAYLOR of North 
Carolina, MORAN of Virginia, Ms. WOOLSEY, Messrs. ARCHER, SCOTT, WATT 
of North Carolina and Ms. DeGETTE changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY and Messrs. FARR of California, SPRATT, GILLMOR, 
EVERETT, CHAMBLISS, and SAWYER changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I take this time to explain and apologize for my 
absence during part of the debate on the Skelton amendment earlier 
today. I was involved in negotiations toward a settlement of that 
issue, and I was involved partly in conversations with the President, 
who called me and said that he would commit to us that he would submit 
a request for Kosovo for fiscal year 2000 in a timely manner with the 
funds to be used not to be taken from readiness. That, after all, was 
the object of our having this provision in the bill in the first place.
  Having this assurance from the President and the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), I am prepared to accept the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit a copy of the letter from the President for 
the Record.


                                              The White House,

                                        Washington, June 10, 1999.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: This letter responds to your inquiry 
     concerning the funding of the Kosovo peacekeeping operations. 
     As was set forth to you in a May 26, 1999, letter from the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget, I intend to 
     fund these operations in a manner fully consistent with 
     maintaining the high state of military readiness we require.
       We are in the early stages of a transition from a military 
     campaign to a peacekeeping force. Clearly this will alter the 
     pattern of funding required compared to the assumption of a 
     continued air campaign through the end of the current fiscal 
     year, which was the assumption underlying my FY99 emergency 
     supplemental request.
       I have asked the Secretary of Defense and the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget to conduct a detailed 
     review to reconcile the cost of current operations with the 
     previously funded program. It is critical that my 
     Administration maintain the flexibility which I and previous 
     Presidents have used to deal with emerging situations. To the 
     extent that ongoing requirements exceed an amount that could 
     be managed without harming military readiness, I will submit 
     a further FY00 budget request in a timely manner. I look 
     forward to working with the Congress to ensure that these 
     critical operations are fully funded.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Chairman Spence) for his comments a few moments ago. It is true that 
this matter has been resolved. At least it appears to be. I want a 
supplemental, the gentleman from South Carolina wants a supplemental, 
the President will request a supplemental, and I think every Member of 
this chamber wants a

[[Page H4091]]

supplemental, and that the funds for any continuation of peacekeeping 
should not come out of readiness in the bill we are about to pass.
  I thank the gentleman for his understanding, for hearing us out, for 
his gentlemanly demeanor in the debate. As a matter of fact, that goes 
for everyone who participated in the debate today.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent bill. I certainly urge the 
adoption of my amendment. At the end of the day I urge an overwhelming 
vote for the bill so we can let our troops know we really care about 
them.


        Sequential Votes Postponed in the Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: Amendment No. 19 by the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) and Amendment No. 21 by the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Skelton

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
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 270, 
noes 155, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 189]

                               AYES--270

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--155

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Crane
     Danner
     Deal
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Graham
     Hilleary
     Kasich
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Olver

                              {time}  1809

  Mr. TAUZIN and Mr. SWEENEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. KUYKENDALL changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, 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 other amendment 
on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                 Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Shays

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
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 CHAIRMAN. This will be a five-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 116, 
noes 307, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 190]

                               AYES--116

     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Crane
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeMint
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Foley
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Green (TX)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hayes
     Hill (MT)
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jones (NC)
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Markey
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Owens

[[Page H4092]]


     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Ramstad
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Thompson (CA)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--307

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Toomey
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Graham
     Hilleary
     Kasich
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Olver
     Peterson (PA)

                              {time}  1820

  Mr. RUSH, Mrs. EMERSON and Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1410, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. This 
legislation contains several important provisions, including a much 
needed pay raise and revamping of the retirement system.
  As Members of Congress, we have the distinct--almost sacred--
responsibility to preserve our nation's security. This means ensuring 
that our military remains the best trained, best equipped, and most 
prepared in the world.
  We need to provide the men and women of the armed forces, and those 
who have retired, with the support they need to maintain the quality of 
life they deserve. This is especially true at a time when military 
personnel are being deployed more and more frequently all over the 
world.
  During visits to Vandenberg Air Force Base in my district and 
conversations with the base commander, Col. Mercer, I have heard 
firsthand the concerns of our men and women in the military. In 
particular, I have heard about some key issues--supporting an increase 
in military pay, improved health care coverage, and a strengthened 
retirement system.
  H.R. 1410 provides for a 4.8% pay raise and authorizes bonuses and 
other incentives to retain and promote our service men and women. It 
will also change the unfair REDUX retirement plan in order to give 
retirees the choice to return to the more generous pre-REDUX system or 
receive a $30,000 retirement bonus.
  In addition, this important legislation includes $16.8 million to 
continue a critical family housing initiative at Vandenberg Air Force 
Base. This project will replace outdated facilities with the safe, 
modern, and efficient family homes so important for service men and 
women and their families. Such projects increase morale and strengthen 
a sense of community in and around the base.
  The legislation also includes important provisions to support the 
growing commercial space industry at Vandenberg. I am pleased that $3 
million is included for the study, planning, and design of a universal 
space port at Vandenberg. And, in response to the Cox-Dicks Commission 
recommendation that we improve our domestic launch capacity, I am 
pleased that the House today approved the Weldon amendment that will 
increase the amount of funding for space launch operations at 
Vandenberg and Cape Canaveral by $7.3 million.
  This bill incorporates other important recommendations offered by the 
Cox-Dicks Commission to safeguard our weapons facilities and national 
laboratories from Chinese efforts to steal U.S. military technology. It 
institutes new procedures to increase security at sensitive Energy 
Department facilities, requires the president to submit frequent 
reports to Congress on Chinese espionage and military activities, and 
establishes new guidelines to prevent the illegal transfer of 
technology to foreign countries during satellite launches.
  We have an obligation to stand fully and completely behind all 
American service men and women who are putting their lives on the line. 
We need to do everything possible to guard and protect their safety and 
morale. I will always support our fighting men and women, whether in 
peace time or in war. I urge support for this bill.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I am submitting for inclusion in the Record 
a letter from the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Mr. Bliley, 
regarding H.R. 1401, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2000. I thank Chairman Bliley for his letter and for his decision 
not to seek sequential referral on several provisions that are of 
jurisdictional interest to the Commerce Committee.

