[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 38 (Thursday, March 30, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1592-H1621]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             2000 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The SPEAKER. 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 further consideration of the bill, H.R. 
3908.

                              {time}  1006


                     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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, 
March 29, 2000, amendment No. 8 printed in Part B of House report 106-
549 by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) had been disposed of 
and the bill had been read through page 80, line 11.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendments 
shall be in order except pro forma amendments offered by the chairman 
and ranking minority member; the amendment printed in Part B of the 
report and numbered 12; and the following further amendments which may 
be offered only by the Member designated in the order of the House or a 
designee, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes 
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 a 
division of the question:
  (1) An amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) regarding 
certain reductions and limitations;
  (2) An amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) 
regarding an across-the-board cut;
  (3) An amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) 
regarding U.S. military in Colombia;
  (4) An amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) regarding 
buy America;
  (5) An amendment by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) regarding 
building technology assistance conservation activities;
  (6) An amendment by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
regarding the Food and Drug Administration;
  (7) An amendment by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) regarding 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.


 Modification to Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
modify my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to Part B Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. 
     Weldon of Pennsylvania:
       In the matter proposed to be inserted, strike section 512, 
     page 4, line 4, through page 5, line 8.
       The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       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 10(b)(1) through (3) of 
     the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 
     2106(b)(1) through (3)), $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 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.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I will not 
object and I will yield to the distinguished gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for an explanation of his modification.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland for yielding. This amendment is offered in the 
spirit in a bipartisan way of clarifying the intent and the substance 
of our legislation and our amendment, which we hope everyone will 
support, to provide for the first-time major funding of an emergency 
nature for our Nation's domestic defenders.
  Mr. Chairman, it was never the intent of the author nor the coauthors 
of this legislation to negatively impact the use of Community 
Development Block Grant funds. Mr. Chairman, I will include my 
statement in the Record to explain in some detail the justification for 
what we originally intended to do and our agreement to work with the 
appropriate subcommittee to enact reforms to the Community Development 
Block Grant program.
  I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Smith). I want to thank the leadership for their cooperation; and I 
encourage our colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  After consultation with many of my colleagues, I am requesting 
unanimous consent to delete the portions of the Weldon-Hoyer amendment 
dealing with the reform of the Community Development Block Grant 
(CDBG).

[[Page H1593]]

  I realize that many of my colleagues have strong feelings about CDBG 
and the role it plays in our low- and moderate-income communities. As a 
former mayor of a town that receives CDBG funds and as a former 
chairman of a county council that administers and distributes CDBG 
funds, I share that commitment.
  The CDBG reforms that were included in amendment 42 were intended to 
do two things:
  Clarify existing law to clearly define what fire and emergency 
service activities are eligible for CDBG funds under the current 
program.
  Reform CDBG to allow counties and municipalities to designate 
portions of their CDBG funds for activities that benefit poor 
communities and also other areas of the community.
  For example, my reforms would have allowed CDBG funds to be used for 
the following activities:
  Allow the use of CDBG funds for municipal-wide training facilities 
for fire and EMS personnel--including basic fire and EMS training, 
HAZMAT, terrorist threat response, etc. Such facilities would obviously 
benefit poor communities, which often have less money available for 
training and could take great advantage of a municipal-wide facility. 
CDBG funds cannot currently be used for such an activity unless the 
municipal government proves that 51 percent of the activities at the 
facility benefit low- and moderate-income families--even if the 
facility itself is located in a poor community.
  Allow the use of CDBG funds for local fire and emergency service 
organizations that routinely respond to emergencies in poor communities 
or in areas that have high concentrations of poor people--even if these 
groups are not themselves located in CDBG-eligible areas. For example, 
many fire companies located in towns bordering poor communities respond 
to fires and other emergencies in poor communities on a regular basis. 
Likewise, local fire companies from non-CDBG eligible communities are 
often the first response units for shopping malls, sporting arenas and 
other community gathering places that attract large numbers of people 
from low- and moderate-income communities.
  Allow the use of CDBG funds for local fire and emergency service 
organizations that are the first response units for highway accidents 
and traffic incidents that impact low-income communities. For example, 
if a major thoroughfare cuts through a low- and moderate-income 
community, accidents on that thoroughfare impact the safety of that 
community. Fire companies from surrounding municipalities are routinely 
called upon to assist with major incidents--even though they themselves 
are not located in CDBG-eligible areas.
  By offering CDBG reforms along these lines, I was merely recognizing 
the unique nature of fire and EMS response in our local communities. 
Local first responders do not ask whether an emergency occurs in a low- 
or moderate-income area, they respond without hesitation. It would seem 
that we could take some small steps to help these organizations that 
benefit many areas of the community--including our poorest communities.
  It would not seem unreasonable to make some of these changes, given 
the existing ``quirks'' in the administration of the CDBG program, 
under which--
  1. Curb cuts in even the wealthiest communities count as assisting 
low- and moderate-income people, and
  2. CDBG monies can be used for historic preservation in even the 
wealthiest parts of the community once the municipality has certified 
its CDBG spending for low- and moderate-income communities.
  I am pleased that there are efforts to reform many parts of the CDBG 
program in an authorization bill being authored by my friend 
Congressman Lazio. I look forward to working with him to reform CDBG to 
make it easier for counties and municipalities to spend CDBG funds in 
cost-effective ways to benefit our low-income communities.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I 
thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his action, and I yield to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who has been the principal 
sponsor of a very large bill pending which will be heard on April 12, 
of which this is a part.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, our leader on this issue, and on many 
issues, has spoken. I think that this change is in order and is 
something that all the sides have agreed upon. We should move quickly 
as our first down payment on what we will hope will be the beginning of 
a series of responses to the 32,000 fire departments and the hundreds 
of thousands of fire fighters in America.
  So I want to commend all of those who worked through the night to put 
this together, and I believe it is absolutely necessary that we do this 
to get it done.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I 
thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I yield to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), chairman of the subcommittee 
overseeing these matters.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I also am 
introducing a bill that hopefully takes care of this problem. I think 
because those with low-income need this protection, because fire 
departments are seeing a lot of damage in those homes that have bad 
wiring, it is a consideration that we need to work out; and we are 
going to do that. So in a more complete bill, we are headed in that 
direction.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I 
yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), my friend and 
cochair of the Fire Service Caucus.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, because of this bipartisan agreement, the 
House is about to vote this morning for the first time in its history 
for $100 million in direct aid to the fire service. The gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) has really spearheaded this whole effort and 
deserves enormous praise, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) for bringing 
forth the amendment, as well as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) 
for championing it.
  And let me say to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) that she 
deserves praise for bringing to our attention a very serious item that 
was corrected.
  I do believe that communities should be able to use Community 
Development Block Grant money to help low-income areas for fire and 
public safety, but the proper venue to make that decision is through 
the authorizing process and in the appropriate committees. Because of 
the gentlewoman's leadership, we are going to do this. I support this.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving my right to object, I 
yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), ranking member 
of the committee of jurisdiction.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); and I first thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Weldon) for the flexibility he showed, because I think we have a 
solution here which preserves the very important purpose that he and 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) have been working on of 
getting assistance to the fire fighters without impinging negatively 
elsewhere.
  The gentleman from Maryland played an important roll here, as well as 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), who has made her entrance as 
I speak. I do not know if the meek are going to inherit the earth, but 
they are entitled to inherit this bill after the brilliant work of the 
gentlewoman from Florida.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, under my reservation, I yield to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) who, in fact, I think has led us 
to this very outstanding resolution of this issue.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for removing all of the CDBG provisions 
from the amendment.
  As my colleagues all well know, I have been a strong supporter of the 
fire service for many years, and I am glad to see that we were able to 
come to an agreement that provides firemen with the needed funds and 
without injuring the CDBG low- and moderate-income Americans that the 
CDBG program serves.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Mrs. Meek) for her outstanding leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment to 
H.R. 3908 by both Congressmen Curt Weldon and Nick Smith. Throughout 
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and other States, millions of people 
in cities, towns, and rural areas depend on the volunteer fire service 
to be there when a fire burns a home or a child breaks a leg. If there 
is no money to help our volunteer firefighters what will our neighbors 
do in an emergency? The Weldon/Smith amendment will ensure that our 
volunteer firefighters will

[[Page H1594]]

have the money to purchase the equipment needed to help the victims of 
tragedy.
  As a Member of Congress who represents a district that depends on 
dozens of volunteer fire companies to keep its communities safe, I 
would like to applaud the sponsors of this amendment. My State of 
Pennsylvania is home to the largest number of volunteer fire companies 
in the United States. Unfortunately, a great majority of them are 
underfunded. The typical budget for a volunteer fire department is less 
than $20,000 a year. This amendment would provide for $80,000,000 for a 
competitive grant program to award money to volunteer, paid, and 
combined departments that provide fire and emergency medical services 
and can demonstrate a legitimate financial need.
  I am also pleased that this amendment expands on a bill I sponsored, 
H.R. 3155, known as the Firefighter's Local-Federal Assistance for 
Management of Emergencies Act of 1999, or FLAME Act. The idea for the 
FLAME Act started with one of my constituents, Mr. Francis Ditzler of 
the Lickdale Volunteer Fire Company in Lebanon County, PA. Mr. Ditzler 
pointed out that as the rate and severity of highway accidents has 
increased in the last 10 years along Interstate 81 in Lebanon County, 
the rate of funding increases for volunteer fire companies has not kept 
pace. In my home State, struggling Lickdale Volunteer Fire Company, 
like other struggling volunteer fire companies, does not have the money 
to purchase the equipment necessary to help treat the victims of auto 
accidents that occur along their 25 mile stretch of the Interstate. 
Twenty years ago, the answer in Pennsylvania was the Volunteer Loan 
Assistance Program that would allow volunteer companies to take out 
low-interest loans for needed equipment. Today, 20 years after this 
low-interest loan program was drafted, volunteer fire companies still 
need financial help.
  The FLAME Act would provide a competitive grant program to those 
States that have a Volunteer Loan Assistance Program. The FLAME Act, 
which was introduced in the first session of the 106th Congress, 
creates a partnership between Federal, State and local governments that 
encourages volunteer fire companies to pay off their low-interest 
State-sponsored loans for equipment and buildings. H.R. 3155 will help 
our volunteer fire companies help themselves without raising taxes or 
earmarking another appropriation.
  My legislation would provide a Federal matching grant of up to 
$15,000 to any volunteer fire company that has a State-sponsored 
volunteer loan program and may raise equal amounts of money through 
voluntary contribution and through local government grants. The goal of 
the FLAME Act is to encourage other States to establish volunteer 
firefighter loan assistant programs.
  The Federal Government is not the only level of government working to 
better fund our volunteer fire departments. The Pennsylvania 
Legislature is considering a $25,000,000 grant program that mirrors the 
FLAME Act and will provide similar benefits as my bill. The 
Pennsylvania measure would also provide competitive grant programs to 
volunteer fire companies throughout the State.
  The amendment we have before us today will accomplish many of the 
same goals as my legislation. These award grants may be used for 
purchase of personal protective equipment, apparatus, establishing 
fitness programs for firefighting personnel, for the purchase of 
computers to integrate computer technology to improve records 
management and training capabilities, and to modernize fire stations 
among a myriad of other items. In an era of fiscal responsibility and 
Federal and State financial partnerships, I find this legislation to be 
one of the most important the House passes this year.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the earlier voice vote is vacated.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified, and the 
Chair will put the question on its adoption de novo.
  Thre was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered 
by the gentlemen from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Weldon) will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 12 Offered By Mr. Kasich

