[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 37 (Wednesday, March 29, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1495-H1585]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             2000 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 450 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3908.

                              {time}  1232


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3908) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Thornberry in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring to the 
House today the 2000 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill.
  The Committee on Appropriations ordered this legislation reported by 
a nearly three to one bipartisan vote. It is reflective of a 
compilation of input from many sources on a large spectrum of issues. 
The request was thoroughly reviewed, hearings were held, input from 
Members outside the committee was received, and our committee 
painstakingly marked up the bill. The result of all of this is the bill 
before us.
  The bill includes $1.7 billion for counternarcotics activities in the 
Colombian and Andean region. By and large, the bill provides what the 
President requested for Colombia. In addition, the bill takes a more 
regional approach by providing increased help to the anti-drug efforts 
of Colombia's neighbors. Before any of the funds going to South America 
can be spent, the Secretary of State is to report on how the money will 
be used. The bill also funds high priority anti-drug activities in the 
Departments of Justice and Defense.
  Also included in this bill is nearly $5 billion for national security 
matters. The President's emergency request for $2 billion for 
operations in Kosovo and East Timor is met. I must remind our 
colleagues that this money replenishes funds that have already been 
spent for both of these operations. In fact, the money has been spent 
and borrowed from the fourth quarter operations and maintenance 
accounts of all of the military services. So that money has to be 
repaid, or the training activities in the fourth quarter of the fiscal 
year for our Nation's military will have to stand down dramatically.
  This bill also includes $1.6 billion to help cover increasing fuel 
costs facing the Defense Department. As we drive up to the gas tanks 
and fill up our cars, we see a tremendous increase in the cost of fuel. 
The ships that we drive, the airplanes that we fly, the trucks and the 
tanks that we drive, all of these things that use fuel are experiencing 
the same thing. So we do provide the money to make up for the increased 
fuel costs.
  The bill also includes $854.5 million to the financially troubled 
Defense Health Program, a health program that promises medical care for 
members of the military, their families, and those retirees who are 
eligible for military medical care. There are doctors, there are 
nurses, there are pharmacies, and there are medical people who provide 
medical care who have provided their services but have not been paid. 
We are in arrears to at least that amount of money. So we include it in 
this bill. The President did not request these two items; but they are 
urgently needed, and we will have to provide the money sooner or later.
  In the natural disaster and other emergencies areas, the bill 
includes $2.2 billion. This includes $400 million for USDA administered 
agriculture assistance, $250 million for wildland fire management, $600 
million for LIHEAP, Low Income Home Energy Assistance, and $600 million 
for emergency highway reimbursements to States.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee tried to clean up all of the loose ends 
that we had relative to hurricane and flood disasters in the last year, 
and we believe this bill does complete all our responsibilities and 
obligations here.
  There are many other important issues addressed in the bill. The 
report provides a very complete description of them. The bill is 
somewhat difficult and a little controversial in places, and I respect 
the fact that there are multiple opinions on the bill. But I think the 
Committee on Appropriations listened to and respected the differing 
positions on the various provisions in the bill, including the strong 
support of the President of the United States. However, as usual with 
an appropriations bill, we could not report a bill that included 
everyone's position.
  Now the bill is before the entire House for consideration. It is 
important that we move this bill through the House today and we get it 
to the other body where deliberations can begin. We need to get this 
off of our schedules today because, Mr. Chairman, we have 13 other 
appropriations bills that we are trying to bring to this House in 
regular order and ahead of last year's schedule and certainly the year 
before's schedule, because this is a busy year for Members of Congress 
because of our national conventions, home work periods. So we need to 
get this bill out of here, get it into the negotiation with the other 
body.
  At this point in the Record, I would like to insert a table showing 
the details of this bill, as reported.
  [The table follows:] 

[[Page H1496]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T29MR00.001

 

[[Page H1497]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T29MR00.002

 

[[Page H1498]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T29MR00.003

 

[[Page H1499]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T29MR00.004

 

[[Page H1500]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T29MR00.005

 

[[Page H1501]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T29MR00.006

 

[[Page H1502]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T29MR00.007

 

[[Page H1503]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T29MR00.008



[[Page H1504]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, at the end of last year, the President had asked for 
$568 billion in appropriated spending, and Congress had approved $578 
billion. In this supplemental as it now comes before us, the President 
has asked for additional funds which would take his total request for 
the year to $573 billion. The supplemental has been added to by the 
committee so that, if this bill passes as it is now before us, we will 
wind up spending $587 billion over this existing fiscal year, which is 
$13 billion more than the President asked.
  In addition, the amendment that will be offered today and which will 
be supported by the Republican leadership will add yet another $4 
billion to this package in the DoD arena. That will take total spending 
for this fiscal year to $591 billion, some $17 billion above the 
President's request.
  That additional $4 billion which is being asked for by the House 
leadership is there for a very simple reason. There is nothing wrong 
with what that money is actually being spent for. But the fact is it is 
being spent on routine items for one simple purpose, and that is to get 
around the very budget resolution that was passed just 5 days ago on 
this floor. Because by moving that $4 billion in expenditures into this 
existing fiscal year, my colleagues make room in the next fiscal year 
for $4 billion for Members' projects and Members' pork. Nice game if 
they can get away with it.
  I suggest Senator McCain get out his pencil. He better get ready, 
because a lot of stuff is going to come over there he is probably not 
going to like. This is one major reason to vote against this bill 
before us today.
  But there is another, in my view, even more serious reason. We are 
being asked by the President and the Speaker of the House to support 
$1.3 billion for Colombia. In my view, that is the camel's nose under 
the tent for a massive long-term commitment to a military operation in 
Colombia that has as much to do with the domestic situation in Colombia 
as it has to do with our drug problems here at home.
  General Wilhelm from SouthCom has indicated that this is the first 
year of a 5-year commitment, in his judgment. It seems to me if a can-
do Marine like General Wilhelm is predicting that this is going to be a 
5-year operation, that it is likely to last a lot longer, because 
things have a way of getting more complicated than Congress originally 
expects.
  As I said in the Committee on Rules, I detest Vietnam analyses under 
most circumstances, but I believe that, in this case, there is a very 
real parallel. In fact, there are two. When the Gulf of Tonkin 
resolution was debated in 1964, it took 2 days in the Senate. It took 
40 minutes on the floor of this House. This Congress has rued the day 
ever since that it did not give more time to consider that proposition.
  Today, when my amendment comes before us to eliminate the most 
dangerous parts of that Colombian package, we will have exactly 20 
minutes to discuss it, 10 minutes for those of us who are opposed to 
undertaking that involvement at this time.
  Let me tell my colleagues what I think the unanswered questions are 
that we ought to be asking. In my view, this Congress has no real 
knowledge of what it is we are about to embark upon. I do not see any 
real plan by the administration. I see a plan to have a plan, but I do 
not see a real plan. There is no specific authorization for this 
proposition. Before we slide into this operation, I think we ought to 
ask some questions.
  First of all, is this really an anti-drug campaign, or is it a 
political campaign, a pacification in Colombia? Will this really 
produce a reduction in drug availability in the United States?
  The House, in the rule it just adopted, has eliminated its ability to 
vote on the Pelosi amendment. The Pelosi amendment was an attempt to 
add additional money to fight drugs here at home by expanding our drug 
treatment and prevention program.
  I would point out that the Rand Corporation, in a study financed in 
part by the U.S. Army, indicated that a dollar spent to eliminate drug 
use here at home is 23 times more effective than a dollar spent to try 
to interdict or to reduce supply in some foreign land. Yet we are being 
prevented from voting on the most effective way to deal with drugs in 
this country.
  I also think we need to be aware of the fact that in Colombia itself 
there is substantial doubt about whether that society is ready to take 
this issue on. If they are not, we cannot do it for them.
  I do not know, for instance, how many Americans understand that if we 
take a look at the ruling elite in Colombia, their sons do not serve in 
combat. Because if one is a high school graduate, one is exempted from 
having to serve in combat in the Colombian armed forces.

                              {time}  1245

  Do my colleagues really think we are going to be able to sustain a 5- 
or 10-year military operation with that kind of divided duty in that 
society? I doubt it.
  What happens if the battalions that we are now training do not 
succeed? We are training a few thousand men so they can try to root out 
the narcos in 40,000 square miles of jungle. Let us say we succeed, 
which I think is highly unlikely. What is to prevent them from simply 
moving into the other 150,000 square miles of jungle in that country? I 
do not think very much.
  I think this is ill conceived and ill thought out. If this does not 
work, what is the next step? Will we then cut and run, or will we then 
deepen our involvement? I do not think, given our past experience in 
Vietnam, that we are likely to just say, ``Oh, well, we gave it the 
good old college try, so now we are going to yank the plug.'' I do not 
think whoever is the future president is going to be able to make that 
decision. That means a long-haul problem.
  What I am going to be asking this House to do, eventually, is to 
allow the money for police training to flow, to allow their helicopters 
to go down to Colombia, but I am going to be asking my colleagues to 
delay until July the vote on the over $500 million in additional 
funding that is meant to expand our basic military commitment in 
Colombia until the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
International Relations, and the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence can hold more hearings on this so that Congress knows what 
it is doing before it acts. And my amendment will provide expedited 
procedures to assure that we would be able to vote on it in July.
  We are being told that lots of very bright professional people have 
put this package together so we need have no fear. Well, I respect 
Secretary Albright, I respect General McCaffery, I respect Mr. 
Pickering in the State Department, I respect the Speaker of the House, 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). But with all due respect to 
them, every individual Member of this House has a constitutional duty 
to exercise his or her own judgment on an issue of this gravity, and I 
do not think we are able to do that under this truncated arrangement.
  So I would urge, for those and other reasons, that my colleagues 
oppose this bill today. I have no illusions that my amendment will 
pass. I think it is incredible we could not even vote on the Pelosi 
amendment, but I would urge Members not to make the same mistake that 
was made on this House floor in the Gulf of Tonkin. This may not be the 
same as Vietnam. There are undoubtedly major differences. But there are 
some very disturbing similarities, and I would urge my colleagues to 
take those similarities into consideration and delay consideration of 
this crucial vote until the Congress knows a whole lot more than it 
does today about what the proper course of action ought to be.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his 
great efforts in providing us with an excellent bill. I rise today to 
voice my enthusiastic support for his efforts, particularly as it 
relates to North Carolina.
  This supplemental calls for $94 million in unobligated balances for 
the emergency conservation program to be

[[Page H1505]]

used to repair damage done by Hurricane Floyd to buildings and farm 
equipment; provides $13 million in Federal crop insurance assistance; 
provides $81 million in relief for marketing loans for farmers in North 
Carolina; provides $43 million in rural water projects; $29 million for 
rural housing; $5 billion for peacekeeping in Kosovo, $2.2 billion more 
than the President's request. This supplemental fills in a lot of holes 
that have been created by this administration.
  Additional funding is appropriated to stop the administration's 
practice of asking our soldiers to do more with less. And if the Spence 
amendment is accepted, and I certainly hope that it is, and support it, 
the supplemental will include an additional $4 billion in emergency, 
badly needed defense funding. This funding includes $750 million in 
military health care for active duty and veterans, $230 million to 
reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses, $600 million to address 
recruiting shortfalls, $1.2 billion to meet funding requirements for 
our forward deployed forces, and $1.2 billion to meet critical 
shortfalls in equipment maintenance.
  Mr. Chairman, I again want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) and rise in enthusiastic support. I would respectfully urge our 
friends in the Senate to move forward on this bill with all dispatch.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs.
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Just recently, Mr. Chairman, we heard our colleague from Wisconsin 
talking about the message that the President of the United States 
brought to this House of Representatives requesting that we bust the 
budget. I might remind the gentleman that the President was not for the 
balanced budget anyway, so we are not surprised he is sending us this 
message asking us to bust the budget.
  What we did in this process, with respect to that area of 
jurisdiction that we on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing and Related Programs have, is reduce the President's request 
for foreign aid by $37 million. Simply put, the President of the United 
States, the man that the people of this country has placed in charge of 
our national security, has hired one of the most professional people in 
this country with respect to the ability to do something about the drug 
problem we have, Mr. McCaffery. And Mr. McCaffery and the President of 
the United States have come to us and said, give us the money to 
implement this policy. Who are we to second-guess the Commander-in-
Chief and Mr. McCaffery, the drug czar?
  I am sorry that the minority Members do not have the confidence in 
the President of the United States to make a decision that is a 
responsible decision, but we must be responsible Members of the House 
of Representatives. The President has come to us, the Commander-in-
Chief, and he tells us we have a very, very serious problem with drugs. 
And the President is absolutely right. He says we have a problem in 
Kosovo, and he is absolutely right. The President and I disagree on 
what the problem is in Kosovo, but, nevertheless, we have reduced his 
request for assistance to Kosovo for reconstruction. There is nothing 
in here to that effect.
  So the bottom line is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Services 
and the drug czar have come to us and said, after due diligent 
research, they have decided that this is the number one way that we can 
fight drug use here in the United States. I know that there appears to 
be an extreme lack of confidence in the ability of the President of the 
United States to make these decisions; but, nevertheless, he is the 
President of the United States and this Congress must decide whether or 
not we want to fight drugs based upon the suggested remedy that the 
President of the United States has sent to us or whether we want to 
play rhetoric and play demagoguery and delay this and let this drug 
situation develop even further.
  In addition to the President's request for Colombia, we found glaring 
holes in it in the committee process. For example, we found that there 
was not a sufficient amount of money for the surrounding countries of 
Colombia, and we increased the President's request. We did not decrease 
his drug effort request; we increased it to provide for the surrounding 
countries of Colombia to have an ability to also fight the drug 
situation.
  So here we are, a body that is destined to make a decision today 
based upon the request of the President of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations bill. I commend Chairman Young for his leadership on 
this measure, especially his efforts to support our Armed Forces who 
are under so much strain in the face of repeated deployments overseas.
  For Foreign Operations, this Emergency Supplemental includes a total 
of $1 billion and 241.7 million including $1 billion and 99 million for 
programs to fight America's international War on Drugs and $142.7 
million for Kosovo and Southeast Europe. We did not provide an 
additional $210 million for debt relief at this time, but this is a 
subject we hope to be able to address when the proper conditions have 
been agreed to by the Secretary of the Treasury. In all, the 
Appropriations Committee recommendation reduces president's request for 
foreign aid by more than $37 million.
  Let me highlight the small but significant changes to the President's 
request made by the Committee. First, the Committee recommendation does 
not simply shift drug production and trafficking away from Colombia, 
and into other countries in the region, we have increased the 
President's request for Colombia's neighbors, including: $57 million 
for Bolivia; $42 million for Peru; $20 million for Ecuador; and $18 
million for Panama, Venezuela, Costa Rica, and Brazil.
  Second, this bill will strengthen Human Rights and Judicial Reform in 
Colombia. The Appropriations Committee has recommended $98.5 million--
$5 million more that the President's request--for human rights and 
judicial programs. As Chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, 
I expect these funds are to be subject to the existing ``Leahy Law'' 
which restricts U.S. assistance for foreign security forces involved in 
gross human rights abuses. In addition, the Committee adopted 2 
important amendments offered by Mr. Farr that strengthen the human 
rights requirements of this assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, for Kosovo and Southeastern Europe, the President has 
requested $250.9 million in emergency funds. This bill provides $142.7 
million.
  Congress made clear last year that the U.S. should not play a major 
role in rebuilding Kosovo. From FY 2000 funds previously appropriated, 
more than $150 million is already available. Therefore, except for the 
Administration's request for $12.4 million for American officers in the 
international police force, the Committee does not recommend additional 
funding for Kosovo. The exception for the police force is due to an 
urgent need. Ethnic violence continues, and this violence endangers 
civilians and U.S. troops. Police, not the U.S. military, should 
maintain public security.
  This bill fully funds the President's request for $34 million in 
assistance for Montenegro, $35.7 million in assistance for Croatia, and 
$13.7 million in assistance for democratic opposition in Serbia. Also, 
this bill fully funds the President's request for a modest investment 
of $33.9 million to improve the military readiness of our allies in 
southeast Europe. The region remains volatile, and NATO needs to be in 
a position to operate cooperatively with these nations in case of 
another crisis.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this bill ensures continued Congressional 
oversight of these appropriations. None of the ``Plan Colombia'' funds 
can be spent until the Secretary of State notifies Congress regarding 
the exact uses of the funds. Further, all of the protections included 
in General Provisions from the Fiscal Year 2000 Foreign Operations bill 
apply to these funds, also.
  Mr. Chairman, the Foreign Operations spending in this bill is truly 
Emergency spending that benefits Americans. I know that many Members 
are uncomfortable supporting Supplemental funds for foreign aid. But 
every penny of foreign aid in this bill is designed to benefit 
Americans. This assistance will help stop illegal narcotics from 
entering the United States and it will help American soldiers complete 
their work in Kosovo more rapidly. I urge Members to vote ``aye''.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, the supplemental before us, and there 
has been much debate on it, really does not

[[Page H1506]]

address the total problem that we have.
  As a member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing and Related Programs, and we just heard the distinguished 
chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), I want to thank 
him for his leadership in helping us to solve the problem in Zimbabwe; 
and my thanks to the full chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), for also supporting our efforts to address the crisis in 
Zimbabwe.
  As many of my colleagues know, South Africa, Zimbabwe, as well as the 
tragedy in Mozambique, is of insurmountable proportions. The country 
has been devastated. There is money in our foreign assistance accounts 
today to address that problem. This supplemental, though it did not 
accept the amendment I had for $60 million that would put $20 million 
in child survival, $20 million in development assistance, and $20 
million in disaster relief to replenish the account so that Mozambique 
today can get the assistance they need, the dollars are there; and I 
urge the President to request the money today to address those 
problems.
  It is unfortunate that we have not moved yet on this tragedy. It has 
been over 3 weeks now. This has been in the media and some assistance 
has been sent. The helicopters, some food, and the personnel are on the 
ground in Mozambique. But over a million people are homeless today. 
Over 50,000 children are orphaned and cannot find their parents. We are 
the leaders in the world community. We have the resources and the 
disaster assistance account there for that purpose.
  Both the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) as well as the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) have agreed with me and adopted my 
amendment in the Committee on Appropriations, and we have report 
language that says when the assessment is made, and I understand it is 
to be made this Friday, that we will send the money forward. Let us not 
slow down our progress.
  Mozambique is growing. It is one of the best countries on the 
continent. After years of struggle, they have put their house in order, 
but the cyclone has totally devastated them. Their housing, their 
hospitals, their food, their ability to grow their food has been 
devastated.
  I urge this Congress to adopt the language in the bill and to send 
the financial resources to Mozambique.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Military Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, let me also thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) for his hard work on this bill.
  I could not help but think, as I was listening to the comments of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who brought up a chart up here 
saying that the Republicans are busting the budget, that a few years 
ago he was standing here on the floor saying we were trying to starve 
children and put our grandmothers out on the streets. So when 
Republicans step forward and we fund particular programs, I am finding 
out that some of my colleagues enjoy the role of just playing the 
critic rather than being constructive and involving themselves in 
programs that help not only our people but our country be good 
neighbors in the world.
  I rise in strong support of this bill. A critical element of this 
bill is called ``Plan Colombia,'' which is the funding of a concerted 
effort aimed at reducing the supply of narcotics to the United States 
from this region in South America.
  Illicit drugs pose a clear and present threat to the well-being of 
American society as well as our entire hemisphere. In 1999, drugs 
killed 52,000 Americans, approximately, and caused more than $10 
billion in damage to our country. The number of drug arrests and 
percentage of teens using drugs has steadily risen since President 
Clinton took office in 1993. The streets of America are literally awash 
in drugs, and this supplemental sends an unambiguous signal that we are 
finally getting serious about addressing this issue.
  Unlike the Bosnia and Kosovo debates we have had on in floor, the 
United States has a vital national interest that is threatened by the 
influx of drugs across our borders. These drugs find their way on to 
every street corner of America. Over 80 percent of the cocaine and 
heroin that makes its way to the United States comes from this region 
in South America.
  In December of 1999, I traveled to Colombia and Venezuela. I went 
into the jungles and Tres Esquinas where they were actually training 
the police battalions and, in my opinion, the democratically-elected 
government of Colombia is serious today about fighting the war on 
drugs.
  Now, I will acknowledge the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) about the individuals who are drafted, young men not 
participating in the war, in armed combat.

                              {time}  1300

  We recognize that. But what we are training up is this narcotics 
police battalion. They are very serious in their efforts.
  The core plan of Colombia, in training these battalions, is very 
serious. The transportation of the them for the helicopters is 
necessary. I believe that Congress needs to step up to the plate. The 
President has acknowledged the commitment of the president of Colombia. 
We need the comprehensive strategy to fight this war, and this is the 
initial first step.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue is not whether we should fight drugs. We 
should. The issue is what is the most effective way to do that. The 
issue is not whether we like the president of Colombia. I do. The 
question is whether his country, his society, and his military are 
reliable reeds to lean on when we are talking about starting a 5-year 
or more commitment of military involvement.
  I would like to once again read some of the comments made by James 
Hoagland, who I think everyone knows to be an objective, middle-of-the-
road, and very sage reporter on international issues. This is some of 
what he said on March 19:
  ``In Colombia, the United States pursues unattainable goals largely 
for domestic political reasons with inappropriate tools.''
  Mr. Chairman, I will insert the full text in the Record when we are 
in the full House, but I am quoting portions now.
  He goes on to say, ``Questions not being asked, much less answered, 
now in the rush into quagmire include the following: What happens when 
it becomes clear of the considered judgment of the U.S. Air Force 
officers that the Colombian military will not be able to maintain the 
Blackhawks under the conditions 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. 
advisors be provided to maintain the helicopter force? If cocaine 
exports from South America continue unabated, will 30 more or 300 more 
Blackhawks be furnished to expand the war?
  ``Clinton, of course, will not be around to provide the answers. 
Colombia's first Blackhawks will not arrive until 6 months after he 
leaves office. His successor will inherent an open-ended military 
obligation that can be trimmed back or abandoned only at domestic 
political cost.
  ``Sound familiar? Do the names Kennedy and Johnson come to mind?''
  He then goes on to say, ``House Republicans have championed super-
sized 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. 
The Clintonites merely show the courage of their cynicism jumping 
aboard a train they hope will be derailed in the Senate.
  ``The House Republicans blithely ignore the fact that American demand 
is at the root of the drug problem more than Colombian supply. They 
vote 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 slice 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 takeoff. I can

[[Page H1507]]

only wonder: Where is the Vietnam Syndrome when we really need it?''
  I agree with those statements.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. We have already 
appropriated $1.7 trillion for this year's budget. We do not need to 
appropriate another $9 billion.
  It is said that we need to appropriate this money to fight the drug 
war in Colombia. We have been fighting the drug war for 25 years. We 
have spent $250 billion on the drug war. Some day we will have to wake 
up and decide that the way we are fighting the drug war is wrong.
  As a physician, I can tell my colleagues, it is a serious problem. 
There are a lot of people suffering from drug usage in this country. 
But if something does not work, why are we so determined to pursue a 
process that does not work?
  Quite frankly, I am not sure the real reason why we are in Colombia 
has anything to do with drugs. I do concede a lot of individuals will 
be voting for this bill because of the belief that it might help. But 
it will not help. So we should reconsider it and think about the real 
reasons why we might be there.
  I had an amendment that was not approved. But what I would have done, 
if I had had the chance, I would have taken all the money from the 
overseas spending, Kosovo, Bosnia, East Timor, and the funds now for 
this new adventure down in Colombia, and put it into building up our 
military defense. That is what we need. We need better salaries, better 
medical care, and we need better housing for our military personnel. 
But here we go spreading ourselves thinly again around the world by 
taking on a new adventure, which will surely lead to trouble and a lot 
of expense.
  Members have referenced the 65 helicopters that will be sent to 
Colombia. There is one, I guess, cynical hope about what might happen 
with our involvement in Colombia. Usually when we get involved its only 
going to be for a short period of time. We were going to go into Bosnia 
for 6 months. We have been there 5 years. We were going to go to Kosovo 
for a short period of time. It is open-ended. We are in East Timor for 
who knows how long. And we will soon be in Colombia.
  But there was one time where we backed away, we literally surrendered 
and ran with our tail between our legs because we went in with 
helicopters, and that had to do with Somalia. We sent our Blackhawk 
helicopters in there. We had two of them shot down in Mogadishu. We had 
two others that crash landed when they returned to the base. Within a 
couple weeks, we were out of there.
  We did not send our Blackhawk helicopters into Kosovo because they 
would be shot down. Lets face it, it is not a good weapon. It will only 
lead to further involvement.
  Who is going to fly the Blackhawk helicopters? Do my colleagues think 
the Colombians are going to fly them? You can bet our bottom dollar we 
are going to have American pilots down there very much involved in 
training and getting in much deeper than we ever should be.
  So I think that, unfortunately, this could end up in a real mess. 
Maybe then we would have enough sense to leave. But we, in the 
Congress, ought to have enough sense not to go down there. This money 
can be better spent on national defense. We should be concerned about 
national security.
  When we get ourselves involved, whether it is the Persian Gulf or 
Bosnia or wherever, all we do is build up our enemies and expose 
ourselves more to terrorist attacks because we are not doing it in the 
name of security and resentment toward America builds.
  Under the Constitution, we should have a strong national defense, and 
we should provide for national security. Going into Colombia has 
nothing to do with national security and serves to undermine national 
defense.
  Even those who build helicopters are pretty blunt. One lobbyist said, 
``It is business for us, and we are as aggressive as anybody. I am just 
trying to sell helicopters.''
  What about the oil companies who support this war; which several oil 
companies do? Yes, they want investment security, so they want the 
military industrial complex to come down there and protect their oil 
interests. The oil interests are very supportive of this war, as well 
as the helicopter companies.
  But the American people, if they were asked, they would decline. A 
recent poll by Zogby showed that, essentially, 70 percent of the 
American people answered no to this particular question: ``Should the 
U.S. help defend militarily such-and-such country even though it could 
cost American soldiers their lives?'' It varied depending on which 
country. But, basically, 65 to 75 percent of the American people said 
no. The American people want us to mind our own business and not be the 
policeman of the world.
  Can any Member come to this floor and absolutely assure us that we 
are not going to lose American lives in Colombia? We are certainly 
committing ourselves to huge numbers of dollars, dollars that we do not 
have, dollars that if we wanted to could come out of the current $1.7 
trillion budget we already have.
  So I would suggest to my colleagues, let us reassess this. It is not 
really a war on drugs.
  The war on drugs, by trying to reduce interdiction does not work. It 
has not worked. It is not going to work. It is only an excuse. It is an 
excuse for promoting military intervention in Colombia to satisfy those 
who are anxious to drill for oil there and for the military industrial 
complex to sell weapons.
  It's amazing to me to see an administration who strongly opposes law 
abiding American citizens from owning guns for self defense to be such 
a promoter of the big guns of war throughout the world.
  I ask for a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to change the focus of the debate a 
little bit.
  Last year the President, in 1999, sent to the Congress his State of 
the Union message and budget in which he said we were going to save 60 
percent of Social Security. The Congress, led by the Republicans of 
Congress, said, no, Mr. President we are going to save 100 percent of 
Social Security. And we did just that. We stopped the raid on Social 
Security. It is time it look at the other program under which we are 
stealing money, and that is Medicare.
  The CBO announced in March that the estimated budget surplus of this 
country for fiscal 2000 will be $27 billion. It is interesting if we 
look to see where that money comes from. $23 billion of that made up of 
excess, Medicare, Part A Trust Fund payments and the interest thereon, 
is from Medicare.
  So what we are really saying is this surplus that we have, the vast 
majority of it, is Medicare Part A Trust Fund, and we are about to 
spend most of it. Let me outline for my colleagues for a minute where 
it is going to go: $26 billion surplus, $6.9 billion we have already 
spent by reversing through the budget that was passed by this House. 
There is going to be $2.2 billion in new supplemental outlays from this 
bill. There will be another $6 billion that we are going to use for 
agricultural emergency support payments. There is $4.2 billion in 
gimmicks in the budget from 601 to 596. And then there is $4 billion 
that I suspect we are going to pass on the House floor today to retire 
debt.
  That leaves us with $2.7 billion left. What that really says is we 
are going to spend $20 billion this year of Medicare Part A Trust Fund 
money.
  How should we do it? The only things that are emergencies are the 
things that should be in an emergency supplemental. That is number one. 
Number two is, it should be accompanied by a rescission bill that finds 
the excesses or trims other areas of government if, in fact, these are 
true emergencies.
  I would ask my colleagues to consider if they really want to take 
money from a program that is going to be bankrupt in 2014 and fund the 
vast array of items that are in this bill? I think not, on further 
reflection.

[[Page H1508]]

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Young) for yielding me the time. He is a true gentleman. And 
so I sadly rise in opposition to this emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill because it funds too many nonemergency programs.
  For example, this bill includes $20 million for a new FDA laboratory 
in Los Angeles. Did somebody just all of a sudden find out that the 
current lab is in dangerous disrepair? We should take care of this in 
the HHS appropriations bill.
  This so-called emergency supplemental also includes $96 million in 
economic assistance for countries in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, 
$104 million for an embassy in Sarajevo, $49 million for our weapons 
labs, $75 million for staffing at NASA; $55 million for atomic energy 
plant personnel and infrastructure improvements; $35 million for foster 
care and adoption assistance; $20 million for abstinence programs; $19 
million for weatherization grants.
  Mr. Chairman, many of these programs are valuable and I think should 
be funded, but they should be funded through a normal appropriations 
process, not an emergency bill.
  And let us not forget the really big ticket items. This bill includes 
$2.1 billion for operations in Kosovo and East Timor. How long will we 
continue to support the extended deployment of our troops? An amendment 
is to be offered today to add $4 billion to address our military 
readiness problems. The reason our military is stretched is because we 
have sent too many of our soldiers on too many missions to too many 
countries.
  And that leads us to Colombia. Should we send more than $1.7 billion 
to Colombia in the form of emergency funding? I do not think so. We do 
have a serious drug problem. We should spend that money on drug 
treatment and increased border patrol. Our involvement in Colombia is 
just too important a decision to be made in limited debate in a 
supplemental spending bill.
  I support provisions in this bill to help victims of natural 
disasters, but we should not fund normal programs in an emergency bill.
  And so, Mr. Chairman, let us clean up this bill and help get those 
true emergency funds to those who need it. I urge a ``no'' vote on this 
supplemental.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member 
for yielding me the time and for his leadership on this important 
issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish that we could have the time to have a full 
debate on the military assistance package to Colombia. I commend the 
gentleman for his attempt with his amendment to have a reasonable, as I 
said, full debate on that subject. But that will not be allowed under 
these rules.

                              {time}  1315

  I want to focus my attention on two areas in the bill. First let us 
stipulate that there are many fine projects in this bill. We all agree 
to that. That is why many people will be voting for it, because of 
issues that are of concern to their regions, and I respect that.
  I just want to say why, and even in light of the fact that I would 
normally support some of the provisions in the bill, that I find it 
impossible to do so because of the manner in which this bill has been 
brought to the floor. Are the American people not entitled to something 
better than a debate on military assistance to Colombia than having it 
as one provision in a multifaceted emergency supplemental bill?
  Why can we not have a debate on a very important foreign policy 
issue, and a vote that stands on its own? Is the Republican majority 
afraid of a debate in the House of Representatives? Are they afraid 
that their arguments are too weak, that they could not stand the 
scrutiny of the American people in a full debate on this issue?
  Let us stipulate that the President of Colombia is a brave and 
courageous man. President Pastrana has a very, very difficult task 
ahead of him. He deserves our support. What form that support should 
take is a matter that this House should debate, hear comment on, hold 
hearings on, in other words, the regular order. But the regular order 
is being cast aside for 20 minutes of debate, 10 minutes on each side, 
to debate whether we are going to commit all of this military 
assistance and all that goes with it, including putting our young 
people in harm's way, which we have already done, without a vote of 
this Congress.
  I am also very concerned that this military approach does not really 
get to the heart of the matter. This bill, this assistance to Colombia, 
is called an emergency because we have an emergency drug problem in our 
country and indeed we do. As we heard on this floor earlier today, 5\1/
2\ million Americans need substance abuse treatment. Two million of 
them are getting it. We have a 3.5-million-person treatment gap in our 
country.
  If we want to reduce substance abuse in the United States, we must do 
that by reducing demand in the United States. Cutting off supply in 
Colombia is more costly and less certain. Let me tell my colleagues how 
much more costly. According to the Rand Corporation report, for every 
dollar spent to reduce demand in the U.S., you would have to spend $23 
in the country of origin in coca leaf eradication. That means if you 
spend $34 million in the U.S. to reduce dependence on drugs by 1 
percent, that same effect of reduction of 1 percent costs $723 million 
by taking the approach of the eradication of the coca leaf in the 
country of origin, in this case Colombia.
  But say that has to be part of a comprehensive drug problem. How can 
we bring an emergency supplemental bill to the floor of the House of 
Representatives whose emergency status in this area in terms of 
reducing substance abuse in the United States is dependent on reducing 
demand in the United States without one dollar in the bill, without one 
dollar in the bill being used for reduction in demand in the U.S., a 
formula that is 23 times more effective, according to the Rand Report 
which was done in conjunction with the Department of Defense and the 
Office of Drug Control Policy? So do not take my word for it. Twenty-
three times more effective.
  On the subject of again Plan Colombia, of which this is a part, we 
were told that Plan Colombia was an over $7 billion proposal. Colombia 
would put up $4 billion, we would put up $1.7 billion, the EU would put 
up $900 million, and then IMF and the Multilateral Development Bank 
would put up money. This is the only money on the table, the military 
money. So when we are told this is the military part but there is a big 
humanitarian part, we have not seen that yet. That is why I am voting 
no on this bill and respectful of my colleagues' decision for their own 
part.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I would do anything, Mr. Chairman, but to tell the 
gentlewoman from California that she is all wet on some of her 
assumptions, but I rise primarily, Mr. Chairman, to inform the House 
that the gentlewoman from California's birthday is being celebrated 
this week, and we take this opportunity to wish the gentlewoman from 
California a very happy birthday.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman. If the gentleman will yield, I am 
pleased on my birthday to present the gentleman with the Rand Report 
which documents the assumptions that I presented.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I hope they wrapped it nicely.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan), and all those who worked so hard to bring this emergency 
antidrug aid package to the floor today. Passage of this bill affects 
every school, hospital, courtroom, neighborhood, all of our communities 
throughout America.

[[Page H1509]]

  This bill will provide sorely needed assistance to our allies in 
Colombia who are all on the front lines in the war against illegal 
drugs. The numbers have been shocking. Eighty percent of the cocaine, 
75 percent of the heroin consumed in our Nation comes from Colombia. 
Illegal drugs have been costing our society more than $100 billion per 
year, costing also 15,000 young American lives each year.
  As a result of inattention from the administration, the civil war in 
Colombia is going badly for that government. This weekend alone, 26 
antidrug police were killed by the narcoterrorists in Colombia. The 
specter of a consolidated narcostate only 3 hours by plane from Miami 
has made it patently clear that our Nation's vital security interests 
are at stake.
  As the sun begins to set on his administration, President Clinton is 
finally facing the reality of the Colombian drug-fueled crisis with 
this emergency supplemental request. As former Supreme Court Justice 
Felix Frankfurter eloquently noted, and I quote, ``wisdom too often 
never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes 
late.''
  Heroes like Colombia's antidrug leader General Jose Serrano want our 
Nation to stand with them in their fight against the drug lords, 
including the right-wing paramilitaries. This legislation provides more 
assistance where it can do the most good with the Colombian antidrug 
police. Colombia is not asking for nor should we offer American troops 
in that war. Investing American aid dollars now in Colombia to stem the 
hundredfold cost to our society only makes common sense. It is a proper 
role for our government. We at the Federal level have the 
responsibility to help eradicate those drugs at their source.
  Accordingly, I am urging our colleagues to support this package. 
Colombia's survival as a democracy and our own national security 
interests are at stake here. The stakes could not be more clear and 
more critical.
  With regard to the comments of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), demand reduction composes 32.7 percent of the government's 
total spending on antidrug efforts while the amount spent on reducing 
overseas supply currently consists of only 3 percent of those 
expenditures. I again urge our Members to fully support this very 
important antidrug measure.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
  (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am really troubled about what we are doing here 
today, and I cannot believe we are doing it without much more debate. 
This looks to me very much like something from my younger years when we 
got involved in Vietnam.
  Let us understand this Colombia situation is a civil war. It is a 
civil war that has been going on for a long time. We have decided all 
of a sudden that it is a war on drugs. That is our excuse or it is some 
folks in our administration's excuse for getting involved in a civil 
war.
  And then the mistake we are making here which I brought out in 
committee and in subcommittee and other places is the fact that we are 
referring to the insurgent group in Colombia as narcoterrorists. The 
minute in this country you call somebody a terrorist, you close the 
door, and rightfully so, on ever negotiating with them. So by saying 
that we are going into Colombia to help the military, number one, which 
is wrong, fight the narcoterrorists, we just said that we are never 
going to negotiate with one side in a civil war.
  Now, I suspect that people in Washington are beginning to look at 
Latin America and beginning to get this feeling which was a bad feeling 
and a wrong feeling in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. They see a 
progressive President in Venezuela, Chavez; they see a new so-called 
socialist President in Chile and they say, ``Oh, my God, we've got to 
do something,'' so where do we set our anchor? In Colombia.
  And then to suggest that in Colombia only one side may be involved 
with drug money is to suggest we are reinventing that country. There is 
a major problem with drugs in Colombia, and it plays a role in 
everything that is done in that country. I wish that today we had the 
courage to look at this issue for what it is. We are getting involved 
in a civil war which we are going to pay for a price, a big price in 
the future.
  Secondly, we are closing off any opportunity to speak to one side. 
How do you bring peace to a country if that is what you want to do by 
shutting the door on one side?
  And, thirdly, we are thinking about Colombia as we thought about 
South America in the 1960s. We are looking at it in the year 2000 in 
the same way. We made mistakes then; we are going to make them again, 
and for what? So that some helicopter company somewhere can sell a few 
helicopters? It is not worth it. I wish we would reconsider this and 
vote as I will against this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
supplemental and in strong support of the Lewis-Spence-Murtha-Skelton 
amendment to the bill which would provide an additional $4 billion for 
our severely underfunded Defense Department.
  In addition, later today, I will offer an amendment with the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) regarding the $40 million contained in 
this bill to implement the President's directive on the Navy's training 
range on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques. The bill would provide 
these funds to Puerto Rico as part of a deal to resume Navy and Marine 
Corps training on Vieques which has been suspended because of 
trespassers seeking to end our training operations there.
  The money would be used for economic development and to hold a 
binding referendum on Vieques on whether live-fire training should be 
resumed. The Fowler-Hansen amendment would essentially do two things: 
First, it would strike language that would permit any of the $40 
million to be used for the referendum. It does not stop the referendum. 
As the San Juan Star accurately reported today, the referendum can 
still be held, just not underwritten by the U.S. government.
  Operations on a vital military training range should not be subjected 
to a public referendum. This is terrible public policy and will set a 
very dangerous precedent for other critical military activities.
  Second, it would require that before the $40 million is released to 
Puerto Rico, the President must certify to the Congress that live-fire 
training operations have been resumed. The amendment would also allow 
part of this $40 million to be spent on a health study on the island of 
Vieques immediately upon enactment without condition. I want to quote 
specifically referring to the live-fire training on Vieques from the 
Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig.
  He has stated, and I quote,

       This training wins wars. Many Americans in uniform owe 
     their lives to this crucial training. Many would perish 
     without it.

  This is critical to the well-being of our young Marines and sailors. 
I urge my colleagues to support the Fowler-Hansen amendment which will 
be on the floor later this afternoon.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).

                              {time}  1330

  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, if this bill were not so serious, I would 
think it is a joke. Once again, the United States is proposing a huge 
military alliance with the foreign military known for its human rights 
abuses.
  Now, you think we would have learned our lesson by now. How long ago 
was it that Bill Clinton went to Guatemala and apologized for fueling 
that country's generation-long slide into chaos? But just a year later 
you can say here we go again.
  No one seriously denies the link of paramilitary groups to the 
Colombian government, and here we are going to turn over to known human 
rights abusers the means by which they can perfect their trade.
  As we stand here on the floor today, 3,000 union leaders, students, 
parents,

[[Page H1510]]

shopkeepers and others are standing before 3,000 armed Colombian 
soldiers, forming a human shield to protect the peaceful U'wa people 
that the Colombian government wants to move off their ancestral land to 
make way for Occidental Petroleum's oil rigs. We should be standing 
with the people, not giving aid and encouragement to Colombia's brutal 
military.
  We should have learned our lessons well about going in with the 
military where only diplomacy should be allowed to tread. 
Unfortunately, it appears that we have not. Because in addition to Plan 
Colombia, this bill also provides an additional $5 billion to keep us 
in Kosovo, another failed military blunder that diplomacy should have 
resolved.
  After our military gambit in Kosovo, we have left 31,000 rounds of 
depleted uranium rounds and 50 percent unemployment, in some areas 
rising to 85 percent. The crumbling infrastructure is yet to be 
rebuilt, and our European allies have not lived up to the commitments 
they made at the beginning of that adventure.
  Time and time again, this Congress commits our troops to military 
adventures without a plan to bring them home. Last year, U.S. aircraft 
flew over 1,000 sorties in Iraq, nearly a decade after that war was 
supposedly over. In Kosovo, our limited military engagement has turned 
into a permanent occupation. Now we are being asked to fund the 
Vietnamization of Barry McCaffrey's war without an exit strategy or end 
game.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this so-called emergency 
amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have only one speaker to close, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  (Ms. BALDWIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, on October 24, 1999, more than 10 million 
Colombians took to the streets of every major city in Colombia to rally 
for peace. These 10 million Colombians wanted to send a message that 
they were sick of war. They were terrorized by the kidnappings. They 
were exhausted with paramilitary violence and disgusted with drug 
trade. No mas, they said. No more.
  Peace is what Colombia needs. Peace will allow democracy to flourish. 
Peace will permit law enforcement officials to combat the flow of 
illicit drugs, and peace will create the conditions to address the 
income inequalities, the problems of displaced persons and economic 
development issues that will truly improve the lives of the Colombian 
people.
  Unfortunately, the aid package we are considering today will not help 
the peace process. In fact, it fails to address the underlying issues 
that are needed to promote peace in Colombia.
  I traveled to Colombia in 1993 to see the situation first hand. It 
was clear, then, that U.S. military aid and equipment that was intended 
to be used to stem the flow of illegal drugs was being misused, misused 
to suppress citizens in Colombia, including labor activists, community 
leaders, peace activists, human rights activists and collective 
farmers.
  The United States is properly concerned about the abuse of illegal 
drugs by our citizens. Interdiction and source reductions should be a 
part of a comprehensive drug control policy. This proposal does not 
reflect such a policy. The proposal we have before us today will do 
little or nothing to address the fundamental problems in Colombia; 
namely, economic inequality, civil war, lack of economic development, 
and judicial impunity. Unfortunately, we seem to be playing a game of 
public relations when we should be pursuing peace in the region.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, last week, the majority party in this House posed for 
political holy pictures and promised spending discipline and bragged 
about how much spending they were going to cut.
  This week they have brought to the floor this bill which adds $4 
billion to the spending requests that the President has made for a 
supplemental. And then on top of that, it intends in an amendment that 
they will shortly offer to add yet another $4 billion in spending. And 
the reason they are going to do that in the DOD account is simply so 
they move $4 billion in spending from next year to this year, because 
that frees up $4 billion for them to add for Members' projects in the 
coming year.
  It is very simply a $4 billion end run around the spending ceilings 
which they bragged about imposing just 5 days ago. They must think that 
people are not watching. Well, I suspect they are.
  The net result is that they come in for this entire fiscal year 
spending $17 billion more than the President asks for. That to me is an 
indication of just how false those promises have been that we would see 
straight bookkeeping and fiscal discipline under their budget. That 
alone, I think, is a reason to defeat this proposition.
  I have already indicated my concern about the Colombian war effort, 
but I think this is yet another reason to vote against this budget 
hocus pocus.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, first I would like to compliment all of our colleagues 
for the very high level and professional approach to this debate. There 
have been strong differences, and I indicated in my opening comments 
that there would be, because this bill covers a lot of issues. But when 
this bill was presented to us from the administration, the Plan 
Colombia presentation to the Committee on Appropriations dealt with 
drug abuse and eliminating the source of those drugs.
  No one suggested that we were talking about getting involved in a 
civil war, and no one suggested that this was going to be a major 
military operation. They were talking to us strictly about eliminating 
drugs at their source.
  This is important. We have great law enforcement. Our Customs agents, 
our law enforcement officers, the United States Coast Guard do a really 
great job of interdicting the flow of these drugs from Colombia and 
other countries before they reach the United States. The problem is 
they are overwhelmed. They do not have the assets that are necessary to 
stop all of the narcotraffic. The drug people have unlimited sums of 
money. They have high technology. They have fast boats. They have 
unlimited numbers of airplanes, and they do not have to go by any 
rules.
  Mr. Chairman, we have good assets, but we are limited in how many 
assets we have; and we have to go by a lot of rules. So it is very 
difficult. How great it would be to eliminate these drugs at their 
source, and that is what Plan Colombia is all about. It is to help the 
Colombian government elected by the people to eliminate the source of 
these drugs.
  Now, we spend billions and billions of dollars here at home in 
programs trying to get people to stop using the drugs. But as long as 
the drugs are available, people still continue to use those drugs.
  Mr. Chairman, how many more hundreds or thousands of our kids are 
going to get hooked on drugs or die from overdoses, or get shot up in a 
raid or a drug bust that went bad before we eliminate this terrible, 
terrible problem? It is essential to the future of this Nation that we 
eliminate the scourge that is illegal drugs and the trafficking of 
illegal drugs in the United States. We need to wipe out the source of 
these terrible drugs and we need to eliminate those killing fields 
where the drugs are grown.
  Now about Kosovo. A previous speaker mentioned that this bill would 
include $5 billion to keep our troops in Kosovo. That is not accurate. 
The money that we provide in this bill for Kosovo has already been 
spent. When this administration sent American military to Kosovo, the 
money was committed; and the longer they are there, the more money is 
spent. Now, where that money came from was not from an appropriations 
for Kosovo, but it was money that was appropriated for operations and 
maintenance of our own military. So in order to pay for the Kosovo 
deployments, they reached into

[[Page H1511]]

the fourth quarter O&M accounts of all of the services.
  Now, if we do not replace that money, and I join with those who 
believe that the Kosovo experience is not going to be a positive one 
for the United States, and I wish we were not there; but if we do not 
replace this money, what happens is that our own military will have to 
stand down its operations, much of its training operations during the 
last quarter of this fiscal year, and that is rapidly approaching.
  So it is important that we move this legislation through the House 
today and that we get it to the other body so that we can begin the 
negotiations in finalizing what this supplemental is really going to 
be. We have tried to work with and be cooperative with the 
administration, with the President, and with the leadership in the 
Congress; and I think the bill that we deliver today has done that.
  Mr. Chairman, this is important. The fiscal year is running out. Half 
the fiscal year is basically gone. We have 13 regular appropriations 
bills to get to. We need to complete this bill, get it to the other 
body, get to conference and clear the way so that we can get about our 
business of the 13 regular appropriations bills.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I expect we will have some lively debate on 
the amendments that will be offered here very shortly. I hope that the 
Members will pay close attention because some of the debate will be 
rather critical.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on an important provision 
contained in the supplemental appropriations bill--the emergency 
funding for at-risk disabled, mentally ill, veterans, and other 
vulnerable families who would otherwise face the very real risk of 
eviction if we don't act to provide one-year renewals for expiring 
Shelter Plus Care and SHP permanent housing grants.
  In this regard, I would like to thank VA, HUD Appropriations Chairman 
Walsh and Ranking Member Mollohan for agreeing to add this provision to 
the bill. I would also like to acknowledge the original co-sponsors of 
H.R. 3613, Representatives Weller, Quinn, and Vento, for their hard 
work in getting this provision inserted into the bill. I also 
appreciate the support of Catholic Charities, the National Alliance to 
End Homelessness, and the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, all 
of which have written in support of this bill.
  The issue here is simple. Through a combination of policy inaction, 
limited homeless prevention funding, and vigorous competition for 
homeless funds, forty requests for renewal of homeless rental 
assistance grants were not approved as part of last December's McKinney 
Act homeless awards. The result is that communities that run these 
contracts will run out of money this year--and will be faced with the 
option of either evicting families or robbing funds from other critical 
programs.
  To address this looming crisis, we recently introduced H.R. 3613 to 
authorize HUD to use existing Section 8 reserves to renew all of these 
expiring but unfunded grants for a period of one year. This would not 
require any additional budget authority, but would merely shift $6 
million in already approved Section 8 funds for this purpose. In 
committee, that bill was added to the supplemental.
  This approach, of renewing expiring homeless rental assistance grants 
through the Section 8 account, is consistent with the fiscal year 2001 
budget recently submitted by HUD. Moreover, it just makes sense. All 
other HUD rental assistance contracts are routinely renewed through 
Section 8 funds; only homeless program rental assistance contracts for 
the very poorest Americans are subject to a funding competition, with 
the all too real possibility of non-renewal.
  I believe there is bi-partisan support for permanent authorization of 
renewal of all expiring Shelter Plus Care and SHP permanent housing 
grants through the Section 8 account, and I hope Congress will do this 
later this year.
  But, I would point out that the action we are taking today does not 
pre-judge that policy decision, but merely protects vulnerable families 
in the interim, for a one-year period. This gives Congress time to 
debate permanent authorization, and gives grantees a chance to apply 
for renewal in the next round of funding.
  So, I applaud inclusion of this measure in the bill, and urge the 
Senate to do likewise.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong dismay 
that the Stupak-Stabenow-Camp amendment offered to H.R. 3908, the 2000 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, was not made in order under 
the modified rule for consideration of the bill. The amendment authored 
by Congressmen Bart Stupak and Dave Camp and myself would have provided 
critical, emergency funding to address Bovine Tuberculosis (Bovine TB) 
in the State of Michigan.
  At my request, report language is included in H.R. 3908 that urges 
the Department of Agriculture to address the problem of Bovine TB 
immediately. The report language urges the Secretary of Agriculture to 
``promptly notify the [Appropriations] Committee of any additional 
funding requirement, accompanied by official requests for additional 
funds. The Secretary is directed to report to the [Appropriations] 
Committee by May 1, 2000 on his plan of action.'' Clearly, by including 
this language in the committee report, the Appropriations Committee has 
recognized the urgency of the Bovine TB problem in Michigan.
  Until recently, Bovine TB has only been identified in cattle. For the 
first time, this threatening disease has been identified in a non-
captive deer herd in Michigan. Michigan is the only State in the Nation 
that has found Bovine TB in a wild animal population. With the presence 
of this disease in Michigan's free-roaming deer population, Bovine TB 
is quickly being transferred to captive cattle herds throughout the 
State and the disease is spreading southward, endangering cattle herds 
in other States.
  The State of Michigan is on the verge of losing its ``TB-free'' 
(Accredited-free) status, granted by the Department of Agriculture. For 
a period of time, the presence of Bovine TB in both deer and cattle was 
isolated to the northeast portion of Michigan's lower peninsula. To 
date, Michigan has had an unusual split status, in which the unaffected 
regions are deemed ``TB-free.'' Expanded testing, however, has 
identified the presence of the disease outside the northeast quadrant 
and USDA officials are now seriously considering granting the entire 
State a ``Non-modified accredited'' status, the lowest possible Bovine 
TB status. This reduced status will severely impact Michigan's dairy 
and cattle industry, require increased testing, and merits increased 
federal investment in research and support to eradicate the disease.
  The Stupak-Stabenow-Camp amendment would have appropriated $7.5 
million in emergency funding to conduct a cooperative program with the 
State of Michigan to combat Bovine TB. It is very disappointing that 
the Rules Committee did not make this amendment in order, resulting in 
a delay in bringing critical federal dollars to Michigan to eradicate 
this agricultural and public health crisis. I will continue to work 
with my colleagues, Representatives Stupak and Camp and the members of 
the Appropriations Committee, to ensure that adequate federal resources 
are directed toward combating Bovine TB.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, this is the first major appropriations 
action of the year, and already we're starting off on the wrong foot. 
This bill spends too much on the wrong things and does not devote 
enough attention to priorities that we desperately need to focus on.
  I have major concerns about the money being spent on additional 
defense projects in this bill. Billions of dollars are provided for 
such spending, including military construction projects, new jet 
engines and tanks, a demonstration project for an air force base in 
Texas, and a military training range in Puerto Rico. Other members have 
offered amendments to add billions more in defense spending. I do not 
believe the supplemental appropriations bill should be a vehicle to 
ratchet up military spending.
  I also have concerns about the money being put forward to help combat 
drug trafficking in Colombia. Although I am very interested in seeing 
the drug problem confronted throughout the hemisphere, I am skeptical 
that sending more military equipment into an already unstable region 
will be successful. Rather, the problem will most likely be pushed into 
other regions as a result.
  This bill should be limited to true emergency spending, not for 
additional pork projects in places that don't need it. I urge my 
colleagues to vote no on this bill.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, the Administration, as part of its fiscal 
year 2001 budget request, submitted a supplemental request for $6.6 
million to begin planning, engineering, and design as well as an 
environmental review of an emergency outlet for Devils Lake, North 
Dakota. I am deeply disappointed that the bill before us today fails to 
provide this critical funding.
  During consideration of the supplemental by the House Appropriations 
Committee on March 9, 2000, Congressman Visclosky offered an amendment 
to include $6.6 million for the Devils Lake emergency outlet. 
Unfortunately, the amendment failed on a straight party line vote of 
24-30.
  To date, the federal government has spent $300 million in the Devils 
Lake region, including $80 million to raise roads and $21 million to 
relocate 505 homes. Currently, eight miles of threatened roads in the 
basin are in need of significant structural reinforcement so that they 
can serve as dikes to hold back the encroaching lake from homes and 
other property. The Corps' preliminary estimate is that approximately 
$30-50 million will be needed to address just these 8 miles of road.

