[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 37 (Wednesday, March 29, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1485-H1488]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3908, 2000 EMERGENCY
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 450 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 450
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3908) making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000,
and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall
be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to
comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as
follows: page 58, lines 9 through 17. Before consideration of
any other amendment it shall be in order to consider the
amendments printed in part A of the report of the Committee
on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each amendment printed
in part A of the report may be considered only in the order
printed in the report. The amendments printed in part B of
the report of the Committee on Rules may be offered only at
the appropriate point in the reading of the bill. The
amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
may be offered only by a Member designated in the report,
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment,
and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All
points of order against the amendments printed in the report
are waived. During consideration of the bill for further
amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the
Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in
the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further
consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a
recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five
minutes the minimum time for
[[Page H1486]]
electronic voting on any postponed question that follows
another electronic vote without intervening business,
provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the
first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. During
consideration of the bill, points of order against amendments
for failure to comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Goss) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), my friend and colleague,
the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules; pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate on
this issue only.
Mr. Speaker, in the Committee on Rules parlance, we describe H.Res.
450 as an open rule plus; that is, we have provided an open rule which
ensures that any amendments in order under the standing rules of the
House may be offered. Additionally, we have provided protections for a
variety of Members that require waivers.
There has been a great interest among Members in this bill. In fact,
we had more than 40 amendments presented to the Committee on Rules
yesterday and yesterday evening, and we spent the better part of
yesterday evening, actually well into the night, attempting to craft
this rule. In the end, the rule provides for waivers for 14 separate
amendments above and beyond whatever amendments may be offered under
the regular order of an open amendment process.
While we were unable to make provisions for each of the amendments
submitted, we did seek to thread the needle and ensure adequate debate
on the major issues raised by this bill.
{time} 1100
In my view, this rule accomplishes that objective. I should note for
those who like to keep score, that this type of ``open rule plus''
procedure is the same format that was used for last year's
supplemental. Also, a bit of Committee on Rules history shows that 53
of the last 65 rules granted for supplementals have been open rules.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 450 is an open rule providing 1 hour general
debate equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking
member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points
of order against consideration of the bill and waives points of order
against provisions of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of
rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations of legislative
provisions in a general appropriations bill, except as specified in the
rule.
This exception pertains to a provision in the bill under the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, a
legislative provision which did not have the concurrence of the
authorizing committee.
The rule further provides, prior to the consideration of any other
amendment, for consideration of the amendments printed in part A of the
Committee on Rules report, which may be offered only in the order
printed in the report.
The rule provides for the consideration of the amendments printed in
part B of the Committee on Rules report, which may be offered only at
the appropriate point in the reading of the bill.
The rule provides that all of the amendments printed in the Committee
on Rules report may be offered only by the Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time
specified, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole.
The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in
the Committee on Rules report and waives points of order during
consideration of the bill against amendments for failure to comply with
clause 2(e) of rule XXI, prohibiting nonemergency designated amendments
to be offered to an appropriations bill containing an emergency
designation.
The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to
Members who have caused their amendments to be preprinted in the
Congressional Record. The rule also allows for the chairman of the
Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the
bill, and to reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if
the vote follows a 15-minute vote.
And, lastly, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or
without instructions as usual.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion voiced about this
bill so far. Questions and concerns raised from many, many different
perspectives. Some Members are uncomfortable with the defense funding,
others have concerns about the counternarcotics package for Colombia.
We have Members who believe this bill spends too much money, and we
have other Members who seek more spending in other areas. We have
Members who want to allocate more of the existing surplus to debt
reduction, and we have Members who seek to realign priorities in the
bill. With this rule, we have found a way to accommodate a great many
of those Members.
With respect to the defense spending in this bill, an amount that
reflects a sizable increase over what was requested by the President,
this is necessary because the administration has consistently
underfunded and overcommitted our Armed Forces to the point where
readiness, training, equipment, and morale have all suffered,
undeniably.
Whatever one's views about the wisdom of our policy in Kosovo, and I
too have very deep misgivings about what we have been doing there and
about what our definition of success is for that troubled region,
though I have no misgivings about the brilliant performance of our
military, the fact remains that President Clinton got us into that
quagmire and now we have an obligation to foot the bill. We have to pay
the President's bill.