  Mr. KASICH. 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. 12 offered by Mr. Kasich:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. __. (a) Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under 
     the heading ``Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund'' 
     for military operations in Kosovo, not more than 50 percent 
     may be obligated until the President certifies in writing to 
     Congress that the European Commission, the member nations of 
     the European Union, and the European member nations of the 
     North Atlantic Treaty Organization have, in the aggregate--
       (1) obligated or contracted for at least 33 percent of the 
     amount of the assistance that those organizations and nations 
     committed to provide for 1999 and 2000 for reconstruction in 
     Kosovo;
       (2) obligated or contracted for at least 75 percent of the 
     amount of the assistance that those organizations and nations 
     committed for 1999 and 2000 for humanitarian assistance in 
     Kosovo;
       (3) provided at least 75 percent of the amount of the 
     assistance that those organizations and nations committed for 
     1999 and 2000 for the Kosovo Consolidated Budget; and
       (4) deployed at least 75 percent of the number of police, 
     including special police, that those organizations and 
     nations pledged for the United Nations international police 
     force for Kosovo.
       (b) The President shall submit to Congress, with any 
     certification submitted by the President under subsection 
     (a), a report containing detailed information on--
       (1) the commitments and pledges made by each organization 
     and nation referred to in subsection (a) for reconstruction 
     assistance in Kosovo, humanitarian assistance in Kosovo, the 
     Kosovo Consolidated Budget, and police (including special 
     police) for the United Nations international police force for 
     Kosovo;
       (2) the amount of assistance that has been provided in each 
     category, and the number of police that have been deployed to 
     Kosovo, by each such organization or nation; and
       (3) the full range of commitments and responsibilities that 
     have been undertaken for Kosovo by the United Nations, the 
     European Union, and the Organization for Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the progress made by those 
     organizations in fulfilling those commitments and 
     responsibilities, an assessment of the tasks that remain to 
     be accomplished, and an anticipated schedule for completing 
     those tasks.
       (c) If the President does not submit to Congress a 
     certification and report under subsections (a) and (b) on or 
     before June 1, 2000, then, beginning on June 2, 2000, the 50 
     percent of the amounts appropriated in this Act under the 
     heading ``Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund'' for 
     military operations in Kosovo that remain unobligated (as 
     required by subsection (a)) shall be available only for the 
     purpose of conducting a safe, orderly, and phased withdrawal 
     of United States military personnel from Kosovo, and no other 
     amounts appropriated for the Department of Defense in this 
     Act or any Act enacted before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act may be obligated to continue the deployment of 
     United States military personnel in Kosovo. In that case, the 
     President shall submit to Congress, not later than June 30, 
     2000, a report on the plan for the withdrawal.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) each will 
control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say to the Members of the House, this is 
actually not a burden-sharing amendment. This is just designed to get 
our friends across the ocean to live up to their commitment.
  Just to give my colleagues a sense of where we are, the United States 
has a GDP, an economy, the size of about $8.9 trillion. The Europeans 
compare favorably of $8.3 trillion. Yet we spend $283 billion on 
defense; they only spend $180 billion. I wonder why we have to have our 
people over there for 40 years, because they have not been carrying the 
load.
  This is not even an issue about them carrying the load in a more 
aggressive way. What this is designed to say is that the United States 
has committed $20 billion to Bosnia, to Kosovo over the last few years. 
When we went into Kosovo, regardless of how one may feel about the 
action, let us put that aside for a second, and let us talk about the 
pledge that the Europeans made.
  They told us that they would help in rebuilding the country. They 
told us they would help in a variety of ways. What this amendment is 
designed to do is to carry forward the idea of Senator Warner who said 
that we need to get them to honor their commitment. This is not 
designed to increase their commitment. This is really not designed to

[[Page H1595]]

increase burden sharing. This amendment is only designed to say to the 
Europeans they made a pledge to us; keep it.
  The Europeans pledged 3,883 policemen in Kosovo. They have only paid 
for 1,878. Our amendment says they pledged 3,800; deliver 3,800. They 
made a promise to do it. They said they would do it. Why do they not 
step up to the plate and keep their word.
  The Europeans' pledge for the rebuilding of Kosovo, for civil 
administration, they pledged $140 million. They have only given $30 
million. Now, how unreasonable is it to say to our European allies, you 
promised us $140 million, come through with $140 million? That is what 
you pledged to do.
  In terms of reconstruction aid, rebuilding those arts of Kosovo that 
we bombed to a large degree on their behalf, they pledged $410 million, 
but they have only delivered $44 million.
  So what does this amendment say? It does not say we expect them to 
dramatically increase their contribution. It only says that they ought 
to live up to the pledge that they made and keep their word. Their 
economy is relatively the same size as the United States. The least 
they can do, after we flew all those sorties and they made their 
pledges, is to simply keep their word. This is a time to change the way 
in which we conduct business post-World War II.
  My colleagues are going to hear today, ``not the right time,'' ``not 
the right amendment,'' ``not the right wording.'' Baloney. All we have 
to do in the United States is to say, keep your word. What we will find 
is the Europeans will. Now is the time to act.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, very reluctantly, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment. I do so, not because I disagree with the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kasich), because I agree with almost everything that he said.
  The problem is with the amendment itself. I am concerned that his 
limitation on not more than 50 percent of the funds in the Kosovo 
section could not be released until certain things happened. The 
problem with this is, Mr. Chairman, money has already been spent. We 
are not providing money in this bill for Kosovo to rebuild Kosovo. We 
are not doing anything in this bill to actually deploy troops to 
Kosovo. What we do in this bill is replace the money that has already 
been spent by the deployment to Kosovo.
  Now, if we were in a position to demand certain things from the 
European allies, I would be standing up here with the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kasich) to do that, because I think that that is only fair.
  But as I read this amendment closely, not only on the first page, but 
the third page, just let me make one comment about a section on the 
third page, it says, if the President does not submit to Congress a 
certification required, et cetera, et cetera, then beginning on June 2, 
the 50 percent of the amounts appropriated in this act can only be used 
to remove the troops.
  Now, I am for removing the troops. But I have to tell my colleagues 
that the money in the bill is not there to remove the troops. This 
money is to replace monies that have already been spent. The monies 
have been spent from the fourth quarter operations and maintenance 
accounts of our military services.
  Now, if we do not replenish this money, we are going to have to stand 
down our training exercises, park the ships, park the airplanes, park 
the trucks, park the tanks, and training will grind to a halt. We do 
not have until June 2 to make that decision. That decision has got to 
be made late in April or early in May because, for those exercises that 
have to be stood down. The planning has to begin in April or May.
  So as strongly as I agree with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) 
and what he is trying to accomplish, this amendment will not accomplish 
that; and this amendment will cause severe chaos, in fact, in the 
operations and maintenance of our military during the last quarter of 
this fiscal year.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just to point out 
that, last night, we approved an additional $4 billion in this bill. It 
is never the right time, never the right place.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, let me say this, we have an agreement here, 
and I think there is a consensus building which ought to pass this 
amendment. What that consensus is is that the military needs more 
money. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full 
committee, said they may need money to withdraw from Kosovo. But if we 
do not approve this amendment, if we do not approve this bill, there is 
no money there.
  Well, let me say something to every Member. Every cent of the money 
in the bill will go to the military if this amendment passes. This 
amendment does not stop any funding of our military. All the funding, 
every penny will go to our armed services.
  If our allies live up to their commitments, if they deliver what they 
promised, look again, this is what they promised. This is what they 
promised. This is what they promised.
  But look on that right-hand side as to what they deliver. If they 
deliver what they promised, every cent will go to the military to be 
used in Kosovo. Now, if they do not deliver what they promised, then as 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the committee, 
said, our troops need to come home. That is what we provide. If they do 
not deliver on their promises, the money is available to bring the 
troops home. But every cent of the money is available under the 
amendment.
  Wesley Clark testified before the Senate, and he said the failure to 
have civil implementation is threatening the peace. It is threatening 
the military victory. We have either got to have a speedier 
implementation, or we need withdrawal.
  Let me quote to my colleagues one other thing. How long are we going 
to be in Kosovo? Well, General Klaus Reinhardt last week said, ``I am 
talking 5 years and it could be 10 years.'' ``I am talking 5 years and 
it could be 10 years.''
  The reason we fail to commit the forces necessary to keep the peace, 
World War II lasted 4 years and World War I, 2 years. Korea lasted 3 
years. Do we want to commit our third graders to Kosovo?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to 
say that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) mentioned that we did add 
additional money to the defense part of this bill. That is true. 
However, it is not applicable to the section that we are dealing with 
in his amendment, and that is the problem that I have in his amendment.
  The money that we added yesterday was for specific purposes other 
than Kosovo. The gentleman's amendment goes directly to the issue of 
Kosovo, and that is not where the extra money was added.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the author of the 
amendment a question, please.
  Last night, I had thought that I was going to be supporting this 
amendment, but I have a question. The House adopted last night a human 
rights amendment which had a presidential waiver on the subject, which 
is important to us, but certainly is not absolutely essential to our 
own national security interests.
  It is my understanding now this morning that the gentleman's 
amendment does not have the authority for presidential waiver even if 
he believes that this would threaten national security or put U.S. 
troops in danger. Is that correct?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, there is no waiver.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I find that incredibly troubling. Perhaps it 
was fortunate we did not take this up last night so we have had a 
chance to reread the gentleman's amendment. What appeared to be 
innocent last night, absent the presidential waiver, would be extremely 
troubling, especially in light of the Secretary of Defense's statement 
it would put the interest of U.S. troops at risk.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to make a point. 
It is

[[Page H1596]]

about time that the Congress of the United States started asserting 
itself when it comes to foreign policy. We are not engaging in some 
major foreign policy decision other than to tell the Europeans to live 
up to their commitment.
  What is the message that gets sent when this is defeated? Do my 
colleagues know what it is? If you make a promise and you break it and 
you stiff us, that is okay. That is wrong. We better get on the stick 
and realize that we are a big chunk of how we set foreign policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, by the end of next year, we will have spent 
$20 billion, $20 billion in the Balkans. The amendment that the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Condit) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and I are introducing is really the 
amendment of the chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, 
Mr. Warner.

                              {time}  1030

  And basically it says that our allies need to pay 33 percent of the 
construction costs they committed and 75 percent of the humanitarian 
assistance, the Kosovo Consolidated Budget and the international police 
budget. And if they do not, then we will withdraw our troops. We are 
saying they should live up to their commitments.
  Now, why would we care if they pay their commitment? One reason is we 
ask the Japanese to pay 75 percent of the nonsalary costs of our troops 
in the Japan theater, and they give us $3.6 billion. We ask the 
Europeans to pay for the 100,000 troops stationed on that continent, 
and they give us $66 million. This is a joke, and it has got to end.
  So at the very least, when our allies make a commitment, they should 
live up to it. They should pay their bills. And if they are not willing 
to, let them stop taking us for a ride.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), 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, the gentleman from Ohio just said that 
Members of Congress should assert themselves on foreign policy. I would 
like to bring to the attention of the chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget the law, the law written by the Committee on Appropriations and 
passed by this House. The law, in accompanying report language, 
specifically denies the ability of the administration to spend more 
than 15 percent of the total expenditures in Kosovo. So we have already 
addressed this issue.
  The percentage that the gentleman from Ohio is using is going to be 
confusing because it appears to increase the ability of the United 
States. I wish the gentleman from Ohio would listen to this because I 
am responding to his indication. But it appears as if his amendment, 
although it is not his intent, might even say with the higher 
percentage factor that we are backing down on our insistence that our 
administration only spend 15 percent. So I would invite the gentleman 
from Ohio to read existing law whereby this Congress prohibits the 
administration from spending more than 15 percent.
  Under the law, the President must come back to the Congress if indeed 
they violate that. They came to us in December of 1999, and they 
certified that the United States' contribution was only 14.9 percent.
  So I share the sentiment of the gentleman from Ohio; I think he is 
moving in the right direction, but fortunately, the Congress has very 
responsibly already addressed this issue and the law is the law. We do 
not need confusing additional law to complicate the issue.
  The President requested $100 million for assistance in Kosovo. The 
committee rejected that, and we only included $12 million. So I feel 
like the amendment, although I know that is not the intent of the 
gentleman from Ohio, the amendment would actually deplete the ability 
of the administration to have money to replenish money already spent.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate that we 
just heard from the gentleman in charge of foreign aid, because this is 
the biggest foreign aid program in the history of America. It is one in 
which the United States' taxpayers consistently and generously 
subsidize the other richest people in the world.
  Europe will be very happy if the combined establishment here, the 
leadership, the President, all these putative opponents, come together 
to defeat this, because no bigger present could be given the European 
taxpayers than this amendment.
  The gentleman from Alabama says we have already done that; we said 
they cannot spend more than 15 percent. Lo and behold it came to 14.9 
percent, no doubt an independently arrived at calculation. But here is 
what the facts are. On March 1, two articles, which at an appropriate 
point I will put in the Record, reflect what General Shelton said.
  ``General Shelton's letter reflected anger at European allies for not 
contributing as many troops as requested for expected in Kosovo.'' That 
is from the New York Times. Here is The Washington Post quoting Mr. 
Bacon, the Pentagon spokesperson. ``The chairman, General Shelton, made 
it clear he doesn't think it's appropriate for American troops to go to 
out-of-sector operations on a regular basis to take up police work that 
should be done by the forces in those other sectors.''
  Yes, we have said that they should help out, but we have zero 
enforcement. This is the only enforcement. Now, I know when in control 
of the administration and in control of the appropriations process, one 
can always say it is not perfect. Agreed, it is not perfect. It is just 
better than anything that we have come up with.
  Let us be very clear here. What we are seeing is the pattern in this 
House. When we see the administration do something, we will yell; we 
will scream; we will beat our chests. We will do everything but vote to 
change it. There is no doctrine of executive usurpation in foreign 
policy. What we have is a consistent unbroken pattern of congressional 
dereliction of duty in foreign policy.
  There are Members here who will go home and make great speeches, some 
will not even wait to go home, saying it is terrible we are in Kosovo; 
we are spending too much; the Europeans are not doing anything. Here is 
a vehicle to do something about it, and there is not room under the 
table as Members jump to get under it. This is the only enforcement 
vehicle we have.
  All this talk about what the rules are means nothing. Look at what 
General Shelton said. They are not there; we are there. My colleagues 
say we have to help our troops. Do we help our troops by continuing to 
allow Europe not to do this? What this House will be if we defeat this 
amendment, we will continue our roles as the enablers of European 
dependence. We will say to the Europeans, promise them anything, but do 
not follow through. And when anybody tries to enforce that promise, 
they do not have to worry, because they will come back and say, well, 
it is not perfect, it is not this.
  As far as the waiver is concerned, the amendment does say the 
withdrawal has to be safe and orderly. The fact is this is the only 
enforcement vehicle around.
  Mr. Chairman, the articles I referred to above are included for the 
Record.

