[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 37 (Wednesday, March 29, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1488-H1495]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The Chair will remind Members
that although it is permissible to refer to the sponsor of a measure in
the Senate, further personal references should be avoided.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a personal reference
to a dear friend of mine and yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley) for yielding me the time. And he is my dear friend.
Mr. Speaker, it is very rare that I disagree with the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley). It would be remiss of me not to
acknowledge the incredible work that the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley) did in Central America during the 1980s. More than any
other individual in this institution, the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley) can take credit for saving thousands and thousands of
lives, and I want to acknowledge that.
But I do disagree. Colombia is not Central America. Colombia is not
El Salvador. There was recently an article in a report called the
International Policy Report. The agency or the think tank that produces
this particular publication is headed by the former ambassador to El
Salvador, Robert White, who, by the way, was discharged from that
ambassadorship because of his position on the issue of El Salvador by
President Reagan.
Now, in fairness, I have to acknowledge that Ambassador White was
clear that he disagreed with this particular package, but on other
grounds. This article that was written by his associate I think
captures the fact that the analogy between Central America and Colombia
is inaccurate. I am going to read some excerpts:
``Colombia's decades-old conflict and the effort to end it are far
more complicated than the violence El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Nicaragua suffered during the 1980s.''
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, he goes on to point out: ``Unlike the groups in El
Salvador's FMLN and Guatemala's URNG, Colombia's three guerilla groups
fight separately, violating human rights frequently, and are held in
low esteem by most citizens. The paramilitary death squads operate in
the open, resembling private armies more than shadowy
[[Page H1489]]
groups of killers and are somewhat independent of the Army.''
``Here in Colombia,'' he points out, ``the Government seeks to bring
guerillas to the negotiating table.''
He concludes by saying, ``With the exception of the United States, no
foreign source arms or combatants. Instead, the drug trade pervades,
corrupts, and finances all sides.''
``On deeper examination, this conflict, the western hemisphere's
oldest and most brutal, bears only a passing resemblance to Central
America.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has 16
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has
19 minutes remaining.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a gentleman who served with me in El
Salvador.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed that the majority refused to
allow debate on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi) to add $1.3 billion for drug treatment and
prevention here at home.
Sadly, Mr. Speaker, today we will be given very limited debate on a
number of important amendments to the Colombia aid package. I strongly
oppose this Colombia aid package as it is currently constituted.
Like every Member in this House, I want to support President Pastrana
in his efforts to negotiate peace and end the 40-year civil war and to
provide economic development for the Colombian people. And like every
Member in this House, I want to reduce drug use in the United States.
Unfortunately, this package will not further either of those goals.
The three antidrug battalions and related aircraft in this bill are
to be deployed in two southern provinces to root out guerillas that
have been entrenched there for 40 years and to eradicate coca crops
grown by peasant farmers. The futility of spending billions on
eradication should be obvious to anyone who has studied this question,
whether those studies are from the Rand Institute or our own GAO.
Coca is so profitable and easy to grow that short-term success has
always proven an empty victory. Like mercury hit with a hammer, coca
cultivation attacked in one location simply scatters elsewhere.
So what will this package achieve? In the most violent country in the
hemisphere, it will only result in more violence. It will ally the
United States with the most brutal military in the hemisphere.
Read the Human Rights Watch report. Read the reports of the Colombian
Commission of Jurors. Read the reports by the United Nations and the
OAS. They paint a picture of the Colombian military that I doubt any
Member of this House would want to be associated with. And the victims,
and there will be victims, will be the civilian population.
My colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), says
that Colombia is not El Salvador. He is right in one respect. Colombia
is 20 times the size of El Salvador.
I think one of the things that we need to do is we need to learn from
the lessons of El Salvador and our other interventions in Central
America to make sure we do not repeat the mistakes. Better to spend
this money on treatment, education, and law enforcement here at home.
The best way to fight drugs is to reduce demand, something this bill
does not even attempt to do. Defeat this rule and rethink the Colombia
package.
{time} 1130
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the distinguished subcommittee
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the gentleman
from Florida for yielding me this time. The rule includes an amendment
that will allow as we have heard for additional $4 billion to be added
to the defense accounts. It touches on many of the vital needs that we
have in terms of our shortfall for our military. I will have an
opportunity to discuss that later. I will not later be talking about
the Colombia piece, and I would like to take just a moment to address
that. I would like my colleagues to know that this brings back amazing
memories. For the first time I ever focused upon my chairman the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) who today was presenting the
difficulty of our schedules and our ranking member the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), it was at a time that we were discussing Central
America and Latin America.