We have been robbing Peter to pay Paul for too long when it comes to
committing our military forces, causing in fact an emergency situation
today. I fully support efforts in this bill to reverse that trend.
Turning to the other major component of the bill, the
counternarcotics package centered on ``Plan Colombia,'' I urge my
colleagues to look beyond the price tag of today's proposal and
consider the cost; the cost in lives, in dollars, and lost
productivity; of ducking this fight at this time. I believe we must act
now. The administration has already waited too long. The most recent
statistics related to Colombia are alarming, and I want to highlight
three areas.
First, the amount of drugs coming from Colombia is rising
dramatically. Colombia now produces 60 percent of the world's cocaine
crop, an astounding 90 percent of which makes its way here to the
United States. Now, part of Colombia's problem is caused by our success
in fighting the drug war in Peru and Bolivia. Much of the drug problem
in terms of supply is now concentrated in Colombia, and that
Democratically-elected government has asked for our assistance to
deliver the coup de grace to the drug suppliers.
Second, the flow of drugs into the U.S. poses a direct threat to our
children. One in every two American school kids will try illegal drugs
before graduating high school unless we reverse the trends. We also
know that the potency of Colombia's cocaine today and heroin today is
rising, making it even more likely that today's curious kids, under
peer pressure in school, seeking to try something cool or something
new, could get hooked more easily and become tomorrow's addicts.
Illegal drug use costs U.S. society a staggering $110 billion a year
right now and results in more than 14,000 American deaths each year. I
am going to say that again: 14,000 American deaths each year; primarily
our youth. That is unbelievable. I cannot seriously believe that any
Member is going to pull out the flag of surrender and say we are
quitting on the war on drugs with those kinds of statistics. This is a
meaningful way to deal with that subject.
[[Page H1487]]
Third, illegal drug use costs the U.S. society, as I said, not only
14,000 American lives but billions of dollars. We are already in this
thing; we need to finish it. Today, we find ourselves at a very
critical point. In recent years, the United States has decreased the
amount of money we spend on interdiction, lowering our guard and
opening the door for well-financed, opportunistic, and ruthless narco-
traffickers to boost their shipments and bring more drugs to our school
yards and our playgrounds, and, indeed, those are their target areas.
Meanwhile, the political situation in Colombia has spiraled out of
control, despite the sincere efforts of a friendly Democratically-
elected government in that country that is trying to do the right thing
and asking for help, not only from us but from other countries as well.
So we find ourselves in a crisis we can no longer afford to ignore, and
this is a true emergency.
We have heard arguments against the Colombia package based upon the
fear that we will become sucked into another Vietnam and that we will
be aiding and abetting human rights' abusers. I reject both of those
arguments. We cannot simply put our head in the sand and pretend that
the emergence of a narco-State in our own back yard would not adversely
impact our national security.
Likewise, with regard to the question of human rights, later in
today's debate I will be assisting in offering a bipartisan amendment
designed to address those legitimate and important concerns head-on by
conditioning military assistance on some tough certification
requirements about ensuring that human rights' violators are properly
dealt with.
And, lastly, we hear complaints that we are overly focused on the
supply side of the equation. The fact is that in recent years we have
cut back on interdiction and eradication in favor of more demand
reduction and prevention programs here at home. And the statistics
speak for themselves: That formula has failed. What we are trying to do
in this bill is focus on the serious and growing threat that one of our
close southern neighbors is being overrun by the drug traffickers who
have sat their sights on unfettered access to the impressionable youth
of America.
I believe we have provided for conditionality on the human rights'
violations. I certainly want to underscore that it is the Colombians
themselves who will be conducting this action. We are providing some
training, some logistic support and some equipment for them. We are not
sending military troops in the sense that we sent them to Kosovo or
other places recently we have read about. We are sending them to help
train these people to take care of a problem within their borders.
And on the question of the balance between supply and demand and
treatment, I believe that we have to fight the war on drugs on all
fronts, not just one front. And I believe the statistics will show that
we are doing well when we stay applied on all fronts.