                [From the New York Times, Mar. 1, 2000]

     Joint Chiefs Chairman Protests Troops' Mission to Kosovo Town

                            (By Jane Perlez)

       Irritated that American troops had to retreat from a 
     bottle-throwing mob in Kosovo, the chairman of the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Henry H. Shelton, has written to NATO's 
     supreme commander, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, telling him not to 
     use American troops outside their designated sector.
       The letter, according to Pentagon and NATO officials, told 
     General Clark that other countries involved in the NATO 
     peacekeeping operation had to send more troops to Kosovo 
     before significant numbers of American troops would again be 
     allowed on a mission outside the sector assigned to the 
     United States' control.
       General Shelton sent the letter to General Clark a few days 
     after the retreat on Feb. 20 of 350 American soldiers from 
     Mitrovica. The American soldiers had been sent out to the

[[Page H1597]]

     troubled city, where Albanian and Serbian residents are at a 
     standoff and where French troops needed reinforcements. 
     Pentagon officials acknowledged today that General Shelton 
     had concurred with General Clark's plan to send the troops 
     from their sector in southeast Kosovo to Mitrovica before the 
     mission was under way.
       But although General Shelton had agreed ahead of time to 
     the mission, the underlying tone of the letter, according to 
     officials, questioned the wisdom of sending American troops 
     into a volatile situation involving hostile Serbian 
     civilians. General Shelton's letter, and a mood of discontent 
     about the Kosovo peacekeeping operation in the Senate Armed 
     Services Committee during a hearing with General Clark today, 
     reflected anger at European allies for not contributing as 
     many troops as requested or expected in Kosovo. Several 
     senators complained that after the United States had led the 
     air campaign in the Kosovo war, the Europeans had pledged to 
     lead the peacekeeping in Kosovo but had failed to live up to 
     their promise. ``There is more than whiff of hype, where the 
     Europeans talk of doing more,'' then fail to carry out their 
     commitments in Kosovo, said Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of 
     Michigan.
       The chairman of the committee, Senator John W. Warner, 
     Republican of Virginia, asked General Clark why American 
     troops were involved in house-to-house searches for weapons 
     in Mitrovica. Senator Warner recalled that in Somalia, where 
     American troops were involved in an ill-fated peacekeeping 
     operation in 1992, house-to-house searches by American 
     soldiers were ruled out as too dangerous. General Clark said 
     that in contrast to Somalia, where American troops were not 
     welcome, the NATO troops in Kosovo were respected and wanted 
     by large groups of the local population. But pressing ahead, 
     Senator Warner questioned the utility of a weapons search in 
     a city that was only a few miles from a porous border with 
     Serbia across which weapons freely flowed.
       Senator Warner asked, ``What was the total number of arms'' 
     seized in Mitrovica? General Clark replied, ``Twenty-five.'' 
     A NATO official explained after the hearing that the searches 
     for weapons in Mitrovica were conducted by troops of several 
     nations and were announced to the community by community 
     leaders just beforehand so that the searches appeared 
     evenhanded. Both Albanian and Serbian homes were searched, in 
     northern and southern Mitrovica, the official said. In his 
     testimony, General Clark said that the Yugoslav president, 
     Slobodan Milosevic, was very much in control in Serbia and 
     that he was unlikely to be defeated or disappear any time 
     soon.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, Mar. 1, 2000]

          American Troops in Kosovo Restricted to U.S. Sector

                           (By Roberto Suro)

       U.S. troops in Kosovo will stick to their own turf under 
     orders announced by the Pentagon yesterday that sharply limit 
     missions to assist the peacekeepers of other nationalities. 
     The new restrictions reflect concerns in the Defense 
     Department and the White House over a violent encounter last 
     week between a Serbian mob and American soldiers who had been 
     sent to help French peacekeepers with a police action in the 
     French sector, according to a senior military official.
       ``The issue here is, how often do we get dragged into a 
     situation where we have to perform out-of-sector operations 
     that can diminish our ability to operate within our own 
     sector?'' Pentagon spokesman Kenneth H. Bacon said. About 
     5,300 U.S. troops patrol the southeastern sector of Kosovo. 
     French, Italian, German and British forces are in charge of 
     their own sector of the troubled Serbian province. The extent 
     to which troops of various nationalities are available to 
     reinforce each other has become a matter of both military and 
     diplomatic dispute, as NATO peacekeepers contend with rising 
     unrest while their own numbers decline.
       The new orders came in a letter from Gen. Henry H. Shelton, 
     chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to NATO's top military 
     commander, U.S. Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark. ``The chairman 
     made it clear that he doesn't think it's appropriate for 
     American troops to go to out-of-sector operations on a 
     regular basis to take up police work that should be done by 
     the forces in those other sectors,'' Bacon said.
       The still-classified letter was dated Feb. 20, Bacon said. 
     That was the day when a battalion of 350 U.S. soldiers helped 
     conduct a house-to-house search for illegal weapons in 
     Mitrovica, a town in the French sector where Serbs and the 
     ethnic Albanians who dominate Kosovo have frequently clashed. 
     The Americans encountered a rock-throwing mob of protesting 
     Serbs; and although no U.S. soldier was seriously injured, 
     senior civilian and military policy makers felt the mission 
     was risky and unnecessary, senior officials said.
       Clark informed Washington about the mission but ordered it 
     on his own authority, just as he had on two previous 
     occasions when U.S. forces went to the aid of peacekeepers in 
     other sectors. Appearing before a congressional hearing 
     yesterday, Clark defended cross-sector operations as 
     essential in Kosovo. Under the terms of Shelton's letter, 
     however, U.S. troops will operate in other sectors only ``on 
     an extraordinary emergency basis,'' Bacon said.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair advise us of the 
remaining time on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 9 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I just 
wanted to say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, surely he does not 
think the President of the United States or the Secretary of State 
would lie to Congress.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the 
gentleman from Alabama, that I do not think they would lie. I think 
they would be willing, however, to mislead my colleague, if he were as 
willing to be misled as he is.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the very distinguished 
leading expert on national defense issues.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, this deployment is not about Europe; this 
is about the United States. When we deploy troops, we deploy in our 
national security.
  Now, this is a cute way of trying to reduce our deployment to Europe. 
We had 400,000 troops in there for years against the Soviet Union. Now, 
we can argue about how many troops ought to be there right now, but 
when we are doing it this way, NATO's in command. We said the U.N. 
could not do it, so we put NATO in command. This amendment says no 
presidential waiver. It says, okay, if they do not live up to their 
obligation, then we have to pull our troops out.
  Now, let us take Luxembourg; let us take Iceland. Let us say there is 
a lobbying effort for those two little countries, and they get them to 
pull their troops out. They are deciding the foreign policy of the 
United States. Iceland and Luxembourg, under this amendment, would be 
setting the foreign policy for the United States.
  We are in Kosovo to save lives. Now, there is a lot of people that 
can disclaim that. A lot of people can say let the Europeans do it. 
They, obviously, could not get their act together, or we would not be 
involved. We are involved because of the security of the United States. 
Do my colleagues know how many wars have started in the Balkans? Two 
wars started in the Balkans. My dad and three of his brothers served in 
World War II.
  We are talking about the security of the United States, and we are 
not going to allow Iceland, and we are not going to allow Luxembourg to 
set the policy for the United States. And that is exactly what these 
four gentlemen are doing. They are surreptitiously trying to figure out 
a way to get the troops out of Europe, reduce our deployment to Europe. 
This is not the way to do it.
  If we want to limit the deployments, let us face it up front. Let us 
argue about it. Let us debate it and say we are going to limit the 
amount of money and we are going to pull our troops out. Let us not do 
it in a way that lets Luxembourg or Iceland take control, and then not 
have a presidential waiver that speaks to the security of our troops, 
or if the Secretary of Defense says this is endangering our troops, and 
there is no waiver in order to cover that.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, of course, Mr. Chairman, we are 
not talking about Luxembourg and Iceland, as the gentleman knows. The 
gentleman wants to get into burlesque. We are talking about France and 
Germany. They are the ones who made the commitment. They are the ones 
whose taxpayers the gentleman is so valiantly defending.
  Secondly, the amendment says there must be a safe and orderly 
withdrawal.
  But, finally, we are not making policy. We are just telling people to 
live up to it. It is General Shelton who said I am not letting the 
American troops be put at risk because of the failure of the Europeans 
to live up to their commitments. It is General Shelton, the

[[Page H1598]]

chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who has said, the failure, the ongoing 
failure of the Europeans, France and Germany, and Italy and England, 
they are the ones who are endangering the troops.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
offered by my friend from Ohio because the elimination of funding in 
Kosovo would not only make the time and resources that the U.S. has 
already expended a total waste, but it would also render meaningless 
the loss of life, the suffering and the hardship imposed on the ethnic 
Albanians in Kosovo.
  We are talking about people and their lives. For us to walk away from 
a commitment to peace in Kosovo would essentially give Slobodan 
Milosevic free reign in his campaign to force the remaining ethnic 
Albanians out of Yugoslavia and Kosovo.
  Peace in this region will not be coming overnight. Our forces who are 
currently stationed in Kosovo are working in partnership with our NATO 
allies. This is not our burden to carry alone. If our NATO allies are 
not paying up, why punish the Kosovar people?
  Order, peace, and hope for long-term security are beginning to spread 
in Kosovo. However, without our leadership and commitment, I think our 
allies will not continue their efforts; and everything we have already 
spent will be for nothing.
  Please join me, my colleagues, in opposing this amendment.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, because he and I agree. We should not let the Europeans 
dictate our military policy. But, in fact, under the present status 
quo, they are directing our military policy.
  In fact, President Clinton, in a letter to us in October, and I am 
going to introduce that, when asked when will we withdraw our armed 
forces, he said, ``Our armed forces will be withdrawn from operations 
based on the assessment of the progress of civil implementation, and 
that depends on our European allies.''
  Here is the progress of that civil implementation. There has been no 
progress. As General Klaus said, we could be there 10 years.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who is the ranking member of the Committee 
on Armed Services.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Our friend from Ohio said that we should assert ourselves and send a 
message. Let me tell my colleagues what that message would be. The 
message would be that raising the possibility of American troops 
withdrawing from Kosovo encourages extremist elements in Kosovo and 
Belgrade who are determined to see NATO's mission fail in the Balkans.
  This amendment would damage the readiness of our armed forces for the 
rest of the fiscal year and for the rest of our efforts there. Sure, 
European allies should and they will do more to meet their commitments 
in Kosovo. We should continue to encourage them to do so. But we do not 
by this amendment want to surrender to foreign nations the ultimate 
decision-making authority on the deployment of United States' troops. 
Congress and the executive branch should make that decision. Cutting 
off funds and forcing the withdrawal of our forces from Kosovo should 
not be an automatic based on what the Europeans do.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I can hardly believe the arguments here. We 
have spent over $20 billion in the Balkans. We flew 75 percent of the 
sorties using American flesh and blood to do it. And what this 
amendment says is that when the Europeans make a pledge, they ought to 
live up to it.
  If my colleague goes to a town hall meeting in Johnstown, 
Pennsylvania, and says the Europeans said they were going to give us 
$140 million and they only gave us $30 million, they are in trouble and 
so we have to cough up the rest of the bill. I would suggest to my 
colleague that, in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, he will be run out on a 
rail.