In those days, the debate flowed around El Salvador and Nicaragua,
Guatemala, indeed the voices that swirl around the ranking member today
were very similar in those days. They were opposed to America's
involvement in Central America. Today, we see that region thriving in
democracy. Indeed today Colombia is asking us for our assistance with a
very, very significant drug problem. Indeed, America cannot solve
Colombia's entire problem; but they have asked for our help. It would
be a grave error for us to make the same mistake that those same voices
would have suggested we make in El Salvador in the country of Colombia.
I urge us to pass the rule and indeed to support this bill in its final
form.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. I would suggest the gentleman go back and recheck my
record. I did not oppose our efforts in Salvador. I opposed certain
efforts that did not provide for the support of legitimate democratic
forces, but I also supported funding for Salvador.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Taking back my time, there is little doubt
that the voices were almost identical to those that flow today
regarding this issue. There is little question, they did not want us
involved in El Salvador or Nicaragua, and there is democracy there
today because of America's involvement in part. Colombia has a major
problem. They are asking for our assistance. I would suggest that we
provide them with a small amount of assistance.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Institutional memory, Mr. Speaker, is the ability to
recognize a mistake and make it again. Let us hope we do not do it
again today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, last Friday morning, the House passed the
Republican budget resolution by all of four votes. Today, the
Republican leadership would override it because if this rule passes,
the House will take up and probably pass a supplemental appropriations
bill that, with amendments, will put spending $4 billion above the
level assumed in the budget resolution we passed just days ago. And
since the extra costs will not be offset, the budget surplus for 2000
will drop and so will the budget surplus for 2001. Indeed, by our
calculation, this supplemental, together with other activities, actions
already or likely to be passed will reduce the surplus, the on-budget
surplus for this year from $26.5 billion to $5.1 billion.
Last week when the House debated the budget resolution, we predicted
that over 10 years the Republican resolution which passed would spend
all of the non-Social Security surplus and $68 billion of the Social
Security surplus. We pointed out that the resolution assumed
discretionary spending cuts of $117 billion over 5 years which we
seriously doubted Congress would ever make; and if those cuts were not
made, we predicted that you would have to dig even deeper into Social
Security. We were convinced that eventually this resolution would be
overridden as it was in 1999 and again in 1998, but we never thought
you would do it in less than a week.
Now, I readily agree that this bill contains funds for national
defense and domestic priorities that are important. I am not contesting
the validity of most of these items. I am making a stronger point. I
think this supplemental shows that the budget resolution adopted just
days ago contains spending levels for discretionary spending that are a
sham.
Last week you were calling for Draconian spending cuts. This week you
[[Page H1490]]
are calling for dramatic increases, $12.5 billion this year. Granted
this spending is for this year alone but it is bound to have recurring
effects. I cannot believe that what we are doing for Colombia will end
this year. I cannot believe that the spare parts we are buying now for
2001 will not be needed next year. We need a realistic budget
resolution. I think we should hold in abeyance this supplemental until
we come back from conference with a budget resolution that is realistic
and it recognizes the costs that we are surely going to incur as this
supplemental points out.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this
time. I rise in strong opposition to this rule. The emergency spending
bill appropriates $9 billion. However, this rule does not make in order
the Wu-Kuykendall-Capps amendment to provide just $14.2 million to help
hard-pressed West Coast fishermen.
Pacific Coast fishermen have had their livelihood restricted by the
Federal Government's effort to restore the West Coast groundfish
fishery. This is costing hardworking men and women millions of dollars
in lost income. It is hurting communities up and down the coast like
Morro Bay and Avila Beach in my district.
The governors of California, Oregon, and Washington have requested
disaster assistance for fishing communities. The administration
recognized their need and asked for this funding. The money would fund
important research and stock assessment of the fishery, it would allow
for the buyback of permits and boats, and it would help communities
cope with the loss of a big industry.
The fishing men and women in my district would rather be on the water
hauling in their catch. But if we are going to keep them off their
boats, it is imperative that we help them to feed their families. I am
disappointed in this rule. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. Let me give a response to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt) with respect to the dollars that are in this supplemental under
the defense heading.
