[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.
____________________