                              {time}  1045

  The fact is that all we are doing in this amendment is to say, when 
they make a pledge, when they say they are going to give $140 million 
to help Kosovo, just give it.
  When it is said that we degrade the military by offering this 
amendment, that is total bunk. The military does not lose this money. 
In fact, the money would give increased readiness because it would say 
that we do not have to spread ourselves out all over the world. The 
military does not lose anything.
  My colleagues should stand up for their taxpayers. Because if they do 
not, they are going to come to the town halls and they are going to 
hold them accountable.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just to 
say that I agree with what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) is 
saying, but that is not what his amendment does. What he is saying is 
great, but what his amendment does is not what he is saying.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
because I think it is the right policy being put forth by the wrong 
branch of government.
  The idea that we should assert ourselves in foreign policy is right. 
The issue is when should we assert ourselves in foreign policy. I 
believe it is before we put thousands of young Americans at risk in a 
region of the world.
  I think the administration should have come to us before they made 
this commitment, and we should have had this debate before the country 
got involved. But they did not.
  I do not see this as an affirmation of legislative authority. I see 
this as an affirmation of a need to protect thousands of young 
Americans who are in Kosovo today.
  Conditions change every day, every hour, every minute; and when 
conditions change, there needs to be the authority to make decisions 
quickly and flexibly. This amendment deprives the President of that 
authority.
  For that reason, I cannot support it. I urge its defeat.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I hope some alert 
journalist is going to publish a catalogue of the excuses for Congress 
never to make a tough decision. We should have done it before. We 
cannot do it after.
  We are told, by the way, that it is too dangerous for the troops to 
be there. Now, how do we increase the danger by withdrawing them? There 
may be good reasons for keeping them there. I believe there are. But 
protecting them from the danger of being there is hardly a good reason 
to keep them there. And that is what they are saying.
  People say they agree, the Europeans ought to pay more. But this 
House has consistently refused to do anything to force the Europeans to 
do it. And they know empty rhetoric when they see it. They are very 
sophisticated.
  What this amendment is intending to do, by the way, is not to pull 
out. This is an amendment that says Europe should begin to pay up. 
Apparently, there is a lack of confidence in our European allies 
amongst some of the leadership in the Committee on Appropriations that 
is greater than there is for us. Because they say, if we condition our 
staying there on the Europeans doing what General Shelton complains 
that they are not doing, that will lead to abandonment.
  Well, if the troops are overexposed and it is costing us too much 
money, there are two things to do, have the Europeans pay their fair 
share or withdraw them. We hope it is the former. But in neither case 
are we increasing the danger to the troops.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), as a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which threatens 
the unilateral withdrawal of U.S. forces and resources from Kosovo.

[[Page H1599]]

  The need in Kosovo for peacekeeping reconstruction and development of 
civil and judicial administration is greater than all the promises put 
together by the NATO allies and the U.S.
  The authors of this amendment are right in one respect. Every 
diplomatic effort to hold NATO allies to their agreement is entirely 
appropriate. But threatening to unilaterally end our freely given 
commitment just makes the peacekeeping job so ably done by our deployed 
men and women and the massive reconstruction that is needed, the job of 
massive reconstruction, makes those a great deal harder.
  And, God forbid, if we were to actually act upon this threat, the end 
result could only be giving the final initiative back to Milosevic.
  Vote against this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform Members that the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kasich) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, by the end of next year, we will have spent 
$20 billion in the Balkans.
  What we are asking is that our allies live up to their commitments. 
We are saying, on the reconstruction account for Kosovo, they make a 33 
percent down payment; that they pay 75 percent of the humanitarian 
assistance in Kosovo that they pledged; that they pay 75 percent for 
the Kosovo Consolidated Budget that they pledged; and that they provide 
75 percent of the international police force for Kosovo that they 
pledged.
  Why does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) assume that we 
will have to take our troops out? Does he assume they are not going to 
live up to their commitment? Well, maybe it is an assumption he is 
right in making.
  They only give us $66 million for 100,000 troops. We get $3.6 billion 
for our 40,000 troops in Japan.
  I rise in strong support of this amendment, which I have offered on a 
bipartisan basis with Congressmen John Kasich, Gary Condit, Barney 
Frank, and Spencer Bachus. They are among the hardest working Members 
of Congress and it is a pleasure to be offering this amendment with 
them. I also want to thank the author of this amendment, Senator John 
Warner, who intends to offer this amendment along with Senators Daniel 
Inouye, Pat Roberts, and Olympia Snowe when the Senate takes up its 
version of this legislation. When the Chairman of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee says our allies need to live up to their 
obligations, I think we all need to take this amendment seriously.
  Our bipartisan amendment puts in place a framework for ensuring our 
European NATO allies live up to their financial commitments with 
respect to the war and subsequent peacekeeping mission in Kosovo. Last 
year, the United States puts its money, personnel and military 
equipment on the line to bring peace and stability to the Balkan 
region. Our military's men and women served with great distinction and 
did our Nation proud. But to this day, our NATO allies have not lived 
up to their financial commitments and obligations. The most egregious 
example of our allies' noncompliance is their failure to deploy 
military personnel for the United Nations international police force 
for Kosovo. NATO and the EU nations committed to contribute 1,264 
personnel for this force. But to date, they have deployed 747 members--
or 59 percent.
  The United States, in contrast, has deployed 489 (or 89 percent) of 
the 550 we have committed. And I am told that the remaining 61 are on 
their way and should be in Kosovo in the next week or two. Our 
amendment says our allies need to do better. They need to get that 
number up from 747 to 948. Surely they can accomplish this by June 1. 
Another reason we are offering this amendment is because there is 
simply a lack of good information as to what precisely our allies have 
committed to providing. In fact, our own Department of State and 
National Security Council can't seem to provide identical data. So I 
think it is very important to require the administration to submit a 
report to Congress specifying the commitments and pledges made by the 
European Commission, and the member states of the European Union and 
NATO.
  Part B of our amendment does exactly this. It requires a report to be 
submitted by June 1 detailing these commitments. I want to stress that 
we are not applying a straitjacket to the administration. The President 
will have a certain level of flexibility in determining what it is our 
allies have said they owe. Our amendment would withhold 50 percent of 
the supplemental appropriation bill's funding for military operations 
in Kosovo until the President certifies that the European Commission, 
member nations of the European Union, and European member nations of 
NATO have provided at least:
  33 percent of the assistance committed by them for 1999 and 2000 for 
reconstruction in Kosovo;
  75 percent of the assistance committed by them for 1999 and 2000 for 
humanitarian assistance in Kosovo;
  75 percent of the assistance committed by them for 1999 and 2000 for 
the Kosovo Consolidated Budget; and
  75 percent of the number of police committed by them for the United 
Nations international police force for Kosovo.
  I want to stress these thresholds are anything but arbitrary. They 
represent reasonable downpayments on the pledges and commitments made 
by our European allies. Recognizing that autonomous nations have 
different fiscal years and budget processes, we do not seek full 
compliance in this amendment, but merely a downpayment. And, 
recognizing that funding for reconstruction programs is often disbursed 
over a series of years, we merely require a portion of this funding to 
be made available right away.
  If the President does not certify that these benchmarks have been met 
by June 1, 2000, the withheld funding appropriated for military 
operations in Kosovo would be made available only for the purpose of 
conducting a safe, orderly and phased withdrawal of United States 
military personnel from Kosovo.

  I want to speak for a moment about what our amendment does not do. 
Our amendment does not change United States policy toward Kosovo and 
the Balkans. Our amendment does not alter the parameters of our mission 
in Kosovo. Our amendment does not reduce the number of troops the 
United States has committed to the international peackeeping force or 
the U.N. police force. Our amendment does not decrease the funding for 
Kosovo in this bill, which is equal the administration's request. And 
our amendment does not require our allies to pay for more than they 
promised. In fact, it asks for less. It merely requires a downpayment.
  What our amendment does do is uphold current United States policy in 
Kosovo by requiring our allies to live up to their agreements. This is 
not an unjustifiable request. The United States has consistently met 
its obligations--even exceeded them--with respect to the conflict in 
Kosovo. This Congress has passed in a timely fashion appropriations 
bills fully funding our participation in this conflict, and the 
President has signed these appropriations bills.
  Our allies, unfortunately, have failed to meet their obligations. Our 
amendment will help encourage our European allies to provide the 
necessary resources and personnel to implement the peacekeeping mission 
in Kosovo. An equitable burdensharing arrangement strikes us as being 
inherently fair and appropriate. After all, during the 78 days of 
combat over Serbia, the United States bore the major share of the air 
war, flying approximately 70 percent of the sorties. The men and women 
of our Armed Forces took the greatest personal risks. And the United 
States taxpayer paid the lion's share of the costs: more than $4 
billion at last count.
  I know our allies contributed to the military intervention in Kosovo. 
But as they know all too well, it was the United States that provided 
the high-performance aircraft, the guided missiles, the transport 
aircraft, and the B-2 bombers that made this joint effort a success. I 
am afraid if Congress does not step in and say, unequivocally, that our 
allies need to live up to their commitments, this administration will 
simply allow them to slide, as they've done too many times in the past. 
The result, undoubtedly, will be that more of our Nation's tax surplus 
will be expended to pay for the rapidly increased rate of military 
deployments and our Armed Forces will continue to face retention and 
readiness deficiencies.
  I am struck by the fact that, over the past 50 years, the United 
States military has been involved in 46 deployments. But a staggering 
36 of those deployments have come in the past 10 years. Do these 
missions cost money? You bet they do. From 1993 through 2001, our 
operations in Kosovo and Bosnia are projected to have cost the United 
States taxpayer $20.2 billion. Here is the bottom line of our 
amendment: We cannot, we must not, indefinitely commit our Armed Forces 
to keeping the peace in the Balkans without ensuring our allies live up 
to their commitments. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so 
we can put some pressure on our allies to live up to their commitments.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman knows 
that they are not going to live up to their commitment because they

[[Page H1600]]

know what strong support they have in this House for escaping any 
consequences of evading that commitment.
  All they have to do is listen to this debate and listen to the 
administration, and they can say that they are free to make 
commitments, ignore them, and pay no penalty for them.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, unless we pass this 
amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, he is correct.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  (Mr. ENGEL asked and it was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I chair the Albanian Issues Caucus. I think 
I have done more work with Kosovo than almost anyone else in Congress.
  This is a very ill-advised amendment. If we want to ensure a 
presidential veto, this is the amendment to do if it passes.
  Generals Shelton and Clark have been mentioned. They certainly would 
not agree to this amendment. We have won the peace. We have won the 
war. Let us not lose the peace. Defeat this amendment. It is awful.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following editorials for the Record:

                               Editorial

                       (By Madeleine K. Albright)

       Washington.--A year ago this week, Slobodan Milosevic 
     rejected an international peace plan and intensified a 
     campaign of terror that had already killed hundreds of Kosovo 
     Albanians and driven more than 200,000 from their homes. His 
     new offensive, begun with peace talks still underway, 
     ultimately caused more than one million Kosovars to seek 
     refuge and was marked by burned villages, rapes, murders and 
     ethnic cleansing.
       President Clinton and his NATO counterparts responded 
     forcefully and, through persistence, successfully. Most of 
     the displaced have since returned to their homes. Communities 
     are rebuilding. Children are in school. With international 
     help, most of Kosovo is secure and preparing for its first 
     democratic elections ever.
       Having prevailed in war, our challenge now is to secure the 
     peace. This is proving, as expected, costly and hard. The 
     journey from conflict to cooperation is not made overnight. 
     Impatient, some in Congress suggest we give up, put away our 
     wallets and call our troops home. But the costs and risks of 
     quitting far exceed those of maintaining a stable Kosovo.
       History teaches us that America cannot be secure if Europe 
     is not secure, and events have reminded us repeatedly that 
     Europe cannot be secure when conflict engulfs the Balkans. 
     With Mr. Milosevic still present, the region remains a 
     tinderbox. If we check out, wide-scale bloodshed will almost 
     surely check back in.
       Moreover, the price of perseverance is affordable and the 
     obstacles to success can be overcome.
       During the cold war, we stationed nearly 400,000 troops in 
     Europe. Today we have roughly 100,000. Of these, about 6,000 
     are in Kosovo. Surely, this deployment is not 
     disproportionate to America's stake in the region.
       Further, Europe is committed to shouldering the majority of 
     burdens in Kosovo. European Union members have contributed 64 
     percent of the international troops and provided hundreds of 
     millions of dollars in humanitarian and reconstruction 
     aid.
       We are contributing fewer than 15 percent of total troops 
     and less than 15 percent of the nonmilitary costs of helping 
     Kosovo recover from war and build stability. There are 
     proposals in Congress to make a 15 percent share of these 
     costs a legal cap. But such a restriction would harm, not 
     help, our ability to leverage contributions from Europe. It 
     would reduce our flexibility in responding to future events.
       And it would underestimate America's stake in our 
     partnership with Europe, which extends beyond Europe itself. 
     After Hurricane Mitch struck in our hemisphere, more than 60 
     percent of the bilateral aid pledged came from Europe. And 
     Europe assumed a 33 percent share of the cost of establishing 
     peace in El Salvador and 34 percent in Guatemala.
       Those ready to give up on Kosovo point to recent incidents 
     of ethnic violence there. We share these concerns, and 
     international authorities are addressing them by beefing up 
     resources, tightening security, and marginalizing and 
     disarming extremists.
       But the problems should not obscure overall progress. With 
     United Nations leadership, a Joint Interim Administrative 
     Council has been established in which Kosovo's factions can 
     begin to share responsibility for governing their region. The 
     ethnic Albanian militia has met its commitment to demobilize. 
     The murder rate is now lower in Kosovo than in many American 
     cities. In much of the region, morale is high and people are 
     focused squarely on building a better life.
       The depth of estrangement between factions in Kosovo is 
     profound. Urgent needs for police, prosecutors and courts 
     have not yet been met. And the risk that angry individuals 
     will generate disturbances remains significant. But if our 
     reaction to every setback is to pull back, a dangerous world 
     will grow rapidly more dangerous.
       We are not asking anyone in Kosovo to abandon legitimate 
     interests. We are asking the people there to pursue their 
     interests through cooperation with the international 
     community and by participating in the joint governing 
     structures being created. With time and sufficient support, 
     the cooler heads on all sides will prevail. A sense of inter-
     ethnic community may or may not develop; but pragmatic 
     coexistence is clearly possible.
       The day may come when a Kosovo-scale operation can be 
     managed without the help of the United States, but it has not 
     come yet. If we are forced by ill-conceived legislation to 
     depart Kosovo or to slash our commitment of resources, others 
     will mimic our weakness, and the flames of renewed conflict 
     will surely and quickly ignite.
       The American people should be proud that we did the right 
     thing a year ago and confident that by working with our 
     partners to consolidate the peace, we are doing the right and 
     smart thing now.
                                  ____


           [From the Christian Science Monitor, Mar. 6, 2000]

                       Stay the Course in Kosovo

                         (By Michael O'Hanlon)

       Washington.--Having won the war against Serbia last year, 
     is NATO now losing the peace in Kosovo? Based on February's 
     violence in the divided city of Mitrovica, one might easily 
     think so. In fact, that is not the case: Overall trends in 
     Kosovo are positive, and recent events in Mitrovica are not a 
     fair referendum on the state of affairs there.
       On the other hand, the US and other NATO countries have 
     made some bad decisions in recent weeks--and if they keep it 
     up, the favorable prognosis could change. Countries on both 
     sides of the Atlantic need to get back to military basics to 
     make sure their victory last year is fully consolidated.
       First, though, how can one say that life is getting better 
     in Kosovo today? After all, about 150 Serbs have been killed 
     there since the June peace accord. Largely as a result of the 
     violence, the province has been divided into two almost 
     completely segregated ethnic communities--and half of the 
     population of Serbs has left Kosovo altogether. In February, 
     two more Serbs were killed in the ethnically divided town of 
     Mitrovica when an ethnic Albanian fired a rocket at a bus; 
     Serb reprisals raised the overall death toll to 11.
       It's true that these developments are regrettable. But it 
     would be remiss to forget that this was a land at war less 
     than a year ago. Nor was this just any war. It was a 
     systematic violation of ethnic Albanians by an organized Serb 
     compaign of violence.
       Expecting people to forgive and forget within months, when 
     many ethnic Albanians are still mourning the loss of loved 
     ones and the rape and abuse of many who did survive, is 
     unrealistic.
       At least in terms of physical security, life in Kosovo has 
     improved a good deal in recent months. According to NATO 
     commander Gen. Wesley Clark, the province's monthly murder 
     rate declined from roughly 200 last summer to about 35 this 
     winter. Even if the recent tragedies in Mitrovica have bumped 
     the murder rate up somewhat, it remains at least four times 
     less than six months ago--and lower than the per capita 
     murder rate in Washington, D.C. Part of the reason, 
     admittedly, is ethnic segregation--Albanians no longer have 
     as easy access to Serbs as they once did. (In fact, the 
     preponderance of violence in Kosovo today is Albanian on 
     Albanian). but it is better to be segregated and alive than 
     intermingled and at risk of death--particularly in the 
     immediate after math of an ethnic war.
       Another major, positive development is that the Kosovo 
     Liberation Army (KLA), which fought Serbian forces last 
     spring, has surrendered large caches of weapons to 
     international forces and demilitarized its activities. Even 
     if pockets of KLA-related forces remain active, they pose 
     only a limited threat to the peace at present.
       That said, there have been troubling developments in recent 
     weeks in the peacekeeping efforts of the NATO-led force in 
     Kosovo. Last week, the New York Times reported that American 
     troops were directed to stay out of Mitrovica by the 
     Pentagon, out of concern for their safety after Serbs in that 
     city threw snowballs, stones, and bricks at them. Other 
     recent reports from Kosovo have described how other 
     countries, including Britain, have drastically curtailed 
     their military strength in Kosovo, leaving commanders worried 
     they may not have enough forces to carry out required 
     missions.
       The U.S. is wrong not to send its troops into towns like 
     Mitrovica out of concern for their safety, and should change 
     its policy. It's right for the U.S. to expect its allies to 
     provide most troops in Kosovo, given its role in the air war 
     and other military responsibilities from the Persian Gulf to 
     Korea. But whatever troops it has there should not have--and 
     probably do not want--special treatment. That is unfair to 
     the armed forces of other countries in KFOR, the NATO-led 
     protection operation. And it is dangerous. If the U.S. 
     telegraphs to the world that it is terrified of suffering 
     casualties, as it did in Somalia in 1993, it puts a

[[Page H1601]]

     bull's-eye on the chest of American troops around the world 
     and severely hamstrings foreign policy.
       U.S. troops are not cowards. Tens of thousands sleep near 
     their gas masks in Korea, maintaining a still-tense cease-
     fire. Thousands patrol the Persian Gulf, where war and 
     terrorist attacks have claimed American lives on several 
     occasions in the last decade. Dozens lose their lives every 
     year in training and operational accidents simply because 
     they are using dangerous equipment or carrying out other 
     risky activities in difficult environments. They are capable 
     of facing down stone-throwing Serbs and Albanians, and if 
     they're needed for that mission, they should be sent.
       That does not mean troops should be asked to do the 
     impossible, or to take unnecessary risks. Some want NATO 
     troops to do whatever it takes to allow Albanians and Serbs 
     to live together peacefully, protecting isolated pockets of 
     citizens wherever they are in the ethnic minority, or 
     searching house-to-house for weapons in a massive disarmament 
     effort. These ideas are unrealistic.
       Kosovo, for all the distance it has come since June, is a 
     recent combat zone in a war that stoked ethnic passions and 
     left many thousands dead. Neither U.S. troops, nor UN police, 
     nor any other external assistance can change these facts 
     overnight. But even if international forces cannot make 
     Kosovo a harmonious multiethnic society, they must continue 
     to keep it stable.
       That is where the allies come in, too. Their recent troop 
     cutbacks--12,000 out of a total KFOR force of 50,000--are a 
     bad idea. KFOR must remain strong enough that extremists 
     within Kosovo aren't tempted to test it. It also needs to 
     remain strong enough to deter Serbia. After all, Slobodan 
     Milosevic's military and police forces outnumber NATO 
     troops--three to one--even when KFOR is at full strength. 
     Given KFOR's superior forces, and Serbia's awareness that 
     NATO would send reinforcements if trouble began, KFOR's 
     numerical disadvantage is acceptable--but that doesn't mean 
     we should cut forces further.
       Recent problems aside, things are going reasonably well in 
     Kosovo. But that's no reason to get careless, or tempt fate.