                                        Committee on Commerce,

                                     Washington, DC, May 24, 1999.
     Hon. Floyd Spence,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am following up on my correspondence 
     of May 21, 1999 concerning H.R. 1401, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. After consultation 
     with the Parliamentarians, we continue to believe that 
     several provisions of H.R. 1401, as ordered reported, may 
     fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce. 
     These provisions include:
       Section 321--Remediation of Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint. 
     One reading of this provision would permit a waiver of 
     applicable law with respect to the remediation of asbestos 
     and lead-based paint. I am sure that that is not the 
     legislative intent of the language, however.
       Section 653--Presentation of United States Flag to retiring 
     Members of the Uniformed Services not Previously Covered;
       Section 3152--Duties of Commission. This section, as 
     ordered reported, makes clear that the Commission on Nuclear 
     Weapons Management formed pursuant to Section 3151 will 
     specifically deal with environmental remediation. Such 
     matters are traditionally within the jurisdiction of the 
     Commerce Committee. I understand, however, that you have 
     deleted subsection (a)(9) from this section, and therefore 
     the Committee registers no jurisdictional objection.
       Section 3165--Management of Nuclear Weapons Production 
     Facilities and National Laboratories. As ordered reported, 
     this section contains a number of provisions which we feel 
     strongly fall within the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction over 
     management of the Department of Energy. In particular, we are 
     concerned about provisions which move functions heretofore 
     carried out by various offices within the Department to the 
     direct control of the Assistant Secretary for Defense 
     Programs. We believe that this kind of

[[Page H4093]]

     wholesale reorganization of DOE functions must be considered 
     by all of the committees of jurisdiction, including the 
     Committee on Commerce.
       However, recognizing your interest in bringing this 
     legislation before the House expeditiously, the Commerce 
     Committee has agreed not to seek a sequential referral of the 
     bill based on the provisions listed above. By agreeing not to 
     seek a sequential referral, the Commerce Committee does not 
     waive its jurisdiction over the provisions listed above or 
     any other provisions of the bill that may fall within its 
     jurisdiction. The Committee's action in this regard should 
     not be construed as any endorsement of the language at issue. 
     In addition, the Commerce Committee reserves its right to 
     seek conferees on any provisions within its jurisdiction 
     which are considered in the House-Senate conference.
       I request that you include this letter in the Record during 
     consideration of this bill by the House.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Tom Bliley,
                                                         Chairman.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, genocide should never be appeased. The 
lesson of Kosovo is that it does not have to be. NATO has shown that it 
is willing and able to keep the peace in Europe. We have stopped the 
genocide. Now we have to return the Kosovars to their homes in security 
and help them rebuild their lives in this troubled land.
  We should salute our men and women in uniform. We should also salute 
our men and women in leadership positions, both military and civilian. 
We should be standing here applauding with our hands, not placing 
handcuffs on our President and our military leaders.
  I favor continued Congressional oversight. There are plenty of 
hurdles yet to overcome and it is time for Congress to come together 
and forge the policies needed to advance our goals in Kosovo. This is 
not the time for rear-guard actions here on the Floor to make it more 
difficult to overcome the challenges ahead in the Balkans.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Skelton amendment and to reject 
the Souder amendment. It is time for peacekeeping. It is time to stop 
the war on the President on this issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Nethercutt, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1401) to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for military 
activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 
personnel strengths for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, and for other 
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 200, he reported the bill back 
to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 365, 
noes 58, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 191]

                               AYES--365

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--58

     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Doggett
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gutierrez
     Holt
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Markey
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Rivers
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Stark
     Tierney
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Graham
     Hall (TX)
     Hilleary
     Kasich
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Norwood
     Olver

                              {time}  1838

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for military activities 
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for 
defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel

[[Page H4094]]

strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other 
purposes.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________