They are there simply because your Marines, your Air Force, your
Army, your Navy needs them. Every time the Commandant of the Marine
Corps addresses Congress in any forum, he always says, ``This is your
Marine Corps.'' And in a very true sense, it is your Marine Corps and
all the rest of the services. As my friend the gentleman from South
Carolina knows, and I know that is the reason the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is going to join with me and a number of other
people in supporting the Lewis-Spence amendment to bring in about 4
billion extra dollars in spare parts, in safety fixes, in emergency
fixes on the military health care system and a number of other areas
where there truly is an emergency.
That is why Democrats and Republicans have very carefully asked the
services when they came before us, did the $305 billion defense budget
submitted by the administration, does that take care of what your
troops need, and they told us no. We said, be specific. And they
outlined $15 billion worth of unfunded requirements; things we had to
do.
Let me tell my colleagues why they outlined them to us. They outlined
them to us because our planes in many cases are not able to get off the
ground and go do the mission. The mission capability is dropping like a
rock. That means your plane cannot start up on the tarmac or on a
carrier deck, go off, do its mission, and return.
They brought them to us because, in my estimation, the safety record
is going down in the services. Eighty crashes of military aircraft in
1998 and 1999, 80 crashes, 90 dead as a result of those crashes. We
have got old platforms. We have got platforms without spare parts.
The Air Force is 1,200 pilots short. Some of the money in this
amendment, the Spence-Lewis amendment, requests extra money for
recruiting, for retention, to keep skilled people in the services. This
is probably our most important job, keeping our Nation secure. This
amendment gives about 25 percent of what our services told us they have
to have to keep the wheels turning, to keep this reduced force going,
to keep the equipment repaired, to keep the spares coming.
When we went to Kosovo, Air Force readiness went down 50 percent
Stateside because we had to move all the spare parts and all the
available mechanics because we did not have very many of them, we had
to move them into theater. So we dropped mission capability 50 percent
in the units that were remaining. We are stretched very thin. Please
work with us. Moderates, liberals, conservatives, vote for the Spence-
Lewis amendment. It helps America's people in uniform.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
(Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
rule, a rule that will not allow Democrats by and large to offer
amendments on this most important supplemental appropriation, the first
one, I might add, for the 21st century. Eighty percent of the
amendments are by the majority party. We were not able to offer many.
One of the most important amendments is an amendment that would
provide treatment on demand for those Americans who found themselves
unfortunately addicted to drugs, drugs I might add that more than any
other country in the world Colombia supplies the heroin and the cocaine
that has infested our families and our neighborhoods across America.
In this supplemental, we are providing $1.7 billion to Colombia and
not a penny for drug treatment. I think it is horrible that the
amendment by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) was not
allowed, and I think we should vote against this rule.
Additionally, Mozambique. We are told that the assessment must be
made for Mozambique. The assessment I understand will be done on
Friday. I offered an amendment in committee, $60 million, $20 million
for child survival, $20 million for development assistance, $20 million
for international disaster relief, but withdrew the amendment because
they said we had to have the assessment.
The chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young), and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), have agreed that this money should come forth
and the money is in the accounts now to be released for Mozambique.
Release the money. It ought to be a part of the rule. We ought to be
able to debate it. We are not able at this time.
Treat those Americans who are addicted to much of the drugs that come
from Colombia. We are not allowed to debate; we are not allowed to
offer it. It is a bad rule. Vote against it.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling).
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, in this supplemental, there is $40 million
to deal with the citrus canker problem in Florida, a problem that the
Department of Agriculture said could have been handled probably with $5
million had they jumped on it immediately.
The Department of Agriculture now is saying if we do not jump on the
plum pox virus problem again, we are not going to have a $5 million
problem, we are going to have a several billion dollar problem. This
citrus problem is probably going to cost at least $200 million.
What has happened in Europe and what has happened in Spain and Chile
is that their stone fruit crop was wiped out. If you happen to produce
peaches, apricots, plums, cherries, almonds, avocados in your
particular districts, they will be wiped out.
I have four orchards in my district now. They had to destroy the
entire orchard. You cannot destroy the infected tree. You have to
destroy the entire orchard. They waited 10 years to get profit, all of
a sudden they must burn that crop and must wait 2 years then to replant
the trees and then wait another 5
[[Page H1491]]
years to get any profit from that production. The Department of
Agriculture says it spends $6 million now to stop it in its tracks or
let it spread through Washington, California, Michigan, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Georgia and wherever else they grow
peaches, prunes, apricots, avocados, et cetera.