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 2\1/4\ minutes 
remaining and the right to close.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have mixed feelings about this amendment, because I 
think the approach that is being offered is a serious one and it has 
worked. It has worked in Japan when we offered this on the floor years 
ago where we had 40,000 troops stationed; and it made a difference in 
millions of dollars. And it has been offered and suggested with respect 
to Korea and Germany, as well.
  But my problem with it right now is the timing of this amendment. The 
timing is such that it has come in the aftermath of the war when 
reconstruction is going on when there is a very, very difficult 
situation in terms of bringing stability and peace to a region. I just 
think it does not work right now.
  Now, I am not suggesting that this is not something that we should 
not use in the future with respect to our Europeans and getting them to 
make sure that they fulfill their commitments. But this is not the 
right time to use it.
  I hope my colleagues will look at this. Serious border incursions are 
still going on. Ethnic tensions are very, very high. And certainly 
people need to rebuild. And sending a sign of no hope is not the right 
signal in this very, very difficult time.
  I hope my colleagues will vote ``no'' on this.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) is recognized for 
1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, let us not assume that our European allies 
will not live up to their commitment.
  Let me, furthermore, say that what we are simply saying in this 
amendment is that when they pledge $140 million, $30 million is not 
good enough; that when they pledge $410 million to reconstruct Kosovo 
and they only gave $44 million, that is not enough; and when they 
pledge to put 3,800 police, which is a vital component of rebuilding, 
and they only provide 1,800, that is not enough.
  We are not trying to force the Europeans to do more than what they 
want to do. All this amendment says is that they ought to do what they 
said that they wanted to do. All this amendment says is, they said they 
were going to give these dollars, they ought to give these dollars.
  If the Europeans have no interest in, at least, keeping their word, 
then what is the prospect for long-term peace there? The fact is this 
amendment will strengthen the U.S. military. Secondly, it sends a clear 
message in post-Cold War America that people need to shoulder their 
burden. Thirdly, simple workers across America say, hey, if they made 
this pledge, why can they not live up to it? It was our flesh and blood 
that went over there and made the peace. We are not asking them to 
carry the whole load. We are only asking them to carry the load that 
they committed to us. That makes good sense.
  So I hope, my colleagues, we will come to this floor and will be in a 
position to be able to support a reasonable and progressive policy 
towards Kosovo.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 1\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the very distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my 
chairman and my colleague yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I must say that all of us must have empathy for the 
expression of concern about our commitment to Kosovo, the number of 
troops we have there, and how long we have been there, and how quick we 
can get them out.
  The difficulty I have with the argument today and this proposal is 
that we do not need 435 Secretaries of State; we do not need 435 
Secretaries of Defense.
  I went to Kosovo in January, and at our major base camp, I met with 
about 30 young sergeants who talked to me about why they were there. 
The re-up rates in the Army are the highest there than anywhere in the 
world because those people know they are there to save lives. They want 
us out, as well. But, indeed, behind this mission is the stability of 
Europe. And we need a unified America speaking about solving that 
problem.
  To have a proposal that would essentially have us force withdrawal 
sends the wrong message to Milosevic. We should be most worried about 
the spring thaw, where the Albanians are about to react. They, too, 
want to have a head-on collision with the Serbs. Blood could flow as a 
result of a message that says America is not unified in its voice.
  This is the wrong time for this amendment presented in the wrong way, 
and I urge a very strong ``no'' vote.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by my friends and colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio, the 
gentleman from Connecticut, the gentleman from Massachusetts, and the 
gentleman from Alabama.
  Very simply put Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about asking our 
European allies to honor their commitments and keep their word. The 
United States has very clearly shouldered the largest portion of the 
burden in the Balkans. This amendment corrects that and puts a 
framework in place to ensure our European allies live up to their 
commitments with respect to the war and subsequent peacekeeping mission 
in Kosovo.
  The United States has put money, personnel, and equipment on the line 
in Kosovo. We have met our obligations time and time again while our 
allies have failed to meet their financial commitments and obligations. 
As a result we are faced with the United States pouring more of its 
resources and money into Kosovo. While our allies do not pay their 
share, more and more of our nation's surplus is going into this open-
ended military deployment.
  Our amendment corrects this. Until the President certifies that our 
allies have met a set of realistic benchmarks--all of which are 
reasonable portions or percentages of their original pledges and 
commitments--we will withhold half of the emergency supplemental bill's 
funding for Kosovo.
  Mr. Chairman, we fully understand that our fiscal calendars and 
budget processes may differ from our European allies. For that very 
reason we are asking for a ``good faith'' payment--a percentage of 
their original pledges of support. If the President doesn't certify 
these ``good faith'' benchmarks have been met by June 1, 2000, the 
withheld funding would be made available only to allow for the safe,

[[Page H1602]]

orderly and phased withdrawal of United States military forces from 
Kosovo.
  In the final analysis, our allies made commitments. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Kasich-Condit-Shays-Frank-Bachus amendment in 
putting a framework into place for ensuring our allies live up to those 
commitments.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kasich).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, the Chair announces 
that immediately following this vote there will be a 5-minute vote on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200, 
noes 219, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 89]

                               AYES--200

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Blunt
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cubin
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Markey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neal
     Ney
     Nussle
     Owens
     Paul
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wicker
     Woolsey

                               NOES--219

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Becerra
     Burr
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Crane
     Everett
     Franks (NJ)
     Granger
     Klink
     Norwood
     Quinn
     Rush
     Spence
     Vento
     Weygand
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1121

  Messrs. LIPINSKI, COSTELLO, ADERHOLT, LAZIO, and BILIRAKIS and Ms. 
McCARTHY of Missouri changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. MICA, NEAL of Massachusetts, LEWIS of Georgia and SAXTON 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


  Amendment No. 11, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the Amendment No. 11, as modified, offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment, as modified.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment, as modified.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 386, 
noes 28, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 90]

                               AYES--386

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     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
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)

[[Page H1603]]


     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     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, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     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
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     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
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--28

     Archer
     Barton
     Bonilla
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cox
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Graham
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hostettler
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Linder
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Paul
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Shadegg
     Sununu

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bateman
     Becerra
     Burr
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Crane
     Cummings
     Everett
     Franks (NJ)
     Granger
     Klink
     Miller (FL)
     Norwood
     Quinn
     Rush
     Spence
     Spratt
     Tancredo
     Vento
     Weygand
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1130

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall 
No. 90. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 90, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, because my amendment to restore 401 agriculture 
research funds was subject to a point of order, I will not be offering 
an amendment, and rise to engage the chairman in a colloquy.
  I greatly appreciate his participation in this, and that of the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen). I am deeply disappointed that 
the measure strikes two very important programs for rural communities, 
farmers and ranchers in Indiana and across the Nation, the Fund for 
Rural America and the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food 
Systems.
  As a conservative, I strongly support offsets for increased 
expenditures elsewhere. However, these two are critical programs for 
future needs in agriculture.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the chairman's assistance as the 
bill moves to the Senate, that we could move to re-insert those 
programs into the final bill that comes back to this House.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico, the 
distinguished subcommittee chairman, to respond to the gentleman's 
colloquy.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Indiana for his commitment to Indiana agriculture.
  Mr. Chairman, every year the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies is 
requested to contribute offsets to the supplemental spending bills. We 
did so this year by putting limitations on two mandatory programs, one 
for agriculture research and one for rural development, for a total 
offset of $106 million.
  I certainly agree that it is important that critical investments are 
made in agricultural research. In fact, two major research programs in 
USDA will receive about $1.8 billion this year. Rural development will 
get about $2.2 billion.
  I would assure the gentleman that we will continue to work with him 
to adequately fund agricultural research.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from New Mexico, and do want 
to state that I greatly respect his wonderful efforts over the years to 
make sure that the Appropriations Subcommittee would support 
agriculture research, extension and education.
  I look forward very much to working with him in the conference to try 
to increase that funding.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING NOTICE.

       (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or products that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided under this 
     Act, it is the sense of the Congress that entities receiving 
     such assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase 
     only American-made equipment and products.
       (b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance under this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency shall provide to each recipient of the assistance a 
     notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.
       (c) Notice of Report.--Any entity which receives funds 
     under this Act shall report any expenditures on foreign-made 
     items to the Congress within 180 days of the expenditure.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, March 
29, 2000, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and a Member opposed 
each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur).
  My amendment is right to the point, Mr. Chairman. We provide an awful 
lot of money around the world, and many times these nations buy product 
made in Japan and China. I am very concerned that some day China, with 
a $90 billion trade surplus, may literally attack our children.
  My amendment says we promote and encourage, without violating the 
laws, the procurement of American-made products. The gentleman from 
Florida (Chairman Young) has worked hard at this. I appreciate the fact 
that he has accommodated this.
  Let me say this to the House, we cannot protect America with a 
neighborhood crime watch and styrofoam. We

[[Page H1604]]

need a domestic industry, and I think looking at procurement of 
American-made products is of vital importance.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I would like to announce to the House that we are prepared to accept 
the amendment. It is the excellent amendment that the gentleman has 
offered many times, and has been accepted by this House many times. We 
accept the gentleman's amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to commend my colleague, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) for continuing his crusade on 
behalf of America's jobs, our workers, our communities.
  We certainly would be pleased to accept the agreement, in agreement 
with the majority here today. I want to thank the gentleman again for 
keeping our eyes focused on what we should, and that is, America's 
strength and productivity.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I urge an aye vote on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. With no Member seeking to control time in opposition, 
the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. __. (a) Across-the-Board Reduction.--Each amount 
     appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act that is 
     not required to be appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by a provision of law is hereby reduced by 10 percent.
       (b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any 
     amount designated by this Act as an emergency requirement, or 
     any amount appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     Act for the Department of Defense.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, March 
29, 2000, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed 
each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask, is any Member opposed to my 
amendment?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) will be 
recognized to control the time in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is pretty simple. It attempts to 
establish fiscal responsibility.
  As all of us know, these emergency supplementals come once, twice a 
year. This is pretty simple. I cut spending by 10 percent across-the-
board only, and I say to the Members, only for non-defense or non-
emergency spending. So it would reduce by 10 percent these non-
emergency appropriations for programs added to the supplemental for FY 
2000.
  I offer this amendment because the rescissions used to offset this 
new spending are unauthorized funds whose use would be better served by 
using them for paying down the debt.
  For instance, Mr. Chairman, the $235 million reduction for emergency 
Y2K funds, these are the funds we appropriated for 1998. They are being 
used and this funding is being used, but it is not obligated, so we 
say, okay, let us use it. But the fact is, this is previously-allocated 
money that was appropriated, again, as emergency funding, and will now 
be used to offset this emergency supplemental.
  If we hear the word ``emergency supplemental'' used over and over 
here, we have to say to ourselves, what is an emergency and what is 
not? We need to hold the line on spending and practice some kind of 
fiscal responsibility.
  We have had several votes this morning, and we continue to add more 
money to the supplemental.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) had his amendment to set 
aside $4 billion for FY 2000, non-social security, for the on-budget 
surplus. The question is, why are we using $429 million, money that was 
appropriated but not spent to offset recently added spending, when we 
could apply it to debt reduction?
  This is an emergency supplemental. The programs that fall under non-
emergency, if they are non-emergency, could we not go through the 
normal process?
  When we were in the minority, we always talked about all these 
legislative initiatives on the floor. We said, these are not necessary. 
These are non-emergency. Why are we putting them on the floor? We want 
to see them go through the normal, regular appropriations cycle under 
my distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  What we see happening with this bill is reminiscent of past years, 
when we kept adding more and more spending. If we go back and look at 
the spending that we did in the last fiscal year, we will see that the 
emergency spending balloons. This thing continues to balloon far beyond 
the original when leadership said, we will put on a bill that will be 
about $6.5 billion. Then it went to 7, 8. Now it is at 9 billion they 
brought it to the floor. This thing is continuing to go up.
  We have already loaded this bill up with money for Colombia, Kosovo, 
Bosnia, the Department of Energy security and cleanup. I am sure if 
this bill remained on the floor for a week, this thing would balloon up 
to $25 and $35 billion.
  I ask my colleagues, this is a very simple amendment just to reduce 
the non-emergency, only the non-emergency and non-defense, by 10 
percent. The actual cut will be in millions of dollars, it will not be 
in billions of dollars. We must not appropriate more spending in this 
emergency supplemental. We must try to hold the line.
  We do not want to repeat last year's mistake. The final budget 
agreement exceeded the budget resolution by $25 billion in non-defense 
outlays. We seem to be heading in the same direction, so my amendment 
is modest and should be adopted.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), 
because we do like to save money every chance that we can get, his 
comments to the contrary notwithstanding. I have an idea that he voted 
for one of the or for the biggest amendment yesterday that was added to 
this bill.
  Anyway, the gentleman's amendment wants to reduce the non-emergency 
appropriations in the bill. The President asked for over $400 million 
worth of non-emergency items, but he offered offsets for those non-
emergency items. We reduced the President's request from the $420-some 
million to $160, but we maintained the $420 million worth of offsets, 
so we have actually offset far more than we have non-emergency spending 
items in this bill.
  One of the things that would be affected by the Stearns amendment 
would be safety at our nuclear weapons facilities in the United States. 
Some of this money that would be reduced by this amendment, has to do 
with upgrading and restarting the enriched uranium operations, which 
were shut down for safety reasons. We are trying to make them safe. 
This is at the Y-12 plant in Tennessee.
  The money this amendment would reduce would also address hazard 
analysis, the safety authorization basis for activities to be performed 
in FY 2000 at the Pantex plant in Texas. So we are talking about safety 
in our nuclear facilities.
  Another item that my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) 
might be interested in, because I know that he had supported it, and 
many of his colleagues have supported funding for abstinence education. 
This amendment would take a pretty good chunk

[[Page H1605]]

 out of that money that was agreed to for abstinence education.
  I do not think the gentleman wants to do that, because I know that he 
supports that program. I am against the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think, in all deference to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), my distinguished colleague and the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, I think he would agree, 
and he has been on the floor many times saying, particularly when he 
was in the minority as an appropriator, he said, why can we not take 
the non-emergency, non-defense spending and run it through the 
appropriations process, or go through the appropriate committees? Why 
should not all 435 Members of this House have the opportunity to see 
this in place and evaluate it?
  He has mentioned a couple of programs that he said this would cut. 
Now realize, Mr. Chairman, that we are only cutting 10 percent of 100 
percent, so certainly, in government funding, if we cut 10 percent we 
are not decimating a program. We are not eliminating a program.
  So this is a modest attempt to signal to the citizens of the country 
and to signal to the Senate, if they decide to vote on this bill, and 
to make us feel, on this particular morning when we are voting for all 
new spending, that we are taking the task of being fiscally 
responsible.
  I would say to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Florida, 
if these are that important to him, why does he not run them through 
the appropriate process?
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking minority 
member on the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is really amazing, if not amusing. We 
have a huge circus elephant rampaging through this room, and the 
gentleman has an amendment that is going to go after a fly.
  If we take a look at this amendment, this bill spends almost $13 
billion, and what does he go after?