So the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that when all is said and done
today, the House will have worked its will on a large complicated
spending package that contains many important provisions besides those
I have addressed. I urge support for the rule so we can get on with
this debate, which I suspect will go well into the evening.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend and colleague, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of reasons to oppose this supplemental
appropriations bill, one of the most important is the innocent people
of Colombia. This bill will provide $1.3 billion to a military with one
of the worst human rights' records in that hemisphere, the Colombian
military, over which neither the Colombian government nor the United
States Armed Forces have much control.
Mr. Speaker, we have been here before. Maybe not all of my colleagues
remember El Salvador, but I do. The Colombian military has strong ties
to paramilitaries which commit unspeakable atrocities. The Salvadoran
military had strong ties to death squads which used intimidation,
torture, and murder to do the dirty work of the Salvadoran army.
They say this is very different. They say there is a president in
Colombia who is determined to stand up to the military and the drug
leaders. Maybe so, Mr. Speaker, but in El Salvador we had two
presidents, both of them were educated at Jesuit universities, one at
Georgetown and one at Notre Dame, and they were determined to do the
same. The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that in both El Salvador and
Colombia the government has very little control over the military.
Both countries were embroiled in a brutal civil war. Colombia's Civil
War has already cost 30,000 lives in the last 10 years. El Salvador's
civil war killed 75,000 noncombatants over a period of 10 years. Let me
repeat, Mr. Speaker: The civil war in El Salvador, funded by the United
States of America, killed 75,000 noncombatants.
Twenty years ago, Mr. Speaker, we were in the exact same situation
that we are today. Twenty years ago we had a choice to make, Mr.
Speaker, and we made the wrong choice. Today, the answer is clear. We
must oppose this aid to a murderous Colombian military with a list of
human rights' violations a mile long.
Now, just listen to a few of them. Just last January, Colombian
paramilitaries, with ties to the Army, dragged 27 worshipers out of a
church and shot them in cold blood. From January 7 to January 10 last
year, paramilitaries committed 19 separate massacres, leaving 143
people dead and hundreds more displaced from their homes. And just last
month, Mr. Speaker, paramilitaries linked to the Colombian army danced
and drank as they tortured, as they beheaded, at least 28 villagers in
northern Colombia.
Yet today, Mr. Speaker, the House is considering a $1.3 billion
military aid package for military aid, training, helicopters, and arms
to that very same military. I am reminded of a letter that Salvadoran
Archbishop Oscar Romero wrote to President Carter 20 years ago today
begging him, in the interest of human rights, to stop the military aid
to El Salvador. One month later, 20 years ago, Bishop Romero was
murdered by a Salvadoran military death squad as he was saying mass.
Downstairs in my office hangs a picture of Archbishop Romero. Every
day I look at it and every day I remember the grievous wrongs our
country did helping to perpetuate those killings in his country. Mr.
Speaker, let us not remember the 20th anniversary of Archbishop Romero
by making the same mistakes in Colombia.
I have stood at the place where the Jesuits were killed, where their
brains were splattered on a wall, blood all over the ground, and I just
cannot stand by and watch our country do to Colombia what we did to El
Salvador. The administration is wrong and my Republican colleagues are
wrong. We are endangering thousands more lives in El Salvador, in
Colombia. It should not be done. I would think the United States should
have learned its lesson by now.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the military aid to
Colombia.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Speaker of the time on
both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Goss) has 20 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley) has 25 minutes remaining.
{time} 1115
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, let me say I am going to vote against this rule for a
number of reasons. First of all, if we look at spending issues, we will
see that the bill as reported is $4 billion above the amount requested
by the President. Before it is finished, this bill will have added to
it an additional $4 billion not requested by the President.
It is clear that only 1 week after this House passed a budget
resolution promising to live within spending ceilings that the $4
billion that will be added under the rule today is simply an attempt to
get around those budget ceilings so that there will be $4 billion
[[Page H1488]]
more room in the defense appropriation for Members' projects. A very
interesting exercise in fiscal discipline, it lasted one week.