And they have asked for the money, because they realize that it is
their watch and if they do not stop it now, it becomes a billion-dollar
problem. Unfortunately, OMB has not released the money as they have not
released the $40 million for the citrus problem in Florida.
{time} 1145
So I hope that everybody understands, we will pay $6 million this
year, or we will pay billions and billions of dollars in the future
when many of my colleagues will still be in the Congress of the United
States. So I would hope my colleagues would come back with an
appropriation to allow them to wipe out this virus immediately, rather
than see it spread all over the United States.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against the rule
today. We appeared before the Committee on Rules late last night with a
bipartisan, commonsense approach to a real emergency, a real disaster:
emergency aid to West Coast fishers and owners of small fishing boats.
This real emergency is caused by a fish population decline and by bad
Federal policy. It affects the entire West Coast.
Simply put, there are too many fishing boats, too few fish, and too
many Federal fishing restrictions based on spotty data.
The bipartisan commonsense amendment we offered, offered by me, by
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), by the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps), and by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Kuykendall), that is two Democrats and two Republicans, would have
addressed these challenges with better science and better fish
counting, with a buy-back of boats to reduce fishing capacity, and
financial aid to affected families.
Mr. Speaker, this commonsense, bipartisan amendment was rejected by
the Committee on Rules in the dead of night. I guess it is easy for
common sense and compassion to die late at night.
I ask my colleagues who care about hard-working fishing families to
vote against this rule.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Goss) has 9 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley) has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the gentleman from Massachusetts would
like to continue the rotation.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his realization
that my 9 minutes is more important than his 9 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur).
(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and in
utter consternation that the Republican majority has not allowed
Democrats to offer worthy amendments under this so-called open rule.
First of all, allowing only 10 minutes to debate war in Colombia and
a major U.S. commitment that will be long term is absolutely
reprehensible.
Secondly, on the domestic scene, when we look at oil prices and our
total dependence on foreign sources of supply into this economy, and
the fact that we have not been allowed to offer amendments that would
ask our Secretary of Energy to begin to move toward renewables here at
home, giving him the right to purchase ethanol and bio diesel, to fill
that strategic petroleum reserve, which, by the way, 90 percent of it
has been imported foreign oil.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield to the gentleman; I do not
have enough time right now. The gentleman did not give me the right to
offer these amendments.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would offer the gentlewoman time right now
if she would like to yield to me.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman does control the time. The
gentlewoman may proceed.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, that is the gentleman that denied me the
right to offer my amendments on this floor.
Now, I want to say on this oil business that for us to continue
foreign dependence is absolutely a military vulnerability to the United
States of America. We had an amendment that would have allowed the
Secretary of Energy to purchase domestically produced product and put
it in the reserve and we have been denied that opportunity here on the
floor.
Finally, in the area of farm crisis here at home, low prices across
this country, our farmers biting the dust, small and medium-sized
farmers; we had an amendment in here that would have permitted the
Secretary of Agriculture to offer equity capital in loans to those
small and medium-sized farmers trying to reposition in this cruel
marketplace today. We were disallowed the ability to do that. This is
the year of 2000. They cannot hang on until next year.
I want to say that many of our Members here also went up to the
Committee on Rules yesterday. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling), who was just here on the floor asking for plum pox which is
going to destroy the fruit crop in Pennsylvania and it will spread to
other States. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) for special
crop disasters in New York and California and other places; the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mr. DeLauro) on lobster fisheries; the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), and the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) on the spread of bovine
tuberculosis in the State of Michigan; and the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Wu) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) who just
appeared on fisheries on the West Coast.
Vote ``no'' on the rule. Too many of our Members have been excluded.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee
on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I would like
to, if I could, have the attention of my very good friend from Toledo
to explain and clarify.
I understand that she is very concerned about this rule, but I would
like to explain it. This is an open rule. We have an open amendment
process, which allows any germane amendment to be considered and fully
debated, without any time limitation whatsoever. So if my friend would
choose to offer a striking amendment, if my friend would choose to
offer anything that falls within the rubric of germaneness, she clearly
has a right to do that.
Now, she talked about 10 minutes that is allowed for her amendment.
The ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), has the full general debate time,
a half an hour, during which that entire time can be expended talking
about this issue, if he so wishes.
So I think it is important to note that we have time limits imposed
on those which we granted waivers to which are beyond the standard
Rules of the House; and what we have done is we have allowed full, no
time limits whatsoever on any germane amendment.
That is why I want to urge my colleagues, since this is an open
amendment process, and yes, we have provided waivers for 14 additional
amendments which have been made in order so that we can have a full
debate on a lot of different issues; but the fact of the matter is, for
people to come down here and vote against an open rule, I am really
concerned about the prospect of that.
So I urge my colleagues to support the rule, and I believe that it is
the right thing, and we will have a very full day.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, on a daily basis I hear my
colleagues, both Democratic and Republican, lament the fact that
Americans
[[Page H1492]]
are deployed all around the world, usually without congressional
approval.
I asked the Committee on Rules to approve an amendment that would
have limited American troop strength in Colombia to 300 personnel. I
did that because Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says that
Congress has the power to declare war and only the Senate can involve
this country in mutual defense treaties. I did that so that the $1.8
billion that is going to Colombia would not bring American troops with
it.
Mr. Speaker, as we are getting ready to spend our money there, the
Colombians have just changed their law so that if one has a high school
diploma, one does not get drafted. They have just cut their spending
for defense. My hunch is the Colombians think we are going to fight
their war for them.
If it is the will of Congress to do so, then I think Congress ought
to vote on this. However, far too often, both Republican and Democratic
Congresses, by omission and comission, have not done their job and
decided where and when young Americans will be called on to fight.
I am going to oppose this rule because, once again, the Committee on
Rules has seen to it that we will not make that decision.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
his great leadership on human rights throughout this hemisphere and
throughout the world.
Mr. Speaker, it is almost impossible to listen to the chairman of the
Committee on Rules claim that this is an open rule. Perhaps the word
``open'' to him means open only to Republicans; Democrats need not
apply with amendments.
This bill has been called an emergency because we have an emergency
in the drug abuse situation in our country. Indeed, we do. Mr. Speaker,
5.5 million people in America are in need of substance abuse treatment,
but this rule is closed to any consideration of those people. It allows
10 minutes for an amendment to consider military assistance to Colombia
in order to eradicate the coca leaf which flies in the face of all of
the research on how we reduce demand in the U.S.
But do not take my word for it.
As the distinguished ranking member referred to earlier, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the Rand report, which was put
together, the research was sponsored by the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, by the U.S. Army, and the Rand's Drug Policy Research
Center, this report says that for every dollar spent on treatment on
demand is 23 times more effective than coca leaf eradication in the
source country. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that if one wants to
reduce substance abuse in this country 1 percent, one would spend $34
million, $34 million on treatment on demand; and that 1 percent
reduction in the source country would be $723 million for the same
result.
Yes, we have an emergency in our country. Mr. Speaker, 5.5 million,
as I said, Americans are in need of substance abuse treatment. Two
million of them are receiving it, and 3.5 million people are in need.
My amendment for $600 million would have addressed the need of 5
percent of those people, 5 percent; and yet this rule closed us down to
have these Members on both sides of the aisle recognize the need in our
own country for treatment on demand and for prevention. It is a dollar
better spent. Everyone agrees to that. It has a result that is
documented, and yet we could not even have an amendment.
How can we have a drug bill on this floor that talks about the
emergency of substance abuse in our country that does not allow $1 to
be spent on prevention and treatment on demand? It simply does not make
sense.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose the bill also because of not allowing a fuller
debate on the subject of our military assistance to Colombia. Perhaps
we should go that route. We do not know, my Republican colleagues do
not know, because we have not discussed it.
I urge my colleagues, with no reluctance at all, to vote resoundingly
against this closed rule.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would point out to all Members, as they all
know, that an open rule is an open rule under the Rules of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, this is an emergency
supplemental. Let me cite some emergencies for our colleagues:
Hurricane Floyd, Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Hugo, the wildlands fires
in California and in the west States of Oregon and Washington, the
Midwestern States. How about the World Trade Center bombing. How about
the Murrah Building bombing in Oklahoma City. How about the earthquakes
at Loma Prieta and North Ridge. Or how about the recent fire that
killed 5 firefighters in Worcester, Massachusetts, or just last night
in Fort Worth, Texas where a tornado in downtown Fort Worth killed 4
people.