[[Page H1512]]

  If the lake continues to rise as projected, federal, state and local 
governments can expect to spend over $500 million more on flood 
response in the absence of an outlet and other mitigation measures. It 
is clear that the amount that has been invested in the lake region, 
combined with the potential costs to reduce damage as this lake rises, 
make the case that the benefits of an outlet far outweigh the cost. 
However, what the numbers cannot show is the suffering and personal 
loss this disaster has brought upon the people of the lake region. It 
is often said that while the Grand Forks flood of 1997 was a heart 
attack, the Devils Lake flood is more of a cancer that grows year after 
year.
  An outlet is a critical part of the overall strategy to respond to 
the continuous flooding that has plagued this region for far too long. 
Further, it is an approach supported by North Dakota's congressional 
delegation, Governor Ed Schafer and the state elected leadership of 
North Dakota. Without an outlet, Devils Lake will overflow naturally 
causing a devastating impact to communities downstream. Action must be 
taken now to provide relief to this region, and the outlet is the best 
means to address this crisis.
  Even though the bill fails to provide funding for this project, the 
bill does meet our commitment to peace operations in Kosovo and 
provides critical funding to address the current backlog at the Federal 
Highway Administration for highway repair funds. For these reasons, I 
will be supporting the measure.
  I am hopeful that funding for the Devils Lake outlet will be included 
in the Senate and I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
insure this funding will be provided in the final version of this 
supplemental appropriations bill. We simply cannot wait any longer.
  Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on behalf of the 
young people in this Nation and more specifically those living in the 
First Congressional District of Connecticut. While this bill addresses 
many important issues, I am disappointed that this measure does not 
contain $500 million for the Workforce Investment Act in H.R. 3908, the 
2000 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill. I am also disappointed 
that the rule did not make in order the Blagojevich Amendment that 
would have provided this funding.
  I understand that the President has submitted a separate supplemental 
appropriations request for $40 million for this program. However, this 
request is far too small and may never be acted upon by Congress. 
Therefore, I believe that it is imperative that we should include this 
critical $500 million in the bill we are acting on today.
  The Summer Youth Employment Program, under the Workforce Investment 
Act, is critical to our Nation's youth. For the City of Hartford, a 
City plagued with job loss and in dire need of revitalization, this 
program gives those at-risk youths a chance to thrive and make a 
contribution to their community. Now, without this funding, we have to 
deny these children this chance.
  Last year in Hartford, approximately 2,000 young people were employed 
though the Summer Youth Employment Program, with a waiting list of 
approximately 600 young people who requested services. Without 
additional funding for Summer 2000, Hartford may only be able to serve 
1,000 young people, with more than 1,000 needing services. In fact, 
interested youth have been calling the Mayor's office about summer 
employment opportunities and have not been able to obtain an answer. We 
need to provide a positive answer to the inquiries.
  On the National level, according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 
average reductions of almost 50 percent in the number of youth that 
will be served this summer as compared to last are expected. Some 
cities are even facing up to 80 percent of reductions in the number of 
youth they will be able to serve.
  For a program that has worked so well in the past, why then should we 
halt its growth and the good it provides not only for our communities 
but also most importantly for the children? If we are in fact dedicated 
to making a difference in the lives of our young people, we must make 
our investment today. I urge my colleagues to address this important 
issue in Conference.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant favor of this bill, 
which makes emergency appropriations for fiscal year 2000. 
Notwithstanding my support for the $2 billion package for the costs of 
the U.S. peacekeepers in Kosovo or the paltry, yet sorely needed $854 
million for the Pentagon's embattled health-insurance system, I have 
serious concerns over the Colombia supplemental package.
  The $1.7 billion package of counter-narcotics and development 
assistance for the Andean region, principally Colombia may be spending 
too much money in the wrong places. Let's briefly list what this 
package includes:
  Assistance for Colombian Army Counter-narcotics Battalions [``Push 
into Southern Colombia'' program]. This includes 33 Huey helicopters 
and 28 UH-60 (Blackhawk) helicopters, along with training, operations 
and maintenance and related equipment.
  Assistance for Colombian National Police--2 UH-60 helicopters; a 
spray aircraft; base construction; upgrade of existing aircraft; and 
provision of intelligence.
  Narcotic interdiction assistance for Colombia and neighbors in the 
region.
  Some economic development including crop substitution, employment, 
and resettlement.
  A modicum of human rights protection, democratic governance, judicial 
reform and the peace process.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I 
have been privy to many briefings regarding the grave situation in 
Colombia. And while I believe the U.S. has a responsibility to assist 
the Colombian government there needs to be a full and unfettered debate 
on the extent of American assistance.
  For example, we have been told by U.S. military chiefs and Pentagon 
officials that U.S. forces which currently number around 250 personnel, 
do not and will not engage in combat operations with the Colombian 
military against the leftist guerrillas. We are told that U.S. 
personnel are there in Colombia solely to ``advise and train.'' This 
sound bite is what has many members and security analysts making 
comparisons to Vietnam. Looking at this bill, we see vast portions of 
the funding slated for counter-narcotics interdiction efforts. Yet no 
one can explain to me (or any member for that matter)--operationally, 
where does narcotics-interdiction end, and counter-insurgency begin?
  Another potential pitfall that troubles me is the right-wing 
paramilitary groups that have sprung up in Colombia. These armed 
militias, which are tacitly accepted by the Colombian military, are 
reticent of the Central-American ``Death Squads'' that killed thousands 
there in the 1980s. I don't believe this bill contains enough 
protections to condition this military aid on a ``human rights'' 
certification basis.
  Finally, I am deeply disappointed that Congresswoman Pelosi's 
amendment to mandate funds for domestic treatment programs aimed at 
reducing demand. Representative Pelosi's proposed amendment would have 
added $1.3 billion for this purpose. If you are going to effectively 
attack a problem, you need to do so on every front. With the 
Republican's shutting off this wise proposal, I can not take seriously 
their claims to be ``doing this for the children of America.''
  Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that there were not significant funds 
in this bill for a more comprehensive aid package on alternative 
economic development; increased protection of human rights workers; 
humanitarian aid to the internally displaced; and the peace process 
between the Colombian government and the leftist insurgents.
  As I noted at the outset, I do support this measure but reluctantly. 
Whereas I have briefly outlined my personal reservations, I recognize 
that there are many aspects of this bill that will do a lot of good. In 
any case, I hope that this body will have a future opportunity to fully 
examine the U.S. military's involvement in Colombia. Our military 
experts are setting us up for at least a 5 year commitment. My greatest 
fear is that years from now our troops will have become embroiled in 
this civil quagmire in Colombia--a war that has been on going for 40 
years. True, the civil/political/military situation in Colombia is very 
different from Vietnam, but I ask, does it not also look very much the 
same?
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of H.R. 3908. 
With this bill, we are today embarking on a new course in our 
involvement in the counter-narcotics effort in Colombia. I support the 
bill because I believe we have an obligation to support democracies 
when they are threatened. Colombia is the oldest democracy in Latin 
America and is clearly under siege.
  But Colombia is not fighting a traditional insurgency whose followers 
claim some ideological justification for violence. It was once that 
way, but it isn't anymore. The guerrilla movements in Colombia have 
abandoned their ideology and instead provide protection to the 
narcotics traffickers who poison our children. The guerrillas also 
resort to kidnaping and extortion. From both these activities, the 
guerrillas generate substantial income making them the best funded 
insurgency probably in the history of the world. So the first point I 
would make to my colleagues is that we should be clear about the real 
purpose of this bill. It is not only to support a counter-narcotics 
strategy, it also supports a counter-insurgency strategy. It is 
designed to punish the guerrillas and their drug-trafficking allies in 
order to drive the guerrillas to the negotiating table and, with luck, 
arrest the traffickers.
  We also need to consider who we are providing our assistance to. The 
Colombia national police have an outstanding human rights record. They 
are an organization we should be proud to assist. But the bulk of this 
package

[[Page H1513]]

will go to the Colombian military, which has one of the worst human 
rights records in the hemisphere. On top of that, there are credible 
allegations of ongoing cooperation between elements of the Colombian 
military and the paramilitary organizations. The good news is that our 
assistance will be provided to battalions that have been vetted and 
trained by us. In addition, it appears to me that the leadership of the 
Colombian military genuinely wants to address human rights issues. We 
should demand that our assistance be contingent on genuine efforts to 
arrest and prosecute abusers of human rights.
  Lastly, I am concerned about the direction of our counter-narcotics 
strategy. As we have seen in Bolivia and Peru, when there is success 
with eradication and interdiction in one area the traffic merely moves 
to another area. In a very real sense, much of the turmoil in Colombia 
is our fault. Our citizens consume the drugs grown and produced in 
Colombia, and unless we intensify our efforts to reduce demand here, a 
supply-side strategy is doomed to failure.
  In a larger sense, we are faced with a choice all of us would prefer 
not to make. None of us wants to become more deeply involved in another 
civil conflict in Latin America, yet doing nothing imperils not only 
Colombia but her immediate neighbors as well.
  On balance, I believe we should support the assistance package to 
Colombia as the best of the options available but we should understand 
the obligations this policy places on us and we should be aware that we 
will be involved in Colombia for a very long time.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriation bill. While I support the necessary 
emergency funding needs in this supplemental request, I have found 
numerous reasons to vote against it.
  H.R. 3908 provides over $9 billion in so called emergency funds for 
this year. In fact, $3.8 billion, or 73% more than originally requested 
by the President. This bill provides $5 billion for ongoing operations 
in Kosovo, $2.2 billion for natural disaster assistance, $2 billion 
additional funds for the Defense Department, $1.7 billion in Colombian 
assistance and various other initiatives.
  This funding runs the risk of repeating past mistakes in Latin 
America. The supplemental funds will not achieve our objectives of 
combating drug trafficking and political violence or enhancing peace 
efforts in Colombia. $1.1 billion or 65% of the total request for 
Colombia will go to their abusive military regime. Training Colombian 
army battalions for counter narcotics efforts and to strengthen 
democratic institutions is contradictory. In fact, aid to the Colombian 
army will without doubt worsen the human rights situation and will drag 
the United States further into a long-term counterinsurgency 
commitment.
  The Colombian military continues to maintain close regional and local 
links with the primary agents of violence and disorder in this region--
paramilitary groups. According to the Washington Office on Latin 
America, the paramilitary groups are well known to be involved in the 
drug trade and responsible for over 70% of human rights violations. The 
paramilitaries continues to thwart and attack government investigators, 
reformist politicians and human rights monitors. Punctuating this, the 
Washington Post reports today that paramilitary rebels killed at least 
24 policeman and soldiers in a small village outside of Bogota in a 
series of attacks since this past weekend.
  With such a relationship documented it makes no sense to factor in 
U.S. dollars into this equation. Rather, we must focus upon 
alternatives to military aid such as economic assistance, micro-credit 
loans, social services programs, judicial reform, drug prevention 
education and humanitarian relief for the approximately one million 
Colombians displaced by violence in the last five years.
  The roughly $1.6 billion allotted for the military to pay for rising 
fuel costs, $855 million for military health care and the $134 million 
for repairing damages to military facilities caused by recent 
hurricanes, floods and other natural disasters is understandable. These 
are truly unforeseen costs for the most part. However, an amendment 
being proposed by Chairman Young and Chairman Spence, would give the 
Pentagon an additional $4 billion for special interest projects. This 
is not only bad policy, but drains resources away from human needs and 
people programs. Such initiatives and decisions should be part of the 
regular 2000 appropriation process rather than trying to slip under the 
past and current year DOD spending agreements. This bill would already 
reduce the non-Social Security budget surplus for this year by about 
35%. So much for the Congressional pledges to pay down the debt.
  Too often under this GOP leadership, the term ``emergency'' is 
misunderstood and misused. This Emergency Supplemental request is not 
an opportunity to beef up the Pentagon with rancid pork projects for 
special interests. Nor is it the vehicle to load down with extraneous 
riders in effort to avoid the regular appropriation cycle. H.R. 3908 
could have provided real help to those in need. Sadly, the Majority is 
failing this simple task.
  I urge all Members to join me in voting no against this measure. As 
much as we need the fuel and energy assistance and other emergency 
help, the Congress and the American people should not be forced fed and 
blackmailed into spending billions on lousy policy and unneeded, 
unreviewed policy from the Administration or the congressional power 
brokers. Let's say no.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, today, we have before us the very 
important Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. I say it is 
important because it would provide desperately needed disaster relief 
funds for those in my home state of North Carolina and others who have 
suffered the ravages of Hurricane Floyd. It also contains the Colombian 
aid package which will serve as a critical component in winning the war 
on drugs.
  As you may recall, Mr. Chairman, Congress approved some disaster 
relief funding last fall to help eastern North Carolina recover from 
the disaster left by Hurricane Floyd. But, if you also remember, that 
funding did not cover all of the outstanding needs. The FY 2000 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act addresses some of the 
shortfalls by providing over $1 billion in emergency disaster 
assistance to areas ravaged by Hurricane Floyd, especially eastern 
North Carolina. For example, the emergency supplemental contains $81 
million for the Commodity Credit Corporation, funding which was removed 
from last year's disaster bill despite the efforts of the North 
Carolina delegation to include it. The measure also would provide $77 
million for the Farm Service Agency, $13 million for the Federal Crop 
Insurance Corporation, $37 million for the Coast Guard and $600 million 
for the Administration for Children and Families. While the measure 
will not cover all of the disaster relief needs, it will address some 
of the most pressing ones. So, I urge its passage.
  H.R. 3908 also contains $1.1 billion in aid to Colombia and other 
Andean countries, to stem the tide of illegal narcotics coming into 
this country. These funds would be used, among other things, purchase 
utility helicopters for the Colombian Army and the Colombian National 
Police and to help train two more anti-narcotic battalions for the 
Colombian Army. Other funds contained in the package will be used to 
establish alternative crops programs and other non-military drug 
reduction programs.
  Since Colombia is a hemispheric neighbor, what happens there can 
profoundly affect the way we live here. Let me share some statistics. 
Each year an estimated 14 metric tons of heroin and 357 metric tons of 
cocaine enter the United States. Of these amounts, 90% of the cocaine 
and 75% of the heroin originate in Colombia.
  Let's face it, illegal drugs are killing our kids at an alarming 
rate. Every year, we lose 52,000 young lives to drugs, nearly equal to 
the number of Americans killed in Vietnam over ten years. That means 
every day 143 of our young people will die from drug-related causes. In 
the time it takes us to debate this bill, 12 or more children will 
perish due to drug addiction. According to the U.S. Drug Czar, one of 
every two Americans kids will try illegal drugs by the time they reach 
the 12th grade. Many will become habitual users, leading to a life of 
crime or worse, a miserable, lonely death. This problem, Mr. Chairman, 
is staggering.
  In 1998, five million young people in this country required treatment 
for drug addiction, and nearly 600,000 required an emergency room 
visit. In the United States, there are 1.6 million drug-related arrests 
annually, and over half of our prison population committed drug-related 
crimes. Even more disturbing, while the average age for marijuana users 
is increasing, heroin abusers are getting younger. The cost of drug 
abuse to our society is estimated to be $110 billion per year, but it 
is much higher if measured in countless lives lost and young dreams 
broken.
  With our strong support and the financial assistance contained in 
this bill, Colombia can be successful in slowing the flow of drugs from 
their country to our school and communities. Failing to provide this 
important aid now may result in the loss of Colombia to the drug 
cartels, leaving them free to turn the once prosperous and democratic 
nation into a large narcotics nursery, laboratory and distribution 
center. Without this help, we will leave generations of Americans 
vulnerable to the hopelessness of drug addiction.
  We have worked hard to stop genocide in other countries Mr. Chairman, 
we now must stop this senseless slaughter of a generation of Americans. 
If we love our children, we must ensure that Colombia receives the help 
it needs. This bill will provide that help, and I strongly its passage.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.

[[Page H1514]]

  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to 
consider the amendments printed in Part A of House Report 106-549. Each 
amendment printed in Part A may be considered only in the order printed 
in the report.
  Amendments printed in Part B of the report may be offered only at the 
appropriate point in the reading of the bill.
  Amendments printed in the report may be offered only by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered read, 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.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered as read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, namely:

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 1 printed 
in Part A of House report 106-549.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sanford

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

       Part A Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Sanford:
       Page 2, strike lines 3 through 21 (and redesignate the 
     subsequent chapters and sections accordingly).
       Page 3, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $87,400,000)''.
       Page 5, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $281,000,000)''.
       Page 8, lines 18 and 25, after each dollar amount, insert 
     the following: ``(reduced by $77,923,000)''.
       Page 11, strike line 8 and all that follows through page 
     13, line 21.
       Page 44, strike line 19 and all that follows through page 
     46, line 3.
       Page 46, strike lines 5 through 22 (and redesignate the 
     subsequent sections accordingly).
       Page 49, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $8,100,000)''.
       Page 52, strike lines 7 through 17.
       Page 52, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $59,000,000)''.
       Page 56, strike line 14 and all that follows through page 
     57, line 15.
       Page 62, strike line 11 and all that follows through page 
     64, line 6.
       Page 79, strike lines 9 through 14 and insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 5104. (a) Inapplicability of Emergency Designations.--
     A proviso in this Act shall not have effect if the proviso--
       (1) designates an amount as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985; or
       (2) makes the availability of an amount contingent on such 
     a designation by the President.
       (b) Exemption of Defense Funds from Sequestration.--
     Accounts for which amounts are made available in title III of 
     this Act, and accounts previously within the defense category 
     of discretionary appropriations under the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, shall be exempt from 
     any sequestration that is required under section 251(a)(6) of 
     such Act to eliminate any fiscal year 2000 breach caused by 
     the appropriations or other provisions of this Act.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) seek to control the time 
in opposition?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) will control 5 
minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I offer this amendment along with the gentlewoman from Charlotte, 
North Carolina. I think it is a very simple amendment. All it does is 
it trims and focuses what this supplemental is all about. I think that 
given my experience here in Congress, what typically happens with 
emergency supplementals is that they grow like weeds. That has 
certainly been the case with this bill. So what this does is attempts 
to bring it back to basically closer to the size and scope of what was 
originally proposed.
  It trims the supplemental by $1.6 billion, and it does so in two 
ways. First of all, it takes out nonemergency spending. I have a long 
list here which I will not bore my colleagues with but, for instance: 
$20 million to replace an FDA building in Los Angeles, California, is 
probably not an emergency, and $8.1 million to put SBA funding back 
into the Small Business Administration is probably not an emergency.

                              {time}  1345

  I could continue with the list, but there is a simple point here. 
That is that we have gotten into this dangerous habit of classifying 
things that are not emergency as emergency. This strips a number of 
those out. What it does as well is it keeps 2000 spending in 2000 and 
2001 spending in 2001.
  What had happened with this bill was that some 2001 spending 
basically came into calendar year 2000. We keep those two years 
separate.
  What this bill does as well, in addition to trimming and focusing, is 
that it simply asks that what we spend, we pay for. It strikes all 
references to emergency designation, making this spending subject to 
budget caps, and making it recorded as spending. There is a certain 
lunacy that goes with the notion that emergency spending is not 
spending as it relates to the budget.
  It also enacts cuts in other areas of government to pay for what we 
propose spending here. I think that this is really important because, 
in essence, this is preventive medicine. If we do not prescribe to 
ourselves preventive medicine, I think we will be performing emergency 
surgery come September in adhering to budgets.
  In fact, if we look at the budget that we passed just last Thursday, 
if we do not pass this amendment, we will end up $4 billion above what 
we call for in our own budget.
  So I think it is a simple step toward fiscal sanity. I think it helps 
us to hold the line on what Greenspan himself had urged, and that is, 
extra money going toward debt reduction, as opposed to other things.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. McCollum).
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have to oppose this amendment, as well-
intended as I know it is, offered by the gentleman from South Carolina, 
because he is trying to get at budget constraints. I understand that.
  But two provisions in this bill that he cuts out by this amendment 
are very specific. One of them is $282 million for the Communications 
Assistance Law Enforcement Act. This is a critical provision in order 
to fund that which we have debated for a long time in the criminal law 
area, and in helping protect us from terrorism and so forth; to allow 
an understanding and agreement between the Justice Department and a lot 
of the private industry groups to allow us to have the technical know-
how to go in with certain electronic surveillance abroad, as well as 
here, and be able to do the type of wiretapping and surveillance for 
criminal behavior that we are now accustomed to being able to do.
  In the modern age of technology, there are all kinds of impediments 
to that that have come about because of what has occurred in the 
developments in that industry. This is a purely technical arena, but we 
do not have the funding for it anywhere else, and it is very critical 
to what we are doing in Latin America, as well.

[[Page H1515]]

  Plus there is $10 million for DEA intelligence programs in Colombia 
and seven more in Bolivia and Peru that are cut out. I think that is 
really wrong.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, every year when we do these emergency 
supplemental bills I have the same concerns. They are grave concerns, 
because we really do not deal with true emergencies. Emergencies happen 
all over the country, they do not just happen in North Carolina.
  Right now we are referring to one that is in North Carolina, 
Hurricane Floyd, which tremendously devastated our State. There are 
still thousands and thousands of people who are not in their homes or 
do not have homes because of this hurricane. It is really disturbing to 
me, because when we do emergency supplemental bills, we end up with a 
lot put in there that is not emergency. This bill is no different.
  Disasters happen all over the country. There was a tornado yesterday 
in downtown Fort Worth. It is another example of it does not matter 
what State one is from, one is probably going to face the same 
situation. It is time we set up some type of emergency rainy day fund 
or insurance fund, or something that is going to get us out of this box 
of continually coming to the floor with emergency spending bills, with 
three-fourths of the spending in the bill not being emergency.
  I am very disturbed by this one, as well. I will end up voting for 
the bill because I do not have any choice. I cannot vote against the 
money for the people who do not even have a home to live in. That is 
not a choice in my situation. But I am very disturbed by the fact that 
there are a lot of other things in here that are not emergencies.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Sanford) also does not touch defense spending. It is not cutting 
defense spending. I believe that is very important, and we have some 
dramatic needs there, too, that are critical right now.
  My concern is that the monies that come forward for emergency bills 
do go toward emergencies. In this case, of course, the emergency is the 
Hurricane Floyd money. I would hope my colleagues would join me in 
that, and really look toward a positive solution to this so we can come 
up with a way that we do not end up in this box all the time, and come 
back and say, well, everything is in there but the kitchen sink.
  I really do not like it. There are a lot of people here who do not 
like being put in that position. I would hope my colleagues would 
support this amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo).
  (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment, the Sanford-Myrick amendment, which eliminates some of the 
spending authorized in this bill, including the $40 million downpayment 
for Puerto Rico in exchange for the resumption of the military 
maneuvers in Vieques.
  One of the things in the arguments that have been before this forum 
has been that the Navy will not be able to carry out its training for 
the personnel that go into harm's way.
  That is not correct. The Navy itself has written a letter to the 
chairman of the committee where they say that the fulfillment of the 
agreement entered into by the President of the United States, the 
Governor of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Navy, is essential to the resumption 
of the military exercises; that without fulfilling this agreement, they 
will have no hope of having the cooperation necessary for resumption of 
these maneuvers.
  So all of the arguments that have been brought here to do away with 
this $40 million appropriation for Puerto Rico in lieu of payments of 
taxes for many, many, many years are not correct.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to again remind folks that this is simply an amendment 
that does not touch defense, it does not touch emergency spending, for 
instance, in North Carolina, but it does get at fiscal restraint that 
is needed, because the budget we passed last week would be broken to 
the tune of $4 billion if we do not pass this amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly in opposition to the Sanford 
amendment. I must rise in opposition to it. The comment has been made 
now twice by two speakers that it does not touch defense. That is not 
accurate.
  Part of this amendment strikes the emergency designations in the 
bill. That means that we would have to find at least $2 billion in 
offsets to provide, just to replace the money for Kosovo. We would have 
to provide another $1.6 billion in offsets just to make up the 
additional fuel costs that this bill provides for for our national 
defense.
  So Mr. Chairman, this amendment does touch national defense. That is 
a major reason why we ought not to support this amendment.
  It also cuts a large amount from the counter-narcotics program. I was 
wondering, how much is a life worth? If we can eliminate just one acre 
of a terrible drug, how much is that worth to a kid that might or might 
not have the opportunity to get on that drug and to possibly get 
addicted, possibly die from an overdose?
  It does cut money from the emergency appropriations related to 
Hurricanes Floyd, Dennis, and other natural disasters. It cuts money 
from the United States Coast Guard, that is already so far behind in 
its operating expenses that I am amazed that they can do anything in 
search and rescue, let alone drug interdiction.
  This amendment would actually knock out money for aircraft spare 
parts that are so much in demand for the United States Coast Guard. The 
drug pushers, those who ship drugs from Colombia to the United States, 
they do not have any spare parts problem. They have plenty of money, 
plenty of spare parts. If the boat does not work, they throw it away 
and get a different one. If the airplanes do not work, they throw them 
away and get a different one. They do not have the limitations that we 
have.
  Yes, this amendment knocks out the money for the Coast Guard's 
operating expenses, aircraft, spare parts.
  Mr. Chairman, as much as I understand the importance of this 
amendment to its sponsors, I just do not believe this House can accept 
this amendment. We might just as well strike the enacting clause, or 
take a vote on the bill now and send it back to committee, because that 
is what the effect of this amendment is. It kills the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 108, 
noes 315, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 82]

                               AYES--108

     Archer
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Blunt
     Brady (TX)
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cook
     Cox
     Cubin
     Deal
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Ewing
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kingston
     LaHood
     Largent
     Lazio
     LoBiondo
     Luther
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Smith (MI)
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sununu
     Tancredo

[[Page H1516]]


     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thurman
     Toomey
     Upton

                               NOES--315

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Barton
     Crane
     Everett
     Franks (NJ)
     Granger
     Jones (OH)
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Larson
     Quinn
     Salmon

                              {time}  1417

  Mrs. KELLY, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, and Messrs. DREIER, PASTOR, and 
CAPUANO changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mrs. ROUKEMA, and Messrs. FORBES, SMITH of 
Michigan, PICKERING, GOODLATTE, and INSLEE changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote is announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in part A of House Report 106-549.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered By Mr. Toomey

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment:

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Toomey:
       Page 58, after line 17, insert the following new chapter:

                               CHAPTER 7

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                       Bureau of the Public Debt

      gifts to the united states for reduction of the public debt

       For deposit of an additional amount into the account 
     established under section 3113(d) of title 31, United States 
     Code, to reduce the public debt, $4,000,000,000: Provided, 
     That such amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: 
     Provided further, That such amount shall be available only to 
     the extent that an official budget request, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, is transmitted by the 
     President to the Congress.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
each will control 15 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today we are debating a supplemental appropriations 
bill, but this debate is really all about what Congress should do with 
the on-budget surplus for fiscal year 2000.
  Let me explain what this surplus is because there is, understandably, 
a lot of confusion about budget surpluses. Last year, Congress, for the 
first time in 30 years, stopped the raid on Social Security surpluses, 
and that was a terrific step.
  This year, after saving and setting aside the entire Social Security 
surplus, the Federal Government is still taking in more tax revenue 
than it is spending for the rest of its programs. We call this the on-
budget surplus or sometimes the non-Social Security surplus.
  Now, despite increasing discretionary spending in fiscal year 2000 by 
about 5 percent over fiscal year 1999's levels last fall through the 
regular appropriations bills, the economy is so strong, and tax 
revenues were so high that this on-budget surplus that we are talking 
about is about $26 billion for fiscal year 2000. Let us keep in mind 
that this fiscal year is about half over, so this amount is quite 
certain at this point. So today's debate is really over what to do with 
this $26 billion on-budget surplus.
  This is a historic debate. We have not had a surplus like this in 
over 30 years, and even then only briefly and very small. But today we 
have a real live, honest-to-goodness, not-just-projected, but already-
here non-Social Security surplus.
  More importantly, we stand at the threshold of an era in which we 
could be debating surpluses for many years to come, provided that we do 
one thing, Mr. Chairman, provided we do not spend it all.
  Mr. Chairman, prior to the amendments that we are voting on and 
considering today, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill 
already spends roughly $9 billion of the $26 billion surplus. Now, we 
will likely add to that price tag today, and some are already working 
on future later bills which eventually, if we do not do something about 
it today, will surely spend all of this real live surplus, the first 
one in 30 years.
  I think it will be a terrible mistake to spend all of that money. Let 
me cite four reasons. First of all, I think the American people want to 
see less government and more freedom, surely not expanding Federal 
spending at a breathtaking pace.
  Second, this is not just about fiscal year 2000 spending because, as 
we all know, each year we spend more money than we did in the previous 
year. That is what we do in Washington.
  My point is that this debate is not about just the fiscal year 2000 
surplus, because if we spend all this money, it will find its way into 
the baseline, and all future budgets will end up spending more money as 
a result if we spend all of this fiscal year 2000 surplus.
  If we do that, we diminish future surpluses, and that means there is 
less money available in the future for tax relief, to make the changes 
we need in Medicare, to make structural reform for Social Security, a 
number of very important priorities.
  Thirdly, it would be a terrible precedent. This again, as I said, is 
our first

[[Page H1517]]

real live, honest-to-goodness Social Security surplus in 30 years. Do 
we really want to tell the American people that, for Congress, the 
purpose of the surplus is to spend it as fast as it arrives?
  Finally, let us remember that every dollar the Federal Government 
spends is a dollar being spent by politicians through a political 
process rather than by free men and women who have earned that money 
and could be spending it as they see fit.
  That is why I am offering this amendment, to prevent us from spending 
all of this money by taking some of it off the spending table.
  What my amendment does is very simple. It specifically appropriates 
$4 billion of the $26 billion fiscal year 2000 on-budget surplus to 
reduce the publicly held debt. If we pass this amendment, first of all, 
we will pay down some more debt. I think that is a worthwhile goal.
  But, in addition, it would be the first time in the history of the 
modern Congress that we will have an explicit appropriation for debt 
reduction and an explicit voluntary act of this body to take some of 
that money and pay down debt. It will show that we have got the 
discipline to resist spending some of this money.
  I want to thank the Republican leadership for their support on this. 
I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, for his support on this amendment.
  I want to remind my colleagues this first surplus is a unique 
opportunity. I want to urge my colleagues to do the right thing and set 
the right precedent. Vote yes on my amendment and make this a better 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the former governor of Texas, Ann Richards, observed 
once that you can dress up a pig, and you can put lipstick on a pig, 
but it is still a pig. I think that is sort of the case that we are 
faced with here this afternoon. This amendment is a transparent attempt 
to put lipstick on a pretty sad bill that underlies this whole debate.
  Let me simply explain what this amendment really does. This amendment 
is Washington at its ``finest'', pretending to do something when, in 
fact, it does nothing.
  Now, what this bill does or what this amendment does is to take $4 
billion, which right now sits in the Treasury and is scheduled for 
deficit reduction, and it diverts it for, guess what, deficit 
reduction. Here is the way it works. Under normal budget processes, 
dollars that are not appropriated at the end of the year stay in the 
Treasury, and they are used to reduce the national debt. That is what 
happened to many billions of dollars last year when the majority party 
gave up on its misguided efforts to pass huge tax cuts rather than 
using those dollars for debt reduction.
  This amendment, in my view, pretends to add to deficit reduction by 
appropriating $4 billion, which is right now sitting in the Treasury, 
and it pretends that it appropriates it for a purpose for which it is 
already scheduled to be used, debt reduction.
  It then further requires that that amount, in order to be considered 
for debt reduction, has to be designated as an emergency pursuant to 
section 251(b)(2)(a) of the Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
1985.
  So, in other words, there is an emergency to make certain that this 
money is going to be used for the purpose for which it is going to be 
used. Only in Washington would that be considered a major event. Only 
in Washington would this transaction be considered real.
  Then this provision goes further, and it says that the amount of 
money in this bill for deficit reduction shall be available for that 
purpose only to the extent that an official budget request that 
includes designation of an entire amount of the request as an emergency 
requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985 is submitted by the President to the Congress. So 
we are requiring three steps to do what we would normally do in one 
step.
  It does not matter, Mr. Chairman, whether my colleagues vote for this 
amendment or not. If this amendment was never born, the $4 billion 
under discussion would be used for debt reduction. With the amendment 
being passed, we have two more steps that we have to go through in 
order to accomplish debt reduction. If it makes the gentleman happy to 
substitute motion for movement, be my guest, but it does not do 
anything real.
  I find it ironic that we are being given 30 minutes to debate this 
nonissue when we have only been given 20 minutes to debate whether or 
not we are going to get sucked into a 5-year war in Colombia. That says 
something, I guess, about this House. What it says I cannot quite 
figure out.
  So let me congratulate the gentleman for making something out of 
nothing.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.
  First of all, as my colleague, I would think, would be aware, the 
budget rules of this House simply require the emergency designation in 
order for this to take place. There is no avoiding that, given those 
rules.
  And I am really amazed at the suggestion that if it were not for this 
suggestion this money would be used to retire debt, because the best I 
can see, for the last 30 years anyway, there has never been any money 
that has been allowed to sit in the Treasury account for the purpose of 
retiring the debt. It always gets spent. That is why this amendment is 
very necessary to prevent that from happening.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I want to rise in support of the Toomey 
amendment. I agree with some of the things the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) said; that we are transferring from the Treasury to the 
Treasury. But as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) points 
out, if we do not do something like that, that $4 billion is liable to 
be spent somewhere. When there is money on the table, it is easy to try 
to find a way to spend it.
  The problem that we have is not so much the discretionary spending, 
in order to balance these budgets, in order to bring down the debt. For 
1998 we had a $51 billion paydown in the debt; in 1999 we had an $88.6 
billion paydown; and in the year 2000 we estimate to have $157 billion 
paydown of the public debt. That is good. And that all happened without 
a lot of fanfare. But what the Toomey amendment says is that we are 
going to do it. It is a symbolic statement. It tells the American 
taxpayer that we intend to continue to pay down the debt.
  As I said, balancing the budget, having a surplus, is what makes it 
possible for us to pay down the debt. But let me tell my colleagues 
where the problem comes from in spending. It is not discretionary. 
Since 1995, mandatory spending, something that the Committee on 
Appropriations has no jurisdiction over whatsoever, mandatory spending 
has increased nearly $214 billion; Social Security increased $70 
billion. That is a mandatory entitlement. Medicare increased $42.6 
billion. Medicaid increased $27 billion. Agriculture programs increased 
$21 billion. Deposit insurance increased $16.5 billion. Federal 
employment retirement programs increased $11.8 billion. Supplemental 
security income increased $7 billion. Veterans benefits and services 
increased by $6.4 billion. Since enactment of TEA-21, funding for 
highways and transit programs will increase by $37.1 billion through 
fiscal year 2002. Aviation programs will increase $10 billion over the 
next three years. These last two are now, in effect, treated as 
mandatory programs.
  These are mandatory programs. And every time that Congress creates an 
additional mandatory spending program, we take away the ability of the 
Appropriations Committee to get a handle on the spending. Our committee 
has a very small part of the government spending programs. We have only 
the discretionary programs, but we need to pay a lot more attention to 
mandatory spending.
  So I want to compliment my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Toomey). If it does not do anything else, as the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has suggested, this says to the American taxpayer 
that we intend

[[Page H1518]]

to pay down the national debt in a time of prosperity.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Let me observe that the gentleman says that if this money is not 
appropriated it will be used somewhere else. Well, I do not know who is 
going to use it. Maybe this chart again gives us a good guideline, 
because it shows that when we are done with this bill today that the 
majority will have voted to spend $591 billion for this existing fiscal 
year as opposed to the $573 billion requested by the President.
  I am not voting for this turkey. They may be planning to.
  I would also say that what I really think this amendment is about is 
this. There is an amendment coming later today which will take $4 
billion in regular appropriations for the Department of Defense for 
routine items that normally would be handled next year. Instead, that 
money is going to be moved into this existing fiscal year. That is $4 
billion more that will be spent this year that the President is not 
asking for.
  The effect of that is to give us a $4 billion hole in next year's 
budget which can then be filled up with congressional pork projects in 
the Defense Department. That is the intent. The result: $4 billion in 
added spending.
  So now this amendment conveniently comes along and gives people a 
political fig leaf. The rhetoric over there is made quite clear. This 
amendment is not real. It is symbolic. It is not substantive. All this 
amendment does is take $4 billion, which is in the Treasury, and 
appropriate it back to the Treasury. Now, my colleagues on the other 
side may be impressed with that. I am sorry, I am not.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Toomey) and the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  I am in total agreement with this legislation and somewhat in 
disagreement with what the gentleman from Wisconsin is saying. I, first 
of all, applaud the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) for what 
he has done here. He has made us focus on this, not as something which 
happens if we do not appropriate the money but as an overt action by 
which we are segregating that money and saying we are now going to 
retire debt of the United States of America. My judgment is this is 
something that should have happened a long time ago.
  Unfortunately, I am not as enthusiastic about the underlying bill, 
which I think has some problems with it, including the President not 
making his case to the Congress on parts of it, and parts of it, in my 
judgment, not being an emergency process and probably better going 
through the normal appropriations process. But be that as it may, the 
Toomey effort is perhaps the most important aspect of this overall 
legislation.
  By reducing debt we limit our expenditures. Because that money cannot 
be brought back in some later supplemental appropriations bill to be 
spent if we reduce that debt now. That is why I think it is important 
to actually do this, and disagree with the gentleman from Wisconsin 
with respect to that. And that is what it does.
  Let us just remember that we are still spending, I think it is about 
15 cents per dollar on the interest of the debt of the United States of 
America. Every time we reduce this debt, we slowly start to reduce that 
amount of our budget which is spent on interest each year because we 
had to borrow money. That is a very significant impact in being able to 
do the spending that we need to do later to help our military, to help 
those in need, and to help with other programs across the United States 
of America.
  For all these reasons the step we are taking here, which I consider 
to be a precedent, is an extraordinarily important precedent for steps 
that we can take in the future. And perhaps in the future, when we 
budget, when we appropriate, when we deal with issues involving 
finances of the United States of America, we can start by saying how 
much of the debt can we retire, and then figure out what it is that we 
have to expend.
  So for all these reasons I think this is a very beneficial, very 
precedent-setting piece of legislation. Again, I congratulate the 
sponsor of it, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and I hope 
he is the sponsor of 20 more of these in the next few years so we can 
continue to retire the debt of the country.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand that I have the right to close.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves 8\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) has 6 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of 
this amendment, and I would encourage not only all of my colleagues on 
my side of the aisle to vote for it but as well my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle.
  If we oppose this amendment and believe that if we just leave the 
money there in the Treasury that the debt will still be reduced, we are 
assuming that as we go through the whole process of negotiating within 
the House and then with the Senate on conferences, and then as we sit 
down and negotiate with the President and go through all 13 
appropriations bills, that this money will somehow still be there in 
the end and, therefore, we do not need to pass this amendment. I really 
question that.
  And I have to respectfully disagree with the gentleman on the other 
side of the aisle. I think this is an extremely important amendment. We 
had $26 billion extra come into the Treasury, and the debate before us 
today is, yes, we are going to be spending quite a bit of it shoring up 
our national defenses, something I consider to be extremely important; 
and, yes, we have other very important priorities; but, yes, when we 
vote for this amendment and approve this amendment in the House, we are 
saying that we recognize the tax burden to pay the interest on the debt 
is too high; that the responsibility of saddling our kids with ever-
increasing amounts of debt is wrong, and that we are going to take some 
of this money and retire some of the public debt with it.
  My only regret is that we are not giving another $4 billion back to 
the hard-working taxpayers, who essentially have been overcharged and 
that is why we have this money. But I think this amendment of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania is an extremely important amendment. I 
agree with the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) that we need to be 
doing this some more as we go through the appropriations process and 
setting more of the money aside for debt reduction.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and 
I would just close by pointing out that this Congress has never taken 
on-budget funds, money in this case that is coming from the overcharged 
taxpayers, and allowed that to sit around and to be used to retire 
debt. The Congress has never done that. And I think to think that that 
would happen this year is naive at best.
  By explicitly appropriating this money for debt reduction, we assure 
that will happen, we pay down more of the publicly held debt, and we 
eliminate the possibility that next week or next month or sometime in 
the near future there will be another bill that will attempt to spend 
it. So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment and 
make this supplemental a better bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I do not care how Members vote on this amendment. This amendment is a 
big nothing. It does not do anything for anybody, does not do anything 
to anybody. It simply takes money which is in the Treasury and puts it 
in the Treasury. That is all it does. So Members should vote however 
they want.
  I would simply observe that last year $124 billion was devoted to 
debt reduction without benefit of this amendment, and this year we will 
see a lot

[[Page H1519]]

more than that devoted to deficit reduction, with or without the 
benefit of this amendment.
  I think the problem is that debate has been so trivialized in this 
House on budget issues, and the budget process itself has become so 
trivialized that we see immense amounts of time spent by many people in 
this chamber simply trying to invent procedural gimmicks so that they 
have a rollcall to take home to taxpayers who are too busy to make a 
living to understand the intricacies of the budget process. I think 
that does not serve this institution well. It certainly does not serve 
our own taxpayers well.
  I would simply say this. If colleagues want to take a real action as 
opposed to an ethereal action, if colleagues want to take a real action 
that will save money today, they should vote against this entire bill 
and have it come back in a stripped-down version, the way it ought to 
come back.
  I would also urge Members to vote against the amendment that will be 
coming up shortly, which, as I said five times earlier, will simply 
move $4 billion in defense spending out of next year's budget into this 
year's budget so that we free up $4 billion more spending room for next 
year. If we want to save the same $4 billion that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) alleges to save in his amendment, we will 
take that action and we will save it for real.
  I would also urge Members to again consider voting against this bill 
because the net result of this bill, as it stands here before us today, 
with the amendment that is going to be added on the DOD side, will mean 
that this bill has raised the amount of spending above what the 
President has asked for by about $8 billion, and it will mean that for 
the entire fiscal year this Congress will be spending $17 billion more, 
as represented by this red bar, than the President asked for, as 
represented by the blue bar.
  Now, if Members want to save real money as opposed to monopoly money, 
they will vote against the bill and vote against that amendment. It 
does not mean bean bag how we vote on this amendment.

                              {time}  1445

  It just does not do anything to anybody.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and will 
undoubtedly be amused by the results.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 420, 
noes 0, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 83]

                               AYES--420

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

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--3

     Frank (MA)
     Obey
     Schakowsky

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Barton
     Bono
     Clyburn
     Crane
     Everett
     Franks (NJ)
     Granger
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Martinez
     Quinn
     Salmon

                              {time}  1507

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                TITLE I

                            COUNTERNARCOTICS

                               CHAPTER 1

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                    Drug Enforcement Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $299,698,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $282,500,000 shall be deposited in the Telecommunications 
     Carrier Compliance Fund: Provided, That of such amount, 
     $293,048,000 shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request for a specific dollar amount, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.

[[Page H1520]]

                               CHAPTER 2

                    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

         Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Drug Interdiction and 
     Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'', $185,800,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until expended: Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense may transfer 
     the funds provided herein only to appropriations for military 
     personnel; operation and maintenance; procurement; research, 
     development, test and evaluation; the Defense Health Program; 
     and working capital funds: Provided further, That the funds 
     transferred shall be merged with and shall be available for 
     the same purposes and for the same time period, as the 
     appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, That 
     the transfer authority provided under this heading is in 
     addition to any other transfer authority available to the 
     Department of Defense.

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 1201. (a) Authority To Provide Support.--Of the amount 
     appropriated in this Act for the Department of Defense, not 
     to exceed $50,000,000 shall be available for the provision of 
     support for counter-drug activities of the Government of 
     Colombia. The support provided under this section shall be in 
     addition to support provided for counter-drug activities of 
     the Government of Colombia under any other provision of law.
       (b) Types of Support.--The support that may be provided 
     using this section shall be limited to the types of support 
     specified in section 1033(c)(1) of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 
     111 Stat. 1882). In addition, using unobligated balances from 
     the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public 
     Law 106-79), the Secretary of Defense may transfer one light 
     observation aircraft to Colombia for counter-drug activities.
       (c) Conditions on Provision of Support.--(1) The Secretary 
     of Defense may not obligate or expend funds appropriated in 
     this Act to provide support under this section for counter-
     drug activities of the Government of Colombia until the end 
     of the 15-day period beginning on the date on which the 
     Secretary submits the written certification for fiscal year 
     2000 pursuant to section 1033(f)(1) of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 
     105-85; 111 Stat. 1882).
       (2) The elements of the written certification submitted for 
     fiscal year 2000 described in section 1033(g) of that Act 
     shall apply to, and the written certification shall address, 
     the support provided under this section for counter-drug 
     activities of the Government of Colombia.

                               CHAPTER 3

                     BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President

                          Department of State

 Assistance for Plan Colombia and for Andean Regional Counternarcotics 
                               Activities

       For necessary expenses to carry out section 481 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to support Plan Colombia and 
     for Andean regional counternarcotics activities, 
     $1,099,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less 
     than $57,000,000 shall be made available for assistance for 
     Bolivia, of which not less than $49,000,000 shall be made 
     available for alternative economic development activities: 
     Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading, not less than $20,000,000 shall be made available 
     for assistance for Ecuador, of which not less than $8,000,000 
     shall be made available for alternative economic development 
     and similar activities: Provided further, That of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading, up to $42,000,000 shall be 
     made available for assistance for Peru: Provided further, 
     That of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less 
     than $18,000,000 shall be made available for assistance for 
     other countries in South and Central America and the 
     Caribbean which are cooperating with United States 
     counternarcotics objectives: Provided further, That funds 
     under this heading shall be in addition to amounts otherwise 
     available for such purposes: Provided further, That section 
     482(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall not apply 
     to funds appropriated under this heading: Provided further, 
     That for purposes of supporting Plan Colombia and for Andean 
     regional counternarcotics activities, any agency of the 
     United States Government to which funds are transferred or 
     allocated under any authority of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 may utilize, in addition to any authorities available 
     for carrying out section 481, any authorities available to 
     that agency for carrying out related activities, including 
     utilization of such funds for administrative expenses: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading 
     shall be utilized for the procurement of and support for two 
     UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters for use by the Colombian National 
     Police which shall be utilized only for counternarcotics 
     operations in southern Colombia: Provided further, That 
     procurement of UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters from funds made 
     available under this heading shall be managed by the United 
     States Defense Security Cooperation Agency: Provided further, 
     That the President shall ensure that if any helicopter 
     procured with funds under this heading is used to aid or abet 
     the operations of an illegal self-defense group or security 
     cooperative, then such helicopter shall be immediately 
     returned to the United States: Provided further, That funds 
     obligated after February 6, 2000, and prior to the date of 
     enactment of this Act for administrative expenses in support 
     of Plan Colombia and for Andean regional counternarcotics 
     activities may be finally charged to funds made available for 
     such purposes by this Act: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Defense and the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for 
     International Development, shall provide to the Speaker of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committees on 
     Appropriations not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and prior to the initial obligation of 
     any funds appropriated under this heading, a report on the 
     proposed uses of all funds under this heading on a country-
     by-country basis for each proposed program, project or 
     activity: Provided further, That funds appropriated under 
     this heading shall be subject to the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended: Provided further, That the entire amount 
     provided shall be available only to the extent an official 
     budget request that includes designation of the entire amount 
     of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.

                               CHAPTER 4

                  MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, DEFENSE-WIDE

       Not withstanding any other provision of law, for an 
     additional amount for ``Military Construction, Defense-
     Wide,'' $116,523,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2004: Provided, That such amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request for $116,523,000, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the bill through page 9, line 4, be considered 
as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under the 
rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Obey:
       Page 3, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $51,000,000)''.
       Page 5, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $501,000,000)''.
       Page 8, after line 13, insert the following:

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 1301. (a) Expedited Procedures for House Consideration 
     of Appropriations for Push into Southern Colombia.--If, by 
     July 15, 2000, the House of Representatives has not 
     considered an appropriation bill that includes funds to 
     support the Push into Southern Colombia, then it shall be in 
     order at any time after such date (but before July 31) to 
     move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
     Whole on the state of the Union for the consideration of such 
     a bill.
       (b) Exercise of Rulemaking Power of House.--This section is 
     enacted--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of 
     Representatives, and as such it is deemed a part of the rules 
     of the House, but applicable only with respect to the 
     procedure to be followed in the House in the case of a bill 
     described in this section, and it supersedes other rules only 
     to the extent that it is inconsistent with such rules; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     the House to change the rules at any time, in the same manner 
     and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of 
     the House.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) each 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

[[Page H1521]]

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking Democrat on the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I speak in favor of this amendment. No one 
will take a back seat to me when it comes to drug eradication or no one 
can take a back seat to me in fighting drugs. I use this opportunity to 
explain that there is a better alternative, a better way of doing 
things in fighting drugs in the country of Colombia. As the strategy is 
now explained to us, it is called ``Push Into Southern Colombia.'' It 
is a 6-year plan. It is one that is aimed at the guerillas and not one 
that is aimed primarily at eradicating the drug traffic.
  For example, this package appears to be focused on guerilla-
controlled coca-growing areas to the exclusion of areas controlled by 
the paramilitaries and other narcotraffickers. The paramilitary groups 
linked to the drug trade will continue to operate with impunity until 
the last 2 years of this 6-year plan.
  This cannot be the case. We must do a better job in strategic thought 
on how to fight these drugs and the drug trafficking. What we must do 
is to follow the strategy that was successful in the country of Peru. 
There is an alternative to the so-called Push Into Southern Colombia 
strategy that needs to be considered and it is the experience of 
reducing the coca cultivation by the country of Peru by doing three 
things.
  Number one, an aggressive air interdiction of drug traffickers. In 
other words, if you fly, you die. Number two, a comprehensive AID 
alternative crop development program. And, number three, crop 
eradication.
  The Colombian government has not yet matched the Peruvian 
government's demonstrated willingness to interdict the drug 
traffickers' aircraft. The Colombian government should be encouraged to 
match that commitment. When combined with a successful effort to 
interdict the air bridge, a strong ground interdiction strategy at the 
three main points that drugs must have to cross the Andes Mountains, 
the road to Pasto, the road through Florencia and the road through 
Villavicencio, ground interdiction focus must be kept on those three 
areas. We cannot do this by piecemeal.
  I think that those military thinkers, whether they be Colombian or 
whether they be American who make suggestions can do a much better job. 
We must interdict the drugs in the air, force them through the three 
Andes passes, and stop them and eradicate them there. That is the only 
sound way of getting at the drug trafficking.
  This other way, the strategy that I think is an erroneous one, is one 
that will last some 6 years and might cause us well to find ourselves 
involved in a guerilla warfare; and the last thing in the world we want 
to do is to have American young men and young women involved in that. I 
doubt the American people would support a counterinsurgency campaign, 
and yet that is where we are headed.
  The administration's continued insistence that the package is 
entirely counternarcotic, however, has made impossible any debate on 
the merits of counterinsurgency. Let us get this strategy right; let us 
think it out; let us interdict it by air and through the three passes 
as opposed to the manner in which they suggest. I therefore will vote 
for and urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The Obey amendment would strike from this bill the U.S. aid to the 
Colombian army while still allowing the Human Rights, Justice and 
Alternative Development System to go forward. In return, he proposes 
that the House be allowed expedited consideration of the appropriations 
for the money later this year.
  But let me tell my colleagues the fallacy. While I am sure that the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is sincere in his belief that we 
should delay this, and certainly he comes forth with some good 
justification, let us put the scenario where it is.
  President Pastrana has gone to the international community, as well 
as his own country, and developed collectively a package of about $7.5 
billion to participate in this Colombia plan. Our share, according to 
the President's request, will be $1.3 billion. If, indeed, we today 
indicate to the guerillas in Colombia that we are not sufficiently 
interested to vote on this issue today and to send the message that we 
are going to participate, it is going to disable the ability of 
President Pastrana to go to the European Community and to the Japanese 
community and the others who have also pledged assistance. It is also 
going to cause him consternation in his own country, because it is 
going to be a political defeat for his plan.
  Here we have a President in Colombia who has said he wants to 
cooperate with the United States of America to assist us in our efforts 
to stop the importation of drugs that originate in his country.
  Mr. Chairman, if we delay this today, it is a wrong message; and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin I think would agree with that. If, indeed, the 
President is wrong and we do not have the confidence in our President 
to go along with what he considers the number one priority in this 
country today and thus, he says, is the reason for this emergency 
declaration.
  So if one disagrees with the President, that is certainly one's 
prerogative. I disagree with him on a lot of things. I disagreed with 
him when he ran for the presidency of the United States and voted for 
Bob Dole and before that, for George Bush. That is not the issue. The 
issue is the commander in chief has said this is what we should do 
today, not in July, not in August, not in September, not get it 
involved in the appropriations process, which is probably going to be 
October or November before we finish.
  So I urge my colleagues today to vote against the Obey amendment. Let 
us make the declaration. Do we support the President of the United 
States? Do we want to fight drugs in this manner, or do we want to 
procrastinate and send a message to the guerillas in Colombia that we 
are really not as concerned as the president of Colombia is and send 
the message to the European Community and the other communities that 
have agreed to supplement our $1.3 billion with an additional $1.7 
billion, plus the $4 billion that Colombia itself is contributing?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Obey amendment 
which cuts out all of the military aid to Colombia.
  There is an explosion of coca cultivation taking place in southern 
Colombia, a region where the Colombian National Police does not have 
the ability to conduct eradication and interdiction operations without 
the support of the Colombian military. The Colombian National Narcotics 
Police requires Colombian military support to establish an acceptable 
level of security around their counterdrug objectives, prior to 
initiating eradication and interdiction operations. Colombian military 
participation is essential, essential for successful counterdrug 
efforts in Colombia; and Defense Department programs are the primary 
means to ensure the successful integration into ongoing counterdrug 
efforts.
  The counterdrug support that our government supplies to the Colombian 
military is part of a balanced and a comprehensive plan to provide 
security, stability, and ongoing government control over southern 
Colombia. Without effective government control or stability in that 
part of the country, social programs such as alternative development 
have no chance of any long-term success. The support of the Colombian 
armed forces is needed to provide the kind of security for law 
enforcement operations of the Colombian National Police and to allow 
the Colombian government to provide basic services to the Colombian 
people in southern Colombia.

[[Page H1522]]

  The counternarcotics police, the CNP, does the eradication, but they 
need military support to eradicate the drug crops in guerrilla-
controlled territories. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
Obey amendment which guts the antidrug strategy that we have in 
Colombia.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Obey 
amendment which would gut the effort we are making here today to fight 
the drug war in Colombia. I have been to Colombia, and I have seen the 
crisis that exists there today.
  To the extent that Congress determines that emergency funding is 
necessary to stem this crisis, military assistance must be a part of 
that effort. The Obey amendment would strike all military assistance 
from the emergency funding. Should his amendment pass, there would be 
no funding for the 45 helicopters needed to ferret out the 
narcoguerrillas that enforce the state of lawlessness there, and there 
would be no funding for training, equipping and deploying the Colombian 
army's counternarcotics battalions.
  The Obey amendment would retain the funding for economic and 
agricultural assistance, but would take away the military aid that is 
needed to create an environment in which such assistance could 
function. This is the equivalent of sending social workers into a crack 
house unarmed and without police accompaniment.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Obey amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire as to the time 
remaining for both sides.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 4 minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, 
and I reserve the right to close.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I start by reminding the House that there is no authorization for the 
action that we are about to take. This bill contains $1.3 billion as a 
downpayment on what will be at least a 5-year war in Colombia. Some say 
it is a drug war; some say it is a civil war. I think it is both.
  I hate drugs. They destroy lives, and they destroy communities. But 
this amendment does not in any way limit funds to help the Colombian 
police, it does not limit funds for their helicopters, it does not 
limit funds for their intelligence operations or for the radar that we 
are supplying. I favor air interdiction.
  All this amendment does is delay until after July 15 the $522 million 
downpayment on what will be at least a 5-year expanded military 
commitment which will involve ourselves unquestionably in a civil war. 
This delay simply gives the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee 
on International Relations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence 
time to ask questions that this institution has an obligation to ask 
before we vote these funds.
  Now, I understand our Speaker will close debate. I would ask him and 
I would ask my colleagues the following questions: Do we know what the 
5-year full cost will be? We are told $1.3 billion for the first year. 
Do we know what we are going to have to spend over the entire 5 or 6 
years?
  Second, if U.S. advisors are kidnapped, what are our plans then? My 
colleagues ought to ask the administration, do they have a plan? If 
these few troops that we will train cannot control the 150,000 square 
miles of jungle in Colombia, what will we do next? Will we just quit? I 
doubt it. I do not know if the administration has an answer to that, 
and I do not know if the Speaker does. What can we do to make certain 
that we know what we are doing?
  I would suggest one thing we ought to ask is why is it that we have 
not been allowed, through an amendment today, to offer drug treatment 
to more than 37 percent of Americans who need it? We have been denied 
that opportunity today. This may or may not be similar to Vietnam, but 
I do see one difference. The Gulf of Tonkin was debated for all of 40 
minutes on this floor. This amendment will be debated for all of 20 
minutes. That is the major distinction, I fear.
  Mr. Chairman, there has been no real debate. We have not had a chance 
to get into it.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) said this bill cuts money 
for Colombia. It does not cut one dime. It simply delays $522 million 
until his committee and the gentleman from Missouri's (Mr. Skelton) 
committee can hold the hearings that ought to be held. We ought to have 
this authorized before we move ahead.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the President of the United States is for this, 
and I know the Speaker of this House is for this, and I have had so 
many of my colleagues say to me, ``Oh, I think you are right, we 
probably ought to delay this; but after all, you know the Speaker wants 
it.'' I respect that. I would just remind my colleagues of one thing. 
On this issue, on all issues affecting our involvement in war, we are 
not to be the agents of the President; we are not to be the agents of 
the Speaker. We owe it to ourselves and our constituents in this body 
to exercise our own judgment on a crucial, crucial matter; and I beg my 
colleagues to do that this afternoon.
  All my amendment does is to delay our decision until we know more 
about it than we know today. I do not think, given our history, that 
that is too much to ask.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining 4 minutes 
of our time to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), 
the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in respectful opposition to 
the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin. I want to speak in favor 
of U.S. assistance to the government of Colombia to fight the war on 
drugs.
  I do not take this well in a frivolous way. First of all, the 
supplemental that we are considering today is about our children and 
whether we want our children to grow up in a society free from the 
scourge of drugs. Now, does that mean that we can do this just by doing 
something in Colombia? No, and I want to pursue that.
  The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my good friend, talked 
about Peru. I have been to Peru several times, more times than I want 
to count. But when President Fujimori came in there on the Shining Path 
and controlled the drug trade in the Upper Huallaga Valley, and they 
did bring the shoot-down policies because they were moving drugs from 
Peru to Colombia, he was successful. He was successful because he was 
able to address the problem of the narcoguerillas in Peru and the 
transportation of drugs from where it was grown to where it was being 
remanufactured in Colombia.
  Then the new president of Bolivia came in, and I have been to Bolivia 
more times than I want to count, and he was able to do the drug 
suppression there where drugs were going into Brazil and Argentina by 
crop substitution, but also by being able to stop the drug trade from 
moving from Bolivia to Colombia. I say to my colleagues, the problem 
is, all of the drugs that we stopped from Peru and Bolivia are now 
grown in Colombia. How do we address that?

