[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.

                          ____________________