What is common with all of these emergencies, Mr. Speaker? They were
all handled by our domestic defenders, our 1.2 million fire and EMS
people who have not received one dime of support from this body in the
past.
Today, an amendment will be offered that will, for the first time,
provide $100 million for the fire and EMS personnel across America, 85
percent of whom are volunteers, 32,000 departments, on average, 60 to
80 in every congressional district represented in this body. But, Mr.
Speaker, we cannot pass that Weldon-Hoyer bipartisan amendment
supported by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell); supported by
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews); supported by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) unless we pass the rule.
{time} 1200
Mr. Speaker, we cannot pass the amendment unless colleagues on both
sides of the aisle join in supporting the bipartisan Weldon-Hoyer-
Smith-Pascrell-Andrews amendment for the fire service.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot provide the $100 million of short-term funding
and access to $4.8 billion of long-term funding unless we pass the
supplemental.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues who have joined in support of the
Pascrell bill, over 260 of us, to support the fire service of this
country. Today is our chance. Fire fighters across America are going to
man the phones. Now is Members' chance to show their support for them
with a real vote to help deal with the emergencies of this country.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Hansen).
(Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, we have a very critical problem in America
today. It is called, training our military on the East Coast. The only
place we can really put this thing together happens to be a little
island outside of Puerto Rico called Vieques.
There is the final test for the Navy and Marines. That is where they
go and do the live fire. That is where they go out prepared to take on
any commitment that the United States has.
Now we find ourselves in a position, Mr. Speaker, where trespassers
have come in, occupied the ground, gone through the gates, squatted on
the ground, and we cannot do it any longer. It just totally amazes me.
Our officers have gone to the Attorney General and said, kick these
people off. Our Attorney General will not do it.
So we find ourselves in the position, Mr. Speaker, of, what do we do
at this point? How important is this training? Let me tell the Members
what the Secretary of the Navy says: ``This training wins wars. Many
Americans in uniform owe their lives to this crucial training. Many
would perish without it.''
The chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps
have both testified that the combined live fire training at Vieques is
the most effective training we can do.
We have an amendment, the Fowler-Hansen amendment, that will be
coming up. It does this. I hope people pay attention. One, there can be
no trespassers on this live fire area. Like most people in the United
States, we all have in every State live fire going on and we do not
have trespassers.
It restores the integrity of the range. It tells the Attorney General
to get these people off, and live fire would resume before the $40
million goes to them.
[[Page H1493]]
I would hope people would support this commonsense amendment.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if Members want to know why the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is unhappy, just recognize this: The majority
runs this institution. The majority wrote this bill. They used the
Budget Act then to fence out amendments.
Out of the 14 amendments being allowed under this bill, two are being
offered by Democrats, ten by Republicans, and two have a bipartisan
tone. That in my view is not a balanced approach.
I would also urge Members to recognize that we should not spend a
lousy 10 minutes debating whether we are going to be at war in Colombia
for the next 5 years. I would remind Members of what James Hoagland,
the distinguished columnist, asked; that now, in the rush into this
quagmire, what is happening:
``What happens when it becomes clear that the considered judgment of
U.S. Air Force officers that the Colombia military will not be able to
maintain the Black Hawks under the condition in which they will be
flying is shown to be correct? Will the United States replace the
helicopters that crash or are shot down, at $13 million a copy? Will
large numbers of U.S. advisers be provided to maintain the helicopter
force?
``Clinton, of course, will not be around to provide answers. The
helicopters will not arrive until 6 months after he leaves office. His
successor will inherit an open-ended military obligation that can be
trimmed back or abandoned only at domestic political cost.''
It says, ``. . . House Republicans have championed supersized aid to
Colombia, with an eye to blasting Clinton and Gore if it is not passed.
They are the true catalysts for this foreign policy fiasco. They
blithely ignore the fact that American demand is at the root of the
drug problem more than Columbian supply. They voted down efforts by
Representative Nancy Pelosi to add funds for drug treatment at home in
the catch-all bill that provides aid to Colombia. They sliced out of
that same bill $211 million in debt relief for the world's poorest
countries. They will shoot away the problems of the Third World.
``That has been tried elsewhere, with similar fuzzy and contradictory
thinking in Washington at the take-off. I can only wonder: Where is the
Vietnam Syndrome when we need it?''
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Kuykendall).