                              {time}  1530

  The Colombian police officers have been fairly successful. They have 
a great human rights record. They have been able to do a credible job. 
But the police force in Colombia does not have the manpower, it does 
not have the ability to get into southern Colombia, an area the size of 
Switzerland, to be able to stop drug trade and drug growing and drug 
transportation and drug manufacturing.
  The Colombians need help. But I want to focus for a few minutes about 
why. Colombia is the source of 90 percent of the cocaine that comes 
into this country. Colombia is the source of 65 percent of the heroin 
that reaches our neighborhoods, our schools, and our children.
  Over 52,000 Americans die every year, every year from illegal drug 
use, and others from gang- and drug-related violence, thousands, and 
tens of thousands of lives are ruined. I could tell Members stories 
from my own experience.

[[Page H1523]]

 Thousands of families are destroyed because of what Colombian drugs 
and others, but mainly Colombian drugs, are doing in this country.
  They are our real casualties of a quiet, deadly battle that is waged 
on the streets of our cities, our towns, our rural areas, our 
neighborhoods, and our schools.
  Some of my colleagues have said that this package is not the answer. 
They are correct, stopping drugs in Colombia is not the only answer. We 
have a responsibility to stop drugs in Colombia, to stop them in 
transit, to stop them at our border, to stop them in our streets and in 
our schools.
  We also have a responsibility to teach our children to say no, and to 
educate them as to the dangers of drugs, and keep them from trying 
drugs in the first place.
  Finally, we have the responsibility to provide meaningful and 
effective treatment to those who are addicted to drugs. I know the 
gentleman before me talked about that. This year alone we will spend 
close to $6 billion, or one-third of our drug control budget, on 
treatment and prevention.
  I am personally committed to working with this Congress, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, the President of the United States, to 
implement an effective and balanced strategy to win the war on drugs.
  My friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, asked, he said, have we ever 
had this debate? Since I have been in this Congress, especially the 
last 6 years, we have debated this every year. We have had hearings. We 
know what the problems in Colombia are. We know of the ineffectiveness 
of the previous administration in Colombia fighting drugs.
  We were somewhat askance when the President opened up the territory 
in southern Colombia, but now our administration and the administration 
of Colombia are in concert. Our administration has listened to what 
this Congress has said for 5 or 6 years: that we need to do something 
about it, that we cannot put our head in the sand; that we cannot say, 
well, we cannot do anything about it, so we ignore it.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, and I speak to Members today as 
my colleagues, we cannot ignore this issue. We cannot ignore it in this 
Congress, we cannot ignore it on our street corners, and we cannot 
ignore it from the place that this stuff comes from.
  I ask Members today, and again, respectfully, because I have a great 
deal of respect for the gentleman from Wisconsin, and I understand that 
we do not want to get in a prolonged war. But we helped Peru and we did 
not get in a prolonged war because we did not have our troops down 
there. We are not going to do this here. We helped Colombia, and they 
were able to stop it. We did things, and if we are constant and 
vigilant in this Congress, we can do a great deal. We can do a great 
deal together.
  I ask the gentleman from Wisconsin, I am willing to reach out my hand 
and work with the gentleman. I do not want to see us escalate. A lot of 
this is for the beginning helicopters, so they can get into the 
territories, they can get into the places where they grow the drugs; 
that they can stop the transit, the riverine problems that they have.
  But Mr. Chairman, we have to solve this problem. We cannot solve the 
problem by ignoring it.
  I ask Members again respectfully to reject this amendment. Let us get 
on with this job, and let us do it right.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186, 
noes 239, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 84]

                               AYES--186

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clayton
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Fossella
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Largent
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pitts
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--239

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Baca
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clement
     Coble
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Traficant
     Turner
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Barton
     Clyburn
     Crane
     Everett
     Franks (NJ)
     Granger
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Quinn
     Salmon

                              {time}  1557

  Mr. LAZIO and Mr. LAMPSON changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

[[Page H1524]]

  Messrs. BACHUS, RYAN of Wisconsin, ROYCE, and METCALF and Ms. EDDIE 
BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?


                    amendment offered by ms. pelosi

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment Offered by Ms. Pelosi:
       Page 3, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: (reduced by $51,000,000)''.

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, the amendment at the desk 
that I have cuts $51 million of the $185 million in the funds in the 
DOD account in this supplemental bill. The $51 million cut represents 
all the money provided for the push into Southern Colombia.
  Primarily these funds were to pay for training, equipping and 
deploying the counternarcotics battalions into Southern Colombia. I 
offer this amendment, once again, to emphasize that our emphasis is 
wrong.
  We have an emergency supplemental before us today, because we have an 
emergency in our country; and that is the issue of substance abuse.
  As I said earlier and earlier today in the debate on the rule and in 
general debate, we have an emergency supplemental bill before us today, 
because, indeed, there is an emergency in our country, and that is the 
dependence on substance abuse by so many people; indeed, 5\1/2\ million 
people in the United States.
  I introduced the amendment to emphasize that in this bill with that 
emergency in our country, we do not have $1 of emergency spending for 
reducing substance abuse in our country for treatment on demand and for 
prevention.
  In the Rand report, which I quoted earlier, it says that for every 
dollar spent on treatment or demand in the U.S., we get 23 times more 
value than on money spent in the country of origin in the coca leaf 
eradication program, 23 times more effective.
  This report says that if we want to reduce demand in the United 
States by 1 percent, if 1 percent would cost $34 million if we spent it 
on treatment on demand programs. To get that same 1 percent reduction, 
by the approach taken in the chamber today, coca leaf eradication, you 
would have to spend 23 times that, or $723 million.
  We can spend $34 million on treatment in demand in the U.S., or we 
can spend $723 million in the country of origin, that being Colombia 
what the discussion is about today.
  Every indicator in this Rand report that was done in conjunction with 
the Department of Defense and the office of National Drug Control 
Policy points to the value of treatment on demand. Even in an OPED in 
1998 General McCaffrey wrote, it is a sad time when the number of 
incarcerated Americans exceeds the active duty strength of the Armed 
Forces.

                              {time}  1600

  ``A Rand Corporation,'' this is still General McCaffrey's quote, ``a 
Rand Corporation study in 1994 found that increasing drug treatment was 
the single most effective way to reduce domestic drug consumption.''
  So how can we have a bill that addresses an emergency in our country 
where we have 23 times more effectiveness by addressing demand in our 
country has all of its emphasis on eradication of the coca leaf in 
another country. Maybe it is important for us to go that route, too.
  But we have so much uncertainty about the success of the $1.7 billion 
that we are allocating to Plan Colombia, and so much certainty about 
the effectiveness of treatment on demand that it is hard to understand 
this legislation.
  Let me say that we have a treatment gap in this country, and that is 
part of the emergency. There are 5\1/2\ million substance abusers in 
the United States. Of that, 2 million receive treatment; 3\1/2\ million 
do not.
  In an amendment that I wanted to offer that I offered in committee 
for $1.3 billion to be used for prevention, for treatment on demand, 
for prevention program geared to our youth, we would have been able to 
meet the needs of 303 substance abusers in this country, 303, only one-
tenth of the problem. I was defeated in committee.
  Trying a more modest approach in the Committee on Rules, I put forth 
a $600 million treatment-on-demand amendment and was not given the 
opportunity to bring that amendment to the floor.
  So I offer this modest cut of $51 million from the funding for the 
push into southern Colombia and to emphasize, as I say, the improper 
emphasis of this bill.
  We all agree that President Pastrana is a great and courageous person 
and deserves our help. I want to make that point. But I think this is 
the wrong way to go.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks 
of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), which will come later, 
about some other issues in the bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to oppose the amendment by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who is the ranking member of 
the subcommittee.
  It is my privilege to serve on the subcommittee with the gentleman 
from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi), and I very much admire their work and the total 
responsibility we have for foreign operations.
  Unfortunately, I could not disagree more with the position that the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has on this specific item that 
her amendment addresses itself to. I could not disagree more strongly.
  She would strike that money that allows us to provide for the 
training of those Colombian troops who will be putting forth the effort 
to cut off this flow of coca leaves to the United States. I cannot 
really understand why she would even consider such an action.
  In the final analysis, this amendment is little more than a mini-
amendment of the Obey amendment that was before us a short time ago. 
The gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), as well as the Speaker, 
expressed themselves eloquently and touched every point that needs to 
be made here.
  The government of Colombia is doing their very best to put together a 
package that essentially would stop the production of coca leaves in 
Colombia that eventually comes into the United States. That flow 
provides 90 percent of the coca available in the United States. To not 
be willing to cooperate with that effort on the part of the government 
of Colombia is sort of a bit of insanity.
  I cannot understand why the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) 
in this case, for some reason, chooses to eliminate the money for the 
training itself. It is a fundamental pillar of that effort. It is the 
essence of the American effort. Because of that, I would ask that the 
House consider this last vote and repeat it on the final question 
regarding the Pelosi amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not need any reminders from anyone about what 
illicit drugs do to people in this country. My wife has been a speech 
therapist. She has been a social worker. She has dealt with people in 
Saint Elizabeth's and at Georgetown Hospital. She has seen crack babies 
close up. Once one has seen that, one does not need any lectures about 
what stupid use of drugs will do in this society. The issue is how we 
deal with that problem.
  What I think the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is simply 
saying to my colleagues is that we think that they are putting all of 
their eggs in one basket and that the evidence shows it is the wrong 
basket.
  We have 3\1/2\ million people in this country who are in severe need 
of drug treatment and yet cannot get it because of inadequate programs 
to provide that treatment. We are currently able to provide only 37 
percent of the estimated 5.7 million Americans who need treatment with 
the treatment that they need.
  Yet, if we look at an evaluation done by the Substance Abuse and 
Mental Health Administration, and it is cited on page 97 of the 
committee report, we see ``A five-year evaluation of SAMHSA substance 
abuse treatment

[[Page H1525]]

 services found treatment has significant and lasting benefits. 
Patients receiving treatment reported 50 percent decrease in drug and 
alcohol use 1 year after completing treatment, 53 percent decrease in 
alcohol/drug related medical visits, 43 percent decrease in criminal 
activity, 56 percent decrease in sexual encounters for money or drugs, 
51 percent decrease in sexual encounters with an injection drug user, 
43 percent decrease in homelessness, and a 19 percent increase in 
employment.''
  That is what the evidence shows one can get if one puts money in drug 
treatment. Yet the leadership of this House and the Committee on Rules, 
which is its agent, denied the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) 
the opportunity to offer an amendment to put one dime of additional 
money into drug treatment and drug prevention.
  Then my colleagues have got the gall to come here and ask her why she 
offers this amendment. I will tell them why she offers this amendment. 
It is the only way she can get a discussion of the issue on the floor. 
We tried not to eliminate a dime for Colombia.
  All we asked our colleagues to do is to delay $522 million that we 
thought was going to get us in a war that we did not know how to get 
out of, and recognize the Rand study, which says that we get 34 more 
times bang for the buck if we put the money where she wanted to put it 
as opposed to where the House decided to put it.
  So if my colleagues want to know why this amendment is here, it is 
because it is the only way that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) can get an opportunity to ask them again and again why, if they 
are willing to fight the drug war a thousand miles from here, why are 
they not willing to fight it in their own backyard by increasing drug 
treatment. That is where the money ought to go.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me start off by explaining the amendment cuts a 
heart off the entire push, in my opinion, into Colombia.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama will suspend. The 
gentleman's microphone has not been working.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, maybe I will try the other one on the 
Democratic side.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. 
Seriously, this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The microphone of the 
gentleman from Alabama is on.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment really cuts the heart out 
of the entire program of Plan Colombia because it would prohibit the 
money to train the counternarcotics pavilion. I think the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi) recognizes that. Without this training 
money, there is no reason for the rest of the package. I think the 
gentlewoman recognizes that.
  But the primary reason I rise, other than in nonsupport of the 
gentlewoman's amendment, is to correct some perception that may have 
come from her remarks and the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) about our concern about drug prevention and abuse programs 
in this country.
  Let me remind my colleagues that we have appropriated more than $10 
billion towards this program. The President of the United States has 
come to us and said, in addition to that money, there is an emergency 
problem in interdiction. He has said, in effect, that we have 
appropriated a sufficient amount of money for drug prevention and abuse 
programs in this country.
  So let us not create a perception that this Congress, both sides of 
the aisle included, is ignoring the internal problem that we have, the 
domestic problem we have here in the United States.
  The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is absolutely correct in 
her assessment that the real problem of all of this lies in our own 
solving of our own programs here in the United States. But let me 
remind her and all of my colleagues that it is not because of a lack of 
financial resources, because since 1996, we have increased the programs 
by 35 percent. The President of the United States also runs our 
domestic programs. If he needs more money, all he has to do is ask, and 
we will fulfill his request for additional domestic concerns here in 
this country.
  So let us do not get this thing construed to the point that there is 
an indication that this Congress has not been willing to support our 
own domestic programs, because the fact remains we have increased it in 
the last 4 years more than 35 percent. It now exceeds more than $10 
billion per year.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, with great respect to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan), our distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, and with 
appreciation that we were able to work together to get the $10 billion 
into this account; however, I would just like to remind my colleagues 
that, although we have made progress in investing in this account, 37 
percent, only 37 percent of the estimated 5.7 million Americans in 
severe need of substance abuse treatment are taken care of, 37 percent.

                              {time}  1615

  Thirty-seven percent. So I just want to commend my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for bringing attention to 
this critical need in our country.
  It is very disappointing that she was not allowed to offer her 
amendment as she offered it into the committee, because I do believe 
that we need an aggressive drug control strategy. We all know that 
substance abuse is a critical and persistent problem facing every 
community in our Nation. It has an incredibly difficult impact, as we 
know, on our families, public safety, employment, productivity. And 
while we know treatment works, let us remember again that there are 3.6 
million people in severe need of substance abuse treatment that cannot 
get access to it. I see it all over the district. We must have better 
systems if we are to help those who need help today and as we reach out 
to millions of today's youth reaching a vulnerable age.
  I want to repeat it again, although the gentlewoman from California 
referred to the Rand Corporation study, which found that funds spent on 
domestic drug treatment were 23 times, 23 times, more effective than 
source country control, 11 times more effective than interdiction, and 
7 times more effective than law enforcement in reducing cocaine 
consumption. So the strategy that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) is talking about works. It is common sense and it is long 
overdue.
  I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for supporting the 
$10 billion, but we have not done nearly enough, and I would hope that 
we can support the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and direct 
these additional dollars to substance abuse control.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we need to focus on what we are talking about 
right now. We have heard a lot of good speeches, most of which we can 
all agree on, and that is the need for treatment, the need for 
rehabilitation, the need to do these sorts of things in the community. 
That is not what this amendment is about. This amendment is a straight 
cut.
  My friend from Wisconsin spoke about the problem not being taken care 
of in our back yard. We are talking about what is going on in the 
streets in front of the homes of thousands of Americans, millions of 
Americans, where these drug deals are going down. The supply needs to 
be cut. We need to go with both the supply side and the demand side.
  And now we have ourselves in a situation where a country is in 
trouble, the country is reaching out to the United States, Colombia is 
the oldest democracy, I think, in South America; and they are reaching 
out to the United States for assistance. They are going to accept our 
training; they are going to accept our resources and our assets; and 
this is very important.
  We go over and we bomb these other countries, Libya and all these 
places, because they are making weapons of mass destruction that might 
some day hurt Americans; they may some day be used on our friends. At 
the same time, we are turning our heads and our backs on what is really 
going on, and that is

[[Page H1526]]

this poison that is being created in Colombia and other countries in 
our hemisphere which is coming in and poisoning our kids and destroying 
their future.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said that everyone agreed with 
us on the need for more drug treatment. Then I would ask why did the 
gentleman vote for a rule that prevented us from being able to provide 
this drug treatment?
  Mr. SHAW. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say that I did 
not say that we agreed for the need for more. We agree that the 
arguments that have been made is that we do need to concentrate in this 
area. That is very important. And perhaps when we get to the regular 
type of appropriation bills, this would come about.
  But what we have right now is an emergency in Colombia that we need 
to address. This qualifies for an emergency in every way possible. And 
I can tell the gentleman, this particular bill came in with an open 
rule that opens it up to all of the areas that are before the House 
today, and I think that the minority was certainly handled very fairly 
in this regard.
  But now, let us get serious on the war against drugs in this country. 
Let us get serious. And this is a wonderful first step. Let us not show 
a diminution of our resolve by starting to cut in with all these 
amendments that are going to be put before the House this afternoon and 
tonight. Let us not fall into that trap. Let us examine each one 
exactly the way they are. If it is a cutting amendment, that cuts down 
on our war against drugs, let us just call it that. It is not moving 
this money someplace else.
  Whether my colleagues like the rule or they do not like the rule, the 
question is right before us very squarely, and that is are we going to 
cut the aid that we desperately need in order to continue the war 
against drugs as an ally of the Colombian government? It is as simple 
as that. Vote down this amendment.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is about the drugs in America that have devastated 
America, its families, its children, and its communities. If we have a 
supplemental before us, the first of the 21st century, and we do, that 
is funded by $1.7 billion tax dollars to give to Colombia, the country 
that sends 90 percent of the cocaine to this country, that sends over 
60 percent of the heroin to this country, we are all saying, yes, we 
must do something with that supply, we must decrease that supply, but 
what we are also saying is that all those tons of cocaine and heroin 
that are in the American communities now, that we must in this 
supplemental, the first of the 21st century, allow money for treatment. 
Treatment on demand.
  Everyone who is addicted to drugs is not ready for treatment; but 
those who are ready for treatment on demand, we must make it available 
to them. In my district there is a 6-month waiting list for an addicted 
person who wants treatment today, not 6 months from now, when their 
families are more deteriorated, when the community is more 
deteriorated. Today, on demand.
  So what we asked in committee with the Pelosi amendment, and what we 
are asking today, a small drop in the bucket, $57 million out of a $1.7 
billion appropriation to Colombia, is to allow money for treatment so 
that those Americans can take care of their families and become 
citizens again of this society and pay taxes and raise their children. 
Is that too much to ask? I think not, Mr. Chairman.
  How can the gentleman on one hand we talk about a ``Plan Colombia'' 
that talks about supply and not do anything to eradicate the demand? It 
is not fair. It is not right. As leaders of this country, of the free 
world, the greatest country in the world, we need to stand up to what 
we believe in. Many of our constituents across this country, across all 
ethnic, racial, and gender lines are addicted. Does the gentleman not 
want them treated on demand when they finally decide in their life they 
have had enough?
  The Pelosi amendment is a small piece of what we need. We ought to be 
putting $1.7 billion into treatment, but the amendment before us only 
asks for $57 million. How can the gentleman be against $57 million. My 
colleagues have heard the figures already. I am not going to repeat 
them again. We all know people who are addicted, we know families and 
children that have been devastated by the drugs from Colombia. Let us 
do the right thing, Mr. Chairman.
  I strongly support the Pelosi amendment. We need to begin to provide 
funding for treatment for those people who have finally decided in 
their life that they have had enough.
  It was said earlier that we will have to attack drugs on all bases, 
and we do. On the supply side, I agree totally, let us give them that 
money, but it is unconscionable that we will not at the same time in 
this bill, when we have a surplus in our government, supply money for 
treatment. It is the right thing to do, and I hope my colleagues will 
stand up and do the right thing.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is about the drugs in America that have devastated 
this country, its families, its children, and its communities. We have 
a supplemental before us, the first of the 21st century, and we propose 
to fund $1.7 billion in tax dollars in economic aid to Colombia. 
Columbia sends 90 percent of the cocaine to this country; it sends over 
60 percent of the heroin to this country. We all agree, we must do 
something to decrease that supply. It is imperative that we decrease 
that supply, but we must also agree, as we consider this supplemental 
appropriation bill, the first in the 21st century, to reinforce our 
commitment to drug treatment and prevention. We exist in a culture that 
makes drugs available on demand. We must provide the funds to give 
treatment on demand.
  Everyone who is addicted to drugs is not ready for treatment; but 
those who are ready for treatment on demand must have access to 
treatment programs. In my district there is a 6-month waiting list for 
an addicted person who wants treatment today--not 6 months from now--
when their families have deteriorated, when their community has 
deteriorated. They need access now, today, on demand.
  What we asked in committee with the Pelosi amendment, and what we are 
asking today, is a small drop in the bucket, $57 million out of a $1.7 
billion appropriation to Colombia, to allow money for treatment so 
troubled Americans can take care of their families and become citizens 
again of this society, pay taxes and raise their children. Is that too 
much to ask? I think not, Mr. Chairman.
  How can the gentleman talk about a ``Plan Colombia'' that talks about 
supply and not do anything to eradicate the demand? It is not fair. It 
is not right. As leaders of this country, of the free world, the 
greatest country in the world, we need to stand up for what we believe 
in. Many of our constituents across this country, across all ethnic, 
racial, and gender lines are addicted. Does the gentleman not want them 
treated on demand when they finally decide in their life they have had 
enough?
  The Pelosi amendment is a small piece of what we need. We ought to be 
putting $1.7 billion into treatment, but the amendment before us only 
asks for $57 million. How can the gentleman be against $57 million? My 
colleagues have heard the figures already. I am not going to repeat 
them again. We all know people who are addicted. We know families and 
children that have been devastated by the drugs from Colombia. Let us 
do the right thing, Mr. Chairman.
  I strongly support the Pelosi amendment. We need to begin to provide 
funding for treatment for those people who have finally decided in 
their life that they are sick and tired of being sick and tired.
  It was said earlier that we will have to attack drugs on all bases, 
and we must. On the supply side, I agree totally. Let us give them that 
money, but it is unconscionable that we will not at the same time in 
this bill, when we have a budget surplus in our government, provide 
more money for treatment. It is the right thing to do, and I hope my 
colleagues will stand up and do the right thing.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to address my colleagues on a personal 
note. Drugs have hurt many of us, our own families, including my own, 
including my own son.
  I have two beautiful daughters. My youngest scored 1600 on her SATs. 
She is a National Merit Scholar. And my oldest one helped to start a 
club of some 35 high school kids that do not drink; they do not smoke; 
they do not do drugs, and it is a marvelous group to watch. But it is 
called family. I have

[[Page H1527]]

a son who is 30 years old who got involved using drugs in his early 
years, and he went through drug treatment. On a lieutenant's pay, it 
was not easy to put him through that treatment, so I understand where 
the gentlewoman is coming from.
  But then later on in life, when he was 30, he got caught selling 
marijuana that came across from Mexico. So we individually have a lot 
of pain with drugs. It has been devastating to our family having my son 
in the situation he is in, knowing that he could have had much better 
in life.
  So to my colleague I would say, is there enough money in drug 
treatment? No. I do not disagree with the gentlewoman. But it is a 
series of a war. We have not really had a war on drugs in this country, 
with Republicans or Democrats, because if we did, we would stop them at 
the border. The Noriegas of the world, we would not only throw in jail 
but we would stand them up in exhibition to the world to let the world 
know we are not going to stand for those drugs coming in. Our border 
patrols would stop the money that is coming in from China on our cargo 
ships. And then on the streets, if someone gets caught selling drugs, 
that person needs to know they are going to go to jail, and they are 
going to go to jail for a long time, including my own son, who I love 
very much.
  And then if someone does get hooked on drugs, and thousands of our 
children have, and we heard the Speaker say that 52,000 people die 
every year in our country from drugs, then, yes, we treat that. I think 
we do not have an adequate amount, but we do have it, and we need to 
spread out the money on all of these endeavors. I would rather have my 
son or my daughters, if I knew they were going to get the mumps or the 
measles, I would rather prevent them from getting the mumps or the 
measles in the first place, as I would like to stop our children from 
getting drugs. So we need to spread out the money across the gambit. I 
think it is difficult to do that when we say, well, we need more money 
here, we need more money there. I agree we need more money everywhere 
on this to really have a war on drugs.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is not wrong. I had a very 
difficult time voting against his amendment. Actually, in the 
committee, I voted for it, because I do not know in my own mind, having 
not supported Haiti, and I know that we put $2.4 billion in there and I 
look at Haiti today, and I look at Somalia, so I do not know if 
Colombia has the infrastructure to handle the money that we give them 
or if it will end up in Las Vegas, and so I struggle with that very 
much.
  But I would ask my colleagues not to berate saying, well, one side or 
the other does not want to give money for treatment. I think when we 
lay out the whole plan and the whole war, it is very, very important 
for us to come together on this.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise on this occasion to oppose the amendment 
introduced by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), which calls 
for the resumption of live fire at the range in Vieques. The earlier 
amendment by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) aimed to 
eliminate the $40 million appropriation for economic initiatives.
  The Fowler amendment is an attempt to derail the agreement reached by 
the Secretary of the Navy, the administration, and the Governor of 
Puerto Rico this past January 31 that was approved by the Secretary of 
Defense, the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations and the National Security 
Council, among others. The agreement has also been endorsed by the 
Puerto Rico legislature, the Mayor of Vieques and by myself, the only 
elected representative of the nearly 4 million disenfranchised American 
citizens in Puerto Rico.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this shortsighted amendment that aims 
to undo the agreement and will actually prevent the use of the range, 
thus undermining military readiness. Both the Navy and the Marine Corps 
have indicated that the resumption of bombing with inert ordnance for 
the next 3 years is an acceptable solution to their training needs.

                              {time}  1630

  They also assert that this process provides the best opportunity to 
correct past inequities in their relations with the 9,300 citizens in 
the island municipality.
  There is a letter from the Department of Navy dated March 29 directed 
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the 
committee, where the Department of the Navy says, ``We have been 
engaged in a multi-agency effort to resolve the Vieques situation since 
April 18, 1999. The proposed amendment makes two significant changes to 
the Administration's proposed statutory language, either one of which 
will likely worsen the situation on Vieques.''
  The Secretary of the Navy goes further on to say, ``To eliminate 
either of them would seriously undercut the essence of the agreement. 
In that event, the Governor and the citizens of Puerto Rico could 
consider this to be an abrogation of the President's agreement. The 
cooperation of the Government of Puerto Rico is crucial to resuming the 
safe operational use of the range. Without safe access to the range, 
the Navy and Marine Corps will have to continue to conduct training, 
which falls short of the Navy's needs, at other sites, a requirement 
that the President intended to remedy with his Directives.''
  As we meet in this Chamber today, I am reminded of the powerlessness 
of Puerto Rico's political situation and my lack of vote in matters and 
decisions that impacts our daily lives. I will not be able to vote on 
this amendment today.
  I am firmly convinced that the situation that we faced on April 19, 
1999, was underscored by the tragic death of David Sanes Rodriguez that 
would not have happened anywhere else in the United States.
  The agreement that was reached by the President, the Department of 
Defense, and the government of Puerto Rico is the best opportunity to 
achieve peace and justice for the American citizens in Vieques. The 
presidential directive calls for a referendum, a process that enables 
the people who are directly impacted by the bombing and who are 
disenfranchised American citizens the only opportunity to express their 
opinion through the democratic process.
  I believe that the controversy over Vieques has been a test of our 
Nation's resolve to assure democratic rights for all Americans. The 
agreement ensures the national security and the military readiness 
requirements are balanced with the rights, the health, the safety, and 
welfare of American citizens, while taking into account their 
substantial contributions to the defense.
  I want to highlight the fact that both candidates for President 
support the agreement. Governor Bush of Texas has made it clear that he 
will implement this agreement if elected. I have a copy of his 
statement which he made in Virginia. Vice President Gore has also 
announced that he will also enforce the President's directives.
  I urge all of my colleagues to reject any effort to bar a fair 
solution that is in the best interest of the American citizens in 
Vieques and in the best interest of the naval defense and the national 
defense of this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the above-mentioned letter:

                                           Department of the Navy,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                    Washington, DC, 29 March 2000.
     Hon. C.W. Bill Young,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express the grave 
     concern of the Department of the Navy with the proposed 
     amendment to H.R. 3908 concerning the economic assistance 
     program on the Island of Vieques, Puerto Rico.
       We have been engaged in a multi agency effort to resolve 
     the Vieques situation since April 19, 1999. The proposed 
     amendment makes two significant changes to the 
     Administration's proposed statutory language, either one of 
     which will likely worsen the situation on Vieques. Those 
     changes are (1) deletion of the ability to spend any of the 
     funds for support of the proposed referendum on Vieques; and 
     (2) a prohibition on expenditure of any of the funds for 
     purposes enumerated in the bill until the President certifies 
     to the Congress, among other things, that live fire training 
     has resumed on the Vieques range.
       Both the referendum and training with inert ordnance are 
     key components of the agreement reached by the President with 
     the Governor of Puerto Rico that was memorialized in two 
     Directives issued by the President on January 25, 2000. To 
     eliminate either

[[Page H1528]]

     of them would seriously undercut the essence of the 
     agreement. In that event, the Governor and the citizens of 
     Puerto Rico could consider this to be an abrogation of the 
     President's agreement. The cooperation of the Government of 
     Puerto Rico is crucial to resuming the safe operational use 
     of the range. Without safe access to the range, the Navy and 
     Marine Corps will have to continue to conduct training, which 
     falls short of the Navy's needs, at other sites, a 
     requirement that the President intended to remedy with his 
     Directives.
       While the President's agreement with the Governor does not 
     guarantee the resumption of training with live ordnance, it 
     does present the most substantive possibility that we can 
     achieve that end. The agreement allows us to address 
     positively and in a constructive way both the legitimate 
     concerns of the citizens of Vieques and the critical national 
     security/national defense mission of the Navy and the Marine 
     Corps. This includes a multiplicity of training opportunities 
     on the Vieques range and the use of live ordnance.
       The Department of the Navy strongly believes that the 
     negotiated agreement represents the best opportunity for the 
     Navy to resume crucial training on the Vieques range.
       We strongly oppose this amendment to H.R. 3908.
       A similar letter has been sent to Congressman Obey. As 
     always, if I can be of any further assistance, please let me 
     know.
           Sincerely,
                                           Jerry MacArthur Hultin,
                                                           Acting.

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). I know it is a protest 
amendment with regard to what she wanted to offer. But it does beg the 
question a little bit that has not been discussed a lot out here today, 
and that is where we are in this so-called ``war on drugs'' in terms of 
trying to limit the damage that is there.
  I am for drug treatment. I do not know anybody here who is not. But 
in the war, the treating the wounded does not win the war. It is 
something my colleagues want to do and I want to do.
  I also know that many of the drug treatment programs that I have 
supported over the years have not been shown to be as effective as we 
would like, and there are a lot of people who are on drugs who do not 
come forward and seek treatment. So it is a very difficult area, one we 
need to take a lot of time and energy with and I hope this Congress 
will try to sort out those programs that work from those that do not 
and then provide the right amount of funding for them.
  On the other hand, what we are dealing with in this bill is really 
critical to what is going on in the streets. And what I find to be very 
difficult for a lot of Americans today to understand because we do not 
hear as much about it, our other leadership nationally has not talked 
much about it lately, is the fact that even though we may show 
statistics showing drug use in the country generally trending down, 
teen drug use is up, particularly heroin and cocaine and even 
marijuana.
  From 1992 to 1998, the last full statistics that I have, as chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Crime, we show use among 12- to 17-year-olds up 
120 percent in that period of time, and that is for all drugs, 27 
percent in 1998 alone.
  But I think the most startling statistic of all is that with heroin. 
I want to bring that up particularly because heroin is produced in 
Colombia. In fact, in the eastern half of the United States, almost the 
entire heroin supply coming into this country is from Colombia; and a 
lot of the resources we have and the efforts being made in this 
legislation today are to try to stop that from happening, from Colombia 
producing it and from it coming our way.
  There has been among 12- to 17-year-olds, and I want my colleagues to 
hear this number now, from 1992 to 1998, an increase in drug use, 
heroin use, specific heroin use, among 12- to 17-year-olds of 875 
percent, an absolutely astounding number.
  It strikes me that when we are talking about trying to do what we 
want to do to solve the problem of drug use in this country, we do not 
do it by simple treatment; and we have to go to the source country. The 
most efficient use of our dollars in any kind of effort on the supply 
side which gets at winning a war is in the country where it is being 
produced.
  We have been extraordinarily effective with our work with Bolivia. 
They now have a program under way down there that many of us believe 
will virtually stop the growth of coca plants, which has been a very 
big crop-producing country for us down there. They have gone to 
alternative crops. We have got a lot of cooperation with them. It has 
been a very positive program.
  In Peru, we had a couple years where we did really well there. We are 
not doing as well now. But that was when we had an aggressive program, 
cooperating with the president of that country, to shoot down drug 
planes flying raw coca to Colombia from Peru. There has now not been as 
much support from the United States available, and that program has not 
done as well.
  In Colombia, where the problem is the greatest, is where the FARC and 
the revolutionaries are right now controlling about a third of the 
country, protecting the drug lords, and getting money in return for 
that to allow their operations to continue.
  This legislation we have before us today that the gentlewoman wants 
to cut money from is designed to allow us to stop this activity from 
going on so that we can, the Colombians in particular themselves, can 
go in and destroy the coca crops, destroy the drug lords' operations, 
and be able to destroy the heroin produce and poppy plants that are 
growing up in the mountains with the helicopters and the other 
equipment in this legislation.
  If we do not do that, we are going to continue to see an enormously 
greater supply of heroin, in particular, and cocaine coming out of 
Colombia to this country, particularly the eastern half. We are going 
to have more teenagers getting onto these drugs than we do today, and 
we are going to see the numbers go up.
  We cannot win the war by treatment alone, and we cannot win by 
education alone. It is not one thing alone. But our police officers, 
our schools, our professionals in the drug counseling area are swamped 
in many of our cities and communities today with the shear quantity 
that is coming in and very little discussion about it.
  We have not gained the kind of support in this Congress or from this 
administration over the last couple of years that this effort deserves 
or requires.
  Today we have a chance to do something about that with regard to 
Colombia. We need to do that. We need to help them in their efforts to 
overcome the revolutionaries that are supporting the drug lords and 
being supported by them, and the only way to do that is to pass this 
bill today.
  This amendment should be defeated because it cuts a vital amount of 
money out of that portion of this bill which goes toward that effort. I 
urge its defeat.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pelosi amendment. It is 
unfortunate that this House is not being given the opportunity to have 
a full debate about the very important aspects of drug treatment and 
drug prevention. I believe that it was a sorry mistake when her 
amendment was not allowed to come before this body.
  The only reason this issue is pending before the House is because we 
have in this emergency supplemental a $1.7 billion appropriation for 
intervention in Colombia. That would lead us to believe that this 
Congress, at least, understands that the drug problem that we face here 
in America is very serious. But what is wrong is that we have 
undertaken to look at this problem as though it is only a problem from 
the source and the supply.
  We have a serious problem here with respect to a control of the 
demand. And we know that all the literature tells us that if we have 
adequate treatment programs for people who even want treatment that 
they can be helped.
  If we have truly the authority of this House to take full account of 
emergency supplemental appropriations, there is no justification for 
our not including in this emergency, if we are going to include the 
supply end of a Colombia appropriation, by not taking into account also 
the needed funds that we could use for an enhanced drug treatment 
program. It goes together. Supply and demand cannot be separated.

[[Page H1529]]

  We look at the appropriations that are going to Colombia, $1.7 
billion is going to purchase 60-some-odd helicopters. I serve on the 
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources as 
the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform. We had 
hearings on this matter and we were told that, from the viewpoint of 
the production of these helicopters, it is going to take years before 
they are in supply actually to Colombia and years more after that 
before the people there are going to be trained in order to use this 
equipment.
  The engagement of our military in this kind of activity, which is 
going to put them in harm's way, get us messed up into a civil strife 
within that country, I think is a terrible mistake.
  But aside from that, this body is now considering an important issue, 
and that is drugs, drug abuse in our country; and we are pretending as 
though this is only a supply issue and that, if we spend a billion 
dollars in Colombia, it will correct the problem. It will not.
  I had the opportunity with my subcommittee to travel to Colombia 
about a year ago. It is a country that has enormous problems of 
poverty, corruption, lack of control of its own territory. Forty 
percent of Colombia is under the control of the rebels.
  There is no possibility that our intervention of 60-plus helicopters 
is going to be able to control that situation. If we had alternate 
crops for the farmers there to produce to get into the market, the 
biggest problem is infrastructure, how would they get it from their 
farms into the market. There is none out in the countryside.
  The lack of control by Mr. Pastrana over his country is absolutely 
sad. I have the greatest admiration for Mr. Pastrana. I met him and 
talked with him. I understand his problem. But there is no way that $1 
billion of our taxpayers' money is going to solve this problem for him.
  However, if we are going to do it, at the very minimum we ought to be 
looking at this as a balanced issue. And the issue is, if it is going 
to take 5 years for those helicopters to actually be delivered, if we 
appropriated today $600 million or a billion dollars for drug treatment 
tomorrow, those addicts and victims out there of heroin and cocaine 
addiction will have treatment. They are waiting in line now. We are 
told that only 50 percent of those that actually come to a center 
wanting treatment are actually provided any sort of help.
  So this country is in real distress. And so I counter with the 
argument that, if we are truly dealing with emergency and if we are 
going to attack the supply issue as an emergency subject matter, there 
is no justification for our not including as part of that emergency an 
augmented treatment program to help the people in this country get rid 
of this addiction and cut down on the demand. I think that is the 
legitimate way to go.
  I hope that the Pelosi amendment will be approved.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, for several years now the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Operations and 
Human Rights, and I, as chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, 
and the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and the gentleman 
from Florida (Chairman Mica) and a number of others have been working 
trying to get helicopters and other equipment down to the Colombian 
National Police and the military in Colombia so they can adequately 
defend that country against the FARC guerillas, who are, and I hope my 
colleagues will get this, are getting as much as $100 million a month 
from the drug cartel. That is a billion dollars a year.
  Now, what happens if we do not do anything? What happens if we do not 
do what the President has suggested? And the President is a late-comer 
to this fight. I am very happy that he is on board with this $1.3 
billion, but it is coming rather late. What happens if that money does 
not get down there?
  The FARC guerillas who have been trained by the Cubans, who are 
Marxist oriented, they may very well take over that country. We may 
have a narcoguerilla government running Colombia. There will be no 
impediment to the heroin and the cocaine coming out of that country 
into the United States.
  Ninety percent of the cocaine coming into America comes from 
Colombia. Sixty-five percent of the heroin coming into the United 
States comes from Colombia. One out of seven people, according to 
officials in Baltimore, are heroin addicts.

                              {time}  1645

  We have an absolute epidemic. Yes, we need to deal with education and 
rehabilitation and a lot of other things. But we have got to go to the 
source and take on these guerillas who are being supported by the drug 
dealers down there, the drug cartels, because if we do not, they are 
going to have a sanctuary from which we will not be able to do anything 
to them.
  Now, my feeling is that the problem may get so big if we do not deal 
with it right now that we will be forced to send American troops in 
there to deal with it. I do not want that to happen. I do not want 
American young men and women fighting in the jungles of Colombia with 
the drug cartel and the drug guerillas. That could very well happen. 
They now have 20 to 30,000 people in that army. Many of those people, 
those combatants have been forced into being involved, and they are 
going to have more because of the tremendous amounts of money that they 
are getting from the drug cartel.
  Let me just tell my colleagues what they are doing. The day before 
yesterday, there was a police outpost in Vigia del Fuerte. I hope my 
colleagues on the minority side will get this. For 36 hours they held 
off the FARC guerillas who attacked them. After 36 hours, after the 
Colombian National Police ran out of ammunition, they came in and they 
hacked them to death, 26 people, with machetes; they castrated the men; 
they chopped off the heads of the mayor and the head of the Colombian 
National Police there; they put them on spikes in the middle of the 
town as a warning to anybody that gets in the way of the FARC guerillas 
down there.
  The people are terrified of the FARC guerillas. As a result, a lot of 
people, including people in the Colombian National Police and the 
military, are scared to death of them. They know if they are captured, 
they are going to be chopped into pieces. They took one man who was in 
the Colombian National Police, they hacked his wife and child to death 
in front of him and then they tortured him to death. These are the kind 
of people we are dealing with.
  Either we give the Colombian government and the Colombian National 
Police and the Colombian military the wherewithal to fight these people 
or they are going to take over that country in all probability. If that 
happens, what do we do? Do we let them flood this country with heroin 
and cocaine with impunity because we know how porous our borders are? 
No, I think what will happen then is we will have to get directly 
involved militarily, and that is something none of us wants.
  There is an old commercial in Indianapolis that shows a guy with a 
Fram oil filter saying, ``You can pay me now or you can pay me later.'' 
The implication is that if you do not use a Fram oil filter, and this 
is not a commercial, that the engine is going to go bad on you and you 
are going to have to buy a whole new engine.
  I am saying to my colleagues today, we can either deal with the 
problem today as the President has now seen fit to do and give them 
this $1.3 billion or we can wait around another 4 or 5 years until the 
matter gets so bad that we have to send our lifeblood down there to 
fight these guerillas. I think it is better to do it now. It is the 
prudent thing to do.
  I urge my colleagues, not because the gentlewoman from California 
does not have a good heart and not because she is not making some sense 
but this is the time to send the money to Colombia to fight the 
guerillas and also to do the other things that need to be done as the 
time goes by, but fight the guerillas now, defeat them as they have in 
Peru and Bolivia and to make absolutely sure that we do not have to 
send our young people down there in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following material for the Record:

[[Page H1530]]

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                   Washington, DC, March 28, 2000.
     Re Support Assistance to Colombia
       Dear Colleague: I am writing to urge your support for the 
     Administration's proposed assistance package for Colombia in 
     the Supplemental Appropriations bill. Colombia's President 
     Pastrana has taken bold action in his effort to deal with the 
     country's drug production and its civil conflict. He has 
     requested the assistance and the Administration has proposed 
     that we provide it. President Pastrana is a friend of the 
     U.S., he is taking action to our country's benefit, and we 
     should provide that aid.
       Helping Colombia is in our fundamental national interest. 
     The scourge of drugs is tearing at the fabric of our society, 
     and Colombia is ground zero in the fight against drugs: More 
     than 80% of the cocaine and much of the heroin that arrives 
     on our shores comes from or through Colombia. Colombia is 
     also a key regional state. It borders five other South and 
     Central American countries, whose 40 million citizens face 
     serious social, economic, and national security challenges.
       With Plan Colombia, President Pastrana has proposed a bold 
     agenda for addressing his country's inter-related challenges 
     of drug-trafficking, weak state institutions and a faltering 
     economy. The Government of Colombia estimates that $7.8 
     billion will be needed over the next three years to reverse 
     the country's role as the hemisphere hub for drugs, rebuild 
     its economy, and strengthen its democratic institutions. The 
     government had committed $4.5 billion to the Plan--including 
     $900 million in credits from international financial 
     institutions--and President Pastrana is asking the 
     international community for $3.3 billion in foreign 
     assistance, of which the Administration has proposed that we 
     provide $1.6 billion.
       The Administration's initiative is a balanced and 
     integrated approach that will help Colombia fight the drug 
     trade, foster peace, institute judicial reform, promote the 
     rule of law, improve human rights, assist the internally 
     displaced, and expand economic development.
       I know that some Members have reservations about human 
     rights conditions in Colombia, and I have been critical of 
     Colombia's human rights record. But this package is geared to 
     improve the conditions that have led to poor human rights. 
     For example, all assistance that is provided to Colombia's 
     forces will go to fully-vetted units. The military units 
     trained by the United States will not clash with insurgents 
     or para-militaries, unless these elements directly support 
     illicit drug cultivation and production. Indeed, the 
     cornerstone of President Pastrana's administration is the 
     search for a negotiated peace with Colombia's various 
     insurgent groups. I welcome the Administration's statements 
     that Colombia's insurgency problem must ultimately be 
     resolved through negotiation, and not military action, and 
     this view will guide the United States approach to 
     implementing this assistance package.
       To help stanch the flow of drugs to the U.S., to help a key 
     neighbor and to help preserve stability in our hemisphere, I 
     urge you to join me in supporting the Colombia assistance 
     package.
           Most Cordially,
                                                       Tom Lantos,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____


              [From the Los Angeles Times, March 27, 2000]

                     Congress Must Act on Colombia

       Last September Colombian President Andres Pastrana 
     presented the White House a comprehensive plan intended to 
     rescue his country from the violence of drug lords, 
     guerrillas and paramilitary forces. Included were programs 
     for economic development, democratic institution-building, 
     judicial reform, human rights protections and peace 
     negotiations.
       Pastrana's approach has been well received in the White 
     House and, for the most part, in Congress. There is a 
     consensus in Washington that Colombia and its problems are an 
     important issue for the United States. There is also a sense 
     that the United States can work with Pastrana, though the 
     White House must assure that no U.S. military personnel are 
     drawn into combat.
       Yet despite the emergent consensus, the urgency of 
     Pastrana's plan has not, so far, moved Congress to act 
     decisively. The negotiations on when and how to deliver a 
     $1.3-billion military aid package proposed by the White House 
     have been bouncing from door to door in Congress, never 
     reaching the House or Senate floors, and the delays are 
     dangerous.
       A major South American power, Colombia faces the often 
     indistinguishable problems of drugs and insurrection that 
     demand prompt action. Cocaine coming from the highlands has 
     flooded the United States for years despite past U.S.-
     supported eradication efforts. Coca cultivation is estimated 
     to have increased 140% in the past five years.
       In Colombia, drugs beget violence. About 35,000 people have 
     been killed in drug-related violence in the past decade, and 
     more than a million people have been driven from their homes. 
     Under these circumstances, the White House and Congress 
     should be justifiably concerned.
       The U.S. proposal anticipates a two-year program of 
     support, and the problems of Colombia cannot be resolved in 
     that short period. The White House's benchmarks of success--
     diminution of violence and coca production and a strengthened 
     government in Bogota--over the period should be closely 
     monitored by Congress.
       What Colombia needs is decisive and prompt action. Congress 
     should move now to deliver the arms, equipment and other 
     elements of the program to suppress lawlessness in the 
     countryside. At stake is proliferation of the cocaine plague 
     and potential collapse of one of Latin America's proudest 
     countries.
                                  ____


               [From the New York Times, March 28, 2000]

             Rebel Attacks on 2 Colombian Villages Kill 30

       Bogota, Colombia, March 27, (AP).--Fierce guerrilla attacks 
     on two northern fishing towns killed at least 30 people 
     during the weekend, including 24 police officers, a mayor, 
     and two children, officials said.
       At least seven police officers were taken prisoner by the 
     rebel Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, Colombia's 
     largest leftist insurgency, officials said. Four other 
     officers were missing.
       Troops regained control on Sunday night of Vigia del 
     Fuerte--site of the worst clash--and found the riverfront 
     town of 1,200 in ruins.
       Rebel machine-gun fire and homemade missiles destroyed a 
     church, the mayor's office, the police barracks, the 
     telephone company and 10 houses near the main plaza in the 
     town, near the border with Panama.
       Twenty-one police officers died trying to repel the 36-hour 
     barrage, which began on Saturday. Six civilians also died, 
     including the mayor, Pastor Perea, and two children, the 
     Antioquia state government reported.
       ``It was a merciless attack,'' Fernando Aristizabal, a top 
     state official told Colombia's Caracol Radio.
       The rebels also hit Bojaya, a nearby town in neighboring 
     Choco State, where, Mr. Aristizabal reported, three police 
     officers were killed.
       Rebel attacks on rural towns and remote military 
     installations are continuing despite peace talks with the 
     government of President Andres Pastrana. The two are 
     negotiating without a cease-fire.
       The rebels are also suspected of setting off a car bomb on 
     Sunday that killed a police cadet and injured 16 civilians in 
     a crowded market in Girardot, a popular tourist spot 60 miles 
     south of Bogota.

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong 
support of the Pelosi amendment. I also want to thank her for offering 
this amendment so we would have an opportunity to discuss the entire 
drug problem in our country.
  I am very disturbed that we have seen fit that we would address this 
problem by sending $1.7 billion to Colombia along with the helicopters 
and along with the advisers in a country the size almost of California 
and believe that we are going to have an impact.
  We have been on this interdiction bandwagon now for over 20 years. We 
have spent $250 billion. We have spent it in Panama. We have spent it 
spraying paraquat on drugs in Mexico. We had the Florida interdiction 
program. We had the Andean strategy program. We had the invasion of 
Panama. We got rid of Noriega, but we did not get rid of the drug 
dealers or the drug problem. We had the Peruvian shootdown policy, and 
now we have President Clinton's eradication program which is the 
largest herbicide spraying program in the world.
  What is the result? The heroin and cocaine on the streets of America 
is purer and in more plentiful supply, and the price continues to drop. 
What does that tell us? That these programs have not been effective. 
And the price has continued to drop in spite of the fact that they now 
have to avoid being shot down, in spite of the fact that they have to 
buy bigger and faster boats, in spite of the fact that they buy 
disposable airplanes and disposable boats. The cost keeps dropping.
  It says something about the effectiveness of people trying to drive 
up the cost of doing business. What the drug lords understand is this 
is simply the cost of doing business. Whether you are corrupting a 
border guard, whether you are corrupting a Colombian police member, 
whether you are throwing in with the Colombian police to create a 
paramilitary to fight the guerillas, or you are throwing in with the 
guerillas that is just the cost of doing business.
  If you really want to stick it to the guerillas, if you really want 
to stick it to the drug lords, what you do is you dry up their market. 
You take away

[[Page H1531]]

the market. You take away the market by treatment and education. We 
have conquered some of the most serious problems in this country, 
intractable problems we thought, with education. But on this one, we 
fall faint, because we do not think we are being strong if we deal with 
education.
  We know that when women come into the women, infants, and children 
program if they are smoking or they are taking drugs, after they talk 
to a doctor about their pregnancy and they get the connection between 
their body and the fetus's body and the birth of a healthy baby, we 
know that we have a tremendous success in getting women to stop 
smoking, to stop taking drugs.
  What the gentlewoman from California is talking about is treatment on 
demand. You know how hard it is to get somebody to ask for treatment 
when they are addicted, those of us who have worked with addicts, those 
of us who have friends who have become addicts, those of us who have 
had family members? You know how hard it is to get them to turn around 
their life? You think you say, ``Come on, I want to take you to 
treatment,'' it does not work. You can take them over and over.
  But very often, fortunately, thank God, every now and then, somebody 
says, ``I'm ready for treatment.'' You know what happens in most cities 
when you say I am ready for treatment? You do not get treatment, you 
get a waiting list. You get a waiting list. Now we are telling a very 
sick person, who is deeply addicted, come back in 6 months, hang in 
there but come back in 6 months.
  Addiction. Do you know what addiction means? We see it played out 
every day. We used to see it played out in the criminal reporters 
because addicts died in the streets. But now we can read about it in 
the sports page. Athletes who have brilliant careers, millions of 
dollars, lose it because of addiction. We see a brilliant ballplayer 
like Darryl Strawberry who goes to treatment, works hard at it and for 
some reason has a moment of weakness that he cannot even explain, and 
he may have now finished out his baseball career.
  We see CEOs of companies who lose their companies because of 
addiction. They have beautiful families. They have a beautiful career, 
a beautiful future; they lose it. This is about addiction. This is 
about a terrible, terrible problem that confronts our entire society. 
We see people, performers, brilliant people, stage, music, pictures, 
great careers gone, die, overdose, take their lives. That is addiction.
  You are not going to solve that problem of addiction by going down 
into the Andean jungle and believe that by spending another $1.7 
billion, $250 billion, and no results. In fact, all of the evidence is 
that it is getting worse. It is getting worse. The market is better for 
them. They have shifted to where they go to do business. They go from 
one country to another. They shift the mode of transportation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. George Miller of California was allowed to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, as the gentlewoman 
from California pointed out, if you really want to effectively deal 
with this problem, you would go the treatment route. It is not because 
we say it. It is not because she says it. It is because the Rand 
Corporation who has spent a lot of our government money studying this 
to try to help us find a path to treat this says this is where you 
would go if you really want a bang for your dollar.
  It is not about giving up on the drug lords. It is not about 
prosecuting, but it is about once and for all deciding what is 
effective and is not. We now have 20 years of experience and $250 
billion of effort that tell us this does not work. Yet this is our 
approach.
  We can also scrutinize some of the drug treatment programs because 
some of them do not work, but we are so addicted to those because they 
look good when you are standing there with the school children and the 
police but we are not getting the results so maybe we can score that 
one. So if we really want to deal with this, we have got to think about 
whether or not we have got the commitment and the courage to deal with 
the demand and whether we can stay with it and start to offer people 
treatment instead of a waiting list, start to offer people hope that 
treatment will be there should they make that decision.
  There are others who will not make that decision. That is almost 
something that is almost impossible to deal with. But for those who are 
willing and have the courage to walk in and say I need help, I need 
treatment, what the gentlewoman from California was saying is we are 
here to help you and we can start to reduce that. We can start to 
reduce the market.
  We are throwing thousands and tens of thousands of people in jail for 
minor drug infractions and even when they are in jail we will not give 
them treatment. Where we have them 24 hours a day, we cannot find to 
give them treatment.
  We talk about triangulation. We are in between the left and the 
right, both of which are fostering the drug trade in Colombia, between 
the military and the guerrillas, between the paramilitary and the 
police. We are going to insert ourselves for $1.7 billion. Do we think 
we are going to bring home a solution for America? I do not think so.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I really appreciate the passion of my friend from California. Even 
when he is incomplete in his arguments, he certainly is moving. There 
is no question that we have to have a multifront war. It is a war and a 
cancer.
  I would have voted for a treatment amendment had that amendment been 
allowed. I am a cosponsor of the gentleman from Minnesota's bill to 
cover drug treatment. I am working in the Committee on Education and 
the Work Force on prevention programs.
  But let us not overstate the data on treatment and prevention 
programs, either. The data is mixed. The Rand study itself is mixed, 88 
percent recidivism. People get partially better, but treatment is a 
struggle. Drug courts are a struggle. Prevention programs are a 
struggle.
  We should be treating, and we have a massive problem in this country 
as we have locked up more kids and adults in our prisons and do not 
focus on making sure they get educated and they get in treatment 
programs. We absolutely have to deal with that. But the plain truth of 
the matter is our local police department, our local schools, our local 
treatment centers cannot handle the amount of new people coming in to 
drug addiction if we do not get it at the source and at the border as 
well.
  We have to have a comprehensive program. What we are dealing with 
today is a Colombian amendment. The reason we have not put in all these 
dollars into Colombia over the years is because we had a legitimate 
human rights objection to how their military was being handled and 
because drug money had gotten into the previous government of Colombia.
  We have been putting roughly $300 million into just the Colombian 
National Police and not into the rest of Colombia while we were putting 
$3.2 billion into treatment. We are behind in Colombia.
  Where we were putting the effort in Peru and Bolivia, we have had 
progress. The facts are real simple. In 1992, which may just be a 
happenstance date, 1992, 1993, two things happened in this country. 
One, we relaxed our attitudes on Just Say No but the other thing is we 
cut our interdiction budgets. We had made progress steadily on drug 
abuse, on addiction, on treatment, on prevention. But when the drugs 
soared into this country, the prices on the street dropped again. We 
saw a direct correlation between price, demand, purity, and usage. In 
that period when we cut back, to get back to 1993 where we were, would 
take a 50 percent reduction right now. Interdiction is only part of 
this effort. But we have to work at the source.
  Let us go to some of the particulars in Colombia. First off, what is 
the clear, compelling national interest in Colombia versus other parts? 
We put $8 billion into Kosovo, and we did not have a clear compelling 
national interest.
  In Colombia, it is the longest standing democracy under siege, under 
siege not because there is a civil war, only 4 percent of the people 
support the FARC, there are that many drug dealers in our home States. 
It is under

[[Page H1532]]

siege because of money from this country fomenting a civil war in that 
country where people are dying.
  Drugs are the leading cause, drugs and alcohol, of every crime in my 
hometown and in every town in this country. Every police chief will 
tell you 70 to 85 percent of all crime, child abuse, domestic violence, 
everything is drug- and alcohol-related. It is our number one problem 
in this country.
  Thirdly, Colombia is our eighth largest supplier of oil. They are 
going to be a net importer in 3 years as their oil fields have come 
under pressure. Furthermore it is right now up against the Venezuelan 
border, our number one supplier of oil.