                              {time}  1145

  He goes after a $140 million tiny piece of the package. He endangers 
three nuclear weapons productions plants at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; 
Kansas City, Missouri; and Amarillo, Texas. They are critical to the 
improvement of our nuclear stockpile, and he endangers safety 
operations at those operations.
  He is going to say to a thousand families, after every politician in 
this House has been posing for political holy pictures about how they 
are opposed to the higher energy prices, while I know that in his 
district in Florida they do not need a lot of help to pay for home 
heating oil, but it gets pretty doggone cold in the Northeast and the 
Upper Midwest, this is going to deny thousands of low-income American 
families help on that score.
  It will take away the ability to get FHA loans from 20,000 low- and 
moderate-income couples in this country. I do not think that is a gift 
to taxpayers, although Members who make what we make do not have to 
worry about those little folks, I suppose. Is that the way the 
gentleman feels?
  Then we just made a big production out of adding a lot of money for 
fire protection. What does the gentleman do? He knocks out money for 
fire safety right in the Capitol Hill complex, after we have been 
chastised for the neglect of the buildings up here. And then lastly, 
after we have heard so much on that side of the aisle about the need to 
have family planning programs that emphasize abstinence, what does the 
gentleman do? He cuts that program by 10 percent. The gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has moved heaven and earth to get that program 
funding up, and now he is knocking that baby down.
  And what does he leave untouched? Yesterday, this House added $4 
billion, not million, billion dollars in Defense Department programs to 
this year's appropriation bill. None of those items were emergencies. 
The sole, crass purpose of that amendment was to move $4 billion in 
defense expenditures into this year's budget, so you freed up room for 
$4 billion in congressional pork in the next year's Defense budget. Now 
we see this House with this ``let's pretend'' amendment supposedly 
protecting the taxpayers' interest. Do not make me laugh.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see the Ranking Minority Member from the 
Committee on Appropriations fighting to reduce waste and to say that he 
was upset about congressional pork, because I have been here some time 
and I have been in the minority and I have seen these emergency 
supplementals and in this case, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
was chairman at that time.
  When the gentleman can stand on the House floor and take out a single 
program and say that we are going to decimate these people, we are 
going to hurt them because of the reduction, and it is only 10 percent, 
and, in fact, it is a program that has not been authorized by Members 
of Congress, why do we not just do away with all the procedures here in 
the House of Representatives and just bring to the floor any idea by 
any Member at any time and just vote on it? Pretty soon, we can be the 
brand-new Santa Claus of history where we just vote on bills, not on 
the basis of merit, but on the basis of emotion.
  So I urge my colleagues to look back at this bill and realize that 
this is not taking away from anybody. The programs are all left in 
place. This is nondefense. This is nonemergency.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned this huge amount of money that 
was provided for defense. The gentleman could actually have an 
amendment here on the floor to reduce that on the floor if he wants. If 
he really felt that strong about it, why does he not come on the floor 
and offer an amendment to reduce defense spending? It is an open rule. 
Let us up or down it.
  But the point is that we have to realize that at some point somewhere 
we are going to have to address these programs and not continue to 
bring them on the floor without being authorized without being brought 
to the appropriate committees.
  So I urge my colleagues again to consider this modest amendment and 
vote ``yes'' on the Stearns amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the other gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns) what planet he was on yesterday. The amendment 
yesterday was to add that $4 billion in waste. And who led the 
opposition to it? I did. Were you here or some place else yesterday?
  Secondly, when I was chairman, the only year I was chairman, we 
finished every single appropriation bill on time; and we spent less 
money than the President. This bill going through here, which I am 
going to vote against, spends $17 billion more than the President asked 
for; and you are probably going to vote for it.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, can we have the balance of time remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 4 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would announce that I have only 
one speaker to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let us talk about what the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) just indicated, that he was strongly against the 
appropriations for defense. He said yesterday that he was on the floor 
objecting to the money that we added for defense. Is that correct?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, no, that is not correct. I said that I 
supported the core bill yesterday which had the additional money for 
reimbursement for

[[Page H1606]]

Pentagon costs to fix the health care problems at the Pentagon and 
those other items, but I did not support the $4 billion add-on because 
it was not an emergency and that portion was simply making room for 
additional congressional pork.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, will the gentleman 
answer whether he is going to vote for final passage of the emergency 
supplemental?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, am 
I going to vote for it? I have been speaking for 2 days in opposition 
to it. Where have you been?
  Mr. STEARNS. So the gentleman is going to vote no?
  Mr. OBEY. You bet. It is an outrageous breaking of the bank. But you 
are going after a gnat instead of an elephant.
  Mr. STEARNS. Well, I do not consider this a gnat, one-tenth of----
  Mr. OBEY. All right. It is a flea.
  Mr. STEARNS. Let us call it a cat or a dog or something. But the 
point is, it is a start. And so the gentleman from Wisconsin is going 
to vote against the emergency supplemental. If he is trying to fight 
for fiscal responsibility, as he has been saying today, then certainly 
if we are cutting nondefense and nonemergency items and it is something 
that has not even gone through his Committee on Appropriations that he 
is the ranking member on, I would think the gentleman would be more 
than happy to say, ``Stearns is a great amendment, I am with you, 
shoulder to shoulder we will fight for fiscal responsibility.''
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me say what my friend, Archie the 
Cockroach would observe: It is important to have a sense of proportion. 
What sense is there for a flea to fall in love with an elephant?
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, if the budget was a dollar and 10 cents 
was on the floor, I would try to save 10 cents, which is one-tenth of 
what we are talking about. So I urge my colleagues to think about it in 
that term. All the change that we have at home in our bedroom, we save 
it. We do not throw it in the trash because it might represent one-
tenth of a dollar. I am sure the gentleman has pennies at home in a 
little tray like we all do and these pennies pile up and we go to the 
bank and take these pennies in. I am sure the gentleman has quarters 
and dimes.
  Mr. Chairman, we are only talking about 10 percent of the 
nonemergency and nondefense. So if my colleagues are keeping in their 
pocket right now pennies and dimes and quarters, then I would think 
they would be somebody that would want to support this amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I wish he would vote for the bill, 
though.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct the statement of the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). He said that I supported the 
supplemental when I was chairman. There never was a supplemental 
appropriation bill when I was chairman, so the gentleman is wrong on 
that fact too.
  What the gentleman has done with his amendment, we have got a nice 
fat sugar donut on the floor and he is managing to go after the hole.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I just want to remind the Members that we 
reduced the President's budget request in the supplemental from over 
$400 million to $160 million. That was in the nonemergency part of the 
bill. So we have already made a substantial reduction. But the $420 
million worth of offsets, we kept those offsets. So we really made some 
money for the taxpayer in that regard.
  Another point is that defense has become a part of this discussion. I 
mentioned in my opening comments about the nuclear weapons facilities 
that we need to upgrade for safety reasons. That is national defense. 
The nuclear weapons facilities are part of our national defense. They 
are a major part of our deterrence that says to the rest of the world: 
Do not mess with America.
  But those facilities have to be safe to protect the people who live 
around them and work around them. The Stearns amendment would make a 
reduction in monies going to make those nuclear weapons facilities 
safe. I just cannot accept that amendment. I wish that I could, but I 
cannot.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, since the subject has been raised, and since the 
subject of what the content is of this bill and ``Who shot John and who 
has not'' in terms of busting the budget, I think it is important to 
point out the facts on the overall bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), ranking member on the Committee on the Budget, 
to illuminate the House on that matter.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, shortly the House will pass a $12.6 billion 
supplemental appropriation bill. I guess it will pass. The House should 
understand that this bill, this supplemental, breaches the spending 
levels that were set just last week when we passed the House Republican 
budget resolution passed.
  During the debate of the budget resolution, we tried to point out 
that the Republican resolution assumed 5-year spending cuts of $117 
billion, which we did not believe that the Congress, under Democrats or 
Republicans, was likely to make or would make based on past experience.
  The supplemental appropriations bill the House will adopt is $4.1 
million in budget authority above the funding level that was assumed 
just last week in the House budget resolution. And since the extra 
spending is not fully offset, the surplus for fiscal year 2000, fiscal 
year 2001, and fiscal year 2002 will be lower.
  We had a chart on the House floor last week. We have not been able to 
blow it up again. We do not have the equipment that they do. I have it 
run on a single 8\1/2\ by 11 page. It picks up where we left off when I 
was trying to say last week that if we assume that we do the Medicare 
prescription drug benefit, 45 billion over 5, 155 billion over 10, and 
you do what you said you were going to do and pass a $200 billion tax 
cut, that you would soon be back into Social Security.
  Well, there were objections on that side saying we were not 
distributing the actual revenue losses due to the tax cut properly. So 
we said give us the numbers. Give us the numbers. We got the numbers, 
and we have run the numbers. We have added in this particular bill that 
we are about to pass, this supplemental, and here is how it 
distributes.
  Pass this and pass the budget resolution, enact the resolution that 
we did last week, and the surplus this year will go to $4.9 billion. 
Next year, a surplus of $15 billion will go to $7.8 billion. In 2002, 
pass the budget resolution we did last week, pass this supplemental, 
factor in the results, in 2002 we are $541 million in deficit. In 2003, 
we are $172 million in deficit. This is using your numbers and your 
assumptions and your budget resolutions.
  In 2004, we are $68 million in deficit. That is where this takes us, 
if we also pass the budget resolution. If Members voted for the 
Republican budget resolution last week, and if they vote for the 
supplemental today, these numbers, your numbers, clearly say we are 
headed straight into the Social Security surplus. That is where it 
takes us. Purely arithmetic. These are the consequences of having this 
ad hoc resolution on the floor and of having a budget resolution which, 
frankly, is not realistic.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not contesting the validity of items in this 
supplemental. I support many of them and will probably vote for it. But 
I am contesting the validity of the budget resolution and the 
assumption that we can

[[Page H1607]]

do the things that we did last week, because it did not factor in the 
things that we are doing this week.

                              {time}  1200

  Who in this House, who in this House thinks that the $1.6 billion, or 
whatever it is we are providing for Colombia, is a nonrecurring item 
that we will wipe the problem out with this one-time allotment?
  Who thinks that these adjustments in military pay to get around the 
food stamps problem and base housing will not recur again or that we 
will not have the O&M requirements again in the future?
  My colleagues have understated discretionary spending in their 
resolution; and based upon that understatement, they projected a tax 
cut that is simply not sustainable. If my colleagues do that, let me 
repeat it again, if my colleagues who voted for the Republican budget 
resolution last week, and if my colleagues vote today for this 
supplemental, according to our calculation and their numbers, they will 
be back in deficit in a year's time, back into Social Security.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, in addition to that, the fact is that, for 
this fiscal year, rather than the next fiscal year about which the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has just been speaking, for 
this fiscal year, if my colleagues vote for this bill, they are going 
to be voting for a bill which is $17 billion in spending over the 
amount the President asked for for this existing fiscal year. I will be 
interested to see how many so-called fiscal conservatives are going to 
do that.