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Speaker, I am glad today this rule will allow us
to debate this Vieques range. The range is the only place on the East
Coast where we can do live fire training of all the combined forces.
That means Marines ashore, Navy in ships, airmen in aircraft, whether
we are shooting or missiles or live fire artillery, and we are doing it
in conjunction with our forces. That is training that is invaluable
when we have to go fight a war.
For the last decade, nearly every deployment this Nation has had from
the East Coast of the United States has sent American military forces
directly into combat operations. Whether it is the Persian Gulf War or
Kosovo, other Balkan operations, or operations like Operation Desert
Fox, where we went immediately into bombing in Iraq as part of the no-
fly zone enforcement, or getting inspectors back into the country, live
information training is essential.
I as a young artilleryman in the Marine Corps trained at a live fire
range in Oklahoma. I was only 3 miles away from U.S. citizens in my
training. Here we have at least an 8-mile piece of safe zone. This
amendment needs to be approved. Vote for the rule.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for the previous question and
the rule. Our military has been underfunded. We cannot protect America
with a neighborhood crime watch. Congress should be bolstering up our
defenses.
I will also notify the Congress I will be offering a buy American
amendment to this that will say, when you are spending this money, try
and buy American-made products, try and buy American services to keep
the ball rolling.
I think it is a good rule and it is a good bill. We should support
both.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, my dear friend, my colleague, the gentleman from
California, said we should fund the Colombia military because there is
peace in El Salvador today. I would remind my colleague that peace in
El Salvador did not start until we cut off the military aid to El
Salvador. After 12 years of brutal war and 75,000 innocent lives lost,
the parties did not come anywhere near the negotiating table until we
cut the military aid to El Salvador. As long as we were funding the
war, it continued. As long as we fund the Colombian military and as
long as we provide them weapons, they will use those weapons and the
war will continue.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope the rule does not pass.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to quickly point to a few things.
First of all, I am not sure that everybody really understands that
the FARC is not just another political opposition group. This is a
vicious guerilla band of people that this past weekend killed 26
policemen in Colombia, in one city, in Bahia del Puerto. They beheaded
the chief of police and killed four children between the ages of 3 and
7, to say nothing of their mothers and other innocent victims.
This is, unfortunately, routine business. This is the face of a
terrorist insurrection against a democratic government.
Secondly, I would like to point out, the much-discussed Rand report
talking about how much more we get out of our money for treatment, that
is interesting if we are talking about treatment, but we are talking
about trying to stop people from becoming victims. We do not want them
to become addicts. We do want to treat the addicts, but we want to stop
our youth from becoming addicts by making sure there is no supply for
them. That is a legitimate part of what we are about.
The third thing is, there are many elements to this bill that were
not discussed today: Kosovo burdensharing, a critical bipartisan
amendment that I know will get a lot of attention as the day goes on.
The fourth thing, some talk about entanglement. We are not sending an
expeditionary force, we are sending training and logistics support.
Fifth, what does this matter to the average American who does not
necessarily know where Colombia falls on the map of the world? I will
tell Members what it matters, it matters about our kids, our kids who
are tempted by the scourge of drugs. We are dealing with our children
and our grandchildren and their future.
If Members do not like that, we are dealing with the price of gas,
because gas comes from this area, too. Destabilization in this area is
just going to keep the price of gas higher longer.
So there are lots of ways Members can bring this personally to
themselves and into their lives, to their pocketbook, to their quality
of life. But nothing, nothing should take second place to the well-
being of our kids and us doing our job to make sure they are properly
protected.
This is a good open rule, it is a fair rule. I urge support for the
rule.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, early last Friday, the House passed the
Republican budget resolution for Fiscal Year 2001 by all of 4 votes.
Today, the Republican leadership overrides it. If this rule passes, the
House will take up a supplemental appropriations bill that, with likely
amendments, is $4 billion above the spending level assumed in the
budget resolution the House just passed. Since the extra cost will not
be offset, the budget surplus for 200 will drop and so will the surplus
for 2001. In fact, by our calculation, this supplemental, along with
other actions already taken or likely to be taken, will reduce the on-
budget surplus this year from $26.5 billion to $4.9 billion.