                              {time}  1700

  That is another compelling national interest.
  Furthermore, on top of that, they have moved into the Darien 
Peninsula in Panama, threatening potentially the Panama Canal, a vital 
trade link. Compelling national interests means drug crises on our 
streets; trade, energy, these are compelling national interests in our 
own hemisphere.
  In Colombia, it is not Vietnam. Mr. Chairman, 71 percent of the 
people say they trust most of the Catholic church, 69 percent the 
Colombian National Police, 68 percent the military, 4 percent the FARC. 
There is not a division of opinion. We have a stable democracy that 
even goes through transition of power. We have a national police and a 
military that is willing to fight. What we have been unwilling to do is 
give them the weapons and training with which to do that. It is only a 
part of the drug war, but it is a part.
  We have patriotic Colombians who are sacrificing their lives because 
of our abuse, and what they are asking is for us, for the first time 
since the Leahy rule no longer applies to their military, as they have 
cleaned house and as this President has relaxed with the new President. 
President Pastrana has reached out for peace with the FARC and been 
slapped on one cheek, turned his other cheek, slapped on the other 
cheek; turned his cheek and was slapped again.
  What we have are people who are saying, we will fight your drug war, 
part of it, in our country if you will at least provide some training 
and some dollars for helicopters, for our soldiers. We will clean up 
our human rights problems. We will reach out with peace overtures. But 
what we say is no, we are not going to help you unless you do it in 
exactly our way all the time.
  We know we need more money for drug treatment. We know we need more 
money for prevention. We know we need more money for interdiction at 
the borders, for our prisons, for education systems. But we also need 
more for interdiction, because we have not even given a drop compared 
to other things in the battle in Colombia where our cocaine in every 
one of our hometowns and States is coming from, where our heroin in 
every one of our hometowns and where our potent marijuana is coming 
from. And the least we can do, and I am particularly disappointed in 
some of my conservative friends who are being penny wise and pound 
foolish, this problem is not going to go away if we defeat the funding 
so necessary for this push in southern Colombia.
  Mr. Chairman, we must take action and defeat the Pelosi amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pelosi amendment, and I rise 
to express serious questions about this aid package.
  First, this is not the way to win the drug war at home. Over and over 
today it has been emphasized, every dollar spent here at home on drug 
treatment and prevention is 23 times more effective than a dollar spent 
on cutting production at the source.
  Second, this aid will not stop coca targeted for the United States. 
Coca is profitable and easy to grow. In Colombia it is grown by 
thousands of peasant farmers who have no other viable economic crop. 
Even if we were able to eradicate their coca crops, cultivation will 
only move to other regions in Colombia or in the Andean region.
  As long as Americans demand cocaine and heroin, the supply will be 
there. Drug-dealing is market-driven capitalism in its purist form.
  Third, Colombians do not support fumigation and crop eradication. It 
has been tried before in Colombia and failed. I am sure my colleagues 
know that in February, the governors and mayors of two provinces where 
the U.S. plans to target its crop eradication efforts asked the 
national government to suspend all aerial spraying. I am sure my 
colleagues also know that on March 12, the general director himself of 
the regional office of Colombian Ministry of the Environment for the 
Amazon suspended all aerial spraying of illicit crops in the southern 
departments of Putamayo and Caqueta, exactly where U.S. action is 
focused.
  Fumigation was suspended because small farms growing food crops are 
being poisoned, the water is being poisoned, the Amazon headwaters are 
being polluted, and the Amazon rain forest itself is being degraded. 
Yet, in this package today, the U.S. is proposing a significant 
escalation of crop eradication.
  Fourth, Colombian civil society has raised serious questions about 
the U.S. aid proposal. Every single Member of this House received 
several letters signed by scores of Colombian churches, women's 
organizations, human rights organizations, academics, trade unions, 
indigenous groups, farmers' unions, jurists, community organizations, 
members of the government-appointed National Peace Council, and 
humanitarian groups. They sent us these letters at great personal risk 
to themselves. We should show some respect to the concerns that they 
have raised.
  Fifth, millions of Colombians have taken to the streets demanding an 
end to the violence. The only result this aid package could guarantee 
is to increase the violence and dislocation in Colombia.
  Sixth, this plan offers a U.S. embrace to a brutal antidemocratic and 
corrupt military that often works hand in hand with right-wing 
paramilitary groups who are themselves deeply implicated in the drug 
trade, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. According to a 
February report by Human Rights Watch, half of Colombia's 18 brigade-
level army units are linked to paramilitary activity. Military support 
for paramilitary activity remains national in scope and includes the 
areas where Colombian units are receiving or will receive U.S. military 
aid.
  There are dozens more reasons for opposing this package, but I would 
like to conclude with one other observation.
  Many of my colleagues insist that Colombia is not El Salvador, and as 
someone intimately familiar with the Salvadoran war and its peace 
process, I could not agree more; the two countries are different. 
However, what other Members have been stressing is that the response 
and justifications voiced by supporters of this policy, both in the 
administration and in the Congress, are hauntingly familiar. If my 
colleagues do not think so, go back and read the record of the debate 
during the 1980s.
  On top of all of this is the overlay of the drug trade in which all 
sectors in Colombia are involved. The FARC and the ELN guerillas are 
involved, the paramilitaries are involved, the Colombian military is 
involved, and key financial government officials must be involved, or 
the drug trade would not be able to flourish.
  Then there are the criminal drug dealers and the traffickers 
themselves. This is the situation into which we want to throw our 
military resources? Give me a break.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Pelosi amendment 
and to reject this ill-conceived aid package.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to participate in this debate. I think 
it is a good one because it focuses our energies and our Nation's 
energies on a very important subject which is what we need to do to 
save the lives of young people, to save our communities from this 
scourge of drugs.
  Now, I just want to remind my colleagues on this side of the aisle 
that this supplemental appropriation bill started with this President. 
President Clinton submitted a request to this Congress, and in that 
request he asked for $1.2 billion in counternarcotics funding. It is on 
an emergency basis. So this is not something that was just

[[Page H1533]]

created by this side of the aisle saying that we need to do this. It 
was this administration, it was this President that said there is an 
extraordinary emergency in Colombia that affects the national security 
interests of this Nation, and this Congress needs to address it.
  So this is not something that is just being pulled out of thin air. 
It is this administration who has also supported demand reduction, that 
has supported more treatment. Certainly, this administration 
illustrates that one can ask for and support treatment facilities and 
demand reduction, but at the same time recognize the need and the 
impact that the drugs coming in from Colombia has on this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just remind my colleagues of that particular 
point.
  Now, I would also refer back to balancing the need as we have to 
approach the drug war. If my colleagues will look at this chart that I 
have that talks about the demand reduction money that is being spent as 
well as comparing it with what we are spending on interdiction, it goes 
back to 1987 with the demand reduction in red. And each year since 
1987, the red line goes up, which is the money that is being spent for 
demand reduction. Demand reduction is that which is for drug education 
and treatment programs, substance abuse programs. That has increased 63 
percent since 1985. Yet, if my colleagues will look at the interdiction 
funding, it is the green that goes up at a very, very slow rate. What 
is remarkable about this that really is not shown on this chart, but 
that in-between 1987 and 1994 it went up, the interdiction spending, 
and then it actually went down and it went down in 1992 when we 
diverted some resources over to the Gulf War.
  So the point of this is that since 1992 our demand reduction 
expenditures have continued to go up. Yet even though we are spending 
more and more money on demand reduction, in 1992 the teenage use and 
experimentation with illegal drugs went up.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the point of the story is that history tells us 
that we cannot win this war; we cannot win the lives of our teenagers 
simply by putting money in demand reduction. It takes that balanced 
approach. I come back to my original point, which is that it was this 
administration that initiated, that joined this battle to aid Colombia 
in fighting the war on drugs. They asked for over $1 billion. It was 
General McCaffrey that last year initiated this. In every war, we have 
to have somebody who starts pointing and assigning the troops and where 
we need to go and where we need to spend our money. That is the 
responsibility of General McCaffrey. He recommended last year, after a 
trip to Colombia, that we invest $1 billion.
  Now, what we have done in this Congress is say that it is not just 
Colombia, but we also have to have Ecuador and Peru and Bolivia be 
involved, so we have targeted some money to there as well. But the 
counternarcotics initiative started with this administration, supported 
by this Congress, supported by the Speaker, as he testified to.
  So this debate today is what we can do in terms of aiding Colombia to 
fight our war against drugs, to save our children's lives. Yes, we need 
demand reduction; yes, we need treatment facilities; yes, we need to do 
more in those areas. But this debate is about what we need to do this 
day in the battle that Colombia faces that impacts our Nation.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague 
yielding because he makes a very, very important set of points. I would 
only point out and add to what he has said, the Pelosi amendment 
addresses really none of these things. The amendment specifically cuts 
out funding, the bulk of which would take out the ability to train the 
Colombian troops that we are dealing with in the first place.
  But the gentleman's original point was the real point, and that is 
that the Pelosi amendment in this debate would express concern about 
what we are doing on the demand side and suggests that we are not doing 
anything. But indeed, there is a comprehensive effort in any number of 
other committees where it is appropriate to deal with that side of the 
question. Indeed, if the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) would 
present an amendment sometime that actually put money into education, 
for example, I would be glad to help her.
  But the gentleman is making the point very well, and I appreciate his 
yielding.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we have proceeded in this conversation as if it is an 
either/or proposition. I would argue that it really is not.
  The purpose for this complaint and the protest is that we wanted an 
amendment made in order for the gentlewoman from California so that we 
could put it into the supplemental appropriation to increase resources 
for drug treatment.
  Now, it is true that a large amount of cocaine and heroin travels 
from Colombia to this country, but it is also true that those are not 
the only drugs that are causing problems for us here in America. There 
are domestically generated drugs, like methamphetamines. There are all 
kinds of other drugs. We have a serious problem of marijuana being 
grown here domestically. There are household inhalants that our 
children are using and, in some cases, killing themselves and 
destroying their potential.
  So it is not just a matter of cocaine or heroin, number one, when we 
talk about drugs.
  The question of treatment is a question of common sense and cost-
effectiveness. We know that treatment works. We know that there are 
millions of Americans, 3 million in the latest study, that do not have 
access to treatment. We know that in most cities and in rural areas, 
not only do families not have access to the person in the family who 
needs help, but they do not have any opportunity for the counseling and 
the support that they need.
  We know that drug addiction causes divorce, home foreclosures, lack 
of productivity in the workplace. We know that this problem of drugs is 
a serious problem throughout our society, and that we should not be 
here today talking about on the one hand, we only want to deal with the 
problem in Colombia, and on the other hand, we will wait for another 
day to deal with the questions and the challenges of drug treatment 
here in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, all of our law enforcement officials tell us that even 
those people incarcerated do not have access in the majority to 
treatment programs for drug and alcohol abuse. We know that the 
National Institute of Justice did a study that shows that in our major 
cities more than 80 percent of the crime is drug driven.
  So the question for us has to be, as a Congress why can we not in a 
supplemental appropriation that is wide ranging, it is not just dealing 
with the question of Colombia, it is dealing with emergencies in North 
Carolina, it is dealing with a whole range of questions, why was it not 
fitting in the sense of the majority to make an amendment made in order 
so that we could talk about increased resources in an area in which so 
many people on both sides of the aisle see the need.

                              {time}  1715

  If it was someone in our family, someone in our community, someone 
that we have come in contact with that needed treatment, we want to 
make sure that they have access to it. We should feel the same for 
those 3 million Americans out there today, and make sure that they have 
access to real treatment opportunities.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) that stresses 
prevention, that stresses education, that stresses us putting more of a 
priority on our domestic concerns right here at home, in our 
neighborhood, and in our back yards.
  I also rise to show and express my deep reservations and concerns 
about, one, the process in spending contained

[[Page H1534]]

in this supplemental; secondly, the goals and the mission and whether 
or not they can be achieved for trying to address the problem in 
Colombia.
  I think we are all concerned about it. We all want to do something 
about it. It is whether or not this program will achieve the mission 
and the objectives outlined by the administration. I do not think we 
can.
  Thirdly, I object to this supplemental because it contains a 
particular classified intelligence funding program, and I will address 
that at the end.
  First of all, on the size, the spending level, and the process of 
this supplemental. This is an emergency supplemental which, by its 
function here in Congress, I do not necessarily object to emergency 
supplementals. The gentleman from Arkansas said that it started with 
the President. It started at $5.2 billion. Now it is before us, the 
entire House, at $9.2 billion. We will have amendments that might be 
attached to it that might take it to $13 or $14 billion. Then it will 
be sent over to the Senate, where it might come back to the House at 
$15 or $16 billion.
  Maybe I am more of a conservative in the House. Maybe I am to the 
right of the majority. But we have made so much progress on balancing 
the budget. We have made a priority of getting surpluses. We have tried 
to tell Congress to keep their hands off of social security. Now, in 
the third month of the year, before we have done any appropriations 
bills, we are looking at a presidential request of $5.2 billion to $15 
billion. I do not think that is appropriate or fair to the 
appropriations process and to the priorities that we are going to 
outline.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) might bring a defense bill 
in the appropriations process forward that I will support an increase 
in, or the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) might bring an 
appropriations bill for education with new ideas and more 
accountability that I will support.
  But this is an emergency supplemental that may spend, that may spend, 
one-third to one-half of the non-social security surplus in one shot. 
We have a $26 billion surplus. This may take $13 billion of that 
surplus in one vote.
  Finally, on Colombia, Colombia has had a 40-year civil war, an 
ongoing drug problem, and an army and a police force that have not 
worked together. As a matter of fact, institutionally and culturally 
and law enforcement training-wise, they do not work together well at 
all.
  And we think $1.9 billion, 30 Blackhawks, and 15 Hueys is going to 
cure that? I do not think this is going to address the civil war or 
further the peace process. I think it is going to exacerbate both.
  Finally, on the intelligence front, as a member of the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence, I take an oath of secrecy. To abide 
by that oath, this statement has been approved by the committee to 
confirm and conform to that oath.
  This bill contains some classified funding requested by the 
administration for intelligence programs and activities. As a member of 
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I generally support 
most of this funding. There is a particular intelligence activity 
funded by this bill, however, which I cannot support.
  I try to judge spending on intelligence programs by the same standard 
I use on other Federal spending: Is the program in the national 
interest, and likely to achieve its goals?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Roemer was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, in my judgment the intelligence activity 
which I have reservations on fails on both these counts, on both 
achieving its goals and supporting the national interest.
  I have advised senior officials in the administration of my concerns. 
I hope that this decision to continue this particular activity will be 
reconsidered.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  (Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, during committee hearings on the 
Colombia aid package, I raised serious questions about what has been 
posed as mostly a counter-narcotics effort. Unfortunately, those 
questions have not been answered. That is why I am going to raise them 
again here today.
  Why are we taking action to invest in a militaristic drug war that 
has the potential for escalating regional conflict in the name of 
fighting drugs instead of doing what we need to do, putting more money 
here at home, and attack the problem here with at least as much vigor?
  Considering the demonstrated failure of militarized eradication 
efforts to date, why should we believe that investing more money in 
this type of plan will achieve a different result?
  According to the General Accounting Office, despite U.S. expenditures 
of $625 million in counter-narcotics efforts in Colombia between 1990 
and 1998, Colombia surpassed Peru and Bolivia to become the world's 
largest coca producer. Colombia is already the third largest recipient 
of our foreign aid in the whole world, and there has been no net 
reduction in coca production in Colombia or cocaine availability in the 
United States.
  All of the heroin the United States consumes can be grown on just 50 
square miles. An entire year's supply can fit into one cargo plane. 
Yet, the rebels in Colombia and the paramilitaries already control an 
area the size of my home State of Illinois. What makes us think that 
this amount of money, this effort, is going to do anything to seriously 
reduce the supply?
  According to the United Nations, profits from illicit drugs are so 
high that three-fourths of all drug shipments would have to be 
intercepted to seriously reduce the profitability of the business.
  Why are we focusing exclusively on the rebels when we know that the 
paramilitaries in Colombia are involved in the drug traffic, and that 
they are the ones who are responsible for 70 percent of the human 
rights abuses and civilian murders in that country? Why are we ignoring 
the proven drug control strategies that focus on prevention, treatment, 
and education?
  I know that my colleagues have pointed out that we are spending money 
on that, but we also know that that is the effective way to address the 
problem. We should be doing more. If we are so serious about reducing 
drug use, then why is 63 percent of the need for drug treatment unmet 
in the United States, according to the substance abuse and mental 
health services administration?
  I think we need to question if this really is a counter-narcotics 
operation, or is it a counterinsurgency operation? Could it be more 
about purchasing helicopters than protecting our children? What exactly 
is our mission? What will it take to achieve total victory in Colombia? 
Are we prepared to make that type of investment in dollars and in 
lives? How many lives? If not, what is the purpose of this aid?
  It seems to me if we really want to address the drug problem, we 
should be here today discussing the original Pelosi amendment, which 
was not able to be considered, which was an aggressive, ambitious 
approach to increased domestic spending on drug prevention, treatment, 
and education, not a massive, militaristic care package for a military 
with the worst record of human rights abuses in this hemisphere.
  I believe that this aid package for Colombia is a misguided, 
dangerous, and irresponsible approach. I urge my colleagues to vote in 
support of the Pelosi amendment, and I would also urge support for the 
Ramstad and Campbell amendment and against this bill.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to the $1.7 billion 
military package for Colombia, and in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and thank her 
for giving us the opportunity to engage in this debate.
  This military package will spell disaster for peace and human rights 
in Colombia, and will doing nothing for reducing drug use in our 
country. What is

[[Page H1535]]

missing from this shortsighted, expensive approach are the resources 
for a more comprehensive Federal drug prevention and treatment policy 
here in our own country.
  How much are we willing to invest in mentoring programs, after-school 
programs, job training, and drug treatment? This is how we reduce drug 
use, as the Rand Corporation study cited by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) indicates. Why are we not pushing for an 
emergency bill to address the drug emergency that is right here in our 
own country?
  Drugs are destroying our communities. For example, in California, as 
a result of the horrendous three strikes law, nearly 40 percent of 
California's prison population are African-American men who have been 
incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses.
  In the African-American community, one out of every three African-
American young men in their twenties are either in prison, on 
probation, or on parole due to nonviolent drug offenses. The majority 
of these young men would not be in jail had there been treatment on 
demand, job training, and a job.
  Drugs are having a devastating impact on our Nation, especially in 
the African-American community. Providing $1.7 billion in military 
assistance to Colombia does not begin to provides us with the funding 
to wage a real war on drugs. Now is the time to consider a 
comprehensive Federal drug prevention and treatment policy here at 
home.
  We should stop misleading the American public by arguing that sending 
military hardware and helicopters to Colombia will reduce drug use in 
America. It will not. This is outrageous, to perpetuate that notion on 
our people, on our constituents, and on the country.
  This military package also ignores the human rights crisis in 
Colombia, nor does it deal with the extreme poverty in Colombia. Guns 
and helicopters will not solve the problems of hunger in Colombia, nor 
will it help our young people in America break the cycle of drug 
addiction.
  We need to go back to the drawing board, support the Pelosi 
amendment, and just say no to this counterproductive military package.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I join all of my other colleagues who have stood here 
today, rising in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi). This debate has become a long debate 
because we have a growing number of legislators who are concerned about 
this wrongheaded policy that we are pursuing.
  Mr. Chairman, this supplemental appropriations provides over $1.1 
billion in aid to the government of Colombia. Most of this money will 
go to the Colombian military and be used in the Colombian civil war. 
This civil war has been going on for 40 years, and both sides, both 
sides have profited from the drug trade.
  Furthermore, the Colombian military has been known to cooperate with 
drug traffickers. Colombian military officers also provide support to 
right-wing paramilitary organizations that traffic in illegal drugs, 
and carry out extrajudicial killings and other gross violations of 
human rights.

                              {time}  1730

  This bill gives money to drug traffickers who kill other drug 
traffickers and murder innocent civilians. This bill is unwise and 
immoral, and we should not support it.
  We are focused today on what is happening domestically. We are rising 
in opposition to this funding and supporting the amendment of the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) because we are very concerned 
about what is not being done in America. We are just growing our prison 
system.
  The number of inmates in State and Federal prisons has increased more 
than fivefold from less than 200,000 in 1970 to 1,232,900 by 1998. An 
additional 592,000 are held in local jails. As of July 1999, 131,112 
offenders were incarcerated in approximately 100 Federal facilities. 
There are 115,363 inmates housed in Federal facilities rated to hold 
89,696.
  At the end of 1998, State prisons held 1,178,978 inmates. In June of 
1998, 592,462 offenders were held in local jails.
  The number of persons on probation and parole has been growing 
dramatically along with institutional populations. There are now 507 
million Americans incarcerated, on parole, or probation, an increase of 
209 percent since 1980.
  A few more statistics. Mr. Chairman, 71 percent of those sentenced to 
State prisons way back in 1995 were convicted of nonviolent crimes, 
including 31 percent for drug offenses and 29 percent for property 
offenses. Fifty-seven percent of jail inmates in 1989 reported they 
were under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time they committed 
their offense. One in four inmates way back in 1989 was in jail for a 
drug offense compared to one in ten in 1983.
  Drug offenders constituted 21 percent of 1997 State prison inmates 
and 60 percent of 1996 Federal prison inmates. I could go on and on 
with these statistics.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sick and tired of this wrong-headed policy. I am 
just overcome by the fact that we cannot get it right here in our own 
country. We are talking about throwing away money down in Colombia; and 
nothing is going to happen but drug dealers are going to fight drug 
dealers, both in and out of the government. And here we have mandatory 
minimum sentencing that is locking up young folks, young folks in rural 
and inner cities, at an alarming rate. Mandatory minimum sentences.
  Many of these young people, 19 and 20 years old, first-time 
offenders. The judge has no discretion. He must send someone in 
possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine to prison for 5 years on a 
first-time offense, as opposed to those with powder cocaine, 100 times 
more. Some of these young people may be stupid, but they do not deserve 
to have their lives taken away from them. And this is not black. Black, 
white, green, rural, inner city. Prisons just filling up.
  And, oh, let me tell about the conspiracy charges that they are now 
arresting the mothers and the women and the girlfriends and the mates 
on. We are spending millions of dollars, and our country is going down 
the drain.
  Mr. Chairman, it was unwise for them not to make the Pelosi amendment 
in order, and it is unwise for us to support this appropriation to 
Colombia.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) 
for bringing this to our attention here today and also the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his efforts to make sure that this House 
would spend ample amount of time debating all the particulars of the 
path in which we seem to be headed.
  This is, in fact, a situation where we are taking the wrong action 
and taking it with too little thought. What is before us would improve 
the bill and strike an appropriate balance between the supply and 
demand aspects of the problem that confronts us. The bill, as currently 
constructed, strikes us with a false assertion. It asserts that the 
United States involvement in this 40-year-old conflict would somehow 
correct the situation and stop drug dealing and drug use in this 
country. That somehow getting involved by training armed forces and 
providing helicopters is going to stop or reduce consumption in this 
country.
  It tries to leave with us the impression that this has been well 
thought out and debated, but that is absolutely questionable when we 
think that General McCaffrey came before the subcommittee on which I 
sit and left with us the clear impression that there is much work to be 
done here. He acknowledged that it will take years to deploy the 
proposed helicopters out there to train the troops for the proposed 
task. He tells us that there are currently insufficiently trained and 
insufficient numbers of pilots to even get into those helicopters. They 
do not have the hangars to house those helicopters. And that we should 
know that some 5 years out we definitely will still be involved in this 
enterprise in a best situation.
  The fact of the matter is we have to know that there are already 
300,000 people that have been displaced in Colombia. If we go in on the 
current path,

[[Page H1536]]

we are likely to see scores of thousands of others being displaced, and 
we are not taking proper precautions to resolve the situation that 
those people will find themselves in.
  Yes, Mr. Chairman, things have gotten better in Bolivia and Peru; but 
things have gotten worse in Colombia as a result of that. And the 
action that we are embarking on today simply forces people in Colombia 
to grow these crops somewhere else, most likely Ecuador, maybe Panama 
or Mexico or somewhere beyond there. And we are not talking about what 
we might do to stop that from happening.
  The statement of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is one of 
the reasons that people on this side are very concerned about where we 
are going here. He talks about if things do not resolve quickly there, 
then we will need more United States troops. This is Nicaragua all over 
again. We do not seem to learn from our past mistakes. We should take 
the time to debate all the ramifications of this proposal and talk 
about it in depth and see if we cannot find a more balanced way to 
attack this problem.
  Mr. Chairman, wealthier Colombians are leaving that country in 
droves. Apparently, they are more than willing to fight to the last 
drop of American blood. We can be helpful in this situation and we 
should, Mr. Chairman. We can support President Pastrana by providing 
resources to build infrastructure so crops can get to market 
profitably, to build confidence of the people there in the government 
by helping him to strike an even-handed effort against paramilitary as 
well as guerrilla forces, to build a court system to the point that it 
is effective, fair, and respected, to build schools and roads and 
community support, to build a competent, efficient respected police 
force and a military that does not favor the paramilitaries or ignore 
paramilitary atrocities.
  Mr. Chairman, we can be balanced in our efforts. We can increase 
efforts for prevention and treatment here at home. And the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi) is exactly right in that regard. We do not 
have anywhere near the proper attention being spent on treatment and 
prevention in this country. It does bear repeating the fact that we 
have way too many people in our jails with alcohol and drug abuse 
problems and a problem that they cannot get a job when they are out, 
even if they do deal with drugs and alcohol, because we are not 
spending enough of our attention on making sure that they are educated 
and trained and capable of returning as productive citizens.
  We do not start putting money in early enough for early childhood 
programs and Head Start and after-school programs, for community 
building and community programs to make sure that every one of our 
children has the ability to be productive and be happy citizens with 
hope. And we certainly are not providing enough attention and enough 
resources to make sure that those that are addicted, that have a drug 
or alcohol problem, get the kind of treatment that they need.
  That is what this debate is about, Mr. Chairman, and I am so glad 
that the gentlewoman from California brought that up and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin made it clear that we are not spending the time that we 
need to debate all of these issues and the ramifications that will come 
from them.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pelosi amendment and in 
opposition to the underlying provisions in the bill dealing with 
funding of the military in Colombia to address a serious problem that 
cannot be really addressed by the military.
  Let me start by stipulating that we have a serious drug problem in 
this country. I do not think anybody would debate that issue. Part of 
the reason we have a serious drug problem in the country is that we do 
not have any kind of rational plan to deal with drug prevention or drug 
treatment or the consequences of drug use.
  Instead of coming up with a plan, we come up with reactionary 
approaches. We come up with emergency responses. And there is no 
ongoing plan to deal with this. And that is exactly what we are doing 
again in this emergency appropriation bill. Instead of coming up with a 
plan, as the Pelosi amendment has suggested that we need to do, we are 
funding this on an emergency basis.
  Let me be clear that I do not support having the United States 
military involved in our drug prevention efforts. And we have had a 
debate many times on this floor, and we have had a policy of not having 
the United States military involved in drug prevention in this country.
  So why in God's name would we, not supporting our own military being 
involved in drug prevention in our own country, allocate $1.7 billion 
to a corrupt military in Colombia to deal with drug interdiction? A 
military that is part and parcel of the drug problem itself because 
they have been involved with drug dealing and selling and shipment over 
and over again in addition to being involved with some of the worst 
human rights abuses that have taken place in that country.
  Why would we as part of a plan, other than as a reactionary approach, 
where we are just going to throw money after something and send in the 
military so we can go home and tell folks we have done something? Why 
would we give money to a corrupt military in another country to do a 
job that we would not even have the military do in our own country?
  This is symptomatic of our approach to issues that are difficult 
issues. We put some money out there. We say we are sending in the 
military to solve a problem that is not a military problem, and then we 
go home and tell our constituents, well, we have done something to 
solve this problem.
  This is exactly the approach we should not be pursuing, and I hope my 
colleagues will support the Pelosi amendment and reject the underlying 
provisions in this bill, and support the Ramstad and Campbell amendment 
that strikes out all of this provision, because it has no place in our 
policy, no place in a plan, a rational plan to deal with drug abuse in 
this country.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, if our goal is to reduce drug abuse, the $1.7 billion 
could be used better on juvenile crime prevention and early 
intervention programs and drug rehabilitation under the Pelosi 
amendment than spending that money in Colombia under the bill.
  Now, we know how to reduce drug abuse. The drug programs are not 
perfect, but they are effective. A study of the rehabilitation program 
in California has shown it to be so effective that it reduced costs in 
health care, welfare, and crime so much that the State saves $7 for 
every dollar it puts into the drug abuse program.
  Drug courts have been studied. They send prisoners to drug 
rehabilitation rather than simply to jail. That program is shown to 
reduce recidivism more than just sending them to jail and is a little 
cheaper.

                              {time}  1745

  So we know that drug rehabilitation works, and it is cost-effective. 
We also know that spending $1.7 billion in Colombia will not make a 
measurable difference on the amount of drugs consumed in the United 
States.
  Late last year, Mr. Chairman, the Speaker of the House and the 
minority leader, Mr. Gephardt, appointed a bipartisan Juvenile Justice 
Task Force to figure out what we can do to reduce juvenile crime. We 
invited experts across the country to help us in this process.
  And all the testimony that we heard pointed to prevention and early 
intervention as the appropriate strategies to deal with juvenile crime. 
We did not hear anyone suggest that spending billions of dollars on 
interdiction would be an effective strategy for dealing with juvenile 
crime. We heard about early childhood programs and improved education 
and afterschool programs.
  If we look at $1.7 billion, we could build four $1 million boys and 
girls clubs in every congressional district in this country for that 
same amount of money, and that is $1.7 billion. A lot of it we could 
spend over and over again so we can build more and more boys and girls 
clubs with that same appropriation.
  We have heard stories of the tragedies involving drug use, and we 
have a choice in this amendment. We can do what works, what is cost-
effective, the drug rehabilitation and the prevention and early 
intervention programs, or we can spend a lot more on a program

[[Page H1537]]

which, at best, will have a negligible effect on the amount of crime, 
on the crime and drugs in the United States.
  I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will have the courage to vote for the 
choice which will actually reduce crime and drug abuse by adopting the 
Pelosi amendment.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words. I, too, rise in strong support of the Pelosi amendment, which 
would add vital drug prevention and treatment dollars to the emergency 
supplemental budget.
  I cannot remember how long this war against drugs has been going on, 
but it has been a long, long time. And despite some reports to the 
contrary, in too many places in this country, we are losing.
  I do not necessarily have a problem with appropriations to fight 
drugs in Colombia or anywhere else and to address the need for 
increased interdiction. But to do this alone is to employ the same one-
sided, near- and short-sighted approach that has not worked through all 
the plans and in all the years that we have been trying to stem the 
tide of drugs and stop the scourge of drugs in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity to meet and speak with 
leaders in my part of the world, the Caribbean, on many occasions, and 
in almost every instance, the issue of drug transshipment and urgings 
for them to keep their commitment strong in addressing it is always an 
important part of the conversation.
  Do you know what they say to us?
  They assure us of their commitment. They do not want what the 
transshipment does to their countries, and they do not want the risks 
it presents to their people. They want to stop the flow of drugs in and 
through their countries.
  But they also say to us that the greatest obstacle to stopping the 
flow is the ready and the large market for the product. It is simple 
economics, supply being developed to meet a sustained and increasing 
demand. And I support the Pelosi amendment, because it is only through 
addressing demand, as well as interdiction, that we will ever win this 
ongoing war.
  I support this amendment for an even more important reason, because 
we have not adequately addressed poverty, failing schools, poor or no 
housing and other critical issues facing communities around this 
country, especially communities of color, drugs; and because of them, 
HIV and AIDS have taken hold of these communities and threaten to drain 
the very life blood from our neighborhoods.
  In those communities, people want to rid themselves of the illness of 
addiction. They want treatment, and parents want to help to keep their 
growing children from being consumed by drugs and AIDS, but they cannot 
get into treatment.
  And the programs to help our kids and divert our children's energies 
into positive ways are just not available. The Pelosi amendment would 
change that, and that is why I support it.
  We need to provide funding not just to rid our communities and the 
country of drug-related crime, but we need it to heal those who have 
fallen prey to addiction to illicit drugs. And we need it to heal our 
communities and to make them whole.
  I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), 
for her leadership. And I thank all of the others who have spoken in 
favor of this amendment and in favor of the many in this country who 
need our voices to speak out on their behalf.
  I urge the rest of my colleagues to support the Pelosi amendment and 
to vote yes.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. Let me, first of all, congratulate the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) for her amendment. I think it is important that 
we highlight the importance in terms of treatment. I think we all 
recognize from both sides of the aisle the importance of looking at 
both the supply and the demand. And as we do that, I think it is also 
critical for us to realize, at least from my perspective, I think I am 
the only one who is here who has ever had a caseload of 60 heroin 
addicts and I worked as a case worker.
  And when I was working as a case worker, I just want to share with 
you the frustrations. It seemed like every election, whether it was a 
Republican or a Democrat, the DA would pick up a case load of heroin 
addicts that were selling probably enough to just fix themselves.
  The reality is that we are not going after the ones that are really 
selling the items, and we are going after the little guy. If we look at 
our prisons, we find 70 percent of them are drug-related, a lot of them 
are black, Hispanic and poor white, but we look in terms of our 
professionals that are using the drugs out there, we are not doing 
enough to go after that professional, that individual, that is related 
to a Congressman, that individual that is an attorney, that individual 
that is out there, and we are not doing enough there.
  What frustrates me is that we have even come up with now a report 
card on other nations, on how they rank. When are we going to come up 
with a report card on our own district attorneys, on our own 
communities? When are we going to hold them accountable?
  If we ask the military to come up with a plan, they have come up with 
a plan, and this is a military plan; but when are we going to ask our 
own communities to come up with a plan? I think it is important that we 
recognize that this is a societal problem. It is a problem that America 
has.
  And I can attest, unless we deal with it as a problem that exists 
within our society, we are not going to be able to make it happen.
  Let me just share with my colleagues we have 6 million youngsters 
right now, 6 million kids on prescription drugs. When I practiced as a 
social worker, one of the things that we were told, and we used what we 
call the DSM for diagnostic assessments, that we should use the least 
restrictive diagnosis in dealing with youngsters.
  That was that we do not give a serious diagnosis unless we had to. We 
used to have what we called adjustment reaction. That was, if any kid 
got into difficulties, we used ``adjustment reaction'' and worked on 
it.

  But when we first started to tie in the funding in mental health, 
when we tied funding to whether the person was going to get reimbursed, 
then we started giving more serious diagnosis to a lot our youngsters 
in this country, and we really need to watch that real closely.
  We really need to investigate what we are doing in the area of mental 
health. A lot of our individuals that suffer from mental illness are 
some of the ones that are self-medicating themselves and getting 
involved in prescriptions and drugs, both the legal and illegal. I 
think we really need to go out there and try to do something in those 
areas.
  In addition, if one looks at our media in terms of how it stresses a 
prescription coverage for any illness that one has, they will have a 
pill for it. So we really need to kind of look at it and really 
approach it in a comprehensive manner.
  If we ask the military again to come up with a plan, we are going to 
get a military plan. I am going to be supportive of that. But I think 
that we also need to look at our backyards. We have to stop 
scapegoating other countries. We have an obligation in our backyards. 
We need to hold our own people accountable. We need to hold ourselves 
accountable. Part of that is treatment.
  I want to share with my colleagues that, when I worked in the area of 
mental health in the city of San Antonio for what we call the major 
center, which was the community mental health center, now it is 
referred to by another name, we had two case workers that worked with 
adolescents. I was one of them. Two for a population of over a million. 
That, I can attest to my colleagues, has not increased.
  We also need, not only in terms of those treatment approaches that 
vary, some will work with others, some will not, we need, yes, in some 
cases religious approaches that work with some addicts, others in terms 
of the methadone program; but we need a combination of all of those 
approaches.
  One of the things that frustrate me is that people, especially 
adolescents, if they suffer from drug addiction, they are not going to 
come to see you. I can attest to that. You have to go out there and 
reach out. We need both a medical model and an outreach model or a 
social work model that goes out

[[Page H1538]]

there after those youngsters and reaches out to them.
  The other frustrating thing that we have, and I think that we are 
definitely not doing enough, is when it comes to our veterans, our 
veterans are suffering tremendously and a lot of them are abusing 
alcohol and substance abuse. We need to do more in that area.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to respond to a few of the comments made by my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Rodriguez) just spoke about the fact to focus on our own backyard 
and not just focus on interdiction and blaming other countries. He also 
indicated he would be supportive of interdiction, but we needed to do 
more than that.
  The previous speaker talked about the importance of interdiction but 
also said, while interdiction may make sense, it is not the only thing 
we should be doing.
  I guess what I am here this evening to talk about is the fact that 
that is not all we are doing in this Congress, and we need to draw 
attention to that.
  Yes, the President has a plan to try to save Colombia, which is a 
national security issue as well as a substance abuse or drug issue, and 
it is a crisis. It is appropriate, I think, to deal with that in a 
supplemental appropriations bill.
  But this Congress, Mr. Chairman, over the last several years has made 
progress on doing exactly what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) 
is talking about, what the previous speaker is talking about, looking 
at this issue in a more comprehensive way. Despite what I have heard on 
the floor today, I think we need to recognize that and look at the 
track record of this Congress.
  First, on a bipartisan basis, we have passed some good legislation 
from the Drug Free Communities Act, for instance, we passed in 1997. It 
supports community-based solutions. It focuses on prevention, 
education, and treatment. It brings all segments of the community 
together and forces them to deal with the problem in a comprehensive 
way. It is working.
  There are about 3,000 community coalitions now around the country. We 
hope to double that in the next several years. Incidentally, we are 
looking for $40 million for that program this year in the 
appropriations process. Those who have spoken today and who care about 
this issue might want to focus on that. The administration requested 
only $35 million, under the authorized amount.
  The National Youth Antidrug Media Campaign this Congress passed a few 
years ago, the funding started 2 years ago, an unprecedented amount of 
Federal support from this Congress to support, yes, an antidrug media 
campaign that focuses on prevention. It is working. The ads are being 
tested. $185 million was appropriated by this Congress last year for 
that program. Over the 5-year period for which it is authorized by this 
Congress, we will spend, when we conclude the private match over $2 
billion, the largest media campaign in history on drugs or any other 
issue.
  This is something this Congress has done, and we need to do more of 
it. We need to continue to support that. I have not heard much about 
that today.
  The Drug Demand Reduction Act we passed in 1998 increases the 
effectiveness of the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act. It authorizes the 
media campaign I just talked about. It streamlines the antidrug 
bureaucracy we have of 54 different departments and agencies, to reduce 
the duplication.
  If my colleagues want to be supportive of what is going on here in 
our backyard, there are lots of ways to do it. There is the Drug Free 
Workplace Act, which again has been a bipartisan effort of this 
Congress. We got about $4 million provided in last year's budget. We 
are going for more this year. For those who care about issue, through 
the normal appropriations process, my colleagues will have an 
opportunity to support the Drug Free Workplace Act. It establishes a 
new grant program for nonprofits to expand on drug-free workplaces. It 
also has the Small Business Administration involved directly in efforts 
to promote drug-free workplaces.
  We are asking to do even more in the area of prevention, education, 
and treatment this year in the appropriations process. I am delighted 
we have had this debate today, because I have found there is a lot more 
support for it than I thought there was.
  I am not sure the supplemental appropriations bill is the right place 
to do it. Let us take it through the normal process. Let us support 
what we have already done. Let us build on that.
  This year, let us have a teen drivers' act, where when teens go to 
get their driver's license, they are asked to be tested. There is a 
monitoring of that. There is an incentive through insurance discounts 
if they do it, a voluntary program with real discounts and real 
incentives.
  Let us put enhanced treatment in our jails, in our prisons. If we 
talk to folks who are involved in this, the only way, we believe, to 
stop the revolving door to cut that link between addiction and crime is 
to get more treatment in our jails and prisons. Only 9 percent of 
prisoners today at those levels are getting that kind of treatment.

                              {time}  1800

  We do not have a Federal program to do that now. We need one. The 
money we would dump into SAMSHA would not help in that regard. That is 
something this Congress can work on in a bipartisan basis, and there 
will be proposals to do that later this year. This is something that we 
can do and we can do through the regular order.
  My only point is not that we should not be focused on the 
comprehensive picture, it is that we have been. And this Congress, over 
the last few years, has a lot to be proud of in terms of focus and in 
terms of resources, putting unprecedented amounts of money into 
prevention, education, and treatment. We need now to build on that. We 
need not, though, at the same time, to say that there is not an issue 
with regard to interdiction.
  I have tended to focus more on the demand side. But if we take our 
eye off the ball on the supply side, what will happen? We will get 
increased supplies from foreign countries and what we will have is also 
reduced cost and cost is a factor in this. So we need to do both. It 
needs to be a balanced approach. We need to reduce demand for drugs, 
and we need to help move this country toward a drug free America.
  The Speaker spoke earlier today about his willingness to do that. He 
spoke about his willingness through the regular process, not through 
the crisis in Colombia, but through the regular process to enhance our 
efforts on prevention, education and treatment, and I think this 
Congress ought to take him up on that.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this has really been quite an interesting discussion we 
have had, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for being 
so creative and providing us a way for this discussion to go on.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been dealing with a war on drugs all the years 
of this past decade that I have served in the Congress, and quite a few 
years before that. And I doubt that any single one of us, reading the 
evidence, could say that we are winning that war on drugs. Generally, I 
think we do understand that if the war on drugs is to be won, then it 
is going to have to be a combination of efforts, where demand reduction 
here at home is going to have to go hand-in-hand with the supply 
interdiction that occurs at the source. But surely it ought to be a 
balance that uses most of the most effective effort.
  In fact, research by the Rand Corporation has shown that in order to 
get the same benefit that $1 spent on treatment in education-on-demand 
reduction here at home we would have to spend about $20 in interdiction 
at the source in order to get the same benefit.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, because the full amendment that had been offered 
and debated in the full Committee on Appropriations, the full amendment 
that was to be proposed and had been proposed before the Committee on 
Rules by the gentlewoman from California, was not made in order, the 
gentlewoman had no choice, had no way of entering this debate except to 
make an amendment that would cut $50 million out of a program that has 
never been authorized by this Congress. It was her only way to focus on 
this utter folly of

[[Page H1539]]

misexpenditure where that $50 million would do 20 times the benefit, at 
least 20 times the benefit, if that same $50 million that she has 
proposed to cut were to be used here at home on drug treatment and 
demand reduction here at home.
  Mr. Chairman, it is more than an hour ago that the distinguished 
gentleman, also from California, who is the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, said that 
he would be happy to join with the gentlewoman from California, as the 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations, in 
doing an effective demand reduction program, expansion of a demand 
reduction program. Well, he had that opportunity within the full 
Committee on Appropriations; and if that amendment had been made in 
order today, he would have had that opportunity again today.
  It is more than 2 hours ago that the distinguished gentleman from 
Alabama, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations, had 
said, in justifying why the amendment that was offered by the 
gentlewoman from California was not made in order, to be debated in 
proper order, in general order here, he said that the President had not 
asked for dollars to fight domestic drugs; and if he had asked for 
money to fight the domestic drug program, that we would have 
appropriated it.
  Well, I have never before noticed any reluctance by the majority to 
go beyond what this President has requested, if it was appropriate to 
do so. And I simply do not understand why we would not go after drug 
demand here at home, drug-demand reduction here at home when that is so 
clearly known, so clearly shown to be the most effective way to get 
about winning the war on drugs.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pelosi amendment, and I thank 
the gentlewoman for offering this amendment because we desperately need 
to address the growing demand for drugs here in our own country, and we 
must address drug treatment programs.
  Today, we are spending time, a lot of time, debating whether to 
appropriate funds to fight the supply side of the narcotics problem in 
Colombia. This debate is not complete unless we also tackle the 
connection between America's growing demand for drugs from other 
countries, like Colombia. In order for our international drug control 
policy to succeed, our drug policy must be balanced. It cannot focus 
only on supply reduction.
  We must also include demand reduction right here at home. To do this, 
we must incorporate the Pelosi amendment, as it rightly addresses the 
treatment gap on this side of the hemisphere. This amendment will 
expand our country's existing infrastructure for treatment. This 
investment will leverage additional local and State funds. It will 
strengthen State and local coordination and help to integrate service 
delivery. This funding will help our youth avoid a life of drugs and 
treat current drug users to help them turn their lives around. The 
amendment focuses on youth, while allowing communities to invest these 
funds according to local priorities.
  Every day our children are bombarded with suggestive messages and 
opportunities to take drugs. Effective prevention programs engage youth 
interactively, involve parents and families, and start at a young age 
to build skills and reinforce a message over the long term. While 
children are only 25 percent of our population, they are 100 percent of 
our future. We must address their future. We must address the future of 
all children, particularly those involved in or at risk of drug abuse.
  Mr. Chairman, this Congress needs to refocus its priorities. Each $1 
invested in drug abuse prevention will save $15 in reduced health, 
justice and other societal costs. Each $1 invested in drug use 
prevention will save communities $4 to $5 in costs for drug abuse 
counseling and treatment.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to put people before weapons systems. For the 
total cost of each of the requests of 30 Blackhawk helicopters, we 
could treat 5,173 substance abusers or provide prevention services to 
111,494 American children. If this Congress can fund $1.3 billion for 
``Plan Colombia'' to reduce supply internationally, we can surely 
afford to fund treatment services and prevention programs to reduce 
demand here in America.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Pelosi amendment and support our 
youth.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have seen this movie before, starring Harrison Ford: 
Clear and Present Danger. Unfortunately, Harrison Ford did not win an 
Oscar for his role, but, quite frankly, some of my colleagues could 
have won an Oscar for their supporting cast in today's movie, which we 
have already dictated and determined what the future and outcome will 
be. Let us look at some of the underlying scripted parts of this movie, 
as I prepare to yield to the gentlewoman from California for her 
closing remarks.
  The cost of the helicopters alone would provide treatment for almost 
200,000 substance users or drug prevention services for more than 4 
million Americans. Arianna Huffington, in her article ``Drug War Comes 
at a High Price,'' was right. We are about to spend close to $2 billion 
on Colombia, while here at home we have 3.6 million addicts not 
receiving the treatment they need. This despite the fact that drug czar 
Barry McCaffery's budget is expected to rise to a proposed $19.2 
billion this year.
  When Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs in 1971, he directed more 
than 60 percent of the funds into treatment. Now we are down to 18 
percent. And since 1980, through both Republican and Democratic 
administrations, the emphasis has turned to interdiction, crop 
eradication, border surveillance and punishment. The evidence is clear, 
and that has been the misguided use of resources. But putting $1.7 
billion into Colombia in the middle of a civil war is more than 
misguided. Quite frankly, from my perspective, it is nuts.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentlewoman from California, 
the distinguished ranking member on this committee who has done an 
outstanding job. And her leadership comes at a high price at this time 
during our Nation's history.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his very 
important statement on this significant subject, which is as personal 
as our own families and as important to our country as our national 
security.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank Members on both sides of the 
aisle, our distinguished chairman, our distinguished ranking member, 
for the very, very serious debate that we have had on this subject. It 
is a subject worthy of serious debate.
  Let us stipulate from the start that we all agree that every person 
in this body wants to fight the scourge of substance abuse in our 
country. There is no question about that. Let us also agree that we 
want to help Colombia, President Pastrana. I think we all agree he is a 
very courageous person and has a very difficult challenge. The people 
of Colombia have suffered so many years because of drugs and because of 
the civil war, whatever they are calling it down there, and so we want 
to help them. But is this the right way to go?
  As a Member, along with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), of 
the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of 
the Committee on Appropriations, we know what the need is in SAMHSA, 
the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. We have 
fought hard, in a bipartisan way, for more funding for substance abuse 
for treatment on demand for substance abusers. We have a golden 
opportunity, a golden opportunity in a supplemental bill to do 
drastically more.
  So to those who say let us do this in the regular process, we have 
caps in the regular process. We have no offsets in a supplemental 
emergency bill. So that is why this is a golden opportunity. If we can 
spend $1.3 out of a package of $1.7 billion to send to Colombia within 
an emergency bill, we should be able to do at least that in our

[[Page H1540]]

own country. Our agencies can absorb it. The absorptive capacity is 
there and the need is there.
  The need is this: Five and a half million people in our country are 
substance abusers. Of that number, 37 percent, or 2 million, have 
access to treatment. We have a 63 percent treatment gap. So, yes, we 
are doing something on substance abuse, but we are not doing nearly 
enough. And it should be our priority to start at home, to begin at 
home to address the demand side of this. Let us face it. If we 
eradicated every coca leaf in Colombia, do my colleagues think that 
that would be the end of the drug problem in our country? No. But we 
can help Colombia by eliminating the market for that coca leaf in the 
United States.
  So my colleagues, as a the ranking member on the Subcommittee on 
Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, I have seen 
this ``Plan Colombia'' close up. We are supposed to put up $1.3 
billion, $1.7 billion, in the fuller process over $7 billion. We are 
told that our plan is heavily military because the rest of the $7.5 
billion is going to be humanitarian. We have not seen one penny of that 
other money.
  We have not seen the elites of Colombia stand up to the occasion and 
meet the needs of the poor people in that country. The disparity in 
income and the poverty level there is so oppressive, yet the elites are 
running off to Florida. So let us be fair to our own people. Let us 
have treatment on demand in this full committee. And in that spirit, 
Mr. Chairman, I again thank our colleagues for the seriousness of this 
debate on both sides.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to compliment the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi) for her demonstrated ability to organize a very effective 
filibuster which we have enjoyed the last couple of hours. But it is 
essential that we get on with the consideration of this bill.
  I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment of the gentlewoman.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment sponsored by my colleague Mrs. Pelosi of California. This 
amendment, which recognizes the need to focus on reducing supply and 
decreasing demand in the fight against drugs, promotes a common sense 
approach to this problem. It devastates homes, communities and our 
nation at large. When excessive youth drug abuse, reduced treatment 
facilities and scare prevention services are the norm; we need to act. 
The Pelosi amendment does act. This measure adds much needed funds to 
drug prevention and treatment programs which are making a difference in 
the war against drugs.
  If we fund $1.3 billion for ``Plan Colombia'' to reduce supply 
internationally, less than half of that money will be used for 
treatment service and prevention programs to reduce demand 
domestically. It is reprehensible to support a plan which authorizes 
money for Colombia's drug interdiction programs, when there are 5.7 
million Americans in need of substance abuse treatment. In addition, it 
is not responsible drug policy to stop the supply of drugs from 
Colombia while virtually ignoring the fact that the demand for drugs 
especially among our youth has gone largely unchecked.
  As the Representative of a mostly minority district I am keenly aware 
of the devastating affect that drugs has on the minority community. 
Drugs abuse and related illnesses such as HIV and AIDS have 
debilitating effects on women, people of color and the poor. If a $1 
investment in drug abuse prevention will save $15 in reduced health, 
justice and other societal cost, most of which are felt within the 
minority community, it is logical to conclude that prevention programs 
are needed just as much as interdiction programs.
  Yes, we need to address the supply of drugs to this nation but not at 
the cost of neglecting the treatment needs of this nation's addicts and 
our youth who are being lured into the drug trap every day. Let us put 
our drug control funds to use in programs that will be of greatest 
benefit to Americans. Successful drug prevention programs benefit 
individuals, families, communities, and this country. The country of 
Colombia cannot ensure the welfare of our citizens; we can. I strongly 
support the Pelosi amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?


               Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hutchinson

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

       Part B Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Hutchinson:
       Page 2, after line 21, insert the following:

                       Office of Justice Programs


                  community oriented policing services

       Of the unobligated balances available in the program under 
     this heading, $15,000,000 shall be used for policing 
     initiatives to combat methamphetamine production and 
     trafficking.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which addresses an 
emergency need not only in my State of Arkansas but in many States 
around the country facing a methamphetamine epidemic. Let me give the 
history.
  First of all, in the 1990s, Congress recognized that the State needed 
some help in cleaning up these very dangerous methamphetamine labs and 
the environmental problems associated with it. So in 1998 and 1999, 
Congress provided funds to the DEA through the COPS program to help 
them clean up these meth sites.
  Then it changed in the last Congress. In the last appropriation bill, 
they took a different approach; and instead of giving the money to the 
DEA through the COPS program, they earmarked $35 million for about 15 
sites.
  For all those sites that were not listed, including Arkansas, the DEA 
has been using left-over funds to help the local law enforcement clean 
up these sites. The problem is that pot of money has completely run 
out. There is no more money there and leaving the law enforcement with 
a very difficult problem. They bust a lab, but they have no resources 
in which to clean up the environmental problems and clean up the lab 
itself.
  The amendment I am offering would provide $15 million of the COPS 
program money to fund cleanup costs across the country through the end 
of this fiscal year. I believe this is an appropriate use of the COPS 
money, and it will help our police on the streets.
  Three points of clarification, Mr. Chairman. First of all, this 
money, very importantly, was previously appropriated. It is not new 
money. Secondly, this will not impact the 15 sites that have been 
designated in the appropriation bill. And thirdly, it is for cleanup 
costs.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Wamp).
  (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, make no mistake about it, if they are in 
rural east Tennessee, the biggest drug problem they face is not from 
overseas, it is somebody's garage close by where methamphetamine may be 
being made by young people who read about it on the Internet.
  The year before last, 42 labs were seized in Tennessee. Last year, 
116 labs were seized in Tennessee. So far in this fiscal year, just in 
a few months, 137 labs had been seized. This is an epidemic.
  General Barry McCaffrey says, ``a seriously potentially national 
problem to become the next crack cocaine epidemic.'' McCaffrey says, 
``Methamphetamine remains one of the most dangerous substances America 
has ever confronted. It is proliferating terribly.''
  Local law enforcement breaks a lab up. They have a toxic site. It 
costs $5,000 to clean it up. There is no way local law enforcement can 
keep up with this.
  Our committee is doing a great job of fighting it. We have got to 
have DOJ's help. We have got to have the COPS program help. This $15 
million is the least we can do to help local law enforcement break up 
methamphetamines and clean up the labs.
  This is a cancer in our culture, and it is attacking rural America. 
We have got to fight it at the State, local, and

[[Page H1541]]

Federal level. We need this amendment to pass.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers) for yielding me the time. I appreciate very much to have an 
opportunity to speak in support of the Hutchinson amendment.
  Methamphetamine continues to ravage our communities. Now is the time, 
in my opinion, to take immediate and aggressive action and to continue 
immediate and aggressive action to bring it under control. We cannot 
allow this crisis to continue.
  I have traveled with local law enforcement and drug rehabilitation 
experts throughout my district, and I have seep firsthand the damage 
this is reaping on our communities.
  Today, I am proud to support this amendment to make an extra $15 
million available to the Drug Enforcement Agency to assist the cost in 
cleaning up meth labs.
  Meth is the greatest threat to our young people I have ever seen. In 
fact, I would tell my colleagues that, in my lifetime, I have never 
seen anything more threatening internally to our country than what I 
perceive methamphetamine to be. And it is a real threat, and we are in 
a battle that we must win. We must win this.
  Local law enforcement agencies are already working under extremely 
tight budgetary conditions. The high cost of cleaning up just one of 
these meth labs can mean the complete disruption of normal law 
enforcement activities and can wipe out their budget and their 
resources.
  This is just a part of my efforts to battle meth. I have also 
introduced this, and I will call this to the attention of my friend 
from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), listen to this, we have introduced the 
Comprehensive Methamphetamine Abuse Reduction Act. This measure takes a 
multipronged approach to the problem and will provide our communities 
with the tools they need to win the battle against meth. I will hope my 
colleague will look at that.
  This measure takes a multipronged approach, as we have said. The 
initiative increases resources for law enforcement to combat meth labs 
and traffickers and provides funds for State and local establishments 
to be involved in the program.
  In closing, I want to say I strongly support the Hutchinson 
amendment. We must do all we can to win this battle with meth.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Boswell) and thank him for his leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hutchinson amendment. I 
also want to thank my colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) for his 
leadership in this matter.
  We have a serious problem in this country, and we have a very serious 
problem in Arkansas with illegal meth labs. Our law enforcement people 
struggle every day to deal with it. It is absolutely ridiculous that 
they would not have the resources they need after they find one of 
these meth labs and do what they need to do to destroy them to take 
care of this problem.
  I urge all the Members to support this amendment and let us do 
everything we can to fight this horrible scourge on our society.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman and I 
appreciate all of our efforts to get on top of this methamphetamine 
scourge that has so taken our country.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry), who has certainly recognized the extraordinary 
problem in our State that faces our law enforcement.
  Every day we wake up to the newspaper that talks about another meth 
lab being busted and then, most recently, that the DEA is out of funds 
with which to help our local law enforcement in the cleanup.
  This puts our law enforcement at a terrible problem, because we have 
had more meth lab busts in the last year per capita, I think we are 
second in the Nation, in terms of how many labs that have been busted. 
So I want to congratulate my friend and colleague for his work on this. 
I think this is very important. And the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Boswell) that just spoke, I appreciate his work on this and recognizing 
the problem.
  It is not just Arkansas I have talked about, but it is California, it 
is Iowa, it is Oklahoma. There have been many speakers that have wanted 
to express their concern about this and their hope that this will be 
addressed, this emergency spending bill.
  I want to end by saying that this emergency spending bill fights the 
war on drugs in the backyard of our hemisphere, which is very important 
and I support that. But my amendment that is supported by my colleagues 
fights the war against methamphetamine in our children's backyard. It 
is in our communities. And that is why this is so important to get us 
through this year, to help our local law enforcement; and then we can 
do it the right way in the next budget cycle.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say I appreciate the gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Hutchinson) and his concerns regarding this problem. And it is a 
problem. I do not oppose the amendment.
  As I understand it, his amendment would provide funding to help State 
and local law enforcement agencies pay the cleanup costs associated 
with methamphetamine labs that they have seized.
  In the subcommittee on which I am chairman, we have heard testimony 
about the proliferation of this problem throughout the country. The 
gentleman is right on target.
  Due to increased seizures of these labs the funding for this program 
has been depleted. They have to be dealt with in a certain way because 
of the hazardous wastes involved.
  I do not oppose this amendment. But let me point out one thing to the 
gentleman. The Department of Justice, today, could reprogram or seek to 
reprogram funds from the COPS program to address this problem. If they 
will send a letter here saying, we wish to take X dollars from the COPS 
program and apply it to the meth lab program, I will sign it and the 
money will be provided out of this year's bill.
  So I would hope they will do that. We can get the moneys flowing 
immediately to our State and local agencies. This amendment would no 
longer be required.
  But, as I understand it, the concern of the gentleman is that the 
reprogramming request is stuck up at the White House, at the OMB; and, 
as a result, the problem is not being addressed.
  I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that the folks at the OMB would realize 
the danger that they are causing out across this country by not sending 
up the request to change monies from the COPS program to 
methamphetamine lab cleanup.
  It is on their desk. It is on their shoulders. I would hope that they 
would do that. As soon as that request hits my desk, it will be signed 
and on its way.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Sawyer

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

       Part B Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Sawyer:
       Page 8, line 13, before the period insert the following: 
     ``: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading, not less than $50,000,000 shall be made 
     available for assistance for internally displaced persons in 
     Colombia''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Sawyer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer).
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that the struggle that is going on in 
Colombia is

[[Page H1542]]

going on not only for the sake of drugs but for the sake of an 
important nation in our hemisphere. And for that reason, I would submit 
that any new U.S. aid package to Colombia should allocate a modest but 
substantial amount of money to directly deal with displaced communities 
and persons and bring about humanitarian aid for resettlement, 
reintegration, and development assistance.
  Displaced people in Colombia live in fear. They receive little or no 
assistance from their own government or the international community. I 
am concerned that U.S. aid will have little effect if this refugee 
crisis is not addressed.
  The common dimension when we are talking about Kosovo or Bosnia or 
Rwanda or Liberia or so many other places on Earth is one that is 
shared with Colombia, and that is the extraordinary number of displaced 
persons who themselves are a destabilizing force within the country 
that we are trying to stabilize.
  The refugee crisis is even bigger than that which was experienced in 
Kosovo. A million and a half people are streaming towards borders and 
to the outskirts of cities where camps are themselves destabilizing. 
This has become not only a symptom of Colombia's instability but is a 
cause of Colombia's instability. It is something that, for a modest 
investment, we can make the dollars that are going in other 
programmatic areas pay off many times over.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in 
support of this amendment. I want to speak about Colombia in a way that 
has not been spoken tonight on this floor and it has been a long day 
but I am the only Member to rise who has lived in Colombia. I lived 
there for 2 years. I represented this country as a member of the Peace 
Corps. Colombia is a beautiful country. It is one of the most diverse 
countries in the world. It is one of the oldest democracies in Latin 
America. It is now plagued; it is torn apart.
  The root causes of its problems right now are drugs and corruption 
from those drugs. Colombia has over $5 billion inside Colombia that is 
corrupt money. Think what that would do in your own State if that money 
was used for corruption. There is an obscene amount of money. This war 
on drugs, this displacement of people, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Sawyer) says, it has displaced a million and a half people, a million 
and a half people that do not have homes, do not have schools for their 
kids, do not have health care centers. These people become a problem in 
themselves because they have to resort to petty crime. So the only way 
we can begin solving the problem which is drugs in our country is to 
deal with the root causes of drugs in Colombia. That has got to be in 
this bill.
  A lot of people have talked about the problems of this bill, what it 
has, what it does not have. But, Mr. Chairman, there is a point when we 
have to stop our partisan bickering and say are we going to let a 
country continue to burn, a country continue to not have a solution to 
a problem or are we going to stand up and face the responsibility that 
we have been asked, not the only country to be asked, one of the 
countries to be asked to help with a plan that Colombians have derived. 
That plan is complete. But the one lacking part in it, the one lacking 
part in money is earmarking that money for the people who have been 
displaced.
  I hope this amendment is accepted, because this amendment does not 
spend any more money, it just takes $50 million and says you have got 
to deal with the homeless population, you have got to deal with the 
displaced people. If you do not deal with them, we cannot do all these 
other things. You cannot just attack this problem by dealing with the 
eradication of drugs. You have got to attack it in a comprehensive way. 
I think the bill speaks to a lot of points. This amendment makes it a 
better bill. I ask that it be supported.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
control the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) will control the time otherwise reserved for opposition.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I just wanted to say to the gentleman, we have no problem with the 
amendment, we are willing to accept the amendment. It is not 
incompatible with the report that accompanies the bill that we reported 
from the committee.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the 
gentleman for his comments. It is a modest amount of money, it is 
achieved through reprogramming of already existing dollars and will 
save many dollars in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

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

       Amendment No. 9 printed in the Congressional Record offered 
     by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi:
       Page 5, after line 7, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 1202. (a) Limitation on number of Military Personnel 
     in Columbia.--The number of members of the Armed Forces of 
     the United States in Colombia at any time may not exceed 300.
       (b) Exceptions.--(1) The limitation in subsection (a) does 
     not apply to members of the Armed Forces of the United States 
     in Colombia for the purpose of rescuing or retrieving United 
     States military or civilian government personnel. The period 
     for which a member of the Armed Forces of the United States 
     may be in Colombia under this paragraph may not exceed 30 
     days unless expressly authorized by law.
       (2) The limitation in subsection (a) does not apply to a 
     member of the Armed Forces assigned to the United States 
     Embassy in Colombia as an attache or as a member of the 
     Marine Corps security detachment.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida reserves a point of order.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, we have been involved in a 
long debate today about what exactly our Nation should do on the war on 
drugs. There are some who advocate spending a great deal of money and 
possibly using the Armed Forces of the United States in the war in 
Colombia.
  Mr. Chairman, as we speak we have Americans, since I have been a 
Member of Congress, who have been sent to the Gulf, to Haiti, to 
Somalia, to Rwanda, to Bosnia, to Kosovo and there are now about 200 
Americans who are stationed, involved in training the Colombians in 
Colombia.
  My amendment is straightforward. It would reserve the rights and the 
duties that are assigned to Congress in article 1, section 8 of the 
Constitution which is to decide where and when Americans get involved 
in a war to Congress. It would limit the number of United States 
personnel in Colombia to 300. It would provide an exception to that, 
that for 30 days the Armed Forces could break this limitation if need 
be in order to rescue Americans, be they in the military or not.
  Mr. Chairman, in testimony before the Committee on Armed Services 
last week when asked the question, General Wilhelm, our Southern 
Commander said that he would support a limitation of troop strength in 
Colombia. I am asking for this country to do this. There is a great 
deal of fear that there could be unintended consequences.
  We all know what happens once Americans are under fire, once they are 
challenged, it will be the response of this country that we will do 
whatever it takes to win that conflict. I think that question needs to 
be asked now rather than later.
  As the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) pointed out, this is 
indeed one of the most dangerous places on earth. We have Seal teams 
there, we have Special Forces A teams there, we have had submarines off 
the coast, we have

[[Page H1543]]

had people involved in riverine operations. In the course of a year, we 
have about 3,000 Americans transit through Colombia. Yet this Congress 
has never decided whether or not we are going to get involved 
militarily in Colombia.
  I hear on a daily basis my colleagues lament the fact that time and 
time again Americans are sent on deployment without congressional 
approval. This would allow the present situation to continue but would 
not allow it to grow beyond 300 men without the Armed Forces of the 
United States coming to Congress and asking for a change in policy.
  I am told that in the 1950s, then Senator John Stennis, when the 
Nation of Vietnam was asking for airplane mechanics asked the question 
of his colleagues, what happens if the mechanics are fired upon, what 
happens then? Apparently as a Nation we did not do a very good job of 
deciding for ourselves the answer then. I would hope we do a much 
better job of deciding that question now. I would ask my colleagues to 
support this language and to see to it that we do not get further 
dragged into this war.
  I would also remind my colleagues that as we seem to be getting 
dragged further into this war, the Colombian people who have the most 
to lose seem to be doing less. In the past month or so, they have 
changed their constitution so that people who have a high school 
diploma are no longer eligible for the draft. They have changed their 
laws to decrease the amount of money they are spending on defense. One 
cannot help but be left with the feeling that the Colombians are 
expecting the United States of America, brave young Americans to fight 
their war for them. I want to send them a very strong message that this 
is not the case. We will help you with materiel, we will help you with 
training, but we are not going to send young Americans down to Colombia 
to fight your civil war for you.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida wish to assert his 
point of order?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to 
change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation 
bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part, ``an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' 
The amendment is legislation.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Mississippi wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, this is an emergency 
supplemental bill about Colombia. It is all about the Colombian civil 
war, whether or not we are going to get further involved in the 
Colombian civil war. I would remind my colleagues that Colombia is 
seven times bigger than Vietnam. This bill calls for 62 additional 
helicopters to be sent to Colombia. At the height of the Vietnam War, 
there were 2,200 American helicopters in Vietnam.
  I would ask the Chairman, since he is in many ways deciding whether 
or not the United States of America is going to get involved in the 
Colombian civil war, to be extremely lenient in his decision, because 
this bill is indeed about Colombia. This would place restrictions on 
the spending of that money in Colombia.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair finds that the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) does explicitly supersede 
existing law. The provision therefore constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Gilman

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

       Part B amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Gilman:
       Page 9, after line 4, insert the following:

                               CHAPTER 5

                     GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS TITLE

       Sec. 1501. (a) Conditions on Military Assistance for 
     Colombia.--
       (1) Certification.--None of the funds appropriated in this 
     title for military assistance may be made available to the 
     Government of Colombia until the President submits to the 
     Congress a certification that--
       (A) the Government of Colombia has agreed to and is 
     implementing a strategy to eliminate Colombia's total coca 
     and opium poppy production by 2005 through a mix of 
     alternative development programs; manual eradication; aerial 
     spraying of chemical herbicides; tested, environmentally safe 
     mycoherbicides; and the destruction of illicit narcotics 
     laboratories on Colombian territory;
       (B) the head of the Colombian Armed Forces has been granted 
     and is exercising authority that is identical to that held by 
     the head of the Colombian National Police to summarily 
     dismiss Colombian Armed Forces personnel for gross violations 
     of human rights;
       (C) the Colombian Armed Forces are cooperating with 
     civilian authorities in investigating Colombian Armed Forces 
     personnel where credible evidence exists of gross violations 
     of human rights, and, if those investigations result in 
     indictments, the Colombian Armed Forces are cooperating with 
     civilian authorities in prosecuting and punishing such 
     personnel in the civilian courts; and
       (D) the Colombian Armed Forces are developing and deploying 
     in their field units a Judge Advocate General Corps to 
     investigate Colombian Armed Forces personnel for gross 
     violations of human rights.
       (2) Waiver.--The President may waive the limitation in 
     paragraph (1) if the President determines that the waiver is 
     required by extraordinary circumstances.
       (b) Monitoring.--Of the funds made available under this 
     title--
       (1) up to $1,500,000 shall be made available to provide 
     comprehensive law of war training and to support the 
     development of a judge advocate general corps to investigate 
     Colombian Armed Forces personnel who are credibly alleged to 
     have committed gross violations of human rights;
       (2) up to $250,000 shall be made available to enhance the 
     United States Embassy's capabilities to monitor the use of 
     United States assistance to Colombian Armed Forces to 
     investigate reports of gross violations of human rights 
     involving United States assistance; and
       (3) up to $250,000 shall be made available to enhance the 
     United States Embassy's capabilities to monitor the role of 
     the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the 
     National Liberation Army (ELN), or the United Colombian Self 
     Defense organization (AUC) in criminal acts against American 
     citizens and property, including, but not limited to, 
     kidnapping, extortion, murder, and terrorist acts.
       Sec. 1502. (a) Denial of Visas for Persons Credibly Alleged 
     To Have Aided and Abetted Colombian Insurgent and 
     Paramilitary Groups.--None of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available in this or any other Act for any 
     fiscal year for the Department of State may be used to issue 
     visas to any person who has been credibly alleged to have 
     provided direct or indirect support to the Revolutionary 
     Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the National Liberation Army 
     (ELN), or the United Colombian Self Defense organization 
     (AUC), including conspiracy to allow, facilitate, or promote 
     the illegal activities of such groups.
       (b) Exemption.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if the 
     Secretary of State finds, on a case-by-case basis, that the 
     entry into the United States of a person who would otherwise 
     be excluded under this section is necessary for medical 
     reasons, or to permit the prosecution of such person in the 
     United States, or the person has cooperated fully with the 
     investigation of crimes committed by individuals associated 
     with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the 
     National Liberation Army (ELN), or the United Colombian Self 
     Defense organization (AUC).
       (c) Waiver.--The President may waive the limitation in 
     subsection (a) if the President determines that the waiver is 
     in the national interest.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Gilman-
Goss-Delahunt-Farr amendment which is the result of true bipartisan 
cooperation. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr) for their patience, cooperation, and willingness 
to work on this issue.
  We have a responsibility, Mr. Chairman, to stop the drugs that are 
poisoning our communities. We also must do our part to see that human 
rights are protected in Colombia. This emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill and this amendment gives us the tools

[[Page H1544]]

to do what is right by our Nation and by Colombia, our troubled Andean 
neighbor.
  This amendment establishes common sense benchmarks that would make 
delivery of military assistance to the Colombian Army contingent upon 
the President certifying the following: An agreement by the government 
of Colombia to a strategy to completely eliminate illicit drug 
cultivation by the year 2005. Certifying that the commander of 
Colombia's Armed Forces having the same authority as the director 
general of Colombia's national police to dismiss persons for gross 
violations of human rights. Further certifying that Colombia's Armed 
Forces cooperating with civilian authorities in the investigation and 
prosecution in civilian courts of gross human rights abuses by Armed 
Forces personnel. And also certifying Colombia's Armed Forces 
developing and deploying a judge advocate general corps.
  This amendment would make funds available to support the creation in 
the Colombian Armed Forces of a judge advocate general corps. It would 
also make funds available to enhance the American embassy's 
capabilities to monitor U.S. assistance to Colombia's military as well 
as to look into crimes committed against American citizens and property 
by narcoterrorist guerillas and paramilitary groups.
  Horrific acts of violence are visited on Colombians by insurgent and 
paramilitary groups. Just this past Saturday, Mr. Chairman, 26 
Colombian policemen and eight civilians were brutally slain. Some were 
beheaded by the FARC. This amendment would deny U.S. visas to persons 
supporting illegal activities by insurgent and paramilitary groups. Our 
amendment includes appropriate waiver authorities to preserve the 
President's ability to protect American national interests. I join the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) in urging the managers to 
ensure that the President would provide written justification to the 
Congress if the waiver authority is invoked.
  Our amendment advances core American values in our fight against drug 
traffickers by establishing meaningful conditions to safeguard human 
rights. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been here long enough to see a few of these 
fights before, and whenever the question of military aid comes up, the 
question of human rights also arises. So we have to face the question: 
How much murder, how much torture, how much corruption are we going to 
tolerate on the part of parties to whom we are providing aid?
  Invariably, what happens is that a set of so-called standards are 
drawn up which sound very good. They give Members of Congress a fig 
leaf that they can stand behind to give the impression that they are 
really doing something for human rights, but then they contain a 
perennial presidential waiver.
  On occasion, presidential waivers are justified. But when Congress 
routinely sets human rights standards which can then be routinely 
waived by the President, it cheapens the process and trivializes our 
concern about human rights. It lets Congress claim credit for the aid 
that is being provided; it lets Congress claim credit for protecting 
human rights when, in reality, it does not in any meaningful way. Then 
it leaves the President standing there as a punching bag no matter what 
he does, whether he waives or whether he does not waive, those 
standards. I think that that, in the process, trivializes everything 
that we deal with on issues like this.
  I think that is the reason why groups such as Amnesty International 
and other human rights organizations are opposed to this amendment. 
They understand that this amendment does not do what it purports to do, 
which is assure that the Colombian government and the parties with whom 
we will be dealing with, in fact, live up to the standards we expect 
them to live up to on human rights.
  In my view, until we do have language that does assure that, we most 
certainly should not support either this bill or this amendment, which 
makes it easier to continue the charade in this case that we have seen 
so often in Salvador, in Nicaragua, in Guatemala, in Indonesia, and in 
a number of other places around the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I want to rise in support of this amendment, also as a cosponsor of 
the amendment. I would like to take issue with my colleague who just 
pointed out that this will not make this a better bill.
  Obviously, this amendment makes this a much better bill. In reading 
the amendment the beginning says, ``None of the funds appropriated in 
this title for military assistance may be made available to the 
government of Colombia until the President submits to Congress a 
certification that Colombia has done the following things: that 
Colombia has agreed to implementing a strategy to eliminate Colombia's 
total coca and opium poppy production by the year 2005 through a mix of 
alternative development programs, by manual eradication,'' and so on.
  It goes on to say, ``The head of the Colombian Armed Forces has been 
granted and is exercising authority that is identical to that held by 
the head of the Colombian National Police to summarily dismiss 
Colombian Armed Forces personnel for gross violations of human 
rights.''
  It goes on to say, ``The Colombian Armed Forces are assuring that 
they are cooperating with civilian authorities in investigating 
Colombian Armed Forces personnel who have credible evidence of gross 
human rights violations,'' and so on.
  This bill says we can have a waiver only by the United States 
President. Guess what? It is the same waiver that this Congress 
approved when Senator Leahy added it in the 105th and 106th Congresses. 
It is the same waiver that is in the law now, is the waiver that is 
being repeated here.
  Is it a stronger bill with this amendment? Absolutely. I would urge 
all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
amendment. It makes it a better bill for us to make sure that if, 
indeed, we are going to be involved in conflict in Colombia dealing 
with civilian populations, that we are going to abide by the world 
standards on human rights protection, and it allows for monitoring 
those protections so that we in Congress can be certified that it is 
doing a good job.
  I ask for support of the amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
his support of the measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss), the distinguished chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment. It is a 
strong statement of the U.S. effort to deal with the human rights 
issue. It is an amendment with teeth, and it deserves the support of 
every Member of this House.
  We know we have to be especially sensitive to possible human rights 
abuses by recipients of U.S. assistance. We understand that. The 
American people deserve to know that we have done our very best to 
ensure that their tax dollars do not distribute to such horrific 
activities, the kinds of things we read about with disgust.
  The gentleman from New York explained that the amendment does several 
things, but I want to focus on what I believe is the critical part. It 
prohibits any military assistance from being made available until the 
President of the United States certifies to Congress the following: 
first, that Colombia has a sound strategy to eliminate illicit drug 
cultivation by 2005. If the U.S. is going to provide assistance,

[[Page H1545]]

we reason, we better make certain our partner is up to the task and has 
the tools to do it.
  Second, that the Colombian armed forces have the authority to deal 
with human rights violators in their ranks. This is a new departure, 
and it is critical; and it is part of the deal.
  Third, that the Colombian military is cooperating with civilian 
authorities in the investigation and prosecution of gross human rights 
abuses.
  These three requirements really get to the crux of the debate. They 
ensure that U.S. money is being provided to a partner that shares our 
determination to put the drug traffickers out of business and our 
commitment to do so in a way consistent with U.S. values and human 
rights concerns. On top of that, we have added a few dollars to make 
sure that the monitoring capabilities of our U.S. embassy and other 
appropriate concerns are fully provided for.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  As someone who was here during the El Salvador debate, not as a 
Member, but as a staffer, I saw firsthand how Congress trivialized the 
human rights issue with the passage of the so-called El Salvador 
certification language. The words in the certification amendments were 
always strong, always talked very passionately about human rights; but 
what we saw was that each time the certification was up for review, the 
Presidents who were in the White House routinely approved that 
language. One of the reasons why, I think, was because we were so much 
involved in that conflict in El Salvador.
  I would support this amendment if, in fact, there were not so many 
waivers and there were not so many escape hatches. I would support this 
amendment if it truly meant what I think the proponents of this 
amendment wanted it to mean, and that is a serious statement in defense 
of human rights in Colombia.
  The fact of the matter is, there is nothing preventing a future 
President, whoever that President will be next year, from basically 
ignoring everything in this amendment. If we are serious about human 
rights, let us put teeth in this amendment. I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of our Committee 
on International Relations who has visited Colombia on a number of 
occasions.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that does have 
teeth. Historically, it is no secret. The military in Colombia has had 
an abysmal human rights record. It has been appalling. Until recently, 
the majority of human rights abuses, better than 50 percent were 
perpetrated against the civilian population by the Colombian military. 
But it would be unfair, and it would not reflect the current reality in 
Colombia if we did not acknowledge the significant progress that has 
been made under the leadership of President Pastrana and the new head 
of the Colombian armed forces, General Topeos.
  According to our own State Department records, from 1994 to 1998, the 
percentage of human rights abuses directly attributable to the military 
declined from better than 50 percent down to 3 percent. President 
Pastrana and General Topeos correctly point out the recent dismissal of 
seven generals, two of whom are under indictment, and the referral of 
three colonels to the civilian courts for prosecution for human rights 
violations as evidence that things are changing. This is nothing less 
than astounding, given the historical record.
  But let us be clear. I am not suggesting in any way that we or the 
Colombian government should be satisfied. There is still a long road 
ahead of us, particularly in light of recent human rights reports from 
well-respected human rights organizations asserting continuing links 
between the Colombian military and the paramilitaries. We have to go 
further, much further.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Latin American director of Human 
Rights Watch, who urged that new conditions be placed on all security 
assistance to Colombia, and I submit that this amendment does exactly 
that. The amendment goes much further than the current Leahy amendment. 
It would apply not only to the two counternarcotics battalions that are 
envisioned in the bill, but it would apply to the entire military 
structure, the culture, if you will.
  Mr. Chairman, passage of this amendment, I submit, has the potential 
to effect a fundamental change in the Colombian military that will 
ensure once and for all its compatibility with democratic principles 
and respect for human rights. I have no doubt also that it will advance 
the peace process that recently has produced positive results. Because 
we are truly serious about substantial and permanent reduction of the 
flow of cocaine into the United States from Colombia, it is absolutely 
essential that this peace process be advanced.
  Historically, it is no secret that the military in Colombia has had 
an abysmal human rights record. It has truly been appalling. Until 
recently the majority of human rights abuses--better that 50 percent 
committed against the civilian population of Colombia--according to the 
Department of State annual human rights reports--were directly 
attributable to the military. Not to the paramilitary. But to the 
Colombian military itself.
  But it would be unfair. And it would not reflect the current reality 
in Colombia, if we did not acknowledge significant progress under the 
leadership of President Pastrana and the new head to the Colombian 
Armed Forces, General Fernando Topeos. According to DOS--from 1994 to 
1998 the percentage of human rights abuses directly attributable to the 
military declined from more than 50 percent to less than 3 percent. 
President Pastrana and General Topeos can correctly point to the 
dismissal of 7 generals--2 of whom are under indictment and the recent 
referral of 3 colonels to the civilian courts for prosecution for human 
rights violations as evidence that much has changed. This is nothing 
less than astounding given the historical record. But let's be clear. I 
am not suggesting in any way that we or the Colombian Government should 
be satisfied. There is still a long, long road ahead of us.
  Particularly in light of recent human rights reports, from well 
respected human rights organizations, asserting continuing links 
between the Colombian military and the paramilitaries. We have to go 
further--much further.
  The respected co-chair of the Human Rights Caucus, Representative 
Lantos, in a Dear Colleague letter he has circulated in support of the 
aid package points out that all assistance provided to Colombia will go 
to fully vetted forces pursuant to the so-called Leahy amendment. Which 
means that every single soldier assigned to these two Counter-Narcotics 
Battalions envisioned will be reviewed and scrutinized to determine 
their commitment to human rights. I agree with Mr. Lantos that it is 
important that Leahy applies. However, if it stood alone, I believe it 
would be insufficient. And would not support the Aid package.
  I agree with the Latin American Director of Human Rights Watch--who 
according to a story in the February 24 edition of the Washington Post 
urged that strict new conditions be placed on all security assistance 
to Colombia.
  I submit that this amendment accomplishes just that. This amendment 
goes much further than the current Leahy Amendment. It would not apply 
only to the two Counter Narcotics Battalions envisioned in the bill. It 
impacts the entire structure--the culture if you will--of the military 
as an institution in Colombia.
  There are two key provisions:
  It transfers from military tribunals to civilian courts, the 
prosecution of human rights violations by military personnel. This 
represents a major breakthrough for those concerned with human rights 
abuses in Colombia.
  Furthermore, it confers upon the head of the armed forces the 
authority to summarily dismiss military personnel who commit gross 
violations of human rights. It is important to note, Since the early 
1990's, the head of the CNP has had this authority. And from a force of 
some 100,000--14,000 members of the department were discharged pursuant 
to this authority. Since that action the CNP has had a solid record on 
human rights. Previously they had shared the poor record of the 
Colombian military.
  Passage of this amendment, I submit, has the potential to effect a 
fundamental change in the Colombian military that will ensure it's 
compatibility with democratic principles and respect for human rights. 
I have no doubt it will also advance the peace process that has 
recently produced positive developments. Because if we are truly 
serious about substantial and permanent reduction of the flow of 
cocaine from Colombia into the United States--the stability that will 
come from social and economic justice that peace would achieve is 
absolutely essential.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

[[Page H1546]]

  Mr. Chairman, one of the previous speakers said that this is such 
great human rights language because it says none of the funds may be 
appropriated until the government of Colombia agrees that it has a 
strategy to eliminate coca production. It does not say that they have 
to be following that strategy; all it says is that they have to have a 
strategy. That can be a piece of paper. He said that it is great 
language because the head of the Colombian Air Force has to have the 
authority that is necessary to dismiss armed forces personnel from 
gross violations of human rights. It does not say he has to actually 
dismiss them; it simply says he has to have the authority.
  This language is not based on performance; it is based on promise, 
and that is the problem with it.
  This is beef soup without the beef. It is an empty ice cream cone. 
When we have meaningful language that will actually protect human 
rights, come back and see me. Until then, sorry, fellows. No sale.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is with great, great reluctance that I rise in 
opposition to this amendment, because of the high regard that I have 
for the concern for human rights of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations; and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), my chairman of 
the Select Committee on Intelligence; and my two champions for human 
rights, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

                              {time}  1900

  Both of them have been leaders in trying to help the people of 
Colombia, all four of them have been, but especially speaking to the 
credentials of my colleagues on the Democratic side.
  As I say, I rise in reluctance. Here is why. It would be great if we 
could have these conditions that are set forth, very carefully prepared 
and set forth in this amendment without the waiver. We have lived 
through the waiver over and over again. Maybe this time it will work, 
but calling for certification by the President that these conditions 
have been met and then giving a weak waiver, a low threshold for waiver 
authority to the President, simply says to the military in Colombia 
that, really, they do not have to do much.
  Again, as I said earlier, we all respect and admire the courage of 
President Pastrana. He has a very difficult task ahead of him. But 
giving this assistance to the military the way we are in this bill 
raises some questions.
  In the last month alone, there were three reports about human rights 
abuses of the Colombian military. The U.S. State Department, our own 
State Department country report on Colombia, speaks to the abuses that 
continue, with collaboration from the military.
  The U.N. report that was released earlier in March speaks to that 
same issue, and the Human Rights Watch statement that they put forth 
was based on information gathered by the Colombian government about the 
Colombian military.
  Specifically, it addressed the collusion between the paramilitaries, 
and some, some in the Colombian military, their collusion in the 
violations of human rights of Colombians.
  When we said to the leadership in Colombia on our visit there, when I 
was there with my distinguished chairman earlier this year, with the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), when we said to the leadership 
of the government, you must do more about the human rights record of 
the military, we were told, tell them. Tell them that they must do a 
better job. We told the military. We can speak to them through this 
amendment, as well.
  But the very excellent message that our colleague shaped in terms of 
the conditions under which the assistance, military assistance would be 
sent, is totally undermined by the presidential waiver that is in this 
bill.
  Our president, whoever he or she is, of whatever party, should always 
have the national security waiver that underlies all of our foreign 
policy, but to have a watered down, lower threshold waiver completely 
guts this amendment.
  I know why some people might want it, because they do not want the 
strength of the amendment to begin with. I do not think that is the 
agenda of the makers of this motion, but I do think that it is a cause 
for opposition to it, as I say, very reluctantly, because up until that 
waiver I think they were going in the right direction.
  My view is shared by Amnesty International, the Working Group on 
Latin America, and other human rights groups. Some do not even want us 
to go down the path of the military assistance, but certainly they do 
not want us to do it with a presidential waiver.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman respond, is it not true that the 
presidential waiver set out in our amendment is fully consistent with 
current law governing DOD military assistance abroad as was previously 
authored by Senator Leahy, who has led the fight in the other body with 
regard to human rights concerns on military aid to Colombia?
  Ms. PELOSI. The ranking member has asked me to yield to him on this, 
and I will be happy to address it, also.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. That is the problem. Does the gentleman know how many times 
I have seen presidents waive milquetoast language? The problem is not 
just with the waiver, the problem is that this language is so weak in 
the first place, it would not even require a waiver by an intelligent 
person. I have heard of watering down soup before. I have never heard 
of watering down water before.
  Go to the Senate, come back with some stronger language, and we will 
be happy to look at it. But this, with all due respect, is no 
protection at all for human rights. It is simply protection for 
politicians.
  Mr. GILMAN. If the gentlewoman will yield further, Mr. Chairman, I do 
not know of any prior exercise of the waiver of the Leahy amendment. Is 
the gentleman familiar with any exercise?
  Mr. OBEY. I have not supported the Leahy amendment in the first 
place.
  Mr. GILMAN. There has been no waiver of that amendment, if the 
gentlewoman will yield further.
  Mr. OBEY. So what?
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) 
will be postponed.
  The point no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a unanimous 
consent request that has been cleared by the minority and the 
Parliamentarian.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Committee be permitted to consider 
the Lewis amendment made in order under the rule to title II at this 
time, without prejudice to further amendments to title I or title II.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.


           Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Lewis of California

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

       Part B Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Lewis of California:
       At the end of chapter 2 of title II (page 20, after line 
     10), insert the following new sections:
       Sec. 2207. (a) Quality of Life Programs.--In addition to 
     amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for the 
     Department of

[[Page H1547]]

     Defense elsewhere in this Act or in the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-79), there is hereby 
     appropriated to the Department of Defense, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2001, 
     $231,000,000, of which--
       (1) $221,000,000 is available only for the Basic Allowance 
     for Housing program, as follows:
       ``Military Personnel, Army'', $70,000,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Navy'', $56,000,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Marine Corps'', $17,100,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Air Force'', $58,600,000;
       ``Reserve Personnel, Army'', $4,100,000;
       ``Reserve Personnel, Navy'', $4,000,000;
       ``Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps'', $600,000;
       ``Reserve Personnel, Air Force'', $300,000;
       ``National Guard Personnel, Army'', $6,900,000; and
       ``National Guard Personnel, Air Force'', $3,400,000; and
       (2) $10,000,000 is available only for ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', for the overseas special 
     supplemental food program established under section 1060a of 
     title 10, United States Code.
       (b) Emergency Designation.--The entire amount made 
     available in this section is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.
       Sec. 2208. (a) Military Recruiting, Advertising, and 
     Retention Programs.--In addition to amounts appropriated or 
     otherwise made available for the Department of Defense 
     elsewhere in this Act or in the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-79), there is hereby 
     appropriated to the Department of Defense, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2001, and to be 
     available only for military personnel recruiting, 
     advertising, and retention programs, $600,600,000, as 
     follows:
       (1) For military personnel accounts, $450,600,000, as 
     follows:
       ``Military Personnel, Army'', $76,400,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Navy'', $69,100,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Marine Corps'', $6,000,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Air Force'', $108,800,000;
       ``Reserve Personnel, Army'', $47,500,000;
       ``Reserve Personnel, Navy'', $14,100,000;
       ``Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps'', $1,000,000;
       ``Reserve Personnel, Air Force'', $11,700,000;
       ``National Guard Personnel, Army'', $103,300,000; and
       ``National Guard Personnel, Air Force'', $12,700,000.
       (2) For operation and maintenance accounts, $150,000,000, 
     as follows:
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $45,900,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $26,200,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'', $14,700,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $21,600,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', $8,800,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve'', $11,900,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve'', $1,600,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve'', 
     $1,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve'', 
     $2,100,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard'', 
     $14,000,000; and
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard'', 
     $2,200,000.
       (b) Emergency Designation.--The entire amount made 
     available in this section is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.
       Sec. 2209. (a) Defense Health Program.--In addition to 
     amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for the 
     Department of Defense elsewhere in this Act or in the 
     Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 
     106-79), there is hereby appropriated, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2001, $750,000,000 for 
     ``Defense Health Program''.
       (b) Emergency Designation.--The entire amount made 
     available in this section is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.
       Sec. 2210. (a) Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair.--In 
     addition to amounts appropriated or otherwise made available 
     for the Department of Defense elsewhere in this Act or in the 
     Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 
     106-79), there is hereby appropriated to the Department of 
     Defense, to remain available for obligation until September 
     30, 2001, and to be available only for depot-level 
     maintenance and repair, $1,205,600,000, as follows:
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $200,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $538,800,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'', $50,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $250,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve'', $33,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve'', 
     $5,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve'', 
     $37,200,000; and
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard'', 
     $91,600,000.
       (b) Emergency Designation.--The entire amount made 
     available in this section is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.
       Sec. 2211. (a) High Priority Support to Deployed Forces.--
     In addition to amounts appropriated or otherwise made 
     available for the Department of Defense elsewhere in this Act 
     or in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 
     (Public Law 106-79), there is hereby appropriated to the 
     Department of Defense, for the support of deployed forces as 
     specified in subsection (b), $1,212,700,000, as follows:
       (1) For operation and maintenance accounts, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2001, 
     $738,900,000, as follows:
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $200,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $310,300,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $197,000,000; and
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', $31,600,000.
       (2) For procurement accounts, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2002, $405,800,000, as 
     follows:
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Army'', $50,000,000, to be 
     available only for Apache helicopter safety and reliability 
     modifications;
       ``Missile Procurement, Army'', $50,000,000, to be available 
     only for the Patriot missile reliability enhancement program;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Navy'', $52,800,000, of which 
     $27,000,000 is available only for CH-46 helicopter engine 
     safety procurement and $25,800,000 is available only for EP-3 
     sensor improvements and modifications;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'', $209,700,000, of which 
     $111,600,000 is available only for U-2 reconnaissance 
     aircraft sensor modifications and $98,100,000 is available 
     only for flight training simulators;
       ``Other Procurement, Air Force'', $30,300,000; and
       ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'', $13,000,000.
       (3) For research, development, test and evaluation 
     accounts, to remain available for obligation until September 
     30, 2001, $68,000,000, as follows:
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force'', 
     $10,000,000, to be available only for a JSTARS aircraft 
     mission trainer; and
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-
     Wide'', $58,000,000.
       (b) Specified Purposes.--Amounts appropriated in this 
     section are available only for the provision to deployed 
     United States forces of--
       (1) equipment safety and reliability enhancements;
       (2) improved materiel and logistics support; and
       (3) upgraded intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
     (ISR) capabilities.
       (c) Emergency Designation.--The entire amount made 
     available in this section is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) seek to control time in 
opposition?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will be 
recognized for 15 minutes in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to rise 
this evening in support of an amendment that is known by some as the 
Lewis-Spence-Murtha-Skelton amendment to this appropriations bill. It 
is an amendment that is a reflection of the very close working 
relationship on both sides of the aisle between all members and the 
committee leadership of the national defense effort, the authorizing 
committee as well as the appropriations committee.
  It is important for the Members to know that this amendment is 
designed to be responsive to that list of critical high priorities 
given to us by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the individual chiefs, 
priorities that are absolute must-need items as we go forward in order 
to operate effectively in support of our national defense.
  The amendment provides for some $4 billion of additional funding in 
areas like military quality of life, recruiting and advertising and 
retention programs, military health care programs,

[[Page H1548]]

in this instance in cases where we actually have health care 
obligations must be met.
  Further, the amendment provides broad-based support to deployed 
military forces throughout the world. And it is designed further to 
address unmet needs in equipment maintenance for a variety and mix of 
programs, including the repair of our ships throughout the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record information that provides a 
breakout of the $4 billion in this amendment, by appropriations 
account.

       Military Personnel Quality of Life Programs: The amendment 
     includes Section 2207, which appropriates $221,000,000 for 
     the Department's Basic Allowance for Housing program, and 
     $10,000,000 for the overseas supplemental food program, as 
     follows:


                                                         (in thousands)
Military Personnel, Army........................................$70,000
Military Personnel, Navy.........................................56,000
Military Personnel, Marine Corps.................................17,100
Military Personnel, Air Force....................................58,600
Reserve Personnel, Army...........................................4,100
Reserve Personnel, Navy...........................................4,000
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps.....................................600
Reserve Personnel, Air Force........................................300
National Guard Personnel, Army....................................6,900
National Guard Personnel, Air Force...............................3,400
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide..........................10,000
                                                             __________
                                                             
    Total.......................................................231,000
       Military Personnel Recruiting Incentives: The amendment 
     includes Section 2208, which appropriates a total of 
     $600,600,000 for recruiting and advertising programs, as 
     follows:
Military Personnel, Army........................................$76,400
Military Personnel, Navy.........................................69,100
Military Personnel, Marine Corps..................................6,000
Military Personnel, Air Force...................................108,800
Reserve Personnel, Army..........................................47,500
Reserve Personnel, Navy..........................................14,100
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps...................................1,000
Reserve Personnel, Air Force.....................................11,700
National Guard Personnel, Army..................................103,300
National Guard Personnel, Air Force..............................12,700
Operation and Maintenance, Army..................................45,900
Operation and Maintenance, Navy..................................26,200
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps..........................14,700
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force.............................21,600
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide...........................8,800
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve..........................11,900
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve...........................1,600
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve...................1,000
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve......................2,100
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard...................14,000
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard.....................2,200
                                                             __________
                                                             
    Total.......................................................600,600
       Defense Health Program: The amendment includes Section 2209 
     which appropriates a total of $750,000,000 for urgently 
     needed improvements to the military health care system.
       Depot Maintenance: The amendment includes Section 2210 
     which appropriates $1,205,600,000 to fund shortfalls in 
     Department of Defense depot maintenance programs to be 
     distributed as follows. (Included in this amount is 
     $220,000,000 for the unfunded backlog of ship depot 
     maintenance that has emerged in execution of the fiscal year 
     2000 ship depot maintenance program.)


                                                         (in thousands)
Operation and Maintenance, Army................................$200,000
Operation and Maintenance, Navy.................................538,800
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps..........................50,000
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force............................250,000
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve..........................33,000
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve...................5,000
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve.....................37,200
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard....................91,600
                                                             __________
                                                             
    Total.....................................................1,205,600
       High Priority Support to Deployed Forces: The amendment 
     includes Section 2211 which appropriates $1,212,700,000 for 
     shortfalls associated with requirements of deployed U.S. 
     forces.


                                                         (in thousands)
Operation and Maintenance, Army (materials in support of 
  prepositioned equipment sets)................................$200,000
Operation and Maintenance, Navy (aviation spares)...............310,300
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (readiness spares packages)197,000
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide..........................31,600
Aircraft Procurement, Army (Apache modifications)................50,000
Missile Procurement, Army (Patriot missile reliability)..........50,000
Aircraft Procurement, Navy (CH-46 safety, EP-3 sensor improvements 
  and modifications).............................................52,800
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.................................209,700
  U-2 aircraft sensor modifications (111,600)
  AWACS trainer modification/flight simulator (25,000)
  U-2 trainer (10,000)
  RC-135 Rivet Joint flight training simulator (24,500)
  Compass Call mission crew trainer (23,700)
  C-17 weapon system trainer (14,900)
Other Procurement, Air Force (HARVEST EAGLE materials)...........30,300
Procurement, Defense-Wide........................................13,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force (JSTARS 
  mission trainer)...............................................10,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide.........58,000
                                                             __________
                                                             
    Total.....................................................1,212,700

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I do not have a 
problem with where much of this money would go. I support added funds 
for the defense health program. We have a recruiting and retention 
problem in the military, due in large part to a very strong economy. We 
ought to bolster those efforts.
  But it is clear what is really happening here. The majority is 
embarrassed because their record on military spending has not matched 
their rhetoric. They like to talk about how the Clinton administration 
is not funding the military, but their own budget resolution, passed 
just last Thursday, places a priority on tax cuts, not military 
spending. Their budget resolution essentially endorses the Clinton 
defense budget.
  I understand that did not sit too well with certain members of the 
majority party on the Committee on Armed Services and in other places 
who were asked by their leadership to vote to that budget resolution, 
so this amendment is a convenient way of giving them a repayment for 
their behaving well on their budget resolution. It gives them a $4 
billion fig leaf to say that they are for more military spending.
  If it becomes law, it simply makes room, by transferring $4 billion 
in spending for regular items into this year's budget, it simply makes 
room in next year's budget for $4 billion worth of other items, 
including a lot of congressional projects and pork.
  But we have a complication. The Senate leadership opposes it because 
it eats into the budget surplus. The Senate leadership has already said 
this additional spending is dead on arrival. The administration opposes 
it as well because it is not offset by other spending cuts.
  So what is the ultimate impact of this amendment? Its most likely 
impact is that it will slow down further the critical aid for disaster 
assistance across the country. It will delay approving the money that 
is in this bill at this time that is needed to reimburse the Army for 
expenses already incurred in Kosovo and elsewhere, and to deal with the 
Tricare problem.
  It will either cause a huge muddle or it will further discredit the 
budget process. In either case, it should not be supported by the House 
today.
  As a practical matter, we have $2 billion in this bill which the 
Pentagon badly needs, and if it does not get it, in the words of the 
Secretary of Defense, they will ``need to make irreversible decisions 
to curtail training and maintenance activities essential to 
readiness,'' if they do not get that money by the end of April.
  There is another $2.5 million for Tricare and fuel costs which they 
do not absolutely have to have, but it would be nice if we could get it 
to the Pentagon. That money is also going to be put in danger in order 
to take a long shot chance that the public will buy and the Senate will 
buy a scheme which is nothing short of an effort to blow the budget by 
$4 billion next year when that budget is only 5 days old.
  That is the name of the game. I do not happen to think much of it, 
but I admire the skill with which the game plan has been put together, 
nonetheless.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 
such

[[Page H1549]]

time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spence), the chairman of the authorizing committee.
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I want to especially thank the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), 
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for making this 
amendment a bipartisan amendment. We could not do it without them.
  Not many people are here on this floor, and I cannot be talking to 
those people. I am trying to reach the people who are in the offices 
listening and the American people on C-Span that might see this.
  I am going to say what I said at our Republican conference this 
morning. I say it to everyone now. We are considering an emergency 
supplemental. In prior years, we have talked about supplementals, 
emergency supplementals, real emergency supplementals. This is a real, 
real emergency supplemental from the standpoint of defense.
  I know we all have different priorities. We have talked about them a 
lot today. We are going to continue to talk about them, all the things 
that are in this supplemental bill we have been talking about, drugs 
and all the rest.
  I want to remind everyone, we would not be here as a free society, 
secure and prosperous, if it had not been made possible by our 
military, starting with the revolution when we gained our independence. 
Since that time, we have had World War I and World War II, big threats. 
Our forefathers, our fathers, our grandfathers, and their families 
sacrificed their lives and their health to make sure that we are free 
and secure, and to create the environment so we can discuss these other 
things as they come along.

                              {time}  1915

  The Cold War. Some people talk about the arms race. People say we 
spend more money on defense than all the rest of the world put 
together. We have to. Who else is able to do it? We are the only ones. 
To save ourselves, we have to save the rest of the world along with it. 
The Cold War is over, yes. I agree.
  President Reagan, with a Democrat Congress, helped to restore us; and 
we beat the Soviet Union in the arms race. They could not keep up. They 
could not do it any longer. That is what ended the Cold War. But I have 
to say that we still today face a similar situation. We have more 
threats today than ever before. We still have the nuclear threats from 
now Russia, but now we have got China and North Korea and all the rest 
of them, and we are not prepared to defend against those threats.
  We also have other threats now. Weapons of mass destruction other 
than nuclear, chemical, biological, from these same countries and 
lesser countries. This threat is out there, and we are unprepared to 
deal with them.
  We are not strong enough to fight one conventional war. Kosovo was a 
wakeup call. We devoted all of our air assets, just about everything, 
to that air war. And what would have happened if something big time had 
broken out somewhere else in the world? We could not have handled it 
certainly without a large loss of life.
  Now it is our turn. We have to step up to the plate. We have to make 
sure that our country is free, first of all, and have the environment 
to consider these other priorities which I can sympathize with. The 
administration, I will give them credit, it has come a long way, but 
not nearly enough. This amendment is going to help a whole lot, but 
still not enough.
  I conclude with this, a personal note: I have dedicated the rest of 
my life to making sure that I have done the very best I can do to see 
that we are free and secure. But we cannot do it alone. None of us 
here. We have to have all of our colleagues' help.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, if I could have the attention of the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spence), I would just like to say that while I 
disagree with his words, I wanted to express the appreciation of every 
single person in this House for the service that he has given this 
House through the years. We know that he says what he believes, and we 
honor him for it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) from the authorizing committee.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I compliment the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) our chairman, our friend, 
for his excellent statement a few moments ago. His care for the young 
men and young women in uniform today who have and who continue to serve 
our country so well have been represented so finely by his eloquent 
words through the years, and we thank him for his continued service for 
them.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lewis-Murtha-Spence-
Skelton amendment. I thank the gentleman from California (Chairman 
Lewis); the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha); our ranking 
member, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence); and those who 
have worked on this key issue for so long. This is a good news story 
because it is something that is truly needed in three areas: health 
care and quality of life, readiness, and maintenance.
  First, I do not think it is any secret that the military health care 
system is in crisis, whether it is active duty service members or 
whether it relates to military retirees. We made a promise to the 
retirees that we must keep. This amendment is a major step for helping 
those who are active duty, those families, and those military retirees. 
It is very, very important that we take this step in addressing this 
situation by appropriating the monies in this amendment.
  The quality of life issue is so very important. We do not enlist 
soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, but we enlist families and these 
measures will help ensure quality of life issues for our military 
members and their families.
  Mr. Chairman, military readiness is a great matter of concern. With 
ongoing deployments in the Middle East, Bosnia, Kosovo, the operational 
tempo of our forces has been steadily rising and I say, we are wearing 
the young men and young women out who are stationed abroad as well as 
in this country. We have to make sure that the readiness accounts are 
there for their training, their exercises, their maintenance, and their 
military operations.
  The high operational tempo associated with these deploying forces is 
straining our readiness, and we must do our best to keep their 
equipment and the spare parts and their training at high level.
  Equipment maintenance is important to us. As we deploy our forces 
more often, we are simply wearing out much of that equipment. It is 
important, Mr. Chairman, that the Committee on Armed Services' ability 
to authorize the programs necessary to protect our national security 
interest depends on having sufficient resources. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the gentleman from California (Chairman 
Lewis), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), and I term this 
amendment as a readiness and operational necessity. We hope that every 
Member of this House will vote in favor of it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the specific accounts 
mentioned in this amendment are very appealing. Many of them ought to 
be funded. But they ought to be funded by the military showing the same 
kind of fiscal discipline that Members here claim they want the 
government as a whole to follow.
  The military budget was increased substantially in the last 
appropriation. It will be again substantially increased. It is up to 
the military, in fact, to manage that money. And what we do today is, 
in effect, to give approval to a process by which they can so manage 
the money as to be able to point to some deficits in some of the most 
appealing accounts.
  Let us understand this is $4 billion taken presumably from some 
surplus. It is $4 billion that cannot be used then for any other 
purpose. Not for tax cuts. Not for deficit reduction or other spending. 
I understand we have problems. We all have problems. We have been told 
that we cannot afford to provide prescription drugs for older people

[[Page H1550]]

to the degree that many of us want. Understand that this $4 billion is 
$4 billion that could have gone for prescription drug programs for 
Medicare.
  Mr. Chairman, it is $4 billion that could go to putting police on the 
streets. I believe there are some problems in the world. I must say I 
disagree with the notion, I in fact am intrigued by it, that the world 
became less safe when communism collapsed. I have heard that again and 
again. I guess maybe we should pray for the reestablishment of 
communism so we could all feel safer.
  In fact, we do not face today the threat of nuclear destruction. 
Reference was made to the nuclear threat we face from the Russians. In 
the state of the Russian nuclear weaponry today, Russians face much 
more of a threat from Russian nuclear weapons than anyone else does. 
They are much more likely to blow up on site than to be delivered 
anywhere.
  Mr. Chairman, what this does is to continue a pattern in which the 
military is rewarded for not spending efficiently. In which Members, as 
the Senator from Arizona correctly pointed out during his campaign, in 
which Members eat into the military budget with projects the military 
does not want and erode the military's ability to focus on what they 
should focus on and takes $4 billion away from other things.
  This is the time of year when people come to our offices and want 
help with health research and want help with prescription drugs. They 
want help with housing, and they want help with a lot of other issues. 
The $4 billion today, over and above what they got last year and what 
they will get next year, comes from other pots.
  If my colleagues vote for this $4 billion today, they should remember 
that when they tell people that they sympathize with them when it comes 
to cancer research and they sympathize with them when it comes to 
prescription drugs for older people, they sympathize when it comes to 
environmental cleanup but we do not have the money, partly we will not 
have the money if this amendment passes because they took $4 billion 
which would have been available for other purposes and gave it to the 
military. Again, because certain accounts sound attractive, but it is 
because the management has been such to put us in this position where 
we are told we have to spend the money here.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
  (Mr. RYUN of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this nation's national 
security. Our United States military service Chiefs, under the current 
Administration, have consistently been forced to fund their services 
with inadequate budgets. This amendment will give our military service 
Chiefs the funding levels needed to succeed in supporting their troops 
and protecting this nation's national security interests.
  Mr. Chairman, according to recent reports, our military has been 
deployed on 48 overseas missions in the 1990s, costing $30 billion and 
costing far more than that in worn-out equipment and personnel. This 
increase in Operations Tempo, coupled with reduced defense budgets, has 
put increased strain not only on military equipment but also on the 
structure of the military family.
  Military personnel, often times at the request of their family, are 
choosing to leave the service at alarmingly high rates and our ability 
to recruit young people of this nation to serve in the military has 
fallen dramatically. As a Congress, we need to ensure that our military 
has the means to recruit, retain, equip and train the strongest and 
best-trained force in the world.
  Mr. Chairman, military families consistently cite problems with the 
military health care system and reductions in quality of housing as 
reasons for leaving military service. This amendment will direct close 
to $1 billion towards improving military quality of life with reduced 
out-of-pocket housing expenses and increased funding for the Defense 
Health Program.
  Mr. Chairman, the funding levels in this amendment have been driven 
by what the military service Chiefs have identified as their top 
unfunded requirements. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment 
and give our quality military personnel the quality of care, support 
and equipment they need to achieve their goals.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  (Mr. HEFLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I too rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan amendment offered 
by the leaders of the defense authorization committee and the defense 
appropriations subcommittee.
  There is no question that the military services are facing severe 
funding difficulties. The basic costs of operations of our overseas 
commitments are not properly budgeted. High operational tempo stresses 
military equipment and their maintenance. More critically, recruiting 
and retention are increasingly difficult for a variety of reasons.
  This Congress has reformed the pay table and provided a significant 
pay increase for military personnel. We have worked hard to improve 
basic living and working conditions. All of that has helped to keep 
some military personnel in the force who otherwise would have left the 
service. We need to do more and the situation is urgent.
  This amendment would continue our efforts by responding to the 
critical and immediate needs of military personnel and their families. 
By accelerating the buydown of out-of-pocket housing expenses, 
protecting military personnel from reductions in their housing 
allowances, and filling the gaps in the Defense Health Program, the 
adoption of the Lewis-Spence-Murtha-Skelton amendment will strengthen 
the All-Volunteer Force that is the backbone of our national security.
  The time to deal with the emergency confronting military service 
personnel is now. I urge a strong bipartisan vote in favor of this 
amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 8 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no additional requests for time, except to 
mention that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), my partner 
in this whole process on the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations, 
has been more than great in his help; and we want to especially 
recognize the work of our colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spence), the chairman of the authorizing committee, in the entire 
effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I very reluctantly rise in opposition to 
this amendment for basically two reasons. One, it was Paul Kennedy, the 
historian Paul Kennedy, who made the point in his book, The Rise and 
Fall of Great Powers, that economic supremacy is the precursor to 
military supremacy. And for us to maintain that economic supremacy, at 
least in part, rests on fiscal discipline. And for us to in essence 
breach a budget that we set last week to the tune of $4 billion, I 
think, is a move away from the kind of fiscal discipline that, in fact, 
Paul Kennedy and others have talked about over time.
  Secondly, I think at some point we have to draw the line on 
deployments. And I look at this money. I look at basically the Powell 
doctrine. The Powell doctrine was we go in, we make a difference, we 
have clearly defined military objectives, and then we get out of town.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the list of different deployments that we have 
had. Basically, over the last 10 years, we had the highest number of 
deployments that we have had. Mr. Chairman, 149 deployments according 
to the Committee on Armed Services from 1990 to 1999, versus 17 
deployments from 1982 to 1990. And, in essence, we are rewarding that.
  At some point Congress has to draw the line and basically starve the 
beast by saying we will not continue to fund

[[Page H1551]]

these kinds of deployments. Since I have been here, we have funded 
Haiti, we funded Bosnia, we funded Kosovo, we are funding the Middle 
East operations over Iraq to the tune of $1.2 billion a year. We had 
State Department officials telling us in testimony last week that it 
could last as long as Saddam is alive. If South Carolina is any guide 
on that front, that means another 50 years of us spending $1.2 billion 
a year.
  Mr. Chairman, at some point we have to draw the line on deployments, 
rather than continue to feed them. Therefore, I very reluctantly rise 
in opposition to this amendment.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have only one remaining speaker, and I 
believe I have the right to close.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is correct.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
promise not to use all of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am for the dollars in this amendment and in the bill. 
Let us talk about them both together. I am for the dollars that we need 
to fix the TRICARE problem, the health care problem. I am for the 
dollars to help with the recruiting and housing. I am for reimbursing 
the Pentagon for the funds they have already expended in their Kosovo 
operations. I am for helping them meet their additional fuel costs. 
That is not my problem with this amendment.
  I am for all of those things, but I am not for them in a way which 
will enable this House to bust the budget by $4 billion for next year, 
just 5 days after the leadership twisted arms to get enough votes to 
pass that budget.
  I do not think that we should drop our promises as an institution 
quite that fast. This is precedent setting. If you are going to do it 
on this, then do not be surprised when it happens again and again with 
far more justification.
  I am for all of the things that I mentioned for the Pentagon because 
they are meeting legitimate national needs. But I am not for another 
result of this amendment. As I have said before, what this chart shows 
is that, before this bill came to the floor, so far this year, for this 
year's fiscal budget, the President had asked for $568 billion in 
appropriated spending, and the Congress had provided him with $578 
billion. So the Congress was $10 billion over the President in 
spending.
  The bill that came to the floor today added to that difference, 
because it added several billion dollars the President had not asked 
for. So the President, because of his increase request, the President 
had asked for $573 billion for this year, and the Congress with the 
bill as it came to the floor would be spending $587 billion, $13 
billion over the President's request. Now, with this amendment, this 
year, the President will have still asked for $573 billion for this 
fiscal year, but the Congress will demand that we spend $591 billion. 
To me, plain mathematics indicates that is a $17 billion increase over 
the President's budget.
  I really cannot believe that, only 5 days after we passed the budget 
for the next fiscal year that this House is going to bust the budget 
for this fiscal year and find a way to add $4 billion for projects in 
the next fiscal year under the DOD portion of the budget. But 
evidently, that is what the House is going to do.
  I have no illusions whatsoever about what the outcome of this 
amendment is going to be, but I for one will not vote for it.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. 
The amendment includes recruiting and quality of life, and health care 
funding essential to sustaining the readiness and well being of the 
all-volunteer military.