Secondly, we are now being asked to enter into a huge new long-term
commitment to underwrite a war in Colombia. We have been told it will
last at least 5 years, and I suspect it will last probably 10.
For 35 years, the date of August 7, 1964, has lived in infamy in
history because that was the day that Congress roared through the Gulf
at Tonkin resolution on this very same floor with 40 minutes of debate.
Today, we are going to be given only 20 minutes to discuss the
advisability of entering into this long 5- to 10-year commitment to
underwrite this war in Colombia. That means that those of us who think
this is not a good idea will have exactly 10 minutes to make our case.
That is amazing.
Thirdly, despite the fact that the Rand Corporation has done a study
financed in part by the U.S. Army which says that a dollar spent on
reducing demand for drugs here at home is 23 times more effective than
a dollar spent in reducing drug use through interdiction and supply
reduction abroad, this rule denies us the opportunity to even vote on
the Pelosi amendment, which would allow us to provide more funding to
deal with the drug problem here at home by expanding drug treatment
programs. That is, in my view, ill-advised.
There is also no provision allowed under which we could even put on
the floor the President's request for debt relief for countries such as
Bolivia and Honduras.
Lastly, I would say that there were over a dozen Democrats who asked
to be allowed to offer amendments to this proposition. Only two were
given the opportunity to offer those amendments. We have 10 amendments
that are going to be offered by majority party Members and two others
that are bipartisan, with lead sponsors being the majority party.
In other words, the majority party first crafted the initial bill to
its liking. Now they insist on being able to offer over 80 percent of
the amendments that are going to be offered on the floor on this day.
And then they wonder why there is not more support on this side of the
aisle. I think those numbers speak for themselves.
This bill is a mistake. I will vote against the rule. I will vote
against the bill. If we are going to get involved in a long-term war
commitment in this hemisphere, we owe it to our constituents to spend
more than 10 minutes discussing the consequences.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me the time.
Mr. Speaker, unlike my friend and colleague, the previous speaker, I
am going to support this rule. We need to get this rule passed. We need
to get this supplemental on the floor, and we need to get it down to
the other body so that then our friend and colleague, Senator Stevens,
can work his magic and get us a supplemental appropriations bill.
Now, time is not on our side in the case of the supplemental or our
entire appropriations process. But let me just mention time in one
regard. American soldiers are in Kosovo today. Americans are involved
in a situation in Kosovo where we are putting up most of the assets.
Many of our European allies are not responding to us with the support
that they had promised to provide in Kosovo.
It is the humble opinion of this Member that the Kosovo experience is
not going to be a positive one for the United States. And I hate to say
that, because our troops do such a good job. But in order to eliminate
the hatred and stop the killing that is taking place between not the
organized groups in Kosovo but just the people themselves, neighbor to
neighbor, the hate, the killing, we would have to put a soldier on
every street corner in every city and town and hamlet in Kosovo. And,
obviously, we cannot muster that kind of a major operation.
But the problem with Kosovo is that the money is already being spent.
It is committed. The President deployed troops. The money is spent.
Now, where did the money come from? The money came from the fourth
quarter operations and maintenance accounts of all of the military
services. That means, if we do not replace this money, whether we like
it or not, the fourth quarter training exercises of the United States
military will have to stand down, many of them, because their fourth
quarter money has already been spent.
Now, look at the calendar that I show here. All of this red is the
fiscal year that has already gone by. This is today, March 29. This
part of the fiscal year is gone. If we look closely at the blue colors
on this chart, those are colors that the Congress will be in recess for
the political conventions this summer for the work periods back home in
our districts at 4th of July and other times of the year. And so, the
white numbers are the only really working days left to get this work
done.
We have got to get this supplemental over to the Senate where Senator
Stevens, as I said, can work his magic. This will help us begin to
replace this money for the military. Whether we like it or not, the
President has already spent the money. When we pass this rule, we can
deal with some of the other issues we will hear on the floor today.
We will deal with a number of the issues that my friend, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), raised. Some of them are very
legitimate, and they should be considered and they should be debated.
But we have got to move along. We need to adopt this rule this morning
and get on to the consideration of this bill.
____________________