Last week, when the House debated the budget resolution, we predicted
that over ten years, the Republican budget would spend all
[[Page H1494]]
of the non-Social Security surplus and $68 billion of the Social
Security surplus. We pointed out how the Republican resolution assumed
spending cuts of $117 billion over five years, cuts we doubted Congress
would make. And if those unrealistic cuts weren't made, we warned that
you would dig even more into the Social Security surplus. We were
convinced that this resolution would be overridden by more spending, as
were the budget resolutions in 1999 and 1998, but we never thought you
would do it in less than a week.
I readily agree that this bill contains funds for national defense
and domestic priorities that are important. I am not contesting the
validity of most of these items. I am contesting the validity of your
budget resolution, for this supplemental shows that your spending
levels are a sham.
A few days ago, you were calling for draconian spending cuts. Now you
are asking for dramatic increases, $12.5 billion in one year, much more
than the President requested.
The President requested $2.2 billion for non-defense programs for the
supplemental. The bill reported out of committee takes that request up
to $3.2 billion, an increase of almost 50 percent. About $600 million
of this $1.0 billion uses fiscal year 2000 funding to buy fiscal year
2001 items: $282 million for domestic electronic surveillance of drug
activities, and $318 million for anti-drug efforts in Columbia.
For defense, the President requested a supplemental of $2.3 billion.
The bill the committee reported more than doubles that to $5.2 billion.
The Spence-Lewis amendment would add $4.0 billion to that. Much of this
would use fiscal year 2000 money to buy fiscal year 2001 items, easing
the strain on 2001. But many of the defense adds are recurring costs,
such as defense health care funding and spare parts and maintenance for
weapon systems like Apache helicopters and Navy ships. By making this
add, Republicans are disavowing the spending level for defense
specified in last week's budget resolution, and not just for 2001. In
all probability, Congress will have to continue appropriating these
additional sums in future years.
Does anyone here honestly believe that this is a one-time request for
Colombia?
This supplemental is a clever way to turn the flank of the resolution
passed last week. It's a scheme that allows Congress to pay some fiscal
year 2001 costs using fiscal year 2000 money. I understand the need.
But if Republicans find the 2001 spending levels too tight, how will
you find the spending levels in 2002, when the discretionary spending
cuts get deeper? And at the same time the spending cuts get deeper, the
tax cuts get larger. What does this portend for Social Security? Will
you be forced to tap even more into the Social Security surplus?
This supplemental shows that the Republican budget is not serious.
Until Congress has passed a conference report with realistic spending
levels and responsible tax cuts, we should hold this supplemental in
abeyance.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule,
which specifically makes in order twelve amendments offered by
Republicans and waives all points of order against these amendments.
Only two amendments offered by Democrats were made in order by this
partisan rule.
I plan to offer an amendment to restore a mere $210 million in
funding, which was requested by the President to provide debt relief to
Mozambique and other heavily indebted poor countries. This Republican
rule does not allow my amendment.
Mozambique--one of the world's poorest countries--has recently
experienced its worst flooding in 50 years. There are now hundreds of
thousands of displaced people who are in desperate need of food, clean
water, medicine, blankets and tents. The government of Mozambique
cannot possibly address the needs of these displaced people or repair
its damaged infrastructure while continuing to make debt payments to
foreign governments. Debt relief has never been more important for
Mozambique than it is now.
Debt relief for the world's poorest countries is supported by a
worldwide movement of churches, religious groups and non-governmental
organizations. This movement, known as Jubilee 2000, was begun by
Christians who believe that the year 2000, the two thousandth
anniversary of the coming of Christ, is a Jubilee Year. According to
the Bible, the Lord instructed the people of Ancient Israel to
celebrate a Jubilee--or a Year or the Lord--every 50 years. During a
Jubilee Year, debts were forgiven. Debt forgiveness for poor countries
is the moral thing to do.
This partisan rule also did not allow consideration of the Pelosi
amendment, which would have added funding for drug treatment and
prevention programs. This bill contains $1.7 billion for international
counter-narcotics programs. We need to focus on demand reduction here
in the United States, which fuels the production of drugs abroad.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this unfair and shortsighted rule.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241,
nays 182, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 81]
YEAS--241
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ewing
Farr
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--182
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
[[Page H1495]]
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--12
Barton
Boucher
Conyers
Crane
Everett
Franks (NJ)
Granger
Klink
Kucinich
McIntosh
Quinn
Salmon
{time} 1231
Ms. SANCHEZ and Ms. CARSON changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. REYES and Mrs. MORELLA changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________