                           recruiting funding

  Mr. Chairman, the primary reason the Armed Forces of the late 1970's 
were declared hollow was the inability of the services to recruit and 
retain the required number and quality of people.
  That hollow force history is repeating itself today, and we must act 
to change its course. To that end, this amendment would add $600 
million to a troubled recruiting program that is in urgent need of 
help.
  How bad is the recruiting problem? Three of the four active duty 
services failed to achieve recruiting goals in fiscal year 1999, and at 
least one will certainly fail in FY 2000, and two others may fail.
  Three of the six reserve components also failed to meet recruiting 
objectives in fiscal year 1999 and some analysts predict that five of 
six will fall below their FY 2000 authorized strength by 15,000 people.
  Mr. Chairman, we must not allow recruiting to go unattended even for 
1 year--we support this amendment that provides critical funding for 
enlistment bonuses and advertising right now.


                            quality of life

  Everyone has heard about the economic plight of men and women in the 
military. This amendment would put $221 million directly into the 
pockets of military people to pay for housing. Without this money, 
thousands of families will continue to reach into their own pockets to 
pay for housing that is our obligation to provide them.
  This amendment also dedicates $10 million to fund the DOD's 
implementation of a Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) supplemental 
food program overseas. We must ensure that our youngest and most 
financially stressed families are not denied the food and nutritional 
counseling just because they serve overseas.


                         defense health program

  The Defense Health Program is chronically underfunded and there is a 
need to improve and extend the benefit for a changing military 
beneficiary population. Therefore, the amendment would provide $750 
million to improve health care benefits for active duty and retired 
personnel and their families. Military families increasingly cite the 
crisis facing the military health care system as a reason for their 
growing disaffection with the military way of life. We cannot afford to 
neglect this problem.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues should be assured that meeting the needs 
of people and the armed services that I have outlined here is an urgent 
requirement. A vote in favor of this amendment is a vote to protect the 
people that serve our Nation in uniform--our most precious of 
resources. Vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to 
support a small, but important provision included in the amendment 
offered by Congressman Lewis to H.R. 3908, the 2000 Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Act. This provision would provide $10 
million to fund the Overseas Special Supplemental Food Program 
authorized as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 
year 2000.
  The Overseas Supplemental Food Program included in the National 
Defense Authorization Act is based on legislation I introduced on May 
12, 1999 with Congressman Kildee, Castle, and McKeon, H.R. 1779, the 
``Overseas Special Supplemental Food Program Amendments of 1999.''
  As most of you know, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 
Women, Infants and Children (commonly known as WIC) provides vital 
benefits to low-income women, infants and children in the form of food 
packages and nutrition education. Until the enactment of the National 
Defense Authorization Act, an estimated 46,658 women, infants and 
children living overseas were not eligible to receive the nutrition 
benefits that would have been available to them if the families were 
stationed in the United States and participating in WIC.
  The Department of Defense is currently in the process of implementing 
the Overseas Special Supplemental Food Program. The $10 million 
provided as a part of the amendment offered by Congressman Lewis will 
help ensure it has the funding necessary to provide high quality 
nutritional assistance to program participants.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will guarantee that our hard-working, 
dedicated military personnel overseas have access to the same 
nutritional support as those families residing in the United States. It 
deserves our support.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I agree this amendment is necessary to 
address some of the critical unfunded requirements the Service 
Secretaries and Chiefs identified during the recent hearings before the 
House Armed Services Committee. However, I am concerned because it does 
not specifically target any funds for real property maintenance.
  Every Service Secretary and Chief testified before our committee 
about their inability to fund their facility maintenance and repair 
accounts at the required level. They've had to use these accounts to 
pay bills for contingency operations, modernization, spare parts, and 
other high priority items.
  Their unfunded requirements lists, submitted to this committee in 
February, include real property maintenance as one of the top eight 
priorities for every Service.

[[Page H1552]]

  All of us who are homeowners know that if we don't keep our homes 
properly maintained, we're going to be facing even bigger bills in the 
future. I'm afraid we're already there on our military installations.
  I'n not talking about cosmetic upgrades--I'm talking about things 
that impact readiness and the quality of life of our troops.
  Things like airfield pavement repair to prevent pieces of the 
pavement flying up and putting out an aircraft engine. Or power outages 
which impact vital systems on the installation.
  I'm sure any of the Members who have military bases in their 
districts, or have traveled to our overseas bases, have heard the 
horror stories of how barracks and dining halls are without heat or hot 
water because of a catastrophic failure, or of how buildings must be 
vacated when winds reach a certain speed because failing structural 
systems make them unsafe. You all have your own examples.
  We have also seen the ingenuous ways our troops engineer work-arounds 
just to get the job done--they should not have to work under these 
conditions! They deserve better.
  I would urge the Appropriations Committee to add real property 
maintenance funds for each Service, based on the unfunded priority 
lists. These funds would allow each Service to immediately fix their 
most urgent requirements and improve their military readiness.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and 
Related Agencies.
  Mr. Chairman, bovine tuberculosis has been identified in free-range 
deer in Michigan. The deer are quickly transferring this disease to 
cattle herds throughout the State.
  Currently, the State is in danger of losing its bovine TB-free 
status. If that were to happen, Michigan farmers stand to lose $156 
million over the next 10 years. The State of Michigan has been working 
in conjunction with USDA to solve this problem. However, further 
assistance from the Federal Government is needed.
  We have a bipartisan request for $7.5 million to the State of 
Michigan to combat that disease. I seek the assurance of the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) that the committee will assist with 
funding for the bovine TB crisis, and that will be addressed when this 
bill is considered in the conference committee.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAMP. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Camp) for bringing this problem to our attention.
  As we stated in our committee's report on the supplemental bill, we 
urged the Department of Agriculture to address this problem immediately 
through epidemiology and surveillance, deer ecology, risk analysis, 
disease control, eradication, and diagnosis and pathogenesis.
  We have directed the Secretary of Agriculture to promptly notify the 
committee of any additional funding requirements, accompanied by 
official requests for additional funds, and to report to the committee 
by May 1, 2000, on his plan of action.
  Again, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his efforts. We will 
follow this matter closely and do the best we can to address the need.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered By Mr. Ramstad

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

       Part B Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Ramstad:
       Page 2, strike line 1 and all that follows through page 9, 
     line 4.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) each 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike title I, the entire $1.7 
billion in counternarcotics funding for Colombia. We have already spent 
over $600 million to eradicate drugs at their source in Colombia, and 
what has been the result? A recent study on our effort in Colombia 
shows that both cocaine and heroin production in Colombia have more 
than doubled. That has been the result.
  Colombia is now the source of 80 percent of the cocaine and 75 
percent of the heroin coming into the United States, both significant 
increases, the $600 million spent notwithstanding. That is what $600 
million in Colombia has done, Mr. Chairman.
  Now, tonight, we are being asked to spend almost $2 billion to 
escalate the war on drugs in Colombia. This is misdirected public 
policy; and it is simply wrong, when 58 percent of drug addicts who 
seek treatment here in our country are being denied treatment.
  Let us face it, our drug eradication and interdiction efforts have 
been a costly and a colossal failure.
  As a former United States Navy lieutenant commander, Sylvester 
Salcedo, who was involved in the Colombia effort as the Navy 
intelligence officer for 3 years, said today right outside this 
Capitol, ``The $1.7 billion,'' and I am quoting now, ``proposed for 
drug eradication and interdiction in Colombia is good money thrown 
after bad.''
  Lieutenant Commander Salcedo also said, and I am quoting, ``We cannot 
make progress on the drug problem by increasing our failed effort in 
Colombia.'' Let me repeat that. Somebody who was there 3 years in the 
Colombia effort, Lieutenant Commander Salcedo, said, ``We cannot make 
progress on the drug problem by increasing our failed effort in 
Colombia.'' Instead, he said we should confront the issue of demand 
here at home by providing treatment to our addicts in our own country.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to listen to this veteran of the war on drugs 
who added, ``Washington should not spend its money on more helicopters 
but on treatment for addicts. The $400 million cost of the helicopters 
alone in this bill would provide treatment for 200,000 Americans 
addicted to drugs.''
  Mr. Chairman, when President Richard Nixon first declared war on 
drugs in 1971, he directed 60 percent of the funding to treatment. To 
date, we are down to 18 percent for treatment. That is right. Sixty-six 
percent on the supply side, eradication, interdiction, border patrol. 
Sixty-six percent on the supply side; 16 percent for education and 
prevention; and 18 percent for treatment.
  That is why over half the treatment beds available 10 years ago are 
gone. That is why 58 percent of the addicts seeking treatment last year 
were denied access. Our priorities in the war on drugs are wrong, and 
they are not working. Instead of spending two-thirds of our resources 
on the supply side and one-third on the demand side, those should 
clearly be reversed.
  The bottom line is this, Mr. Chairman, we will never curb the drug 
epidemic until we curb the insatiable demand for drugs here at home. 
The drug problem goes much deeper than illegal drugs coming into our 
Nation. The fundamental problem is the addiction that causes people to 
crave and demand drugs.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a defining moment in the 30-year effort to curb 
illegal drug use in America. We can keep pumping money into the 
eradication and interdiction dead end; or we can get serious, and we 
can shift our focus and resources to the drug addiction problem here at 
home.
  It is time to reject the $1.7 billion for the failed policy in 
Colombia. It is time to redirect those dollars to drug treatment here 
at home. Congress needs to just say no to this Colombia boondoggle.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page H1553]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Ramstad), and I know the emotion with which he offers this amendment. 
But I have to tell him that it was very disturbing when I listened to 
him say that this money would provide treatment for 200,000 addicts. I 
think, Mr. Chairman, that our goal here should be to eliminate that 
terrible drug that is causing these addicts, that the addicts are 
getting addicted to.
  We need to destroy the fields where these poppies are growing. We 
need to destroy the mountain sites where the coca is growing. We need 
to eliminate the source of the drug. That way, if we dry up the source, 
we do a lot better than treating 200,000 addicts. What we will do is 
try to prevent 200,000 more people from becoming addicts. That is what 
we need to do.
  Now, if we wanted to get rid of posse comitatus and let the United 
States military use its full force against the drug growers and the 
drug lords, that might be a way to solve this problem. But no one is 
going to repeal posse comitatus.
  Or if we wanted to triple or quadruple the size of the United States 
Coast Guard and give them more helicopters and more ships and more 
manpower to interdict, we might be able to be a little more effective.
  But the effective way is to eliminate these drugs at the source. Let 
us eliminate the opportunity for those 200,000 addicts that the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) talked about. Let us eliminate 
the source of the drug that caused them to be addicts.
  Let us think about whose kids are going to be next. If the drug is on 
the street, whose kid is going to be next? Who is going to become the 
next addict? Who is going to become the next casualty because of an 
overdose of drugs? Who is going to be the next person shot, killed 
because of a drug bust gone bad or drug violence on the streets?

                              {time}  1945

  Stop the drugs at the source. Defeat this amendment. I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my 
friend, the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  I just want to repeat this. The bottom line is this: We will never 
curb the drug epidemic until we curb the insatiable demand for drugs 
here at home. We can put up all the fences on our border, hire all the 
border patrol money can buy, go after the source, spend all the money 
in crop eradication, interdiction, but until Congress realizes that the 
fundamental problem is the addiction that causes people to crave and 
demand drugs, not the supply, we will never put a dent in this problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell), the cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, we are about to go to war in Colombia. We 
are about to allocate $1.7 billion for 63 helicopters and the United 
States military advisers to help the military in Colombia to fight a 
civil war. We are about to go to war in the jungles of Colombia.
  We are about to take on an insurgency that controls 40 percent of the 
land mass of Colombia that has been at war with the government of 
Colombia for 20 years. We are about to relocate farmers off the land 
where they are growing coca leaf and put them into what can only be 
called strategic hamlets and protect them, of course, from attack 
during this time while we teach them to grow something other than coca 
leaf.
  The time will come when these military advisers are fired upon, I 
fear. And when they are, what will the United States' response be? I 
suggest its response will be as it was in Vietnam, to increase the 
number of advisers, to protect those previously sent, to protect the 
air bases where the helicopters are, to protect the strategic hamlets 
where we have relocated the villagers to try to teach them to grow 
something other than coca leaf.
  What we are voting on today is the last moment that we have, really, 
given the way that the war powers have been exercised by this President 
and previous Presidents, the last moment we have to say no. Because 
once this starts, the next step will be put more troops in to defend 
the investment that we have already made.
  Can anyone doubt that this will be the case given what has happened 
in Bosnia, given what has happened in Kosovo? We originally were 
supposed to be in Bosnia for 6 months. It has now been 5 years. Kosovo 
we thought would be short term, now our troops will be there for as 
long as we can see.
  We are today voting at the last moment we will have before being 
asked to observe another war. We are being asked to go to war in 
Colombia. I think that my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) expressed the point very ably, we will always 
have a problem of drugs while we have a demand for drugs.
  Already chemicals, synthetic substitutes are available that do almost 
as much harm, in fact, in some cases more. The problem is one of 
demand. Today we vote to go to war.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no, and that means vote yes on the 
Ramstad amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) who has offered this amendment. I would share 
with the gentleman that I do agree with him on some of his points, 
especially when he said that we have to go after the demand. I agree 
with him.
  But when it comes to the drug issue, I think, as a Nation, we have to 
embrace a comprehensive approach, one that is, in fact, multifaceted. 
So when we do that, I stop and I think about, yes, the importance of 
education. I think about the importance of rehabilitation and 
treatment, but there are also other important factors out there.
  It is deterrence. It is punishment, punishments of users, of pushers 
and of kingpins. There is also the glamorization of utilization of 
drugs, whether it is by Hollywood or stories, TV shows. What about 
going after the source countries, as the chairman just spoke of, or 
what about through the transit countries, where the drugs move out of 
the source countries and transit through other avenues and to find its 
way on the streets of this country?
  What about the precursor chemicals that are coming from our other 
ally countries, such as Germany and others in Europe, and their 
relationships into South America, that they have those relationships 
dating all the way back to pre-World War II, they sell those chemicals, 
and then going after those precursor chemicals.
  Talking about a multifaceted approach, when a Member stands here on 
the floor and says we are going to war in Colombia, give me a break. We 
are not going to war in Colombia. We are going to war on drugs.
  I was rather stunned in the Committee on Armed Services when a member 
of this administration came so very cautious and concerned to tell the 
members of the Committee on Armed Services that in Colombia we are not 
choosing sides. Not choosing sides? What, are you going to then somehow 
be neutral? You want to defend the drug cartel, the narcoterrorists?
  What do you mean you are not choosing sides? Who are you going to be 
for? Are you going to stand to defend a president who wants to engage 
us in the war on drugs in Colombia, the longest-serving democracy in 
this hemisphere, with the United States? Yes, that is who we need to 
stand with. So they want to engage in a comprehensive approach in the, 
quote, war on drugs; should we embrace them? The answer is yes.
  We have great debates on this floor about the United States, we 
should only engage in certain areas of the world to protect vital 
national security interests. Can you define an interest that can be 
more vital to all of us than the drugs and the effects they have upon 
our children? I cannot think of one.
  We will spend $10 billion in Kosovo. And people cannot relate as to 
why we are spending these monies in Kosovo, when, in fact, if we would 
spend half of that in an endeavor to stop drugs from coming into our 
country, look how far ahead we would be, the 52,000 lives that are lost 
each year, I say to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).
  I would urge Members to vote against the gentleman's amendment for a 
comprehensive approach.

[[Page H1554]]

  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a couple of points: One, 
basic economics, as the gentleman from California pointed out, the 
gentleman said supply always equals demand. If we push down supply here 
but do nothing about demand, we can be sure from Guyana or Venezuela or 
a lot of other places supply will be there to meet it.
  Two, my wife got a $218 ticket the other day for turning left on a 
green light in front of oncoming traffic. If she had been caught 
instead with a noncommercial quantity of marijuana in her car, she 
would have gotten a $125 fine instead of a $218 fine. We are not 
serious about this war on drugs.
  Three, Colombia does not have a shootdown policy and, yet, we are 
about to send over a billion dollars. For that matter, America does not 
have a shootdown policy.
  Finally, we have a flawed strategy. In military, you have to effect 
the center of gravity. You have to eliminate an enemy's ability to make 
war. We do not do that; what we are offering here is a false promise.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we have only one speaker 
remaining, and we reserve the balance of our time to close.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the Members of the majority can stand the 
shock of my speaking from the majority side, I would simply say that I 
had not wanted to go through this amendment because there are a number 
of things in this bill that I do not want to cut out, but we have not 
been given any other opportunity to cut out the things that I think 
really need to be cut out with respect to this new adventure in 
Colombia. And absent our ability to get more consideration of that, I 
am going to support the Ramstad amendment. I think it gives us no 
choice, given the choice the House presented to us today.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank the speakers on both sides of this issue. This truly 
is a defining moment in a 30-year effort to fight illegal drug use in 
America. We can continue down the road of a failed policy by spending 
another $1.7 billion for more eradication, more interdiction efforts 
that have been proven futile, that have been proven not to work; or we 
can prioritize treatment for addiction, which has been proven cost 
effective in study after study, in addict after addict, in alcoholic 
after alcoholic lucky enough to be treated.
  This is not a political issue, my colleagues. This is a life or death 
issue for five and a half million addicts in America who need treatment 
and cannot get it today.
  This amendment is also fiscally responsible. I want to thank the 
National Taxpayers Union for endorsing this amendment. I also want to 
thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for cosponsoring the 
amendment.
  Let us save the taxpayers $1.7 billion. Let us begin the process of 
reordering our priorities in the war against drugs.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote to delete funding for the 
Colombia boondoggle.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) is recognized 
for 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my 
chairman and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), 
yielding me this time.
  Indeed, I want to say to my colleagues in the House, but especially 
to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), I could not believe more 
strongly in his expression of concern about the problems that relate to 
the demand side. Indeed, earlier today we had an extensive discussion 
regarding that as we went forward with the Pelosi amendment.
  There is no doubt that America is concerned about impacting the 
demand for drugs in cities all over America. Indeed, we have made 
significant commitments over time during this Congress and the past 
Congress. Clearly, not nearly enough money, but this proposition today 
is in response to the administration's recommendation that we step 
forward in a relationship with our neighboring country, Colombia, a 
country that is attempting to raise between $7 and $8 billion 
themselves in order to fight the war on drugs at home.
  Colombia is the source of something like 90 percent of cocaine that 
is imported into America. There is little doubt, unless we deal 
directly with that source, that we will never affect that piece of drug 
availability in the United States. So the proposition before us today 
is to essentially express support for the President, who is joining us 
in this effort, the effort to stop the flow of cocaine to our country.
  Clearly, propositions that would expand the opportunities to impact 
demand should and do deserve our support. I expect in the months and 
years ahead that I will join my colleagues in that effort, as I ask all 
of my colleagues to vote against this amendment and to support the bill 
in its final passage.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, 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 CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to take a very brief time to note that I 
forgot to mention one thing on the Gilman amendment.
  I have a letter from the Taxpayers for Common Sense which reads, 
``Taxpayers for Common Sense urges you to oppose passage of H.R. 3908, 
the 2000 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation bill, and to vote against 
the amendment to add $4 billion in undefined military spending to go 
the bill. What began as a modest appropriations bill to cover expenses 
for ongoing military deployments has turned into an enormous Christmas 
tree decorated with billions of extra dollars of pork placed there by 
special interests. The real emergency is the utter breakdown of the 
congressional budget and appropriations process.''
  I do not necessarily agree with all of those words, but I agree with 
most of them.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Farr of California

  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Farr of California:
       Page 5, line 22, after ``activities'' insert ``(of which 
     not less than $6,500,000 shall be made available through the 
     United States Agency for International Development for 
     alternative economic development activities in Bolivia to be 
     managed by the United Nations Drug Control Program)''.
       Page 6, beginning on line 1, after ``activities'' insert 
     ``(of which not less than $3,000,000 shall be made available 
     through the United States Agency for International 
     Development for alternative economic development activities 
     in Ecuador to be managed by the United Nations Drug Control 
     Program)''.
       Page 6, line 4, after ``Peru'' insert ``, of which not less 
     than $7,500,000 shall be made available through the United 
     States Agency for International Development for alternative 
     economic development activities in Peru to be managed by the 
     United Nations Drug Control Program''.
       Page 6, line 9, after ``objectives'' insert ``: Provided 
     further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, 
     not less than $9,000,000 shall be made available through the 
     United State Agency for International Development for 
     alternative economic development activities in Colombia to be 
     managed

[[Page H1555]]

     by the United Nations Drug Control Program: Provided further, 
     That funds appropriated under this chapter for the United 
     Nations Drug Control Program to be made available through the 
     United States Agency for International Development may be 
     obligated to the United Nations Drug Control Program only if 
     the congressional committees described in section 634A of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2394-1) are 
     notified 15 days in advance of such obligation in accordance 
     with the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications 
     under such section: Provided further, That not later than 6 
     months after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 
     6 months thereafter, the Administrator of the United States 
     Agency for International Development, in consultation with 
     the head of the United Nations Drug Control Program, shall 
     prepare and submit to the congressional committees described 
     in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2394-1) a report on the status of the United Nations 
     Drug Control Program's alternative development projects in 
     Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru''.

  Mr. FARR of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) reserves a point 
of order, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) is recognized 
for 5 minutes on his amendment.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that the chairman is reserving a point of 
order, and what I wanted to do is to explain my amendment and hope that 
we can work something out in conference here.
  This amendment earmarks existing funding for alternative development 
in the UNDCP, the United Nations Drug Control Program, for the 
countries of Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Colombia.

                              {time}  2000

  The amendment enhances the accountability of this money by requiring 
that the funding go through USAID, be subject to congressional 
notification, and be monitored via the regular reporting process.
  The reason that it is important that we put this money in is that, 
indeed, if we are going to eradicate the crops, we have got to teach 
the camposinos how to grow something as an alternative. Just going in 
and eradicating crops, it will reappear. So what the UNDCP program has 
done is very effective and has an approval record in Bolivia and Peru.
  In this alternative, development is essentially the ability to wean 
farmers off growing coca or opium poppy and get them into a 
constructive alternative agricultural practice.
  What also happens to the region is they begin recovery from a drug 
culture to a legitimate private sector agricultural economy in a rural 
country and in a rural area; and it allows, essentially, what we have 
always been trying to promote is democratization, essentially, of 
building of communities.
  So what this amendment does is it takes existing funds and earmarks 
those to those four countries for the exact same purposes.
  Just in closing, I would like to sort of sum up what the UNDCP 
programs have done. They have had a 78 percent reduction in the 
hectares of illicit coca in Bolivia in the last 3 years, 78 percent in 
the last 3 years alone. In 2000, alternative development crops occupy 
100,000 hectares of land, an area 10 times greater than that devoted to 
growing illicit coca.
  So this is particularly important as we move into Colombia, eradicate 
the crops, which is going to be done by the Joint Military National 
Police and then move in behind them with a program that has a proven 
track record of being able to work with the camposinos to get them into 
these alternative programs.
  As I said, the money is funded through our United States Department 
of International Development, and it is subject to notifying us on all 
aspects of it and keeping us informed with progress reports.
  So I would ask that we can get this amendment and work the best we 
can to get these earmarks in. I think it makes it a stronger bill. We 
have bipartisan support for this effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I am hoping we can get assurance that we can look at 
this in the conference committee.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, certainly we, of course, intend 
to work with the gentleman. We are concerned about the issue, as he is; 
and we will work with him. This amendment is definitely subject to a 
point of order. But we understand what he is trying to accomplish, and 
we will work with him.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, we cannot promise the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr) what the conference committee will do. We 
appreciate very much his knowledge of this problem in South America and 
his history of being concerned about it. But I cannot commit to the 
gentleman or to anyone else what the conferees may do.
  My personal observation is that this is sort of an indirect funding 
of the United Nations. And in President Pastrana's Plan Colombia, he 
has already worked with the United Nations and they have committed to 
provide him a portion of the $1.8 billion as their contribution to this 
overall plan. So it may not be necessary, as the United Nations has 
already agreed with President Pastrana. It may be moot.
  So I cannot commit to the gentleman that the conference committee 
will come back with some language that will fulfill the desire of the 
gentleman as his amendment states. But I do appreciate his concern, and 
I agree with the gentleman that they did a good job in Bolivia and that 
they probably are needed as well in Colombia.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Farr of California was allowed to proceed 
for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that this 
is a program that the funding is unique. It goes right to the program. 
It does not go through the United Nations. It goes through a separate 
account, the UNDCP.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
but the organization is a United Nations organization; and, therefore, 
we would have to send the money to the United Nations. That is my 
observation.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we will 
work those differences out, hopefully, in conference.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, 
violates clause 2 of Rule XXI.
  The Rule states in pertinent part:

       An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be 
     in order if it changes existing law.

  And this amendment does.
  So I ask the Chair to sustain the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) wish to 
be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I accept the point of order. We 
will work out the amendment with bipartisan support in conference.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) makes a point of order that 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) 
proposes to change to existing law and constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of Rule XXI.
  As noted on page 799 of the House Rules and Manual, propositions 
establishing affirmative directions for executive officers constitute 
legislation.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from California proposes, in 
part, to require the Administrator of

[[Page H1556]]

the United States Agency for International Development to prepare and 
submit a report to certain congressional committees.
  Thus, the amendment offered by the gentleman imposes a new duty on an 
executive officer and constitutes legislation.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: Part B amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Lewis of 
California; Part B amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Ramstad; and Part B 
amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Gilman.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the third electronic 
vote in this series.


           Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Lewis of California

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on Part B amendment No. 9 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 289, 
noes 130, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 85]

                               AYES--289

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--130

     Ackerman
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Collins
     Cook
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Ganske
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Markey
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rivers
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Smith (MI)
     Stark
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Barton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Crane
     Everett
     Franks (NJ)
     Gilman
     Granger
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Martinez
     Quinn
     Rothman
     Rush
     Vento

                              {time}  2027

  Messrs. SHAYS, PORTMAN, EWING, COOK, GUTIERREZ and FORD changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. PHELPS and Ms. DeLAURO changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Ramstad

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The pending business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158, 
noes 262, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 86]

                               AYES--158

     Abercrombie
     Archer
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Goodling
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Metcalf
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pitts
     Porter
     Ramstad
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano

[[Page H1557]]


     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wicker
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--262

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Barton
     Clyburn
     Crane
     Everett
     Franks (NJ)
     Granger
     Hunter
     Klink
     Martinez
     Quinn
     Rothman
     Rush
     Spence
     Vento

                              {time}  2046

  Mr. MOORE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan and Mr. HOLT changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on the last amendment 
on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Gilman

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 380, 
noes 39, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 87]

                               AYES--380

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

                                NOES--39

     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Cox
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLay
     Doggett
     Eshoo
     Hill (IN)
     Jackson (IL)
     Kaptur
     Knollenberg

[[Page H1558]]


     Lee
     Markey
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Miller, George
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Schakowsky
     Snyder
     Stark
     Tierney
     Waters
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Barton
     Burr
     Clyburn
     Crane
     Everett
     Franks (NJ)
     Granger
     Klink
     Martinez
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rothman
     Rush
     Spence
     Vento

                              {time}  2055

  Mr. BAIRD changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 87 I was in 
advertably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, if I could have the attention of the House, I would 
like to announce that it is our intention to proceed this evening for 
about 1 additional hour; that we will consider several amendments and 
roll the votes until that hour is up, and then at approximately 10 
o'clock we will take whatever votes there are, and we will then be 
finished with this bill for tonight and take it up again tomorrow 
morning.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, could the gentleman apprise us of whether 
in fact the education bill will be up tomorrow?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I can only speak for this bill. This bill will 
be up tomorrow.
  Mr. BONIOR. May I ask the distinguished majority leader, who is on 
his feet and ambling to the microphone?
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARMEY. I appreciate the gentleman's inquiry. The gentleman, like 
myself, understands the importance of that legislation. However, this 
legislation has an enormous priority, and we must first finish this 
bill, which we expect to do tomorrow. At that point, we will have to 
take a decision.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman saying that the decision 
on whether we go into the education bill will be made tomorrow and not 
this evening?
  Mr. ARMEY. Again, I appreciate the gentleman's interest in that 
important legislation.
  Mr. BONIOR. Does that mean, Mr. Chairman, if I could ask the 
gentleman from Texas, does that mean that the Committee on Rules 
members should be alert that they may meet at 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in 
the morning and stay here? What is in store for them?
  Mr. ARMEY. I appreciate the gentleman's inquiry. Let me just tell the 
gentleman, we will complete work on this bill for this evening in about 
an hour. Tomorrow we will come back and we will finish this bill in the 
morning.
  At that point, we will have a decision about whether or not we have 
completed our week's work or whether or not we will try to take up 
additional legislation.
  Mr. BONIOR. May I ask this one further question, and then I will sit 
down.
  Can I go to our Committee on Rules members and tell them that they 
will not be meeting this evening?

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not see the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules, but I think the gentleman would be safe in telling them that.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. That is what we 
needed to know. Is there a way to roll the votes until tomorrow? Is 
there a way to roll the votes until tomorrow evening?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, we 
will roll several votes this evening and we will vote at approximately 
10 o'clock.
  Mr. BONIOR. So we will continue and have votes at 10 o'clock this 
evening?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Approximately 10 o'clock.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                TITLE II

 PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS IN KOSOVO AND OTHER NATIONAL SECURITY MATTERS

                               CHAPTER 1

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE


           security and maintenance of united states missions

       Notwithstanding section 15 of the State Department Basic 
     Authorities Act of 1956, an additional amount for ``Security 
     and Maintenance of United States Missions'', $104,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That the entire 
     amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                               CHAPTER 2

                    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army'', $19,532,000: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy'', $20,565,000: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps'', $37,155,000: Provided, That the entire amount 
     is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force'', $30,065,000: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to provide assistance to Vieques, 
     Puerto Rico, including a study of the health of Vieques 
     residents; fire-fighting related equipment and facilities at 
     Antonio Rivera Rodriguez Airport; construction or 
     refurbishment of a commercial ferry pier and terminal and 
     associated navigational improvements; establishment and 
     construction of an artificial reef; reef conservation, 
     restoration, and management activities; payments to 
     registered Vieques commercial fishermen of an amount 
     determined by the National Marine Fisheries Service for each 
     day they are unable to use existing waters because the Navy 
     is conducting training; expansion and improvement of major 
     cross-island roadways and bridges; an apprenticeship/training 
     program for young adults; preservation and protection of 
     natural resources; an economic development office and 
     economic development activities; and conducting a referendum 
     among the residents of Vieques regarding further use of the 
     island for military training programs, $40,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2003: Provided, That such funds 
     shall be in addition to amounts otherwise available for such 
     purposes: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense may 
     transfer funds provided under this heading to any agency or 
     office of the United States Government in order to implement 
     the projects for which funds are provided: Provided further, 
     That the transfer authority provided under this heading is in 
     addition to any other transfer authority available to the 
     Department of Defense: Provided further, That for purposes of 
     providing assistance to Vieques, any agency or office of the 
     United States Government to which these funds are transferred 
     may utilize, in addition to any authorities available under 
     this heading, any authorities available to that agency or 
     office for carrying out related activities, including 
     utilization of such funds for administrative expenses: 
     Provided further, That any amounts transferred to the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development, ``Community 
     development block grants'', shall be available only for 
     assistance to Vieques, notwithstanding section 106 of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1974: Provided 
     further, That funds made available under this heading may be 
     used to make direct payments to registered Vieques commercial 
     fishermen: Provided further, That the Department of the Navy 
     may provide fire-fighting training and funds provided under 
     this heading may be used to provide fire-fighting related 
     facilities at the Antonio Rivera Rodriguez Airport: Provided 
     further, That funds made available under this heading may be 
     used to construct or modify a commercial ferry pier and 
     terminal and associated navigational improvements: Provided 
     further, That except for amounts provided for the health 
     study, fire-fighting related equipment and facilities, and 
     certain activities in furtherance of the preservation and 
     protection of natural resources, funds provided in this 
     paragraph shall not become available until

[[Page H1559]]

     the Secretary of the Navy has certified to the Director, 
     Office of Management and Budget, that the integrity and 
     accessibility of the training range is uninterrupted, and 
     trespassing and other intrusions on the range have ceased: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army Reserve'', $2,174,000: Provided, That the entire amount 
     is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

             Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army National Guard'', $2,851,000: Provided, That the entire 
     amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, 
     as amended.

             Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for the ``Overseas Contingency 
     Operations Transfer Fund'', $2,050,400,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of Defense may transfer the funds 
     provided herein only to appropriations for military 
     personnel; operation and maintenance, including Overseas 
     Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid; procurement; research, 
     development, test and evaluation; the Defense Health Program; 
     and working capital funds: Provided further, That the funds 
     transferred shall be merged with and shall be available for 
     the same purposes and for the same time period, as the 
     appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, That 
     the transfer authority provided in this paragraph is in 
     addition to any other transfer authority available to the 
     Department of Defense: Provided further, That upon a 
     determination that all or part of the funds transferred from 
     this appropriation are not necessary for the purposes 
     provided herein, such amounts may be transferred back to this 
     appropriation.

                              PROCUREMENT

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $73,000,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2001: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

                         Defense Health Program

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Health Program'', 
     $3,533,000: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 2201. (a) Minimum Rates of Basic Allowance for Housing 
     for Members of the Uniformed Services.--During the period 
     beginning on January 1, 2000, and ending on September 30, 
     2001 (or such earlier date as the Secretary of Defense 
     considers appropriate), a member of the uniformed services 
     entitled to a basic allowance for housing for a military 
     housing area in the United States shall be paid the allowance 
     at a monthly rate not less than the rate in effect on 
     December 31, 1999, in that area for members serving in the 
     same pay grade and with the same dependency status as the 
     member.
       (b) Annual Limitation on Allowance.--In light of the rates 
     for the basic allowance for housing authorized by subsection 
     (a), the Secretary of Defense may exceed the limitation on 
     the total amount paid during fiscal year 2000 and 2001 for 
     the basic allowance for housing in the United States 
     otherwise applicable under section 403(b)(3) of title 37, 
     United States Code.


                     (Including Transfer of Funds)

       Sec. 2202. In addition to amounts appropriated or otherwise 
     made available elsewhere in this Act for the Department of 
     Defense or in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
     2000 (Public Law 106-79), $1,556,200,000 is hereby 
     appropriated to the Department of Defense for the ``Defense-
     Wide Working Capital Fund'' and shall remain available until 
     expended, for price increases resulting from worldwide 
     increases in the price of petroleum: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Defense shall transfer $1,556,200,000 in excess 
     collections from the ``Defense-Wide Working Capital Fund'' 
     not later than September 30, 2001 to the operation and 
     maintenance; research, development, test and evaluation; and 
     working capital funds: Provided further, That the transfer 
     authority provided in this section is in addition to the 
     transfer authority provided to the Department of Defense in 
     this Act or any other Act: Provided further, That the entire 
     amount made available in this section is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 2203. (a) The Secretary of Defense may transfer up to 
     $90,000,000 to the account ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 
     2000/2002'', from funds specified in subsection (b). Amounts 
     so transferred shall be merged with, and shall be available 
     for obligation for the same period as, the account to which 
     transferred.
       (b) Amounts which may be transferred under this section are 
     unobligated amounts that would otherwise expire for 
     obligation on September 30, 2000, that were appropriated for 
     Air Force or Defense-Wide accounts in the following 
     provisions of law:
       (1) Titles I and II of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-79).
       (2) Title IV of the Department of Defense Appropriations 
     Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-262).
       (3) Title III of the Department of Defense Appropriations 
     Act, 1998 (Public Law 105-56).


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 2204. The Secretary of Defense shall transfer 
     $125,000,000 from unobligated funds in the National Defense 
     Stockpile Transaction Fund to ``Procurement of Weapons and 
     Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army 2000/2002'' only for 
     procurement, advance procurement, or economic order quantity 
     procurement of Abrams M1A2 SEP Upgrades under multiyear 
     contract authority provided under section 8008 of the 
     Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000: Provided, 
     That amounts so transferred shall be merged with, and shall 
     be available for obligation for the same period as, the 
     account to which transferred: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds made available under this section shall be 
     obligated until the Secretary of the Army certifies to the 
     congressional defense committees that these funds will be 
     used to upgrade vehicles for an average unit cost (for 307 
     vehicles) that does not exceed $5,900,000.
       Sec. 2205. In addition to the amounts provided in the 
     Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 
     106-79), $854,500,000 is hereby appropriated for ``Defense 
     Health Program'', to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2001: Provided, That such funds shall be 
     available only for the purposes described and in 
     accordance with section 2206 of this chapter: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.
       Sec. 2206. (a) Of the amounts provided in section 2205 of 
     this chapter for ``Defense Health Program''--
       (1) not to exceed $90,300,000 shall be available for 
     obligations and adjustments to obligations required to cover 
     unanticipated increases in TRICARE contract costs that (but 
     for insufficient funds) would have been properly chargeable 
     to the Defense Health Program account for fiscal year 1998 or 
     fiscal year 1999; and
       (2) not to exceed $764,200,000 shall be available for 
     obligations and adjustments to obligations required to cover 
     unanticipated increases in TRICARE contract costs that are 
     properly chargeable to the Defense Health Program account for 
     fiscal year 2000 or fiscal year 2001.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional 
     defense committees before charging an obligation or an 
     adjustment to obligations under this section.
       (c) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report on obligations made 
     under this section no later than 30 days after the end of 
     fiscal year 2000.

                               CHAPTER 3

                     BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


     operating expenses of the agency for international development

       For an additional amount for ``Operating Expenses of the 
     Agency for International Development'', $13,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2001: Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                  Other Bilateral Economic Assistance


          assistance for eastern europe and the baltic states

       For an additional amount for ``Assistance for Eastern 
     Europe and the Baltic States'', $95,825,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2001: Provided, That this 
     amount shall only be available for assistance for Montenegro 
     and Croatia, assistance to promote democratization in Serbia 
     including support for nongovernmental organizations and 
     independent media, and not to exceed $12,400,000 for 
     assistance for Kosovo: Provided further, That the amount 
     specified in the previous proviso for assistance for Kosovo 
     may be made available only for police activities: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.

[[Page H1560]]

                          MILITARY ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


             international military education and training

       For an additional amount for ``International Military 
     Education and Training'', $2,875,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2001, for grants to countries of the 
     Balkans and southeast Europe: Provided, That the entire 
     amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.


                   foreign military financing program

       For an additional amount for ``Foreign Military Financing 
     Program'', to enable the President to carry out section 23 of 
     the Arms Export Control Act, $31,000,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2001, for grants to countries of the 
     Balkans and southeast Europe: Provided, That these funds 
     shall be nonrepayable, notwithstanding sections 23(b) and 
     23(c) of the Act: Provided further, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                               CHAPTER 4

                  Military Construction, Defense-Wide

       Sec. 2401. In addition to amounts appropriated or otherwise 
     made available in the Military Construction Appropriations 
     Act, 2000, $6,700,000 is hereby appropriated to the 
     Department of Defense, to cover incremental Operation and 
     Maintenance costs to family housing, as authorized by section 
     2854 of title 10, United States Code, as follows:
       ``Family Housing, Army'', $2,000,000,---
       ``Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps'', $3,000,000; and
       ``Family Housing, Air Force'', $1,700,000:
     Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request for $6,700,000, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.
       Sec. 2402. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Navy is authorized to use funds received 
     pursuant to section 2601 of Title 10, United States Code, for 
     the construction, improvement, repair, and maintenance of 
     Quarters Number 6, located at Marine Corps Barracks, 8th and 
     I Street, Washington, D.C.: Provided, That the Secretary 
     notifies the appropriate committees of Congress thirty days 
     in advance of the intended use of such funds.

                   BROOKS AIR FORCE BASE DEVELOPMENT

                         DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

       Sec. 2403. (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to 
     evaluate and demonstrate methods for more efficient operation 
     of military installations through improved capital asset 
     management and greater reliance on the public or private 
     sector for less-costly base support services, where 
     available. The section supersedes, and shall be used in lieu 
     of the authority provided in, section 8168 of the Department 
     of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-79; 113 
     Stat. 1277).
       (b) Authority.--(1) Subject to paragraph (4), the Secretary 
     of the Air Force may carry out at Brooks Air Force Base, 
     Texas, a demonstration project to be known as the ``Base 
     Efficiency Project'' to improve mission effectiveness and 
     reduce the cost of providing quality installation support at 
     Brooks Air Force Base.
       (2) The Secretary may carry out the Project in consultation 
     with the Community to the extent the Secretary determines 
     such consultation is necessary and appropriate.
       (3) The authority provided in this section is in addition 
     to any other authority vested in or delegated to the 
     Secretary, and the Secretary may exercise any authority or 
     combination of authorities provided under this section or 
     elsewhere to carry out the purposes of the Project.
       (4) The Secretary may not exercise any authority under this 
     section until after the end of the 30-day period beginning on 
     the date the Secretary submits to the appropriate committees 
     of the Congress a master plan for the development of the 
     Base.
       (c) Efficient Practices.--(1) The Secretary may convert 
     services at or for the benefit of the Base from 
     accomplishment by military personnel or by Departmental 
     civilian employees (appropriated fund or non-appropriated 
     fund), to services performed by contract or provided as 
     consideration for the lease, sale, or other conveyance or 
     transfer of property.
       (2) Notwithstanding section 2462 of title 10, United States 
     Code, a contract for services may be awarded based on ``best 
     value'' if the Secretary determines that the award will 
     advance the purposes of a joint activity conducted under the 
     project and is in the best interest of the Department.
       (3) Notwithstanding that such services are generally funded 
     by local and State taxes and provided without specific charge 
     to the public at large, the Secretary may contract for public 
     services at or for the benefit of the Base in exchange for 
     such consideration, if any, the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       (4)(A) The Secretary may conduct joint activities with the 
     Community, the State, and any private parties or entities on 
     or for the benefit of the Base.
       (B) Payments or reimbursements received from participants 
     for their share of direct and indirect costs of joint 
     activities, including the costs of providing, operating, and 
     maintaining facilities, shall be in an amount and type 
     determined to be adequate and appropriate by the Secretary.
       (C) Such payments or reimbursements received by the 
     Department shall be deposited into the Project Fund.
       (d) Lease Authority.--(1) The Secretary may lease real or 
     personal property located on the Base and not required at 
     other Air Force installations to any lessee upon such terms 
     and conditions as the Secretary considers appropriate and in 
     the interest of the United States, if the Secretary 
     determines that the lease would facilitate the purposes of 
     the Project.
       (2) Consideration for a lease under this subsection shall 
     be determined in accordance with subsection (g).
       (3) A lease under this subsection--
       (A) may be for such period as the Secretary determines is 
     necessary to accomplish the goals of the Project; and
       (B) may give the lessee the first right to purchase the 
     property at fair market value if the lease is terminated to 
     allow the United States to sell the property under any other 
     provision of law.
       (4)(A) The interest of a lessee of property leased under 
     this subsection may be taxed by the State or the Community.
       (B) A lease under this subsection shall provide that, if 
     and to the extent that the leased property is later made 
     taxable by State governments or local governments under 
     Federal law, the lease shall be renegotiated.
       (5) The Department may furnish a lessee with utilities, 
     custodial services, and other base operation, maintenance, or 
     support services performed by Department civilian or contract 
     employees, in exchange for such consideration, payment, or 
     reimbursement as the Secretary determines appropriate.
       (6) All amounts received from leases under this subsection 
     shall be deposited into the Project Fund.
       (7) A lease under this subsection shall not be subject to 
     the following provisions of law:
       (A) Section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, other 
     than subsection (b)(1) of that section.
       (B) Section 321 of the Act of June 30, 1932 (40 U.S.C. 
     303b).
       (C) The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
     1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.).
       (e) Property Disposal.--(1) The Secretary may sell or 
     otherwise convey or transfer real and personal property 
     located at the Base to the Community or to another public or 
     private party during the Project, upon such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary considers appropriate for 
     purposes of the Project.
       (2) Consideration for a sale or other conveyance or 
     transfer of property under this subsection shall be 
     determined in accordance with subsection (g).
       (3) The sale or other conveyance or transfer of property 
     under this subsection shall not be subject to the following 
     provisions of law:
       (A) Section 2693 of title 10, United States Code.
       (B) The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
     1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.).
       (4) Cash payments received as consideration for the sale or 
     other conveyance or transfer of property under this 
     subsection shall be deposited into the Project Fund.
       (f) Leaseback of Property Leased or Disposed.--(1) The 
     Secretary may lease, sell, or otherwise convey or transfer 
     real property at the Base under subsections (b) and (e), as 
     applicable, which will be retained for use by the Department 
     or by another military department or other Federal agency, if 
     the lessee, purchaser, or other grantee or transferee of the 
     property agrees to enter into a leaseback to the Department 
     in connection with the lease, sale, or other conveyance or 
     transfer of one or more portions or all of the property 
     leased, sold, or otherwise conveyed or transferred, as 
     applicable.
       (2) A leaseback of real property under this subsection 
     shall be an operating lease for no more than 20 years unless 
     the Secretary of the Air Force determines that a longer term 
     is appropriate.
       (3)(A) Consideration, if any, for real property leased 
     under a leaseback entered into under this subsection shall be 
     in such form and amount as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       (B) The Secretary may use funds in the Project Fund or 
     other funds appropriated or otherwise available to the 
     Department for use at the Base for payment of any such cash 
     rent.
       (4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Department or other military department or other Federal 
     agency using the real property leased under a leaseback 
     entered into under this subsection may construct and erect 
     facilities on or otherwise improve the leased property using 
     funds appropriated or otherwise available to the Department 
     or other military department or other Federal agency for such 
     purpose.
       (g) Consideration.--(1) The Secretary shall determine the 
     nature, value, and adequacy of consideration required or 
     offered in exchange for a lease, sale, or other conveyance or

[[Page H1561]]

     transfer of real or personal property or for other actions 
     taken under the Project.
       (2) Consideration may be in cash or in-kind or any 
     combination thereof. In-kind consideration may include the 
     following:
       (A) Real property.
       (B) Personal property.
       (C) Goods or services, including operation, maintenance, 
     protection, repair, or restoration (including environmental 
     restoration) of any property or facilities (including non-
     appropriated fund facilities).
       (D) Base operating support services.
       (E) Improvement of Department facilities.
       (F) Provision of facilities, including office, storage, or 
     other usable space, for use by the Department on or off the 
     Base.
       (G) Public services.
       (3) Consideration may not be for less than the fair market 
     value.
       (h) Project Fund.--(1) There is established on the books of 
     the Treasury a fund to be known as the ``Base Efficiency 
     Project Fund'' into which all cash rents, proceeds, payments, 
     reimbursements, and other amounts from leases, sales, or 
     other conveyances or transfers, joint activities, and all 
     other actions taken under the Project shall be 
     deposited. Subject to paragraph (2), amounts deposited 
     into the Project Fund shall be available without fiscal 
     year limitation.
       (2) To the extent provided in advance in appropriations 
     Acts, amounts in the Project Fund shall be available to the 
     Secretary for use at the base only for operation, base 
     operating support services, maintenance, repair, or 
     improvement of Department facilities, payment of 
     consideration for acquisitions of interests in real property 
     (including payment of rentals for leasebacks), and 
     environmental protection or restoration. The use of such 
     amounts may be in addition to or in combination with other 
     amounts appropriated for these purposes.
       (3) Subject to generally prescribed financial management 
     regulations, the Secretary shall establish the structure of 
     the Project Fund and such administrative policies and 
     procedures as the Secretary considers necessary to account 
     for and control deposits into and disbursements from the 
     Project Fund effectively.
       (i) Federal Agencies.--(1)(A) Any Federal agency, its 
     contractors, or its grantees shall pay rent, in cash or 
     services, for the use of facilities or property at the Base, 
     in an amount and type determined to be adequate by the 
     Secretary.
       (B) Such rent shall generally be the fair market rental of 
     the property provided, but in any case shall be sufficient to 
     compensate the Base for the direct and overhead costs 
     incurred by the Base due to the presence of the tenant agency 
     on the Base.
       (2) Transfers of real or personal property at the Base to 
     other Federal agencies shall be at fair market value 
     consideration. Such consideration may be paid in cash, by 
     appropriation transfer, or in property, goods, or services.
       (3) Amounts received from other Federal agencies, their 
     contractors, or grantees, including any amounts paid by 
     appropriation transfer, shall be deposited in the Project 
     Fund.
       (j) Reports to Congress.--(1) Section 2662 of title 10, 
     United States Code, shall apply to transactions at the Base 
     during the Project.
       (k) Limitation.--None of the authorities in this section 
     shall create any legal rights in any person or entity except 
     rights embodied in leases, deeds, or contracts.
       (l) Expiration of Authority.--The authority to enter into a 
     lease, deed, permit, license, contract, or other agreement 
     under this section shall expire on September 30, 2004.
       (m) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``Project'' means the Base Efficiency Project 
     authorized by this section.
       (2) The term ``Base'' means Brooks Air Force Base, Texas.
       (3) The term ``Community'' means the City of San Antonio, 
     Texas.
       (4) The term ``Department'' means the Department of the Air 
     Force.
       (5) The term ``facility'' means a building, structure, or 
     other improvement to real property (except a military family 
     housing unit as that term is used in subchapter IV of chapter 
     169 of title 10, United States Code).
       (6) The term ``joint activity'' means an activity conducted 
     on or for the benefit of the Base by the Department, jointly 
     with the Community, the State, or any private entity, or any 
     combination thereof.
       (7) The term ``Project Fund'' means the Base Efficiency 
     Project Fund established by subsection (h).
       (8) The term ``public services'' means public services 
     (except public schools, fire protection, and police 
     protection) that are funded by local and State taxes and 
     provided without specific charge to the public at large.
       (9) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Air 
     Force or the Secretary's designee, who shall be a civilian 
     official of the Department appointed by the President with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate.
       (10) The term ``State'' means the State of Texas.

                  Military Construction, Army Reserve-

     For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, Army 
     Reserve'' to cover the incremental costs arising from the 
     consequences of Hurricane Floyd, $12,348,000, as authorized 
     by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2004: Provided, That such 
     amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available 
     only to the extent an official budget request for $12,348,000 
     that includes designation of the entire amount of the request 
     as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the bill through page 35, line 3, be considered 
as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mrs. Fowler

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

       Part B Amendment No. 8 offered by Mrs. Fowler:
       Page 11, line 24, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
       Page 11, line 25, strike ``and conducting'' and all that 
     follows through the comma on page 12, line 2.
       Page 13, line 10, strike ``fire-fighting'' and all that 
     follows through the comma on line 12.
       Page 13, strike lines 14 through 17 and insert the 
     following: ``the President has certified to the Congress that 
     trespassing and other intrusions on the range have ceased; 
     that the integrity and accessibility of the training range is 
     uninterrupted; that he has directed the Attorney General to 
     strictly enforce all Federal laws aimed at preventing 
     trespassing and other violations of security and safety on 
     the range; and that he has directed that military training 
     operations utilizing the full range of live ordnance in use 
     prior to April 19, 1999, be resumed and that such training 
     operations have been initiated:''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Fowler) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, life and death. That is what this amendment is all 
about. Will we allow the illegal acts of a few to jeopardize the lives 
of many?
  The Fowler-Hansen amendment does three things. First, this amendment 
prevents the $40 million contained in this bill for Puerto Rico from 
being used to pay for a binding referendum on whether live-fire 
training on the Navy range on the Island of Vieques should be resumed.
  Second, it strengthens language in the bill making the money 
contingent on the removal of illegal trespassers from this range, who 
have it closed down.
  And, last, it would require the resumption of live-fire training in 
Vieques before Puerto Rico could receive any of the $40 million.
  Mr. Chairman, remarkably, a group of people engaged in civil 
disobedience have occupied a critical military installation with no 
reaction from this administration. Their protests began last year after 
a Navy civilian employee was killed by an errant bomb while he was on a 
military live-fire range 9 miles from the nearest town. The gold star 
up here shows where he was. The town is down here, 9 miles away.
  According to our military leaders, we have a clear national security 
requirement to do live-fire training on the East Coast. Holding a 
referendum on the subject as the President has proposed is not sound 
public policy and will set a terrible precedent.
  According to Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig, and I quote,

       Vieques is a uniquely valuable training site. It is the 
     only one available to East Coast units where mission 
     essential combined arms training can be conducted.

  End of quote.
  The people of Vieques do not bear a unique burden. They are 57 other 
live-fire and inert-weapons ranges in the United States. It is deeply 
ironic, I just found out tonight that the Puerto Rican National Guard 
performs their live-fire artillery training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, 
only 1.9 miles from an incorporated area of 90,000 residents, while the 
Governor of Puerto Rico supports the closure of the live-fire range

[[Page H1562]]

on Vieques, 9 miles from a civilian population.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment. Article I, 
Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to provide 
and maintain a Navy. We must not shirk our responsibilities. Support 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, with great reservation, I rise to oppose the amendment 
of the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler). I very simply do so 
because we do have an agreement presently struck with the people of 
Vieques. It is our desire to obtain the same objectives as the 
gentlewoman would wish to obtain. The fact is there is a referendum 
next year and if we should, by way of legislation in this process, 
essentially rub the people of Vieques' nose in that process, what more 
could we do to undermine that election from our point of view?
  So it seems to me that this is not the time to have such a language. 
And it is because of that that I very regretfully oppose the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Hansen).
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, what happened yesterday at the White House? 
Somebody jumped over the fence and they apprehended the person because 
he was trespassing and they took him to jail. Guess what we are talking 
about here tonight? Only trespassing.
  These people went on to this range and trespassed on the range. Now 
instead of saying like we did at the White House, we say now they can 
determine whether or not they are going to get $40 million or $50 
million for doing it.
  Does anyone think they would really do that, when they do not do this 
they are going to get the whole shooting match? They get $250 million 
and they can do with it what they want and no military there.
  I have had some of my friends say: Let this process work. We are 
going to win on this one. So I called down to Puerto Rico and I asked 
the question: Please tell me what the polls show. Do my colleagues know 
what the polls show? Four percent of the people in Puerto Rico would 
vote for this. Let us say if someone went to Twentynine Palms or the 
Utah Test and Training Range and trespassed, what would we do? We would 
kick them out. In this instance who are we kicking out? We are kicking 
out the military who absolutely needs this particular area.
  A lot has been said about this letter from the Navy. This did not 
come from the Navy. This came from a political appointee. We do not see 
the CNO of the Navy on here. We do not see the Commandant of the Marine 
Corps on here. We do not see any of these people. What do we expect? 
This is not worth the paper it is written on.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo).
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, to compare the situation in Vieques 
to any other situation in the rest of the land is like comparing a ping 
pong ball with a basketball. There is no place in the U.S., no place in 
our Nation where there is bombing from the air, shelling from the 
ocean, and also from the land at the same time.
  That is what they say. That is why the Navy has said that Vieques is 
such an important thing. The Navy has sent a letter to the chairman of 
this committee saying: I am writing to express the grave concern of the 
Department of the Navy with the proposed amendment to H.R. 3908 
concerning the economic assistance program on the Island of Vieques, 
Puerto Rico. They end up by saying: The Department of the Navy strongly 
believes that the negotiated agreement represents the best opportunity 
for the Navy to resume crucial training on the Vieques range.
  Mr. Chairman, the Navy right now could never resume any bombing 
because they have violated the Clear Water Act and there is no permit. 
The only way that it can resume is with inert bombs. There is no other 
way to resume any maneuvers. This is for the interest of the national 
defense.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of this 
amendment. I tell the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) 
to come to California and see San Clemente Island. It is bombed from 
the land, bombed from the sea, and strafed.
  The fact is if we are going to set this precedent that Puerto Rico is 
going to be able to vote if they want a bombing range in their 
neighborhood, then the 32 million people of California also want to 
have the same right to be able to say we do not want our islands 
bombed.
  Fairness is fairness. If we are going to set the standard in Puerto 
Rico, then apply it in the rest of the country. And see if Utah wants 
to be bombed. This is an issue of national defense, but also the 
constitutional responsibility of this Congress to apply to military 
defense.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Mrs. Fowler) knows how reluctant all of us are to rise in opposition 
to this, but I feel I must as a member of the Committee on Armed 
Services and a witness to the experience of the Island of Kahoolawe, 
which was an island in Hawaii which had received live-fire operations 
for many decades and where that has ceased as a result of the efforts 
of the people of Hawaii.
  We certainly share the national security concerns of the gentlewoman 
from Florida, but I feel very strongly that her amendment would stall 
the progress towards a positive solution.
  Mr. Chairman, the agreement worked out between the Department of 
Defense and the Governor of Puerto Rico was very thoughtfully crafted 
and a product of tireless effort. This agreement was not reached with 
the protestors, but with the lawful authorities of Puerto Rico. 
Resolution is best accomplished by moving forward with the agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, I can say that I have a copy of the Navy Times of April 
3, and it says, ``Stay on Vieques, residents say.'' It may very well be 
that the referendum will turn out in a positive way in the direction 
that the gentlewoman requires. So I ask that her amendment be defeated.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I live in Colorado Springs and we love Fort 
Carson on the outskirts of Colorado Springs. It has a live-fire range 
and we are continually working to make sure that we do not build up 
around that live-fire range and impinge upon it, because not only do we 
love Fort Carson, but if they need to train with a live-fire range, we 
want them to have it.
  The people in Puerto Rico seem to love Roosevelt Roads, but they do 
not the live fire. If we do not have the live fire, we do not need 
Roosevelt Roads; and we ought to close Roosevelt Roads if we are not 
going to have a live fire range.
  The Navy has spent the last 2 years trying to convince me that we 
need desperately this range and that we should not do anything to 
impinge upon that. I hope Members will support the amendment.

                              {time}  2115

  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. David 
Sanes Rodriguez was killed as a Navy employee, a civilian, a Puerto 
Rican, but a civilian of the Navy. He was killed on sight by a 
misfiring 9 miles from any civilians. Our sailor, our pilots are going 
to be in extreme danger if they are not allowed to have a practice 
range.
  John McCain and so many others before they went off to battle 
practiced right here, and they needed that practice.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) has 30 
seconds remaining.

[[Page H1563]]

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the 
time remaining to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) 
said that John McCain practiced here. In 1952, we deployed there. I was 
on Vieques at the time. There was no one understands more the 
importance of the Vieques than me. The Navy says in their 
correspondence to me, if this money is taken out, the agreement will be 
breached.
  We can stand here and beat our chest. We can say we are going to 
force this issue on the Puerto Ricans. That does not solve the problem. 
They have come to an agreement. The Navy did not live up to their 
agreements since 1986. They did nothing for economic development. We 
are saying here that they have to give in to our demands.
  There is no question about the importance of Vieques, but this is not 
something we dictate. The Defense Department has worked out what they 
consider the best possible agreement. They have negotiated with the 
governor of Puerto Rico; a lot of the Members here do not like the 
agreement. They do not think it is fair. They do not think there should 
be an agreement like this. We put the $40 million in to live up to our 
end of the agreement.
  Believe me, if we take the $40 million out, there will not be any 
agreement, and we will not have opportunity. The Navy said they will 
not be able to go forward if we take this money out as important as it 
is to them. I would urge the Members not to vote for this amendment, to 
vote against this amendment, with the idea that we will be able to 
solve this problem. They will have a referendum, and they will allow us 
to go forward with using this as a tactical training base.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) has 30 
seconds remaining.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, one quick correction. This amendment does 
not strike the $40 million. It does not strike it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have to disagree with the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), who is highly respected. This is a bad 
agreement. If you have a bad agreement, then get rid of it. Why would 
we ever endorse extortion of the taxpayers' money? And that is what 
this is. I do not care how you call it. If we do this in Puerto Rico, 
then what are we going to do about the Tohona Oden tribe outside of 
Tucson who want their Indian lands back? Then the Committee on 
Appropriations are going to say we have to give money to them. We are 
going to be doing this all across the country. Enough is enough. 
Support the Fowler amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) 
will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments to title II?


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Fowler

  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Amendment offered by Mrs. Fowler:
       Page 16, after line 21, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (c) Sense of Congress Regarding Military Families on Food 
     Stamps.--It is the sense of the Congress that members of the 
     Armed Forces and their dependents should not have to rely on 
     the food stamp program, and the President and the Congress 
     should take action to ensure that the income level of members 
     of the Armed Forces is sufficient so that no member meets the 
     income standards of eligibility in effect under the food 
     stamp program.

  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I just want to say 
this amendment is very straightforward. It is noncontroversial, but it 
is very important. It puts this Congress on record that having U.S. 
military families on food stamps is simply unacceptable.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. FOWLER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to say for the record 
to the gentlewoman that we are happy to accept this amendment that you 
present to the House.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I am so glad we can agree on this one. 
This just expresses the sense of Congress that the President and 
Congress should take all steps necessary to ensure that no military man 
or woman must rely on public assistance to provide for their families.
  My amendment does not seek to prescribe a solution or fund an answer 
to this immoral situation. This is not the appropriate vehicle or venue 
for that. The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on 
Appropriations are best equipped to devise a solution.
  All I am seeking to do today is to send a message from this Congress 
to every soldier, sailor, and Marine that we believe they deserve 
better. They deserve better for themselves and for their families, that 
the sacrifices they make day in and day out for this country of ours 
will not go unnoticed and unrewarded by this Congress.
  I just want to share real quickly a personal story that really 
brought this home for me. Several months ago, I was home on a Saturday 
night and the phone rang; and it was a young woman married to a Navy 
lieutenant, stationed out at Mayport, and she was in tears. And I said 
what is wrong, and she said we ordered a pizza tonight.
  And when the pizza delivery man came and I opened the door, it was a 
young petty officer who had been working all day in Mayport, and he is 
delivering pizzas at night so he will not have to go on food stamps so 
he can feed his family.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, we have no 
problem with this amendment over here.
  Mrs. FOWLER. I appreciate that. I am almost through. She asked me, 
because I told her I would bring this here, so I made a commitment to 
her. Her husband is flying with the Navy. She said what kind of country 
treats its soldiers so poorly they have to deliver pizzas to feed their 
families?
  This is why I have the amendment here tonight. I appreciate both 
sides accepting it. And I know we can work tonight to send a message to 
these young men and women that we will provide for them.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Are there further amendments to title II?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               TITLE III

     NATURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE AND OTHER EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS

                               CHAPTER 1

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For an additional amount for ``Office of the Inspector 
     General'', $2,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2001: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount shall be available only to the extent an 
     official budget request, that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to 
     the Congress.

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Animal and Plant Health 
     Inspection Service Salaries and Expenses'', $7,140,000: 
     Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount shall be available only to the extent an 
     official budget request, that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to 
     the Congress.

                          Farm Service Agency


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $77,560,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as

[[Page H1564]]

     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended: Provided further, That the entire amount 
     shall be available only to the extent an official budget 
     request, that includes designation of the entire amount of 
     the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.


                     emergency conservation program

       Unobligated balances previously provided under this heading 
     may be used to repair and reconstruct essential farm 
     structures and equipment that have been damaged or destroyed, 
     after a finding by the Secretary of Agriculture that: (1) the 
     damage or destruction is the result of a natural disaster 
     declared by the Secretary or the President for losses due to 
     Hurricanes Dennis, Floyd, or Irene; and (2) insurance against 
     the damage or destruction was not available to the grantee or 
     the grantee lacked the financial resources to obtain the 
     insurance: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further,  That the 
     entire amount shall be available only to the extent an 
     official budget request that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to 
     the Congress.

                              CORPORATIONS


                federal crop insurance corporation fund

       For an additional amount for the Federal Crop Insurance 
     Corporation Fund, up to $13,000,000, to provide premium 
     discounts to purchasers of crop insurance reinsured by the 
     Corporation (except for catastrophic risk protection 
     coverage), as authorized under section 1102(g)(2) of the 
     Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 
     105-277): Provided, That the entire amount is designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund

       The Secretary of Agriculture shall reduce the amount of any 
     principal due on a loan made by the Department to a marketing 
     association for the 1999 crop of an agricultural commodity by 
     up to 75 percent if the marketing association suffered losses 
     to the agricultural commodity in a county with respect to 
     which a natural disaster was declared by the Secretary or the 
     President for losses due to Hurricanes Dennis, Floyd, or 
     Irene.
       If the Secretary assigns a grade quality for the 1999 crop 
     of an agricultural commodity marketed by an association 
     described in the preceding paragraph that is below the base 
     quality of the agricultural commodity, and the reduction in 
     grade quality is the result of damage sustained from 
     Hurricanes Dennis, Floyd, or Irene, the Secretary shall 
     compensate the association for losses incurred by the 
     association as a result of the reduction in grade quality.
       Up to $81,000,000 of the resources of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation may be used for the cost of this provision: 
     Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

           RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS


                  rural community advancement program

       For the additional cost of water and waste grants, as 
     authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(2), to meet the needs 
     resulting from natural disasters, $28,000,000 to remain 
     available until expended; and for an additional amount for 
     community facilities grants pursuant to section 381E(d)(1) of 
     the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
     2009d(d)(1)) for emergency needs, $15,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent an official budget request, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

                         Rural Housing Service


              rural housing insurance fund program account

       For the additional cost of direct loans, as authorized by 
     title V of the Housing Act of 1949, $15,872,000 from the 
     Rural Housing Insurance Fund for section 515 rental housing, 
     to remain available until expended, to address emergency 
     needs resulting from Hurricanes Dennis, Floyd, or Irene: 
     Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying 
     such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That 
     these funds are available to subsidize gross obligations for 
     the principal amount of direct loans estimated to be 
     $40,000,000: Provided further, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
       For additional gross obligations for the principal amount 
     of direct loans as authorized by title V of the Housing Act 
     of 1949 to be available from funds in the rural housing 
     insurance fund to meet the needs resulting from natural 
     disasters, as follows: $296,000,000 for loans to section 502 
     borrowers, as determined by the Secretary and $13,000,000 for 
     section 504 housing repair loans.
       For the additional cost of direct loans, including the cost 
     of modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, to meet the needs resulting 
     from natural disasters, to remain available until expended, 
     as follows: section 502 loans, $25,000,000 and section 504 
     loans, $4,000,000: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent an official budget request, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.


                       rental assistance program

       For an additional amount for ``Rental Assistance Program'' 
     for rental assistance agreements entered into or renewed 
     pursuant to section 521(a)(2) of the Housing Act of 1949, for 
     emergency needs resulting from Hurricanes Dennis, Floyd, or 
     Irene, $13,600,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.


                  mutual and self-help housing grants

       For grants and contracts pursuant to section 523(b)(1)(A) 
     of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490c), to meet the 
     needs resulting from natural disasters, $6,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available 
     only to the extent an official budget request, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.


                    rural housing assistance grants

       For grants and contracts for very low-income housing 
     repair, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1474, to meet the needs 
     resulting from natural disasters, $8,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent an official budget request, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.


                       farm labor program account

       For grants to assist low-income migrant and seasonal farm 
     workers, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 5177a, to meet the needs 
     resulting from natural disasters, $5,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent an official budget request, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

                        Rural Utilities Service

              Rural Electrification and Telecommunications

                         Loans Programs Account

       For the additional cost (as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a)) of direct 
     loans under section 305 of the Rural Electrification Act of 
     1936 (7 U.S.C. 935), $1,021,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2001, to enable financing of the purchase of a 
     utility by a nonprofit cooperative to address the high cost 
     of electric power in the service area attributable in part to 
     a hurricane disaster: Provided, That the amount made 
     available under this heading shall be made available to 
     subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans estimated to be $113,250,000: Provided further, 
     That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act.

[[Page H1565]]

                FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

         Foreign Agricultural Service and General Sales Manager

       For an additional amount for the ``Foreign Agricultural 
     Service and General Sales Manager'', $2,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2001: Provided, That the entire 
     amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available 
     only to the extent an official budget request, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

           RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      Food and Drug Administration


                        buildings and facilities

       For an additional amount for ``Buildings and Facilities'', 
     $20,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended: Provided further, That the entire amount shall be 
     available only to the extent an official budget request, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 3101. Notwithstanding section 11 of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714i), an 
     additional $35,000,000 shall be provided through the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation in fiscal year 2000 for 
     technical assistance activities performed by any agency of 
     the Department of Agriculture in carrying out the 
     Conservation Reserve Program or the Wetlands Reserve Program 
     funded by the Commodity Credit Corporation: Provided, That 
     the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended: Provided further, That the entire amount shall be 
     available only to the extent an official budget request, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.
       Sec. 3102. The Act of August 19, 1958 (7 U.S.C. 1431 note) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``clause (3) or (4) of'' the first place it 
     appears and inserting ``the Food for Progress Act of 1985,'';
       (2) by striking ``clause (3) or (4) of such'' and inserting 
     ``the Food for Progress Act of 1985, such''; and
       (3) by striking ``to the President''.
       Sec. 3103. Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     (including the Federal Grants and Cooperative Agreements 
     Act), the Secretary of Agriculture shall use not more than 
     $40,000,000 of Commodity Credit Corporation funds, to remain 
     available until expended, for a cooperative program with the 
     State of Florida to replace commercial trees removed to 
     control citrus canker and to compensate for lost production: 
     Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount shall be available only to the extent an 
     official budget request, that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to 
     the Congress.
       Sec. 3104. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     area bounded by West 197th Avenue, North S.W. 232nd Street, 
     East U.S. Highway 1 and S.W. 360th Street in Dade County, 
     Florida, shall continue to be eligible to receive business 
     and industry guaranteed loans under section 310B of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932) 
     until such time that population data is available from the 
     2000 decennial census: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided, 
     further, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent an official budget request, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.


                   Amendment Offered By Mrs. Clayton

  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Clayton: Page 48 after line 18 
     insert the following section:
       Sec. ______ Of the funds available for Emergency Watershed 
     Protection activities in the State of North Carolina, 
     $1,000,000 shall be available to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, acting through the Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service, to provide technical and financial 
     assistance for implementation of the project known as the 
     ``Flood Water Mitigation and Stream Restoration Project--
     Pinceville, North Carolina''.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida reserves a point of order.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I understand there is a point of order to 
be reserved, but I want to speak on the amendment.
  This amendment does not cost any money. It merely provides authority 
to NRCS where such authority does not now exist. The amendment is on 
behalf of a one-time only project for Princeville, North Carolina.
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, Princeville is a small town in 
eastern North Carolina that was totally destroyed by the flooding from 
Hurricane Floyd. Nearly every home, every business, every school, every 
church was completely destroyed in Princeville.
  This amendment will allow NRCS to clear internal drainage within the 
town. Both the Corps of Engineers and the National Fish and Wildlife 
Agency agree that this project is needed.
  The NRCS State conservationist has the money to do this project 
within the current budget. The authority to do the project, however, is 
not present. This amendment provides that authority. It will not 
require any new monies.
  I urge the support, obviously, of this amendment, realizing there is 
a point of order being reserved.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman 
Skeen) of the subcommittee to speak on the amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, as I told the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) earlier this evening, I appreciate the problem 
that she has, and we would like to work with her and see if we can 
remedy her problem.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the gentleman from New Mexico 
will work with me in the conference to see that we can get the 
provision consistent.
  Mr. SKEEN. We will go the whole gamut with the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina, Mr. Chairman.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. The whole gamut. In other words, Mr. Chairman, we will 
get the drainage that is needed for Princeville.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from North Carolina is a 
lucky lady.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, that is all I wanted to ask.
  Mr. Chairman, I do want to conclude my remarks by thanking both sides 
of the aisle for working with us for eastern North Carolina and other 
States that are flooded.
  I also want to recognize that there are parts of this bill that I may 
have problems with, but the devastation that many of the citizens who 
suffered, not just in my State, but throughout the East Coast, the 
citizens will be thankful to those of us who understood that we, as 
America, are best when we respond to citizens when they are at their 
lowest.
  So I want to kind of praise everybody that this is at least one good 
part of the bill that we ought to celebrate. I want to thank both sides 
for working with me.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment, with 
the understanding that the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) will 
work with me to achieve our goals.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  2130


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

  Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur:
       On page 48 after line 18, insert the following new section:

     SEC. ______. EQUITY LOANS AND GRANTS FOR FARMER-OWNED 
                   COOPERATIVES.

       The Secretary of Agriculture shall use not more than 
     $130,000,000 of the funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation, to remain available until expended, for grants 
     and loans for equity capital to establish farmer-owned 
     cooperatives composed of small and medium sized producers for 
     the processing

[[Page H1566]]

     and marketing of agricultural commodities (including 
     livestock). The Secretary shall establish reasonable limits 
     on the amount of any individual loan or grant so as to 
     maximize the total number of awards that may be made: 
     Provided. That such amount is designated by the Congress as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     as amended: Provided further, That the entire amount shall be 
     available only to the extent that an official budget request 
     that includes designation of the entire amount of the request 
     as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

  Ms. KAPTUR (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) reserves a point 
of order.
  The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 minutes on 
her amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I want to explain this amendment so 
everyone is aware of what we are proposing here.
  First of all, I do not think it is a surprise to say to anyone in 
this chamber tonight that rural America and farmers are experiencing 
the lowest prices in modern history, in all sectors, and this 
particular supplemental bill is the only opportunity we have to try to 
offer greater assistance to those small- and medium-sized enterprises 
that this year, not the 2001 appropriation, but this year, in the year 
of 2000, need assistance in trying to reposition themselves for the 
marketplace.
  This amendment essentially provides $130 million of funds, makes them 
available, through the Commodity Credit Corporation essentially as an 
emergency. And because it is the Commodity Credit Corporation, those 
dollars do not flow through the appropriations process. It makes up to 
that amount, $130 million, available to farmers and farmer-owned 
cooperatives for feasibility studies to reposition their businesses, 
business development strategies, restructuring of their own individual 
operations into cooperative operations to try to meet the market that 
is out there, as well as the processing and marketing of those 
commodities to try to get them to the market.
  Now this is different from the language that we offered in full 
committee the other day. We have done a lot of consultation with the 
department. We have changed the language a little bit to include both 
equity capital and loans. We have put a ceiling on the amount of funds 
that any one enterprise could get at $10 million, up to that amount out 
of the $30 million. We have worked with the American Meat Institute to 
address many of the concerns that they had about the original language. 
We have made this much more specific.
  I also wanted to say that this particular amendment is better than 
the kind of bills this Congress has been passing to try to plug holes 
in the dike of Freedom to Farm. We have literally appropriated billions 
of dollars to producers across this country and, as everyone knows, the 
formula is not based on what people produce or may have lost this year 
because of bad weather or low prices, the formula is based on something 
that is 6 years old, that has no relationship to what has actually been 
done in the field or on the ranch in any given year.
  So those AMTA payments are going out in a very inequitable way. And 
many sectors of rural America, vegetable and fruit producers, certainly 
those involved in the sugar beet industry, citrus, livestock, any 
sector that is not row crop, have been deeply hurt and not aided 
through the AMTA system. This measure would give some hope to those 
farmers. And I have met many of them. They have come to my office. And 
God bless them, because, as they are losing everything they have worked 
for, all they are asking for is the ability to reposition, try to 
combine together in co-ops to try to survive.
  Now, this Congress ought to listen to them. These are people who are 
feeding our country and literally feeding the world and they are losing 
everything that they have worked for. It seems to me that we actually 
have a marvelous opportunity here in this year of 2000. Many of these 
people cannot hang on until 2001 when our other bill comes through this 
Congress. Hopefully, it will.
  So if we think about the AMTA payment scheme in our country today, 
five districts got 20 percent of the money that went out under the last 
financing that was done last year. And so many large operators got huge 
amounts of money. I had people in the Midwest come up to me and say 
that they really felt guilty because so-and-so up the street, who was a 
small- and medium-sized farmer, was going under, and they got payments 
when they did not even produce a crop. So even the farmers in America 
know what is going on out there.
  The credit systems in these communities are extremely fragile. All I 
am asking for is the ability to provide a line of credit to these 
farmers who deserve our attention here in the Congress of the United 
States. So I would really ask the cooperation of the majority in this 
effort in this emergency bill. There is no greater emergency than what 
is going on in rural America today.
  I am asking for support to try to find a way to work this measure in 
this Congress as a part of the supplemental bill as it moves through. I 
would ask for that consideration.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) wish to 
make his point of order?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, 
violates clause 2 rule XXI.
  The rule States, in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general 
appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I do. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) has tried to be understanding in prior years in the 
measures that we have brought forward. So in the spirit of that, I 
would hope that during the conference committee that the gentleman 
would give consideration to working with our subcommittee to see if we 
cannot find a way to incorporate the spirit of this in some of what is 
done.
  I would humbly withdraw this amendment this evening knowing full well 
that the farmers of America deserve a better turn than we are giving 
them tonight.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida wish to be heard 
further?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say to the 
gentlewoman that we will always be willing to work with her to try to 
accomplish what she wishes to accomplish.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) is withdrawn.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we have just been reminded once again by the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies of the Committee on 
Appropriations, that the people who live and work in rural America, who 
own and work on the farms and ranches of our country, are in deep 
trouble. That trouble has been visited upon them as a result of acts 
both natural and man made.
  First of all, we have seen serious drought sweep across vast sections 
of the country. Following that, large sections were hit with 
hurricanes. Hurricane Floyd, for example, did an enormous amount of 
damage. All this follows upon the devastating impacts of the Freedom to 
Farm Act which was enacted by this Congress in 1996, which in and of 
itself has done extraordinary

[[Page H1567]]

damage to people on the farm and ranchers all across America.
  Yesterday, I went before the Committee on Rules and asked that we 
have an amendment made in order which would address an important part 
of this problem. This Congress has done much to help the farmers of the 
traditional row crops. We have, in fact, appropriated billions of 
dollars in the last several years to deal with agricultural disaster 
affecting these five traditional row crops. However, we have pointedly 
ignored the producers of specialty crops. And what I mean by specialty 
crops, of course, are the producers of fruit, apples, pears, orchards 
of various kinds, as well as vegetable growers, peanut growers, and 
other specialty crops, which have been hard hit both by these natural 
and man-made disasters.
  I ask the Committee on Rules to make in order an amendment which 
would allow $150 million in disaster assistance for the farmers who 
produce these row crops and whose incomes have been so devastatedly 
impacted as a result of these natural and man-made disasters. 
Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules saw fit not to make that 
amendment in order. So I am taking this opportunity to bring this issue 
before the Members of the House and, particularly, once again, to my 
dear friend and colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies in the Committee on Appropriations.
  The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has been gracious enough to 
allow me to consult with him on this issue and to bring it to his 
attention. We have had several discussions about it. And he has assured 
me of his deep concern and interest in this issue. I hope that together 
we can find a way to provide the relief that is so desperately needed 
by the agriculture community, particularly the growers of these row 
crops.
  I am putting my faith in the chairman of my subcommittee and the 
other Members of this House, and the people who grow these crops all 
across our country, in the Northeast and Florida, in the South, and in 
the far West, also are putting their faith in the chairman of our 
subcommittee and the Members of this House. They need relief. They need 
it desperately, and they need it now. This is, in fact, a disaster, and 
we have a responsibility to come to their aid.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman explained it very 
well. We are here to help, and we are going to do it. We are going to 
do whatever is possible in this thing to try to make it work.
  We appreciate the gentleman's interest, and the gentleman certainly 
has mine and also, I think, the chairman of the full committee. I want 
to thank the gentleman for the backup that he has given me and the rest 
of our committee. He is a great member of the committee. I appreciate 
it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank both gentlemen 
very, very much.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               CHAPTER 2

  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, last night we appeared before the Committee on Rules in 
order to attempt to make a bipartisan common sense approach in order 
due to a real emergency and a real disaster. The emergency aid involves 
West Coast fishermen and owners of small fishing boats.
  This is a real emergency caused by a precipitous decline in fish 
population and 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. This bipartisan 
common sense amendment offered by myself, the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Walden), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Kuykendall), two Democrats and two 
Republicans, would have addressed these challenges by bringing better 
science and better fish counting to the problem, a boat buy-back 
program and financial aid to affected families.
  This common sense bipartisan amendment was not made in order, and I 
would inquire of the chairman on behalf of myself and the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps) about the prospects of providing 
assistance to the hard-hit West Coast fishing industry when this bill 
is conferenced with the Senate. I understand that a number of issues 
not in the House bill may be considered at that conference, and I would 
like to know whether the chairman would consider at that time providing 
assistance for West Coast fisheries, which are dependent on ground 
fish.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WU. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I thank him for bringing this matter before the House.
  I know there is a great concern on this issue, and I would appreciate 
any further information that the gentleman could develop as we go 
through the process on this supplemental. I can guaranty the gentleman 
that we will look very closely at the issue.
  We understand the importance, we appreciate the work that the 
gentleman has done at this point, and we ask him to provide us with 
additional information so that we can make a proper judgment.
  Mr. WU. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand that there 
were monies in the appropriation bill last year for studies. The 
challenge that we face is a continuation of studies and a failure to 
act.
  I appreciate the gentleman's offer to work with me on this issue. Do 
I have the chairman's assurance that this is an assurance to cooperate 
in action and not study alone?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I can 
assure him that we will do the very best we can to do what is right.
  Mr. WU. I thank the chairman.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to urge my colleagues as we finish 
these amendments to support this appropriation bill that includes over 
$350 million for North Carolina's victims from Hurricane Floyd.
  I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and the members of the committee and the 
members of the administration, really, who worked together on this 
bill, to come up with a strong relief package for the victims of this 
devastating storm.
  I know there are some Members of this House who are opposed to this 
bill because of the funds it is spending on various projects overseas. 
There are tens of thousands of North Carolinians and others along the 
East Coast who have been devastated economically, physically, and 
emotionally by this historic storm.
  I sure would appreciate it if my colleagues would think about them 
when they cast their vote this evening or tomorrow. Think about the 
thousands of small businesses who will never open their doors again. 
Think about the widow or the widower who lost a life partner in the 
flood waters that ravaged our State. Think about the farmers, and we 
just heard about them, who are struggling to repair their fields, their 
barns, their equipment, and who are desperately hanging on hoping that 
they can get through this spring planting season. Think about the 
thousands of families who are in cramped travel trailers or who are 
sharing quarters with relatives and desperately need to have a place 
that they can call home. Think about children who are traveling on 
roads every day that need to be repaired.
  I urge my colleagues to think about these things and ask themselves 
this question: How would I cast my vote if these were my neighbors? 
Regardless of what else they may have against what is in this bill. 
Think about that before they cast their vote. Think about the Americans 
that we all represent.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a brief statement and then enter 
into a colloquy with the gentleman from New

[[Page H1568]]

Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  In 1999, we saw the nearly complete disappearance of lobsters in 
Western Long Island Sound and the destruction of our commercial lobster 
fishery. Many of the men and women who depend on this industry are 
faced with having to sell their boats, traps, and other equipment; and 
many of them will soon lose their homes, as well.
  Commerce Secretary Daley has already declared the Sound a commercial 
beneficiary failure under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, paving the way for 
emergency supplemental funding.
  According to the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, 
the State as a whole saw an 81 percent decline in pounds of lobster 
caught in the fall of 1999. The towns of Greenwich and the City of 
Stanford, the western-most part of Connecticut, showed declines greater 
than 99 percent. This is not merely a bad year; it is a disappearance 
of a species. It is a disaster no one anticipated and, therefore, no 
one prepared for.
  Researchers from Connecticut and New York, working with the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, have indicated a parasite 
is responsible for the die-off but have not been able to identify why 
the parasite is suddenly flourishing.
  I am grateful the legislation being considered today includes $8.6 
million for additional research and a revolving fund to help the 
lobstermen refinance their business obligations. The committee's 
recognition of this tragedy is important.
  My colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and I 
rise today to address the critical need for aid to the individuals in 
communities directly affected by this unexplained disaster, like the 
citrus growers for whom the Committee on Appropriations has designated 
$40 million to compensate for lost production due to the unexpected 
breakout of citrus canker. The Long Island Sound lobstermen deserve our 
help.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the 
remarks of my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), 
and ask my good chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), a 
question.
  The lobstermen in Connecticut have lost their crop. They lost their 
income. They are proud people. They cannot afford to maintain their 
equipment or to make payments on their boats. Their industry is 
disappearing. The Long Island Sound lobstermen are not asking for much. 
They are simply asking their government to help them through a hard 
time, which no one could have predicted. They want only enough to 
provide for their families and avoid having to sell their boats, in 
hope the fishery will recover and that they can return to the life that 
they know and that they love.
  When the Committee on Appropriations considered this legislation, I 
offered an amendment with my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey), to appropriate additional aid to the individuals 
affected. We withdrew our amendment in order to work more closely with 
the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen), who indicated that he 
would work with the Long Island Sound members as the supplemental 
appropriations process moves forward.
  Mr. Chairman, our understanding is that, as this supplemental aid 
package moves forward, we will continue to assess the assistance given 
to Long Island Sound lobster fishery failure in order to ensure that 
the package includes sufficient aid for the Long Island Sound 
lobstermen and for their families.
  Mr. Chairman, is that the understanding of the gentleman, as well?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the willingness of the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and of the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to have this discussion, and I equally 
appreciate their obvious concern for the welfare of the fishermen.
  The assistance that they are seeking as a result of the massive 
lobster losses is commendable. However, there are numerous questions 
which must be answered before a resolution can be reached, not the 
least of which is the question of jurisdiction between the Department 
of Commerce and the Department of Agriculture and the Appropriations 
Subcommittee, which fund their budgets.
  Accordingly, I look forward to discussing this issue further with the 
gentleman and the gentlewoman from Connecticut and hope that we will be 
able to arrive at some form of a workable decision. I thank the 
gentlewoman for her patience, and I thank her for the willingness to 
work it out.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to bring to the attention of my colleagues a 
current plight of nonprogram specialty crops in our country, and more 
specifically that of the onion and vegetable growers in my 
congressional district in Orange County, New York.
  While it is clear that farmers throughout our Nation have experienced 
severe crop damage due to weather-related disasters during the 1999 
growing season, I know of no other circumstances than the one that 
exists in the ``black dirt'' region of Orange County.
  Onion and vegetable growers in that area have suffered devastating 
losses 3 out of the last 4 years, 1996, 1998, and now 1999, and now are 
more than ever in desperate need of meaningful assistance, assistance 
that the Department of Agriculture and the current crop insurance 
program has failed to offer.
  The small sums which crop insurance and the USDA paid to these 
farmers due to their 1996 and 1998 crop losses has failed to provide 
anything close to minimal relief. If these growers receive a similarly 
insignificant indemnity, and regrettably there is no reason to believe 
otherwise, under 1999 losses, more families are going to lose their 
farms.
  In fact, I was just informed today by a grower in our area that 
creditors are already beginning to deny additional loans for growers in 
the valley. Should this trend continue and force more families to lose 
their farms, the economy of our region will be adversely affected, 
individuals will be uprooted, and a traditional way of life will be 
jeopardized, and a segment of our national food supply will be further 
diminished.
  This is the very upheaval which crop insurance and the USDA are 
designed to prevent. Yet for the growers in this region, the system has 
failed.
  Accordingly, I am hopeful that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman 
Young); the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen), the 
subcommittee chairman; and all the conferees will provide for the needs 
of all specialty crops in this supplemental measure and will remember 
the plight of our onion growers and vegetable growers in Orange County, 
New York.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard, as have all of us this evening, of vital 
concerns about our Nation's disasters or impending disasters. We have 
heard about farmers and fishermen and natural disasters. As we are 
speaking, in Ft. Worth, Texas, yet another disaster has occurred.
  I rise not to offer anything other than what I hope is some measure 
of creativity that does not seem to come about in this glacial body.
  Is there anything wrong with us having a 14th committee that would 
consist of the respective chairs of the committees of jurisdiction of 
this Congress and perhaps two or more members appointed by the Speaker 
and the minority leader that handle nothing more than disasters so that 
we can move in better fashion than we do?
  It seems that we wait for people who are flooded out and people who 
are blown away, and we are here going back and forth and back and forth 
all the time without having a committee that can do this.
  I just invite my colleagues to consider something different so that 
we can expedite the process. Disasters are going to continue to occur.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, a little over an hour ago, I announced that it was my 
intention to have our final votes of the

[[Page H1569]]

evening at approximately 10 o'clock. But we have used up nearly half an 
hour of that time in just motions to strike the last word.
  So the approximately 10 o'clock will be a little bit beyond 10 
o'clock, with our intention to go through the Kasich amendment this 
evening before the committee rises. I am hoping we can expedite and get 
that done. But we will continue to go until we complete the Kasich 
amendment, and then we will have the final votes for the evening.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read, as follows:

                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                  Economic Development Administration


                economic development assistance programs

       For an additional amount for ``Economic Development 
     Assistance Programs,'' $25,800,000, to remain available until 
     expended, for planning, public works grants and revolving 
     loan funds for communities affected by Hurricane Floyd and 
     other recent hurricanes and disasters: Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


                  operations, research, and facilities

       For an additional amount for ``Operations, Research and 
     Facilities,'' $19,400,000, to remain available until 
     expended, to provide disaster assistance pursuant to section 
     312(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
     Management Act, and for repairs to the Beaufort Laboratory, 
     resulting from Hurricane Floyd and other recent hurricanes 
     and disasters: Provided, That the entire amount is designated 
     by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                             RELATED AGENCY

                     Small Business Administration


                     disaster loans program account

       For an additional amount for the cost of direct loans, 
     $33,300,000, to remain available until expended to subsidize 
     additional gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans: Provided, That such costs, including the cost 
     of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and for direct 
     administrative expenses to carry out the disaster loan 
     program, an additional $27,600,000, to remain available until 
     expended, which may be transferred to and merged with 
     appropriations for ``Salaries and Expenses'': Provided 
     further, That no funds shall be transferred to and merged 
     with appropriations for ``Salaries and Expenses'' for 
     indirect administrative expenses: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available 
     only to the extent that an official budget request, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

                               CHAPTER 3

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

                         General Investigations

       For an additional amount to conduct a study and report to 
     the Congress on the feasibility of a project to provide flood 
     damage reduction for the town of Princeville, North Carolina, 
     $1,500,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the study of a flood damage reduction project may 
     include any flood mitigation measures that the Secretary of 
     the Army determines are necessary for areas that are affected 
     by the project: Provided further, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                   Operation and Maintenance, General

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and maintenance, 
     general'' for emergency expenses due to hurricanes and other 
     natural disasters, $27,925,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of the total amount appropriated, 
     the amount for eligible navigation projects which may be 
     derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund pursuant to 
     Public Law 99-662 shall be derived from that Fund: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            ENERGY PROGRAMS

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

       For an additional amount for ``Uranium enrichment 
     decontamination and decommissioning fund'', $16,000,000, to 
     be derived from the Fund, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES


                        other defense activities

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Other defense activities'', 
     $63,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $4,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from unobligated 
     balances in the ``Biomass energy development'' account: 
     Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That the 
     Department is authorized to initiate design of the Highly 
     Enriched Uranium Blend Down Project.


                  Amendment Offered by Ms. Kilpatrick

  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Kilpatrick:
       Page 53, after line 5, add the following:

               CHAPTER 3A--BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE


                  agency for international development

                child survival and disease programs fund

       For an additional amount for ``Child Survival and Disease 
     Programs Fund'', $20,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, for flood recovery efforts in the Republic of 
     Mozambique and surrounding affected countries: Provided, That 
     such amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available 
     only to the extent that at an official budget request that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.


                         development assistance

       For an additional amount for ``Development Assistance'', 
     $20,000,000, to remain available until expended, for flood 
     recovery efforts in the Republic of Mozambique and 
     surrounding affected countries: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent that at an official budget request that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.


                   international disaster assistance

       For an additional amount for ``International Disaster 
     Assistance'', $20,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, for flood recovery efforts in the Republic of 
     Mozambique and surrounding affected countries: Provided, That 
     such amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available 
     only to the extent that at an official budget request that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

  Ms. KILPATRICK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) reserves a 
point of order on the amendment.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, a little over a month ago, there was a 
cyclone that hit Mozambique. There has been much discussion about that 
all day long, so I will not go into the details of that.
  A little more than 3 weeks ago, our Subcommittee on Appropriations 
and the full committee brought forward this supplemental that we have 
been debating all day. In that supplemental and in the committee, as 
the discussion went on, I offered an amendment for $60 million, $20 
million to go in the Child Survival Account, $20 million to go into the 
Development Assistance Account, and $20 million to go into 
International Disaster Relief to replenish the accounts that I was 
hoping that

[[Page H1570]]

we could take out that day and appeal to my colleagues today, as we 
have 3 weeks later, to go forward to Mozambique to address the 
tragedies that are there, with over a million people homeless, over 
50,000 children orphaned, water contaminated, mines floating.
  At that time, in the Committee on Appropriations, I withdrew that 
amendment because the chairman of our Committee on Appropriations, the 
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), and the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), made the 
commitment that they would work with us after the assessment is 
finished.
  I understand that assessment should be finished on Friday, Mr. 
Chairman, or thereabouts; that the President and his advisors will be 
giving it to the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and 
presenting our case to my colleagues.
  It is important. With his commitment, I appreciate that. I appreciate 
the work that he has done in the committee, both the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) 
and working with us as we address the Mozambique crisis.

                              {time}  2200

  The appropriations process will continue as the gentleman knows as we 
finish this supplemental process. I hope that after the assessment has 
been made, I understand that will be Friday, that they will report to 
the gentleman and that they will make the commitment and we carry out 
on the commitment that we have made in appropriations under the 
gentleman's leadership and with the leadership of the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) to make sure that we assist in Mozambique. I 
appreciate the report language that both of the chairs as well as our 
full committee adopted in our supplemental appropriation which is in 
the bill today.
  Mr. Chairman, as we move to the assessment and its completion, as we 
replenish the accounts and I know that we will as the supplemental 
moves through the process, that we do what is proper and what is right 
for Mozambique.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KILPATRICK. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, let me first of all compliment the 
gentlewoman from Michigan. She certainly has been the front mover of 
trying to bring to the attention of the Congress and to the country the 
needs of Mozambique, and certainly they deserve immediate attention by 
those of us in Congress that are responsible for providing the funds to 
the administration. I support her movement. I compliment her on that. 
But let me point out that so far we have already spent $17 million 
through USAID plus $21 million in DOD activities in Mozambique. They 
need more. It is my understanding that the gentlewoman is going to ask 
the administration to submit a supplemental to the supplemental 
requesting emergency assistance for Mozambique, and if indeed the 
administration does that, we will address it in conference.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. I thank the gentleman. It is my understanding the 
administration will be sending that information forward. With that, Mr. 
Chairman, and the gentleman's support as well as the support of the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), I will withdraw this amendment and 
continue to work with the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               CHAPTER 4

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                       Bureau of Land Management


                        wildland fire management

       For an additional amount for ``Wildland Fire Management'', 
     $100,000,000, to remain available until expended, for 
     emergency rehabilitation and wildfire suppression activities: 
     Provided, That the entire amount is designated by Congress as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended: Provided further, That this amount shall be 
     available only to the extent that an official budget request 
     for a specific dollar amount, that includes designation of 
     the entire amount as an emergency requirement as defined by 
     such Act, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.

                United States Fish and Wildlife Service


                              construction

       For an additional amount for ``Construction'', $5,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended, to repair or replace 
     buildings, equipment, roads, and water control structures 
     damaged by natural disasters: Provided, That the entire 
     amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                         National Park Service


                              construction

       For an additional amount for ``Construction'', $4,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended, to repair or replace 
     visitor facilities, equipment, roads and trails, and cultural 
     sites and artifacts at national park units damaged by natural 
     disasters: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    United States Geological Survey


                 surveys, investigations, and research

       For an additional amount for ``Surveys, Investigations, and 
     Research'', $1,800,000, to remain available until expended, 
     to repair or replace stream monitoring equipment and 
     associated facilities damaged by natural disasters: Provided, 
     That the entire amount is designated by Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.

                             RELATED AGENCY

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                             Forest Service


                        wildland fire management

       For an additional amount for ``Wildland Fire Management'', 
     $150,000,000, to remain available until expended, for 
     emergency rehabilitation, presuppression, and wildfire 
     suppression: Provided, That the entire amount is designated 
     by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That this 
     amount shall be available only to the extent that an official 
     budget request for a specific dollar amount, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount as an emergency requirement 
     as defined by such Act, is transmitted by the President to 
     the Congress.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Blagojevich

  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Blagojevich:
       Page 55, after line 19, insert the following:

                          DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                 Employment and Training Administration


                    training and employment services

       For an additional amount for ``Training and Employment 
     Services'' for youth activities under the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998, $500,000,000: Provided, That such 
     amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided 
     further, That such amount shall be available only to the 
     extent that an official budget request, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirements as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, is transmitted by the 
     President to the Congress.

  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida reserves a point of order.
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would add $500 million to 
this bill for summer jobs. Many communities across our country are 
facing a funding crisis for their summer jobs programs. We live in a 
time, Mr. Chairman, of game show millionaires and Internet IPOs. I 
think sometimes we fail to recognize and overlook that the old-
fashioned recipe for success really boils down to hard work. A recently 
released study shows that a student who gets a job early in life can 
expect to increase his or her future earnings by up to 10 to 12 
percent. That is contrasted for a student who goes to an elite school. 
The study indicates that student would only increase his or her chances 
for future economic success by 1 percent. The summer jobs program was 
designed to help kids learn early in life the value of hard

[[Page H1571]]

work and to give them an opportunity to get the work experience they 
need to thrive in the American economy. To a young person, a summer job 
is not just about wages to help his or her family for the summer. More 
importantly, a summer job is about learning a work ethic that he or she 
can take with him or her throughout their lifetimes. But the looming 
summer jobs crisis threatens to derail the summer youth employment 
programs of towns and cities all across America.
  I will in a moment withdraw this amendment, but I would first ask the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) if it is possible to address this 
issue in conference.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I understand the concerns of the gentleman from 
Illinois. While I cannot make any promises, I will bring this concern 
to the attention of the conferees.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say, I also am familiar with the problem. I 
certainly will also bring it to the attention of the conferees.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
certainly want to thank the gentleman for his amendment. I was hoping 
that the chairman might be willing to make a further commitment to us 
in his instructions to the conferees to certainly consider the summer 
jobs program. As the calendar continues to tick, certainly this issue 
is becoming a pressing issue for those of us who live in inner cities 
across the country. So while it may be discussed with the conferees, if 
in fact it is not addressed in this particular bill, could the 
gentleman be kind enough to be a little bit more specific about what 
the appropriate measure is for those of us on the committee who will be 
willing to advance this?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman will yield further, I will be 
specific to this point, that yesterday morning the committee received a 
request from the administration to add $40 million for this effort. 
That was just too late. You just cannot send an amendment to your 
supplemental that late in the game. So the best that I can offer is 
that we will do our very best to deal with the subject when we go to 
conference with the other body. We basically support the program, but 
the Committee on Appropriations, as the gentleman knows because he is a 
valued member of that committee, tries to be thorough, and we try to 
understand exactly what it is that we are doing. That is the approach 
we will bring to the conference on this subject.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
understand the difficulty of trying to come up with an amendment for 
$40 million at the last minute, but we did earlier today adopt an 
amendment for $4 billion for the Pentagon which if my arithmetic is 
right is about 100 times as much. So if we could put an amendment 
together for $4 billion for the Pentagon after the bill came out and we 
cannot do $40 million for this program, I think that says a lot of 
unfortunate things about our priorities.
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, let me just close by thanking the 
gentleman from Florida. I know when he does his best and I am a 
supplicant, so he can take this with a grain of salt, but I know when 
he does his best, that means an awful lot. I want to thank him for his 
effort and interest in looking at this. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich) is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, in lieu of the discussion that has just taken place, 
summer jobs are as critical for young people in cities like Chicago and 
other economically challenged communities throughout the country as one 
could possibly imagine. While the city of Chicago is making every 
effort under the leadership of its mayor to go into the private sector 
and convince members of the private sector to provide work 
opportunities for these young people, we know that we are not going to 
be able to get enough. There is no greater need that we have during the 
critical summer period than the opportunity for young people, 14, 15, 
16 years old to have a chance to work, to be engaged, to be productive, 
to be involved, to provide not only hope but help for themselves, for 
their families and for their communities. And so I would certainly hope 
that when we come to conference and when all of the I's are dotted and 
the T's are crossed that we will have found a way to make sure that 
adequate resources are put into this very valuable and critical 
component for the needs of our young people.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               CHAPTER 5

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                Administration for Children and Families


                   low income home energy assistance

       For an additional amount for ``Low Income Home Energy 
     Assistance'' for emergency assistance under section 2602(e) 
     of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 
     8621(e)), $600,000,000: Provided, That such amount is hereby 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That such amount shall be available only to the 
     extent an official budget request, that includes designation 
     of the entire amount of the request as an emergency 
     requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget And Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by 
     the President to the Congress.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Cardin

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Cardin:
       Page 56, after line 12, insert the following:

                            RELATED AGENCIES

                     Social Security Administration


                 limitation on administrative expenses

       The limitation on administrative expenses under this 
     heading in the Department of Labor, Health and Human 
     Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 2000 (as enacted into law by section 1000(a)(4) of 
     Public Law 106-113) is increased by an additional 
     $336,000,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That such amount shall 
     be available only to the extent that an official budget 
     request, that includes designation of the entire amount of 
     the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

  Mr. CARDIN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase Social 
Security's limitation on administrative expenses for fiscal year 2000 
by $336 million, bringing it to the level requested by the Social 
Security Commissioner. Quite simply this funding is necessary if SSA is 
to maintain vital services that are being threatened by the agency's 
inadequate administrative budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I might point out that the Subcommittee on Social 
Security of the Committee on Ways and Means recently held a hearing 
when the Commissioner was there and some of the concerns on the 
administrative budget was expressed at that hearing.
  Every day over 100,000 individuals visit SSA's field offices and over 
240,000 individuals call SSA's 800 number. Every month SSA pays 
benefits to approximately 50 million individuals. In this coming year 
it expects to issue 16 million new and replacement Social Security 
cards and take more than 5 million new claims for benefits. Last year, 
Social Security also began sending benefit statements to workers over

[[Page H1572]]

the age of 25, enabling 126 million American workers to better plan 
their financial future. There is just no way around it. Providing 
efficient service on this vast scale takes more than good management, 
it takes resources. Yet Congress has funded SSA's administrative budget 
below levels requested by the President and by the Social Security 
Commissioner every year since the agency became independent in 1994. 
Despite these funding constraints, the Social Security Administration 
last year received an overall grade of A on the Government Performance 
Project's report card and 88 percent of SSA's customers rate the 
agency's service as being excellent, very good, or good. SSA's 
administrative budget represents less than 2 percent of the value of 
the benefits it provides each year and the OASI program enjoys a 
payment accuracy of over 99 percent.
  SSA has a history of a solid and reliable customer service and this 
must be maintained. Yet over the next decade the number of OASI 
beneficiaries will increase by 16 percent and the number of DI 
beneficiaries by 47 percent. At the same time the agency estimates that 
almost 3 percent of its workforce will retire in 2001 and that these 
losses will continue and peak around 2009. SSA must be prepared now for 
both the expected spike in its workload due to the baby boomers' 
retirement and the retirement of its own aging workforce.
  These challenges are already placing an unprecedented strain on SSA 
as the agency tries to prepare for the future using a persistently 
underfunded administrative budget. SSA's workforce has declined by 26 
percent between 1982 and 1998, much more quickly than the rest of the 
Federal workforce. At the same time it is trying to flatten its 
retirement wave by offering early retirement to some employees while 
hiring and training new individuals to ensure an adequate supply of 
trained personnel within the next several years.
  For fiscal year 2000, Congress provided $6.57 billion for SSA's 
administrative budget, a level $336 million below the Commissioner's 
request. As a result, SSA will process a quarter of a million fewer 
disability, retirement and survivors claims than projected and will be 
unable to conduct over 200,000 SSI redeterminations. In addition, the 
agency projects declines in its telephone service.
  Congress is simply not providing SSA with the resources necessary to 
prepare for the future. We expect SSA to develop service delivery 
plans, to provide timely and accurate benefits to the elderly and 
disabled, to use current information technology and to maintain the 
integrity of its program. But for SSA to continue meeting these 
expectations this year and in future years Congress must provide the 
agency with necessary administrative resources.
  That is why my amendment is necessary and should be included in this 
bill. These funds do not come out of the general fund but rather are 
financed almost entirely out of the OASDI trust funds. At a time when 
the trust funds are running surpluses it makes little sense to restrict 
Social Security's ability to administer its own programs. Without this 
increase, your district offices will begin to receive calls from 
constituents whose expectation of SSA customers are out of step with 
the levels of service Congress is supporting through the LAE 
allocation.
  Mr. Chairman, the programs administered by the SSA touch the lives of 
almost every American. I understand that the chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations has raised a point of order and the amendment is 
subject to a point of order. But I would hope during the appropriation 
process this year, we would be mindful of the need of SSA to have 
adequate administrative resources in order to carry out this increased 
responsibility. I know that the chairman has been sensitive to this in 
the past.
  I would be glad to yield to the chairman, but I will withdraw the 
amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman withdraws the amendment, then 
I will not be required to raise the point of order.
  Mr. CARDIN. I will be glad to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               CHAPTER 6

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                              COAST GUARD

                           Operating Expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Operating expenses'', 
     $37,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2001: 
     Provided, That $18,000,000 shall be available only for costs 
     related to the delivery of health care to Coast Guard 
     personnel, retirees, and their dependents, and $19,000,000 
     shall be available only for aircraft spare parts: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by Congress as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION


                          Federal-aid Highways

                        Emergency Relief Program

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

       For an additional amount for the Emergency Relief Program 
     for emergency expenses resulting from floods and other 
     natural disasters, as authorized by 23 U.S.C. 125, 
     $600,000,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund and 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That the entire 
     amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                             RELATED AGENCY

                  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and expenses,'' 
     $24,739,000, for emergency expenses associated with the 
     investigation of the Egypt Air 990 and Alaska Air 261 
     accidents, to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     such funds shall be available for wreckage location and 
     recovery, facilities, technical support, testing, and 
     wreckage mock-up: Provided further, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 3601. None of the funds provided in the Transportation 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, shall be 
     available for operation of the transportation computer 
     center.
       Sec. 3602. The Executive Draft on Federal Transportation in 
     the National Capital Region which has been submitted to the 
     Office of Management and Budget by the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall take effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act: Provided, That, not later than 60 days after the 
     date of enactment of the Act, the Secretary of Transportation 
     shall transmit to the Congress a report on the implementation 
     of Executive Draft referred to in the preceding proviso.

                              {time}  2215


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 
3602 of the bill on page 58, lines 9 through 17.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, I raise a point of order against section 3602 of the 
bill on page 58, lines 9 through 17, on the grounds that it constitutes 
legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of Rule 
XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
  Section 3602 of the bill provides that the executive draft on Federal 
transportation in the National Capital Region has been submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget and shall take effect on the date of 
the enactment of this bill. The section further provides that within 60 
days of enactment, the Secretary of Transportation shall transmit to 
Congress a report on implementation of the executive draft.
  This provision would enact into law a policy that Congress has not 
reviewed; a policy, in fact, that is still in the process of being 
written by the administration. Although the latest version of the draft 
Executive Order referenced in section 3602 has not been made available, 
we understand that it sets forth a variety of requirements for Federal 
agencies in the National Capital Region in an effort to reduce the 
number of employees who drive alone to work.
  We understand that the draft Executive Order would require Federal 
agencies to develop and implement transportation management plans 
designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled by Federal employees, and 
various other requirements.
  In addition, the draft Executive Order would apparently require all

[[Page H1573]]

agencies in the National Capital Region to provide maximum tax-free 
transit benefits to all employees. This transit benefit alone, Mr. 
Chairman, is estimated to cost $60 million to $80 million each year for 
this region and would ultimately be extended to other regions across 
the country and be even more costly. The cost of complete 
implementation of the policies set forth in the draft Executive Order 
may be far greater.
  While some of these requirements may have merit, they are, 
nevertheless, significant policy changes. Not only have no 
congressional hearings been held on the draft Executive Order, its 
contents have not even been made known to Congress. Costly and 
significant policy changes such as these should be subjected to the 
normal congressional authorization and review process, not approved 
sight unseen.
  Mr. Chairman, clause 2 of Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives prohibits the reporting of a provision changing 
existing law in a general appropriations bill, including a supplemental 
appropriations bill, such as we are dealing with here tonight. In other 
words, this rule prohibits legislation on an appropriations bill.
  For the reasons stated previously, section 3602 of this bill on page 
58, lines 9 through 17, constitutes legislation on an appropriations 
bill in violation of clause 2 of Rule XXI.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
  Mr. WOLF. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I may.
  Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I am not going to go into 
detail. This was the language that would have allowed people to 
telework; it would have taken a lot of traffic off of streets. It also 
would have encouraged car-pooling and done a lot of other things. But 
in light of the objection that has been made, we will not appeal the 
point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Tennessee makes a point of order that section 3602 
of the bill changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of Rule 
XXI.
  The provision mandates that the Executive Draft on Federal 
transportation in the National Capital Region take effect on the date 
of enactment of the act. The provision also requires the Secretary of 
Transportation to transmit a report on implementation of the Executive 
Draft.
  As stated in section 1055 of the House Rules and Manual, a 
proposition to impose a duty on an executive official is legislation 
and not in order under clause 2 of Rule XXI.
  Accordingly, the point of order is sustained, and section 3602 is 
stricken.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remainder of title III be considered as read, printed in the Record and 
open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill from page 58, line 18 through page 64, line 6 is 
as follows:

                               CHAPTER 7

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                   Community Planning and Development


                  home investment partnerships program

       For an additional amount for the HOME investment 
     partnerships program, as authorized under title II of the 
     Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (Public Law 
     101-625), as amended, $36,000,000: Provided, That of said 
     amount, $11,000,000 shall be provided to the New Jersey 
     Department of Community Affairs and $25,000,000 shall be 
     provided to the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency for the 
     purpose of providing temporary assistance in obtaining rental 
     housing, and for construction of affordable replacement 
     housing: Provided further, That assistance provided under 
     this paragraph shall be for very low-income families 
     displaced by flooding caused by Hurricane Floyd and 
     surrounding events: Provided further, That the entire amount 
     is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent that an official budget request for a specific 
     dollar amount, that includes designation of the entire amount 
     of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.

                        Administrative Provision

       Sec. 3701. (a) Subject to subsection (d) and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, from any amounts 
     made available for assistance under section 8 of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f) that remain 
     unobligated, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     shall, for each request described in subsection (b), make a 
     1-year grant to the entity making the request in the amount 
     under subsection (c).
       (b) A request described in this subsection is a request for 
     a grant under subtitle C of title IV of the Stewart B. 
     McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11381 et seq.) 
     for permanent housing for homeless persons with disabilities 
     or subtitle F of such title (42 U.S.C. 11403 et seq.) that--
       (1) was submitted in accordance with the eligibility 
     requirements established by the Secretary and pursuant to the 
     notice of funding availability for fiscal year 1999 covering 
     such programs, but was not approved;
       (2) was made by an entity that received such a grant 
     pursuant to the notice of funding availability for a previous 
     fiscal year; and
       (3) requested renewal of funding made under such previous 
     grant for use for eligible activities because funding under 
     such previous grant expires during calendar year 2000.
       (c) the amount under this subsection is the amount 
     necessary, as determined by the Secretary, to renew funding 
     for the eligible activities under the grant request for a 
     period of only 1 year, taking into consideration the amount 
     of funding requested for the first year of funding under the 
     grant request.
       (d) The entire amount for grants under this section is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended. The entire 
     amount for grants under this section shall be available only 
     to the extent that an official budget request for a specific 
     dollar amount, that includes designation of the entire amount 
     of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency


                            disaster relief

       For an increase in the authority to use unobligated 
     balances specified under this heading in appendix E, title I, 
     chapter 2, of Public Law 106-113, in addition to other 
     amounts made available, up to an additional $77,400,000 may 
     be used by the Director of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency for the purposes included in said chapter: Provided, 
     That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended: Provided further, That the entire amount shall be 
     available only to the extent that an official budget request 
     for a specific dollar amount, that includes designation of 
     the entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement 
     as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the 
     President to the Congress.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration


                           human space flight

       For an additional amount for ``Human Space Flight'' to 
     provide for urgent upgrades to the space shuttle fleet, 
     $25,800,000, to remain available until September 30, 2001: 
     Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request for a specific dollar amount, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.


                  science, aeronautics and technology

       For an additional amount for ``Science, aeronautics and 
     technology to provide for urgent and unanticipated program 
     needs, $29,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2001: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request for a specific dollar amount, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.


                            mission support

       For an additional amount for ``Mission Support'' to provide 
     for urgent augmentation of personnel required to support the 
     space shuttle program, $20,200,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2001: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced

[[Page H1574]]

     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available 
     only to the extent that an official budget request for a 
     specific dollar amount, that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to 
     the Congress.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on the Interior of the Committee on Appropriations in a 
colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for fully funding the 
administration's request in the area of Wildland Fire Management. This 
is an issue that is of very great importance to rural Nevada and other 
States in the Great Basin.
  The gentleman's bill provides $100 million for wildland fire 
management on Bureau of Land Management lands and $150 million for 
lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service. These funds are critical to 
suppress wildfires and rehabilitate public lands that have been 
scourged by fires.
  The Great Basin region remains particularly susceptible to fire 
hazards. Just last year my home State of Nevada experienced one of the 
worst wildfire seasons on record.
  Nationwide, more than 4.6 million acres of Federal lands burned in 
the 1999 fire season. Of that amount, 1.7 million of those acres, 
nearly half, were in Nevada.
  The wildfires damaged critical animal and wildlife habitats, 
destroyed fences which managed domestic livestock and wild horses, 
imperiled watersheds, and allowed for the spread of cheatgrass, a very 
flammable weed and persistent contributor to fire hazards in the Great 
Basin.
  Because of its ability to overwhelm and choke native vegetation, 
cheatgrass is pushing the sagegrouse to the point of where the bird is 
on the verge of being listed as a threatened species under the Federal 
Endangered Species Act. If listed, the sagegrouse will become the Great 
Basin's very own ``spotted owl'' and virtually destroy Nevada's rural 
economy.
  Mr. Chairman, the emergency fire rehabilitation funding is a 
tremendous step forward and the people of Nevada are grateful. However, 
I believe much more can be done with existing Federal funds to better 
manage these fires and actually prevent their spread in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, as you work with the Senate Energy Committee on funding 
for wildland fire management and on the regular Interior and 
Agriculture Appropriations bills, I hope we can address the current 
limitations on the emergency funding and give the Department of 
Interior more flexibility in rehabilitating public lands with the funds 
in this supplemental.
  I also hope that we can work on language to clarify to the BLM and 
the Forest Service that emergency wildfire funds contained in this 
supplemental will be used expeditiously to help rehabilitate the 
acreage burned in 1999.
  Also, for the longer term, I hope we can work together with my 
colleagues from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Utah to implement the 
Great Basin Restoration Initiative. This plan would fund restoration 
work in the Great Basin so the BLM and Forest Service can restore lands 
and prevent costly fire rehabilitation expenditures in the future.
  I thank the chairman for his time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GIBBONS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman from Nevada's 
concerns. He is correct that this bill provided the requested emergency 
wildland fire fighting funds. We will work with the gentleman, and the 
other body, to see that appropriate rehabilitation needs, including 
those in the Great Basin area, can proceed.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his willingness 
to work with us, and I thank him for his understanding.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                TITLE IV

                SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND OFFSETS

                               CHAPTER 1

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                           Weapons Activities

       For an additional amount for ``Weapons activities'', 
     $55,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                               CHAPTER 2

                            RELATED AGENCIES

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                             Forest Service


                       state and private forestry

                          (transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``State and Private 
     Forestry'', $500,000, to be derived by transfer from 
     unobligated balances in the Forest Service ``Wildland Fire 
     Management'' account and to remain available until expended, 
     for volunteer fire assistance programs in eastern North 
     Carolina.

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


                          energy conservation

       For an additional amount for ``Energy Conservation'', 
     $19,000,000, to become available on October 1, 2000, and to 
     remain available until expended, for weatherization 
     assistance grants.

                               CHAPTER 3

                          DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                 Mine Safety and Health Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       The matter under this heading in the Departments of Labor, 
     Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (as enacted into law by 
     section 1000(a)(4) of Public Law 106-113) is amended by 
     striking ``including not to exceed $750,000 may be collected 
     by the National Mine Health and Safety Academy'' and 
     inserting ``and, in addition, not to exceed $750,000 may be 
     collected by the National Mine Health and Safety Academy''.

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

              Health Resources and Services Administration


                     health resources and services

       For ``Health Resources and Services'' for special projects 
     of regional and national significance under section 501(a)(2) 
     of the Social Security Act, $20,000,000, which shall become 
     available on October 1, 2000, and shall remain available 
     until September 30, 2001: Provided, That such amount shall 
     not be counted toward compliance with the allocation required 
     in section 502(a)(1) of such Act: Provided further, That such 
     amount shall be used only for making competitive grants to 
     provide abstinence education (as defined in section 510(b)(2) 
     of such Act) to adolescents and for evaluations (including 
     longitudinal evaluations) of activities under the grants and 
     for Federal costs of administering the grant: Provided 
     further, That such grants shall be made only to public and 
     private entities which agree that, with respect to an 
     adolescent to whom the entities provide abstinence education 
     under such grant, the entities will not provide to that 
     adolescent any other education regarding sexual conduct, 
     except that, in the case of an entity expressly required by 
     law to provide health information or services the adolescent 
     shall not be precluded from seeking health information or 
     services from the entity in a different setting than the 
     setting in which the abstinence education was provided: 
     Provided further, That the funds expended for such 
     evaluations may not exceed 2.5 percent of such amount.

                Administration for Children and Families


                     refugee and entrant assistance

       Funds appropriated under this heading in the Departments of 
     Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (as enacted into law by 
     section 1000(a)(4) of Public Law 106-113) for fiscal year 
     2000, pursuant to section 414(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act, shall be available for the costs of 
     assistance provided and other activities through September 
     30, 2002.


       payments to states for foster care and adoption assistance

       For an additional amount for ``Payments to States for 
     Foster Care and Adoption Assistance'' for payments for fiscal 
     year 2000, $35,000,000.

                        Administration on Aging


                        aging services programs

       The matter under this heading in the Departments of Labor, 
     Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (as enacted into law by 
     section 1000(a)(4) of Public Law 106-113) is amended by 
     inserting after ``$934,285,000'' the following: ``, of which 
     $2,200,000 shall be for the Anchorage, Alaska Senior Center 
     and shall remain available until expended''.

      GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

       Sec. 4301. Section 206 of the Departments of Labor, Health 
     and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2000 (as enacted into law by section 
     1000(a)(4) of Public Law 106-113) is amended by inserting 
     before the period at the end the following: ``: Provided 
     further, That this section shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated under the heading `Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention--Disease Control, Research, and Training', 
     funds made available to the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention under the heading `Public

[[Page H1575]]

     Health and Social Services Emergency Fund', or any other 
     funds made available in this Act to the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention''.
       Sec. 4302. Section 216 of the Departments of Labor, Health 
     and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2000 (as enacted into law by section 
     1000(a)(4) of Public Law 106-113) is repealed.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 68, line 
22 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment 
at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
there Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this portion of title 
IV?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

            Education Research, Statistics, and Improvement

       The matter under this heading in the Departments of Labor, 
     Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (as enacted into law by 
     section 1000(a)(4) of Public Law 106-113) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``North Babylon Community Youth Services 
     for an educational program'' and inserting ``Town of Babylon 
     Youth Bureau for an educational program'';
       (2) by striking ``to promote participation among youth in 
     the United States democratic process'' and inserting ``to 
     expand access to and improve advanced education'';
       (3) by striking ``Oakland Unified School District in 
     California for an African American Literacy and Culture 
     Project'' and inserting ``California State University, 
     Hayward, for an African-American Literacy and Culture Project 
     carried out in partnership with the Oakland Unified School 
     District in California''; and
       (4) by striking ``$900,000 shall be awarded to the Boston 
     Music Education Collaborative comprehensive interdisciplinary 
     music program and teacher resource center in Boston, 
     Massachusetts'' and inserting ``$462,000 shall be awarded to 
     the Boston Symphony Orchestra for the teacher resource center 
     and $370,000 shall be awarded to the Boston Music Education 
     Collaborative for an interdisciplinary music program, in 
     Boston, Massachusetts''.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Isakson

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment Offered by Mr. Isakson: Page 69, after line 1, 
     insert the following:


                            higher education

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Higher Education'' for the 
     Web-Based Education Commission established in part J of title 
     VIII of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, to be 
     derived from funds made available for fiscal year 2000 under 
     section 458(a)(1)(A) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1087h(a)(1)(A)), $225,000, to remind available until 
     expended.

  Mr. ISAKSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) is recognized.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I am aware that the Chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations has raised a point of order. I respect 
that, and in just a minute I will have a unanimous consent motion.
  However, I would like to ask the chairman to consider, as this bill 
goes through the conference process and to the Senate, that there is a 
major issue that this amendment deals with. It is a small amount of 
money, but a major issue. This would add money to the congressionally 
created Web Base Commission which was created for the purpose of 
recommending to this Congress by the end of this calendar year what 
road map we are going to take in terms of dealing with the digital 
divide, dealing with technology, and dealing with the role of the 
Federal Government as it relates to public education.
  I understand the point of order is because of a lack of 
authorization, although the time was expended, and I respect that. But 
I sincerely hope the chairman will work during the process to see if 
there is any way to add the additional funding so that the complete 
work of this commission may be done by the end of this calendar year.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISAKSON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. I can assure the gentleman that we will be happy to work with 
him as we go through the balance of the legislative process on this 
bill and do the best that we can to accommodate him within the confines 
of this particular legislation.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remainder of the bill through page 74, line 22 be considered as read, 
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill from page 70, line 8 through page 74, line 22 is 
as follows:
       Sec. 4303. Section 304 of the Departments of Labor, Health 
     and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2000 (as enacted into law by section 
     1000(a)(4) of Public Law 106-113) is repealed.

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 4304. Section 513 of the Departments of Labor, Health 
     and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2000 (as enacted into law by section 
     1000(a)(4) of Public Law 106-113) is amended by inserting 
     before the period at the end the following: ``: Provided 
     further, That the provisions of this section shall not apply 
     to any funds appropriated to the Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention or to the Department of Education''.
       Sec. 4305. Section 403(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 603(a)(5)), as amended by section 806(b) of the 
     Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (as 
     enacted into law by section 1000(a)(4) of Public Law 106-113) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``$1,500,000'' and 
     inserting ``$15,000,000'';
       (2) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``$900,000'' and 
     inserting ``$9,000,000''; and
       (3) in subparagraph (H), by striking ``$300,000'' and 
     inserting ``$3,000,000''.

                               CHAPTER 4

                           LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

                        CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS

                              JOINT ITEMS

                          Capitol Police Board


                         security enhancements

       For an additional amount for costs associated with security 
     enhancements to the buildings and grounds of the Library of 
     Congress, as appropriated under chapter 5 of title II of 
     division B of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277), 
     $1,874,000, to remain available until expended.

                        ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                     Capitol Buildings and Grounds


                              fire safety

       For an additional amount for expenses for fire safety, 
     $15,166,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $7,039,000 shall be for ``CAPITOL BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS--
     CAPITOL BUILDINGS--SALARIES AND EXPENSES''; $4,213,000 shall 
     be for ``HOUSE OFFICE BUILDINGS''; $3,000 shall be for 
     ``CAPITOL POWER PLANT''; $26,000 shall be for ``BOTANIC 
     GARDEN--SALARIES AND EXPENSES''; and $3,885,000 shall be for 
     ``ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL--LIBRARY BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS--
     STRUCTURAL AND MECHANICAL CARE'': Provided, That section 3709 
     of the Revised Statutes of the United States (41 U.S.C. 5) 
     shall not apply to the funds made available under this 
     paragraph.

                               CHAPTER 6

                     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                     Veterans Health Administration


                              medical care

       Funds appropriated under this heading in Public Law 106-74 
     and for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 shall be available for use 
     by the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide assistance 
     with the 2002 Paralympic Games: Provided, That such 
     expenditures for fiscal year 2000 shall not exceed $200,000.

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                   Community Planning and Development


                   community development block grants

       The referenced statement of the managers in the sixth 
     paragraph under this heading in title II of the Departments 
     of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-
     74), is deemed to be amended by striking the word 
     ``Montgomery'' in reference to the planning and construction 
     of a regional learning center at Spring Hill College, and 
     inserting the word ``Mobile'' in lieu thereof.

[[Page H1576]]

                       homeless assistance grants

       In the third proviso under this heading in Public Law 106-
     74, add the words ``and management and information systems'' 
     after the words ``technical assistance''.

                     Federal Housing Administration


             fha--general and special risk program account

       For an additional amount for FHA--General and special risk 
     program account for the cost of guaranteed loans, as 
     authorized by section 238 and 519 of the National Housing Act 
     (12 U.S.C. 1715z-3 and 1735c), including the cost of loan 
     modifications (as that term is defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended), $49,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

                     Management and Administration


                      office of inspector general

       Under this heading in Public Law 106-74, add ``, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2001'' after the number 
     ``$83,000,000''; and add ``of the amounts provided herein, 
     $6,000,000 shall become available on October 1, 2000: 
     Provided further, That'' after the words ``Provided, That''.

                 Administrative Provision--This Chapter

       Title V, subtitle C, section 538 of Public Law 106-74, is 
     amended by striking ``during any period that the assisted 
     family continues residing in the same project in which the 
     family was residing on the date of the eligibility event for 
     the project, if'' and inserting in lieu thereof the 
     following: ``the assisted family may elect to remain in the 
     same project in which the family was residing on the date of 
     the eligibility event for the project, and if, during any 
     period the family makes such an election and continues to so 
     reside,''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to this portion of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES


                Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Hoekstra

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

       Part B Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Hoekstra:

             Corporation for National and Community Service


                      office of inspector general

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Office of Inspector 
     General'' for reviews and audits of the State Commissions on 
     National and Community Service (including alternative 
     administrative entities) established under section 178 of the 
     National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12638), 
     $1,000,000, to be derived by transfer from the unobligated 
     balance in the National Service Trust account for educational 
     awards authorized under subtitle D of title I of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 12601 et seq.).

                              {time}  2230

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Hoekstra) is recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed shall be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) that under the rule, points of order against amendments in 
Part B are waived.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I stand corrected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) is 
recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an issue about accountability. In 1993, this 
Congress voted to create the Corporation for National Service. This is 
not a debate about the merits of the corporation. As a matter of fact, 
in 1993, I voted for its formation. I voted for its vision of 
implementing leading edge and best business practices to this new 
government agency.
  The Corporation has fallen short. For 5 years it has never had a 
clean audit, despite repeated promises from its leadership to improve 
its accountability, its accountability to Congress and to the American 
people.
  My amendment is very simple. It moves $1 million from the estimated 
$100,000 overfunding from the Educational Trust Fund to the Inspector 
General to conduct an audit of State commissions.
  Our subcommittee, in the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
has received testimony of lax enforcement mechanisms and financial 
controls at the State level. As we move more than two-thirds of the 
Corporation for National Service funds through State agencies, we need 
to ensure that we protect the investment of the American taxpayer, and 
that we maintain the integrity of the program itself.
  Five years is enough time, it is enough patience, to show to the 
Corporation. It is enough patience to deal with the stories of waste 
and abuse within the program.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the 
gentleman that we think this is a good amendment. We accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the chairman for his courtesy.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair not seeing a Member seeking to claim the time 
in opposition, the question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Environmental Protection Agency


                 environmental programs and management

                          (INCLUDING TRANSFER)

       Of the amount appropriated under this heading in title III 
     of Public Law 106-74, $2,374,900, in addition to amounts made 
     available for the following in prior Acts, shall be and have 
     been available to award grants for work on the Buffalo Creek 
     and other New York watersheds and for aquifer protection work 
     in and around Cortland County, New York, including work on 
     the Upper Susquehanna watershed.
       Of the amount appropriated under this heading in title III 
     of Public Law 105-276 to establish a regional environmental 
     data center and to develop an integrated, automated water 
     quality monitoring and information system for watersheds 
     impacting Chesapeake Bay, $2,600,000 shall be transferred to 
     the ``State and tribal assistance grants'' account to remain 
     available until expended for grants for wastewater and sewer 
     infrastructure improvements for Smithfield Township, Monroe 
     County ($800,000); the Municipal Authority of the Borough of 
     Milford, Pike County ($800,000); the City of Carbondale, 
     Lackawanna County ($200,000); Throop Borough, Lackawanna 
     County ($200,000); and Dickson City, Lackawanna County 
     ($600,000), Pennsylvania.


                   state and tribal assistance grants

       The referenced statement of the managers under this heading 
     in title III of the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
     Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-74), is deemed to be 
     amended by striking the words ``in the town of Waynesville'' 
     in reference to water and wastewater infrastructure 
     improvements as identified in project number 102, and by 
     inserting the words ``Haywood County'' in lieu thereof.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remainder of the bill through page 78, line 17, be considered as read, 
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill from page 76, line 11, through page 78, line 17, 
is as follows:

                               CHAPTER 7

                                OFFSETS

       Sec. 4701. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act may be used to pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section 793 
     of Public Law 104-127, the Fund for Rural America.
       Sec. 4702. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act may be used to pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out the 
     provisions of section 401 of Public Law 105-185, the 
     Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems.

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

         Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management


                              (Rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 106-60, $13,000,000 are rescinded.

                        Other Defense Activities


                              (Rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 105-277 to implement a United States/Russian accord for 
     the disposition of excess weapons plutonium, $40,000,000 are 
     rescinded.

[[Page H1577]]

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                        Office of the Secretary


                    general departmental management

                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts appropriated under this heading in title II 
     of the Departments of Labor, Health, and Human Services, and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (as enacted into 
     law by section 1000(a)(4) of Public Law 106-113), $20,000,000 
     is rescinded: Provided, That the amount rescinded is from the 
     amount designated to become available on October 1, 2000, and 
     to remain available until September 30, 2001.
       Sec. 4703. Of the funds transferred to the Department of 
     Transportation for Year 2000 conversion of Federal 
     information technology systems and related expenses pursuant 
     to Public Law 105-277, $26,600,000 of the unobligated balance 
     are hereby rescinded: Provided, That the Department of 
     Transportation shall allocate this rescission among the 
     appropriate accounts within the Department and report such 
     allocation to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.

    EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE 
                               PRESIDENT

                          Unanticipated Needs


          information technology systems and related expenses

       Under this heading in division B, title III of Public Law 
     105-277, strike ``$2,250,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,015,000,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this portion of the 
bill?


                Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Largent

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

       Part B amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Largent:
       Page 78, after line 17, insert the following new chapter:

                               CHAPTER 8

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                         General Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       Of the amount appropriated under this heading in the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (as enacted 
     into law by section 1000(1) of Public Law 106-113) (113 Stat. 
     1537-1), $750,000 shall be available to the Commission on 
     Online Child Protection established under section 1405 of the 
     Child Online Protection Act (47 U.S.C. 231 note) for carrying 
     out the duties of the Commission, to remain available until 
     the termination of the Commission under section 1405(1) of 
     such Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Largent) will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the amendment that I am offering tonight is 
for a righteous effort. I want my colleagues to know that I do not use 
that term often or loosely. I believe my amendment will receive 
overwhelming support, if not unanimous support, by my colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a communicable disease coursing through our 
country. In fact, half our homes and 4 million men, boys, husbands, and 
fathers will be exposed every single day. That disease is illegal 
pornography, available without consent or request via the Internet.
  In fact, leading porn trade magazines, journals, have proudly boasted 
that there has never been a better time to be in the adult 
entertainment business, a business that grosses $14 billion a year, 
$1.4 billion on the Internet alone.
  Why? Because the Department of Justice has chosen to look the other 
way. Prosecutions for illegal pornography or obscenity have declined 79 
percent in the last 6 years.
  Mr. Chairman, the porn industry through the Internet has turned every 
home office, every family room, in fact, every public library, into the 
worst porn shop imaginable.
  Congress, through the Child Online Protection Act, tasked a 
commission with finding ways to keep our children away from material 
that is considered harmful to minors. Sadly, Congress has never 
appropriated any dollars to fund the Commission that is due to report 
to Congress in October of this year.
  My amendment would provide $750,000, taken from the salaries and 
expenses portion of the general administration account appropriated to 
the Department of Justice. My hope is that the Commission will supply 
some hope, some immunization, for our families and for our children, to 
protect us through technology from this disease that is running rampant 
in our country.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LARGENT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I would like to advise the gentleman that we think this is a very 
good amendment. We are accepting the amendment.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any Member seeking to control time in 
opposition?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this section of the 
bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman I ask unanimous consent that the 
remainder of the bill through page 80, line 11, be considered as read, 
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill from page 78, line 18, through page 80, line 11, 
is as follows:

                                TITLE V

                      GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT

       Sec. 5101. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 5102. Sections 305 and 306 of H.R. 3425 of the 106th 
     Congress, as enacted into law by section 1000(a)(5) of Public 
     Law 106-113, are hereby repealed.
       Sec. 5103. Section 1001(a) of Public Law 106-113 is amended 
     by striking ``paragraph 4 of subsection 1000(a)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (5) of section 1000(a), and the 
     provisions of titles V, VI, and VII of the legislation 
     enacted in this division by reference in such paragraph 
     (5),''. This section shall be deemed to have taken effect 
     immediately subsequent to the enactment of Public Law 106-
     113.
       Sec. 5104. Notwithstanding section 251(a)(6) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, 
     there shall be no sequestration under that section to 
     eliminate a fiscal year 2000 breach that might be caused by 
     the appropriations or other provisions in this Act.
       Sec. 5105. Funds appropriated by this Act, or made 
     available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for 
     intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically 
     authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the 
     National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414).
       Sec. 5106. The following provisions of law are repealed: 
     sections 8175 and 8176 of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-79), as amended by 
     sections 214 and 215, respectively, of H.R. 3425 of the 106th 
     Congress (113 Stat. 1501A-297), as enacted into law by 
     section 1000(a)(5) of Public Law 106-113.
       Sec. 5107. No funds appropriated to the Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission for fiscal year 2000 may be used to relocate, or 
     to plan or prepare for the relocation of, the functions or 
     personnel of the Technical Training Center from its location 
     at Chattanooga, Tennessee.
       Sec. 5108. It is the sense of the Congress that the 
     Secretary of State should immediately place the United Self-
     Defense Forces of Colombia (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia) 
     on the list of foreign terrorist organizations.


         Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made 
in order by the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Weldon of 
     Pennsylvania:
       Page 80, after line 11, insert the following new sections:
       Sec. 5109. For an additional amount for the Secretary of 
     Agriculture for carrying out section 306(a)(14) of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1926(a)(14)), $10,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.
       Sec. 5110. (a) For an additional amount for carrying out 
     this section, $10,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.
       (b) The Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     shall establish an office in the Agency to establish specific 
     criteria of grant recipients and to administer grants under 
     this section.
       (c) The Director may make grants, on a competitive basis, 
     to safety organizations

[[Page H1578]]

     that have experience in conducting burn safety programs for 
     the purpose of assisting those organizations in conducting 
     burn prevention programs or augmenting existing burn 
     prevention programs.
       (d) The Director may make grants, on a competitive basis, 
     to hospitals that serve as regional burn centers to conduct 
     acute burn care research.
       (e) The Director may make grants, on a competitive basis, 
     to governmental and nongovernmental entities to provide 
     after-burn treatment and counseling to individuals that are 
     burn victims.
       Sec. 5111. (a) For an additional amount for carrying out 
     this section, $80,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.
       (b) The Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     shall establish a program to award grants to volunteer, paid, 
     and combined departments that provide fire and emergency 
     medical services.
       (c) Grants awarded under this section may be used--
       (1) to acquire personal protective equipment required for 
     firefighting personnel by the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration, and other personal protective equipment for 
     firefighting personnel;
       (2) to acquire additional firefighting equipment, including 
     equipment for communication and monitoring;
       (3) to establish wellness and fitness programs for 
     firefighting personnel to reduce the number of injuries and 
     deaths related to health and conditioning problems;
       (4) to promote professional development of fire code 
     enforcement personnel;
       (5) to integrate computer technology to improve records 
     management and training capabilities;
       (6) to train firefighting personnel in firefighting, 
     emergency response, and arson prevention and detection;
       (7) to enforce fire codes;
       (8) to fund fire prevention programs and public education 
     programs about arson prevention and detection, and juvenile 
     fire setter intervention; and
       (9) to modify fire stations, fire training facilities, and 
     other facilitires to protect the health and safety of 
     firefighting personnel.
       (d) Applications for grants under this section shall 
     include--
       (1) a demonstration of financial need;
       (2) evidence of a commitment for at least an equal amount 
     as the amount of the grant sought, to be provided by non-
     Federal sources;
       (3) a cost benefit analysis linking the funds to 
     improvements in public safety; and
       (4) a commitment to provide information to the National 
     Fire Incident Reporting System for the period for which the 
     grant is received.
       (e) Grant recipients under this section shall be subject to 
     audits to ensure that the funds are spent for their intended 
     purposes.
       Sec. 5112. (a) Section 105(a) of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (23), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (23) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(24) provision of assistance to local fire fighting, 
     emergency medical, or rescue services for--
       ``(A) acquisition, repair, or rehabilitation of equipment 
     (including any accessory, communications, or protective 
     equipment) or vehicles for fire fighting, emergency medical, 
     or rescue services,
       ``(B) construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, or 
     improvement of facilities for local fire fighting, emergency 
     medical, or rescue services, or
       ``(C) training or planning involved in providing fire 
     fighting, emergency medical, or rescue services; and''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, tonight we have an opportunity to do something that 
this body has never done before. That is to provide some immediate 
dollar assistance to those brave men and women across America who, day 
in and day out, have responded to our natural and man-made disasters.
  Today I met with all the fire service groups of America, the Fire 
Fighters Union, the Volunteer Fire Council, the fire chiefs, the arson 
investigators, the fire instructors, the National Fire Protection 
Association. All across America tonight, Mr. Speaker, they are watching 
this vote to see whether or not this Congress will equate fire and 
emergency services personnel with law enforcement personnel, with 
teachers, because they have all benefited from our work, but we have 
done nothing of substance for the brave men and women, largely 
volunteers, who protect this country from disaster.
  Tonight is that opportunity: $100 million of funding to provide 
assistance for burn research, volunteer fire assistance, an $80 million 
competitive grant program for the 32,000 fire departments in every 
district across America, plus a facilitation of the CDBG program to 
provide flexibility for fire and EMS personnel to use those dollars.
  I encourage our colleagues to vote for this important amendment. I 
will ask for a recorded vote upon the completion of the debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Smith), the cosponsor of this amendment and chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Basic Research.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, adopting this amendment is going 
to demonstrate the firm commitment this House has to those individuals 
who literally put their lives on the line. Fire fighters, first 
responders, lost 100 lives last year, half as many as all the law 
enforcement people in this country. We need to move ahead in this area. 
There are 32,000 fire departments. They need help.
  This allows more research, more funding, and it is going to be the 
kind of gesture that is really going to put us on the front line.
  When we have disasters it is the first responders that are there, 
whether it is a shooting, whether it is a hurricane, whether it is a 
tornado or a volcano or earthquake. It is the people who want to help 
the school when there is a fundraiser, it is the first responders and 
firemen who come to that assistance.
  Let us give them this support. I thank the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), and 
certainly the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), and many others 
who have joined in in making this a bipartisan effort.
  Mr. Chairman, this Nation is well-served by the 1.2 million men and 
women who work as fire and emergency services personnel in over 32,000 
fire departments across this country. They play a crucial role 
protecting and preserving our lives and our property . . . a dangerous 
role--an average of nearly 100 firefighters a year lose those lives in 
the line of duty. Eighty percent of those who serve do so as 
volunteers.
  This amendment recognizes the contributions of volunteer firefighters 
by providing $10 million to fully fund the USDA's Volunteer Fire 
Assistance Program. This program allows the nearly 28,000 rural fire 
departments nationwide to apply for cost-share grants for training, 
equipping and organizing their personnel. These rural fire departments 
represent the first line of defense for rural areas coping with fires 
and other emergencies.
  This amendment also establishes two grant programs at the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency. The first is an $80 million competitive 
grant program for volunteer and paid fire and emergency services 
departments. With these 50/50 matching grants, departments can get 
assistance acquiring safety equipment, firefighting and communications 
equipment, funds for training, and assistance funding fire prevention 
programs.
  In addition, this amendment establishes a $10 million burn research 
grant program through FEMA. Under this program, safety organizations, 
hospitals, and governmental and nongovernmental entities that are 
responsible for burn research, prevention, or treatment are eligible 
for competitive grants to continue their important work.
  We see our firefighters and EMS personnel responding to emergencies 
every day, more than 18 million calls a year. From car accidents, to 
brush fires, to large scale disasters like the tornadoes that ripped 
through Ft. Worth last night, emergency responders are first on scene, 
first to react, first to provide the assistance we've come to take for 
granted.
  Mr. Chairman, adopting this amendment would demonstrate the firm 
commitment this House has toward these emergency first-responders, to 
those who literally put their lives on the line each day. I'm thankful 
for the bipartisan support this amendment enjoys, and I'd like to thank 
my colleagues Mr. Weldon, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Pascrell, and Mr. Andrews for 
their work helping bring this to the floor. I urge your support for 
this important bipartisan amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek to control the time in opposition?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take the 5 
minutes in support of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) controlling 5 minutes reserved for opposition to 
the bill?
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I 
want to control time in opposition.

[[Page H1579]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) seeks to 
control the time in opposition?
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Yes, sir.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, throughout my history and throughout my service, I have 
always supported firemen. I have always supported fire services. I have 
always supported the fine work that they do. But I do not think that 
this House recognizes what is going on with this particular amendment.
  First of all, this amendment should never have come to this floor 
because it violates everything that makes it eligible for the floor. 
This has not been heard in any committee. It is substantive 
legislation. I think if we begin to look at it, regardless of how good 
the delivery of service is, this is violating the rules of making 
legislation on appropriations. Therefore, a point of order should have 
been called by the chairman or someone on the other side.
  The second thing is, this particular amendment changes the meaning of 
low and moderate income in the CDBG legislation. I will read it, Mr. 
Chairman.

       Section 105 of the Housing and Community Development Act is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 
     ``An assisted activity described in subsection A-24 shall be 
     considered to benefit persons of low and moderate income if 
     the service provides such services to all persons in the 
     geographical area served, including any low and moderate 
     income persons.

  That is substantive legislation. That is a substantive change in the 
law which we are allowing them to come to the floor on, and it should 
be defeated. I have nothing against the fire service, but I think it is 
duplicitous to bring this to the floor tonight to present to us as good 
legislation, and it is, because helping firemen is, but why did they 
want to add another purpose to the Community Development Block Grant 
fund? And then that other purpose changes the definition of low and 
moderate income.
  I appeal to the House to not pass this piece of legislation, let it 
go back, and let us look at it. The firemen can stand on their own 
merits. They do very well for us all. But why should we cut and change 
the definition to benefit the good low and moderate income people? The 
firemen are good, as well.
  Why could this not have gone through committee, been voted on in VA-
HUD and other authorizing committees? Why? It was brought to this floor 
with this kind of subterfuge in it. We do not need to pass it. We need 
to stop it right here, and make them go back and change this so that 
they will not change the low and moderate income.
  Think about it, there are already 23 reasons of eligible activities 
on the CDBG. This adds another one, the 24th, and opens it up by 
changing the definition. This should not happen in this House, Mr. 
Speaker. This should not happen on that side of the floor, either. This 
should be stopped right now, and I am sure the designers of this bill, 
this amendment, may not have known what they were doing, but they had 
to because they added a new section which eliminated or changed low and 
moderate income.
  So I appeal on this House to hold up on this, not to vote for it, 
because it brings in a new level. It should have gone through 
committees.
  What about the cities and the small communities and the small CDBG 
groups? All Members have community-based groups in their districts. 
What about those community-based groups when they find out a new 
purpose has been put to this particular amendment and that low and 
moderate income definition has been changed?
  So I am appealing to all who know what is right and what is wrong, 
this is wrong. They have done the wrong thing. They need to hold it up 
and come before a committee and look at this.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds 
to respond.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, the Community Development Block Grant 
program monies have been eligible to be used for fire and EMS for 
years. This is not a new use. The money has been used for impoverished 
people in cities for years. It is not a new use.
  Secondarily, the decision as to whether or not to use CDBG monies for 
local purposes is not mandated by any legislation. That is a decision 
made by local elected officials, county commissioners, and members of 
city councils across America. This provision does nothing to change 
that.
  Furthermore, thirdly, we have met with the chairman of the 
appropriate subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio). We 
have promised to work with him through the entire process. There is no 
attempt to undermine the commitment of the CDBG fund for poor people.

                              {time}  2245

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), coauthor of this amendment, for any comments he 
would like to make.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I have not had the opportunity 
to talk to the gentlewoman from Miami, Florida (Mrs. Meek) who is my 
great friend and whom I deeply respect. I had understood that this 
question had been discussed with the committee and did not know about 
this particular problem.
  I would assure the gentlewoman as a strong supporter of this 
amendment, which I think is an important amendment, that I will work 
strenuously to make sure that we protect each and every community. 
Because my own community, Prince George's County, obviously cares a 
great deal about the CDBG and the integrity of its provisions. What 
this amendment does, it provides a portion of what the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) has been working on very, very hard, as well 
as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), and 
others on behalf of the fire fighters of America, both paid and 
volunteer.
  This money will be also used for burn victims, $10 million of it will 
be for victims of fire and fire research. Frankly, I regret that I did 
not know of the concern of the gentlewoman from Florida until just now. 
I was surprised. But at some point in time I would like to have the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who is really the author of 
much of this, have some time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform Members that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for his leadership in our efforts to make 
America safe from fire.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment because it will help rural 
fire fighters in Oregon and throughout the country fight fires before 
they become big, expensive, and dangerous. Each year in my district, 
fires destroy countless acres of forest and rangeland and threaten 
homes and even the lives of my constituents. In many cases, small 
volunteer fire departments are the first line of defense against these 
killer fires. These departments are located near where fires start, and 
they are uniquely situated to fight and contain fires before they grow 
out of control.
  But the men and women who give their time to bravely serve and 
protect their communities need our help. They need training and 
equipment to help them fight wildfires safely and effectively. That is 
why I have worked to increase the funding for the Volunteer Fire 
Assistance Program to $10 million. This money will go a long way in 
preparing volunteer fire departments to fight wildfires.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania addresses the crucial need for increased 
funding for VFAP. Volunteer fire fighters in Prineville, Spray, 
Boardman, Baker City and other communities deserve no less.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York (Chairman Walsh).

[[Page H1580]]

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for 
yielding me this time. As chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction 
on the Committee on Appropriations, I rise to express some concern 
about this amendment. It is a well-intended amendment aimed toward 
helping fire fighters throughout the country. But I would caution on 
several points.
  One point is on FEMA. FEMA is not prepared to do burn studies. That 
is clearly an area where they do not have the expertise to perform.
  Secondly, and even of more concern, the issue of Community 
Development Block Grants, as I understand it this amendment would waive 
the requirement that Community Development Block Grants go to low- and 
moderate-income recipients only. This has never been attempted before. 
This change in the Community Development Block Grant, legislation has 
never been attempted to change this before.
  So I would express caution on this amendment. I would hope that as we 
go through the process, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) 
would be willing to work with us to try to resolve some of these 
issues. Clearly, the intent of the amendment is good, but the effect 
may not be.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds 
to answer some of the questions raised.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues. And I would just say that first 
of all, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Lazio) and I had 
discussions about the CDBG provisions, and we have given him full 
assurance that we would work with him to protect the program as I 
explained.
  Further, FEMA Director James Lee Witt called me today and offered his 
unequivocal support for this entire provision. He said it was the right 
thing to do, and publicly he was solidly behind this as the head of 
FEMA. So we have the administration on the record saying it is positive 
legislation. They support it thoroughly. They are not going to be 
administering burn programs; they are going to be providing funding for 
burn research centers across America.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope our colleagues will support this legislation.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Time is controlled on this amendment, and it is not 
permissible. By unanimous consent the gentleman may revise and extend 
his remarks.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the measure.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend my colleagues, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Weldon along with Congressmen Hoyer, 
Smith, Pascrell, Shuster and Andrews for their dedication to our 
Nation's firefighters and the work they have done to bring this 
amendment before the House this evening.
  Each year, thousands of firefighting men and women risk their lies to 
defend the citizens and properties of communities throughout our 
Nation. However, too many of our Nation's firefighters have been 
seriously injured or killed because tight budgets have forced 
municipalities to cut funding. Personal protective gear goes 
unpurchased, dangers in fire stations go uncorrected, staffing 
shortages go unaddressed, and firefighters are forced to rely on 
antiquated equipment, due to a lack of funding. The nationwide increase 
in the use of hazardous materials and the recent rise in both natural 
and man-made disasters pose new threats to our Nation's firefighters.
  The Congress now has an opportunity to provide the support necessary 
to address this national crisis. For the first time, we can fully fund 
the Volunteer Fire Fighter Assistance Program, fund grants for burn 
research, allow community development block grants to be used for fire 
and emergency services and authorize a competitive grant program, which 
will allow our Nation's firefighters to acquire vital equipment.
  As a Member of the Congressional Fire Caucus, I am dedicated to 
assisting our local communities in their efforts to protect their 
firefighters. Let us provide funding for personal protective gear, 
communications and monitoring equipment, firefighter wellness and 
fitness programs, and other vital uses. Let's join together in letting 
our Nation's firefighters know that their health and safety is a 
national priority deserving national support.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment 
for our firefighters and for our communities throughout our Nation.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional 
minutes in support of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Five minutes on each side?
  Mr. HOYER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, 
the gentleman has requested 5 minutes?
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield, yes, 5 and 5.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. For what purpose?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, in support of the amendment. And the reason 
is the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), has been a major 
sponsor of this legislation and has been unable to speak. That is not 
fair to him as one of the major sponsors of this legislation. It is the 
way the rule runs, and I would hope the Chairman would allow us the 5 
minutes to do that.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I simply did 
not hear it. I understand the request is 5 and 5. Who will be 
controlling the time?
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
object, I would like to know what is happening. What are we doing? I 
want to see the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) have an 
opportunity to speak also. What are we agreeing to?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, the agreement 
is that it be 5 and 5. Obviously, if we are asking for 5 additional 
minutes as proponents, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), who is 
not objecting to the request, correctly observes that she ought to have 
5 minutes in opposition and I think that is fair.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right 
to object, there are some Members on our side who would like to have 
part of that 5 minutes. Is the gentleman prepared to yield?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have spoken to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and he wants to speak, and I have \1/2\ minute 
left.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation 
of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) each will control 5 additional 
minutes on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Weldon).
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), whose bill will be heard on 
April 12, which is a major fire service bill. He has worked very 
closely with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and I and 
others on this and we have worked very closely with him on the major 
piece of legislation which we hope it see move forward as well.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, nearly 2 years ago I proudly introduced H.R. 4229, the 
21st Century Fire and Public Safety Act. It was a bill to provide 
competitive grants directly to over 32,000 paid, part-time, part-paid 
volunteer fire departments across America.
  The money could be used for personnel, equipment, vehicles, training, 
health and safety initiatives, and prevention programs.
  At that time, I stated that our fire fighters were the forgotten part 
of our public safety equation. I said that the Congress should make a 
commitment to those who make a commitment to us every day. I put a 
large authorization on this bill because I wanted to

[[Page H1581]]

send the message that we were serious. There was a legitimate and 
overwhelming need. We needed to show that it was no longer acceptable 
to pay lip service to the fire fighters in our districts on the 
weekends, and not put our money where our mouth is during the week.
  Mr. Chairman, I proudly reintroduced this legislation in the 106th 
Congress, the fire bill. We are today a far cry from that day in July 
of 1998 when only three of us put our name on the bill. Today, there 
are over 206 cosponsors in the House of Representatives, over 20 
sponsors in the Senate. The administration has announced their full 
support of this measure and will work to see it passed. We are making 
progress and this is part of a process and a procedure to get us to our 
final goal.
  Last night I was presented with this amendment modeled after the 
concept in the fire bill. This amendment does some very, very important 
things. It provides funding for protective equipment, for modifying 
fire stations, for prevention, and wellness programs.
  We are here today because considering this amendment, the work we did 
on the fire bill has brought us to this point. And 260 Members have 
gotten us here, because of the strong voice of fire fighters across 
America. We would not be considering this otherwise. Let me be clear in 
the details. It is very important, very different than the bill we are 
going to have before committee on April 12.
  This bill does not allow the grant funds to be used to hire needed 
fire personnel. These are big ticket items. They are what the fire 
folks back home talked to us about in paid departments and in 
volunteer. Unlike the fire bill which requires a 10 percent match, this 
amendment requires an equal match. This is where we are today. Between 
now and April 12, hopefully we will come home and hopefully this 
amendment which I support will pass.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the group that I have no objection to 
the money and what they are using it for. My objection is to changing 
the definition of low- and moderate-income.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Lazio), who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community 
Opportunity.
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Meek), and I thank the House for allowing me to speak to this.
  What is at stake here is really the future of the Community 
Development Block Grant. The CDBG is not a revenue sharing measure; it 
is a measure that is supposed to be addressed to moderately low-income 
people. It is meant to build housing, to provide safe, healthy housing 
for people who cannot afford market rents. It is meant to help provide 
economic development and jobs for people who are low- and moderately 
low-income. It is not meant to simply redistribute money from the 
Federal Government to the State and local governments for any purposes 
whatsoever.
  My concern with this amendment, and I think the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) spoke to a separate bill which is probably the 
appropriate vehicle in which to do this. And I think virtually everyone 
in this House is supportive of volunteer fire services, but the 
question is whether we would undermine the primary mission of the 
Community Development Block Grant program in order to try and speak to 
an admittedly popular public works issue, which is the development of 
fire houses and related services.
  It is true that I have been speaking to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), and I do not think in this House is a better 
advocate for men and women who protect our homes and our businesses 
through fire services. But it is also true that this is an overly broad 
amendment, that it needs work, and it simply does undermine the basic 
mission of the Community Development Block Grant program, which is to 
serve the neediest among us. The neediest among us.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply take 30 seconds to say I think 
that the observations of the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) 
should be recognized, and that language has to be fixed in conference 
if a lot of people who would like to support this are going to be able 
to support it. We cannot divert these funds away from the poorest and 
the neediest low-income people who are supposed to be the primary 
beneficiaries of it.

                              {time}  2300

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first I want to 
congratulate the Republican Party for bringing forward to this House an 
expansion of the Federal Government's role on American society.
  As we have heard today, this is a new venture to get the Federal 
Government involved in helping local fire fighters. I congratulate the 
Republican Party on sloughing off that old notion that the Federal 
Government was something whose influence should be resisted and 
restricted.
  Having the Republican Party bring forward a new Federal program, 
putting the Federal Government into a new area where it had not 
previously been, helping local fire fighting, shows a degree of 
intellectual growth on which I congratulate them.
  Now, as to this amendment, there is one problem with it. Most of the 
amendment, the part of the Republican Party getting us into the fire 
fighting business for the time, which I am glad to see, the problem is 
not how they do it.
  There is a mistake in the end where it says, I think a mistake in 
policy, it says, and here is the problem that the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Meek) quite cogently pointed out to some of us who had 
not seen it: ``An activity shall be considered to benefit persons of 
low and moderate income if the service provides such services to all 
persons in the geographical area served, including any low and moderate 
income persons.''
  In other words, a wealthy area with live-in help, that would then be 
covered. If one has got maids who live in a rich area, they are 
covered. That is the problem with the definition. That is what has to 
be changed.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, those of us who are from rural areas certainly support 
our rural firemen, and we do not want to be put in the position of 
making an election between our rural poor and our rural firemen. 
Certainly those who support rural firemen should not want to be seen 
doing it at the expense of the poorest of the poor.
  Community development, scarce funds are limited now for the design 
eligible activities; and adding another activity really siphons off 
those resources that go to rural citizens. Small cities, rural 
communities depend on community development. Disadvantaged communities 
depend on community development.
  To have our needed fire activities now put in, choosing between the 
poorest and the poor and a needy service, I think is a wrong way to go. 
We need to amend this. Find other sources to do this. This is a good 
and honorable activity, but not at the expense of the poorest of the 
poor.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains 
on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) has 30 seconds 
remaining. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment 
because I believe there are two important points of view that can be 
reconciled here.
  I think there is broad support for $100 million of support for 
America's first line of defenders in the fire service. I

[[Page H1582]]

believe it is the intent of those of us who drafted this amendment that 
it can be expressed in conference.
  The point of view of the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) can be 
accommodated in the following way: to the extent that community 
development block grant funds are used for fire protection, they must 
be focused on communities which would otherwise qualify under CDBG 
rules. I think that that correction and clarification would solve the 
problem. I would recommend in conference it be done that way.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think everybody agrees, and the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Meek) has said, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Clayton) has said, and I certainly agree with what both of them have 
said, and I have discussed with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Weldon), as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) said, not only 
can we fix this, but I would hope we would all pledge, as I will, to 
fix this.
  What the concern is, correct, nobody had any intention to divert from 
low-economic or medium-income areas assistance. Clearly, it was my 
intent, I think the intent of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Weldon), the intent of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), I 
know that the assistance here would go, CDBG funds are for, as the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) correctly pointed out, for low- and 
moderate-income areas.
  We need in conference to make sure that that is made very explicit; 
not implied, explicit. The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) is 
correct. I hope the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) will agree 
with that. In conference, we will make sure that language explicitly 
limits such expenditures to areas currently eligible for CDBG.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio).
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I would say in response to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), I believe the gentleman is sincere that he 
feels like this bill will be fixed. But if we really believe it is 
going to be fixed, why do we not just do a unanimous consent request 
right now and fix it right here on the floor.
  Why do we not make sure that we do not eviscerate the income 
targeting, and if one wants to provide for, if this is an eligible 
activity, I think we can probably agree to that. But let us not make 
sure that we are building fire houses in upper middle-income areas as a 
complete income transfer.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to aid 
the fire and emergency services of this country.
  The men and women who risk their lives day in and day out to protect 
life and property deserve our full support and I believe this amendment 
recognizes this by proving substantial federal funding in several 
areas.
  First, it provides $10 million to fully fund the volunteer fire 
assistance program.
  It makes $10 million available for burn research.
  It makes $80 million available to the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency for grants to volunteer, paid, and combination departments that 
provide fire and emergency medical services.
  I should point out that matters relating to FEMA fall within the 
jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. As 
vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight Investigations and 
Emergency Management of that committee, I note that we fully support 
this amendment which would set up new grant programs within FEMA.
  The amendment also makes community development block grant funds 
(currently at $4.75 billion) available for use by local authorities for 
the fire service.
  The amendment before us will strengthen the local capability to deal 
with fires and other emergency situations.
  Mr. Chairman, the Weldon-Smith amendment is a substantial step 
forward to help protect the health and safety of the public and 
firefighting personnel.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has again 
expired.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 5 
additional minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. On each side. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. There is an objection, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for even 
1 minute. I will go back to 1. I will take whatever I can get.
  The CHAIRMAN. On each side. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida that each side have 1 additional minute?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. There is objection, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HOYER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, having had the time expire, would it 
nevertheless, notwithstanding the fact that the time has expired, be 
possible for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) to offer the 
unanimous consent for the amendment that he suggests be in order at 
this time?
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the inquiry of the gentleman from Maryland whether 
it would be in order to offer a new amendment or a modification to the 
existing amendment?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the intention of the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), it would be a modification of the 
existing amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Such a request for a modification would be entertained 
only from the proponent of the amendment, in this case the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Subsequent to the closure of debate on 
this subject, the vote being rolled, would it be in order, then, for a 
Member to strike the last word and ask unanimous consent to offer an 
amendment to the amendment after the debate? Without extending the 
debate time, under the 5-minute rule, could a Member then rise and 
offer a unanimous consent amendment to offer the modification the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) has in mind?
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the pending part B amendment is not 
subject to amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. But the parliamentary inquiry is that, 
subsequent, by unanimous consent, could an amendment to that be offered 
if the body gave a unanimous consent to a modification such as the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) has proposed?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would respond to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts that the Chair would entertain a request only from the 
proponent of the amendment to modify his amendment.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, is the Chair ruling that I 
could offer a perfecting amendment when we return for the vote on this 
amendment? Is that what the Chair is stating?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair responded that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania could ask unanimous consent of the Committee of the Whole 
to modify his pending amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. At the time of the vote, Mr. Chairman. 
Very good.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, would that be in order at 
any time prior to the vote? That is, could he offer that, if he was not 
ready to offer it immediately, prior to the vote being taken?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, further proceedings 
on

[[Page H1583]]

the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  2310


                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Schaffer

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

       Part B Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Schaffer:
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec.   . Within 6 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     conduct and complete a comprehensive fraud audit of the 
     Department of Education and submit a report setting forth the 
     results of the audit to the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think there is some confusion about what is 
before us. This next amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with the 
fire issue that we have just disposed of.
  My understanding is that the Schaffer amendment goes to the question 
of conducting an audit of the Department of Education. Would it be in 
order to modify that amendment to also include an audit for the 
Department of Defense?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would respond that the same situation exists 
for the Schaffer amendment as existed for the previous amendment. Only 
modifications offered by unanimous consent by the proponent of the 
amendment would be entertained under this rule.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Chair when would that 
modification be in order; at any time during the consideration of the 
amendment or would that modification have to occur at this moment?
  The CHAIRMAN. It would not have to be at this moment. It could be 
requested before the disposition of the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the Chair, and I would at the proper time ask to 
control the time in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will be recognized.
  The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) is recognized for 5 
minutes on his amendment.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This amendment is one that is offered to the emergency supplemental 
and directs the comptroller general of the General Accounting Office to 
conduct a comprehensive audit of the Department of Education, following 
up on previous investigations and reports of a more narrow focus with 
respect to waste, fraud, and abuse. The education Inspector General and 
the GAO have previously identified instances of waste, fraud, and 
abuse. This study would delve deeper and is more comprehensive.
  The Department has issued over the last 2 years over $50 million in 
duplicate payments. The Inspector General and the Department of Justice 
are currently investigating an alleged computer theft ring within the 
agency that has been operating for more than 5 years. We are concerned 
that these examples are but the tip of the iceberg. And with that in 
mind, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the gentleman from Colorado, 
through the Chair, if the gentleman would be willing to modify his 
amendment to include also an audit for the Department of Defense?
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. This amendment is crafted carefully in cooperation with 
the GAO. The dollar amount and the establishment of the priority has 
been limited to the discussion on the Department of Education. Being 
unsure as to the full impact, effect, and cost of the suggestion the 
gentleman is offering, I would regretfully decline and say that I would 
be opposed to broadening the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, what is going on is that some of the folks in this 
institution, including some who wanted to abolish the Department of 
Education just a few years ago, are now trying to selectively ask for 
additional audits of agencies and they have zeroed in on the Department 
of Education. Yet under this rule I am denied the opportunity to offer 
a substitute amendment which would ask for the same audit of the 
Department of Defense which is being asked of the Department of 
Education.
  I would point out that yesterday the Inspector General of the 
Department of Education testified that the Department of Education's 
financial management has improved this year compared to last year and 
stands in stark contrast to the Department of Defense. If we take a 
look at the Department of Defense, the GAO said the following:

       Despite recent steps to improve financial management, DOD 
     continues to face serious weaknesses. These weaknesses 
     undermine DOD's ability to manage an estimated $280 billion 
     and $1 trillion in assets. No major part of DOD is able to 
     pass the test of an independent financial statement audit.

  If my colleagues do not believe what the GAO says, the DOD Deputy 
Inspector General said that, ``The DOD financial statements for fiscal 
1998 were less timely than ever, and a record $1.7 trillion,'' trillion 
dollars, ``of unsupported adjustments were identified by auditors.''
  We waste more money at the Defense Department each year than the 
entire budget for the Department of Education, and yet we are not being 
allowed to ask for an additional audit of the largest agency in the 
government. I think that that indicates that there is clearly an 
imbalance in people's concern about the waste of taxpayers' money.
  I am perfectly willing to support audits across the board at agencies 
that require it. I am not interested in participating in an ideological 
attack on one agency, which some people in this House have targeted for 
extinction since the day they got here.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague from Wisconsin that we are 
developing a bill to do exactly what he has asked for, which will 
include comprehensive audits of all the agencies that have failed their 
audits in 1999. I believe that is 12 out of the 24 Federal agencies. We 
hope to work together with the gentleman on that bill.
  As it relates to the Department of Education, my colleague from 
Colorado and I share oversight responsibilities for the Department of 
Education. What we have experienced is 2 years of failed audits, 3 
years where the Department of Education has made over $50 million in 
duplicate payments and the misprinting of 3.5 million forms. Currently 
there is a vigorous investigation going on into computer theft at the 
Department of Education. And recently the Department of Education 
awarded 39 scholarships to young people called the Jacob Javits 
scholarship. The disappointing thing is that these 39 students did not 
actually qualify for the awards.
  The Department has told us that there will be 2 more years of failed 
audits and perhaps in 3 years is when there will be a clean audit. Any 
company in the private sector that had this kind of performance would 
have the trading of its stock suspended. It would be in major trouble. 
That is exactly where the Department of Education is today. It has 
created an environment ripe for fraud, waste, and abuse.
  Now is the time to step in and do an aggressive investigation of that 
Department to make sure that the 35 to $38 billion that we give to that 
agency each and every year makes it to the

[[Page H1584]]

place where the dollars are supposed to go: Helping our kids learn. 
Making sure that the dollars get to local classrooms so that our kids 
are learning exactly what they need to learn.
  Now is the time for a vigorous fraud audit of the Department of 
Education.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that I have the right 
to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. OBEY. Has all time on that side expired?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) has 2 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2320

  Mr. Chairman, this is an important amendment. I am wholly sympathetic 
to the desires of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who would 
like broader, more comprehensive audits of other agencies and 
departments. I suspect that last night the Committee on Rules would 
have considered those, just as they did this amendment.
  I, along with my colleague from Michigan, serve on the Subcommittee 
on Education Oversight and Investigation, and this is the focus of our 
concern and the only portion we brought to the body.
  Simply speaking, and I will finish with this, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) referred to the GAO and its recent report. Twenty-
eight days ago, GAO testified in front of our subcommittee: ``The 
Education Department continues to be plagued by serious internal 
deficiencies that need to be addressed to reduce the potential for 
waste, fraud, and abuse within the Department.''
  With that, I think it fully explains the necessity of the amendment. 
Those who are concerned about getting dollars out of the bureaucracy of 
Washington and toward the more noble purpose of educating children in 
classrooms ought to stand strong behind this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply assert that this is not a request for an 
audit tonight. This, in my view, is simply another ideological attack 
against an agency that a number of people in this House have never 
liked and would abolish if they had the votes to do so.
  We have been told that we cannot ask for a similar audit for a 
department which wastes far more money than any agency of government. 
And we are told that somehow we are supporting the taxpayers' interest 
to ask for this audit by the GAO.
  The fact is we currently spend $34 million each year of taxpayers' 
money to pay for 285 people who work for the Inspector General's Office 
of the Department of Education, and their full-time job is to 
investigate and audit the financial and management practices of the 
Department of Education. We are already spending $34 million to do 
that.
  Now, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) wants us to duplicate 
that effort. I do not think it is for financial reasons. I think it is 
because this is just another way to harass an agency that they do not 
like.
  I would point out, maybe the Department of Education would have done 
a bit better in managing its operation if this Congress had not 
eliminated $65 million of the Department's request for program 
management funds since fiscal year 1996. And if the majority party had 
had its way, those fiscal management cuts would have exceeded $112 
million. I think we understand what the target is. It is not waste; it 
is the agency itself.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mrs. Fowler

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 8 offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Fowler) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 232, not voting 19, as follows:

                              [Roll No 88]

                               AYES--183

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fowler
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wolf

                               NOES--232

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo

[[Page H1585]]


     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Boehner
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Crane
     Everett
     Franks (NJ)
     Granger
     Hall (OH)
     Herger
     Klink
     Martinez
     Mink
     Quinn
     Rothman
     Rush
     Shuster
     Spence
     Vento
     Waxman

                              {time}  2354

  Mrs. KELLY, Mr. SWEENEY and Mr. McCOLLUM changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SHOWS, KASICH, and RAMSTAD changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, first, I would announce that as we conclude the 
business on this bill tomorrow, that the subcommittees of the Committee 
on Appropriations that were scheduled for hearings, because of the 
rule, those hearings will not be held tomorrow, inasmuch as we will be 
in session trying to conclude this bill.
  Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I will shortly move that the committee rise, 
and once we rise and go back into the House, I will have a unanimous 
consent request to propose; in fact, two unanimous consents, one having 
to do with legislative days to revise and extend, and then before I 
make this motion to rise, Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to 
give the chairman a round of applause for having conducted this day's 
activities in a very, very excellent and professional way.
  Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3908) 
making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________