                    Amendment Offered By Ms. Kaptur

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur:
       Page 80, after line 11, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 5109. The Secretary of Energy shall annually acquire 
     and store as part of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     300,000,000 gallons of ethanol and 100,000,000 gallons of 
     biodiesel fuel. Such fuels shall be obtained in exchange for, 
     or purchased with funds realized from the sale of, crude oil 
     from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida reserves a point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday March 29, 2000, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am proposing is very 
straightforward. Essentially what it does is it allows the Secretary of 
Energy at this time of very high gas prices to take a portion of our 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, draw it down, and use the proceeds to 
purchase ethanol and biodiesel, adding those to the reserves that we 
have across this country. There is no budget impact to this proposal.
  Essentially what we are doing here is recognizing that rising gas 
prices, in fact, harm and create havoc within our economy. This is a 
great economic vulnerability and a great military vulnerability.
  We also recognize that we want to encourage domestic production of 
all fuels to the best extent possible. My colleagues should know that 
92 percent of the fuels, the crude in the Petroleum Reserve, in the 
SPRO, has been imported. So it is not domestic. In fact, what fueled 
America this past year, over two-thirds of it is all imported. This is 
not a position that we should permit for our great country.
  This amendment promotes alternative fuels focused on biofuels, 
specifically ethanol and biodiesel. It is a very reasonable proposal. 
Even after being implemented, this would represent less than 2 percent 
of all fuel that is in the reserve.
  In addition, it is very competitive in the sense that, if one looks 
at the prices of ethanol now at about a dollar a gallon, when one 
purchases the amount we are talking about here, 300 million gallons, 
and biodiesel at $1.50, we are at the point now where it makes sense to 
do this.
  In addition, let me say, if one looks at the SPRO today, there are 
about 750 million barrels in it or allowed to be in it. But only 575 
million are actually in it, which means we have a shortfall of 175 
million barrels. So there is room in terms of the authority that exists 
within the law.
  So I would just ask for favorable consideration of this. In 
particular, at a time when prices in rural America are so very low, let 
us use the cellulose, let us use the power of the fields and force of 
our country and help put us on a course of renewables and not such 
dependence on imported fuel inside this great economy. I ask for 
favorable consideration of the membership of what I believe is a very 
worthy amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             Point Of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) wish to 
make his point of order at this point?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because 
it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on the 
appropriations 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 exchanging existing law.''
  The amendment directly amends existing law.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from Ohio wish to be heard briefly 
on the point of order?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I wish to say I have the greatest respect 
in the world for the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of 
the full committee, and also the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies.
  I would hope that, as we move toward conference, we might find some 
language that would achieve some of what we wish to have happen here, 
giving direction to the administration at a time in our country where 
the American people expect us to do more than dither here in the 
Nation's chief legislative body. I really think we have a reasonable 
direction here.
  I thank the gentleman from Florida for permitting me to talk on this 
amendment. I will withdraw the amendment in hopes that, as we move 
toward conference, we might be able to find some reasonable course here 
to help America find a better way in this new century.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we will work with the gentlewoman 
and try to do that.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Ohio?
  There was no objection.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered By Mr. Paul

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

       Amendment No. 5 printed in the Congressional Record offered 
     by Mr. Paul:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec.   . (a) The amounts otherwise provided in title I for 
     the following accounts are hereby reduced by the following 
     amounts:
       (1) ``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--Drug Enforcement 
     Administration--Salaries and Expenses'', $293,048,000.
       (2) ``DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY--OTHER DEPARTMENT OF 
     DEFENSE PROGRAMS--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug 
     Activities, Defense'', $185,800,000.
       (3) ``BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE--Funds Appropriated to 
     the President--Department of State--Assistance for Plan 
     Colombia and for Andean Regional Counternarcotics 
     Activities'', $1,099,000,000.
       (b) None of the funds made available in title I for 
     ``Military Construction, Defense-Wide'' may be used for 
     construction outside of the United States or any of its 
     territories or possessions.
       (c) None of the funds made available in title II may be 
     used for operations in Kosovo or East Timor, other than the 
     return of United States personnel and property to the United 
     States.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday,

[[Page H1608]]

March 29, 2000, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to assure the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that I am not dealing with a fly, a gnat, or 
a flea with my amendment. I would rather not categorize this as dealing 
with an elephant for obvious reasons.
  But I would like to say that my amendment deals with what I consider 
a monster, and that monster to me is careless foreign military 
interventionism in which we engage way too often and something we are 
getting ready to further engage ourselves now in Colombia.
  I am quite convinced that, when most of the Members go back to their 
districts, they never brag and they never say that, ``I go to 
Washington, and I always vote for the United States to be the policemen 
of the world. I enjoy deferring to the United Nations and NATO forces 
for us to pursue some of our policies overseas.'' Quite frankly, I 
believe most of us go home and say that we do not believe that the 
United States should be the policemen of the world.
  Earlier on, we debated the issue of whether or not our allies are 
paying their fair share, and it is obvious they are not. So not only do 
we defer to them for policy and we extend ourselves throughout the 
world, we actually end up paying the bill, as most American citizens 
know.
  Last year, when we were dealing with Kosovo and our initial 
involvement in there, we had several votes on the floor dealing with 
the sentiment of the Congress. For the most part, the sentiment was 
strongly opposed to our military troops being placed in Kosovo.
  But, unfortunately, when it came time to deal with the funding, we 
were all too anxious to permit and authorize and appropriate the money 
to go into Kosovo. Today we are continuing to fund our activities in 
Kosovo as well as Bosnia, East Timor, and now with plans to go into 
South America, principally Colombia.
  My amendment deals with this. It would strike these funds, and it 
would permit funds to be used in Kosovo to bring troops home. Some 
people argue that if we strike funds for areas like Kosovo, that we are 
deserting our troops and it will be detrimental to their morale. Quite 
the opposite. I think it would absolutely be helpful, because the 
morale of our servicemen cannot get much lower. The morale is low 
because they do not know what their real function is in areas where 
we're involved. They have become policemen dealing with local laws as 
well as Peace Corps type operators.
  The morale would be tremendously helped by bringing these troops 
home. This is what this amendment deals with. And it strikes the 
funding for the expansion of our efforts in Central America.
  In Colombia, there are a lot of weapons already, and we are 
responsible for 80 percent of them. There is one irony about this bill 
that strikes me. The administration and many here on the floor who vote 
for these weapons are the same individuals who are anxious to prohibit 
the right of an American citizen to own a cheap weapon in self-defense. 
At the same time, they are quite willing to tax these individuals and 
take their money to spend it on the weapons of war around the world and 
become involved in no-win situations.
  I cannot think of a worse situation where there is a four-way faction 
in Colombia for us to get further involved. Buying 63 helicopters is 
bound to cause trouble and some will be shot down thus requiring more 
involvement by American troops.
  It is time to reassess this policy; to come home. We should not be 
the policemen of the world. The American people are not anxious for us 
to do this. They have spoken out. A recent poll has shown that 70 
percent of the American people are very anxious for us not to be 
involved in policing the world. They certainly are not interested in us 
placing United States troops under the command of U.N. and NATO forces.
  This is a good time for the Members of the Congress to decide whether 
or not they would like to vote clearly and say to the American people, 
``I do not endorse the concept that we should have an open-ended 
commitment to the world, to be the policemen of the world.'' This is 
what this amendment says. Quite frankly, the large majority of the 
American people are strongly supportive of this position.
  This is a clear amendment. This is not dealing with a gnat or a flea. 
This is dealing with a principle. Some say this amendment deals with a 
principle of foreign policy, and we should defer to the President.
  That is not correct. Under the Constitution, the words ``foreign 
policy'' do not exist. All the obligations fall on the Congress, 
especially with the power of the purse. The President is the Commander 
in Chief. But he should never send troops around the world without 
permission, which all Presidents continuously have done in the last 50 
years. This amendment addresses that subject.
  I would have preferred an amendment that would have struck some of 
these funds from overseas and placed them into beefing up the military, 
increasing the pay of our military personnel, giving them better 
housing and better medical care, as well as having some of those funds 
spent here at home. That amendment was not permissible under the rule.
  But this point, if my colleagues are anxious to make it, can be made 
by voting for this amendment. If you are sick and tired of America 
being the patsy, sick and tired of us picking up the bill, sick and 
tired of our troops being exposed around the world, this is the 
amendment to support.
  I think this is a very important amendment, and I the American people 
support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to agree with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Paul) that this is not an insignificant amendment. This is a major 
amendment. But here is what it does. It waves the white flag of 
surrender in the war against the drug lords in Colombia, which provide 
most of the drugs, illegal drugs that come into the United States. Now 
we want to wage the effort to eliminate those drugs at their source. 
This waves the flag of surrender.
  I have already talked many times during the various amendments today 
about the money for Kosovo. This bill is not sending any money to 
Kosovo. The money spent in Kosovo was already spent. The President made 
that deployment without getting the approval of the Congress, but the 
money has been spent. The money was taken from the fourth quarter 
operations and maintenance accounts of the military services, which 
means, if we do not replace that money, they have to stand down their 
training activities for the last quarter.
  This amendment is also very significant. It deals with military 
construction. It says that none of the funds can be used for 
construction outside of the United States or its territories or 
possessions.
  I wonder if the gentleman from Texas is not familiar with the fact 
that we have 37,000 American troops in Korea, in and around Korea, in 
that region, 37,000 American troops. They need some medical facilities. 
They need some housing, some new housing. The facilities are very old 
in Korea.
  The CINC who just retired from Korea has given us a substantial 
argument as to why there are military construction requirements in 
Korea. The new CINC, who has just assumed the job in Korea, has also 
told us that there are needs in military construction.
  This amendment would prohibit us doing for our troops who are in 
Korea, whether they like it or not, and that is not one of the most 
favored deployed areas, those needed construction jobs. That to me is 
significant.
  If we cannot take care of our own troops, and we have been there ever 
since the end of the Korean War, and it is at least a year-long 
deployment for most of the troops that are there, we cannot even 
consider supporting this amendment if we believe that we have a 
responsibility to the Americans who serve in uniform.

[[Page H1609]]

                              {time}  1215

  And I urge a strong rejection of the Paul amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Texas has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do not believe for one minute this is a surrender to the drug war. 
This is an acknowledgment that the $250 billion we have spent over the 
last 25 years has not worked; that the strategy against drugs is wrong.
  Why continue a war that does not work? This is money down a rat hole. 
This is totally wasted money and, as far as I am concerned, only an 
excuse to sell helicopters and go in to Colombia and protect oil 
interests. That is the real reason why we are down there.
  We say this is only replacement of money for Kosovo. Well, what makes 
us think if we put the money in and replace it the President will not 
do the same thing over again? Of course he will. The fact that we are 
not watching the purse strings tightly enough is the problem.
  The gentleman suggests that this would mean that there would be no 
more building and no support for our troops in Korea. My amendment only 
deals with the money in this supplemental. What about the current 
year's budget? Those funds can still be spent. But it also suggests 
that we shall question how long are we going to be in Korea. It is time 
to start thinking about these matters. It is time to bring these troops 
home.
  If we want to spend the money, spend it here at home. Spend the money 
here. Build up our national defense. If we wish to continually expand 
our interventionism and aggravation overseas, then I guess we have to 
vote against this amendment and for the bill. But this is a policy 
statement. Should we continue current policy of forever spending money 
and being involved overseas? I say it is time to start thinking about 
what is good for our people, what is good for our taxpayers, what is 
good for national defense, and what is good for our constitutional 
republic. Should we be doing this? I do not think so. Are we authorized 
to do it? No, we are not authorized to police the world.
  This is the furtherest stretch of the imagination to believe that 
what we are spending here on this budget, especially what we are going 
to do in Colombia, has anything to do with national security. What are 
we worried about? Are the Colombians going to attack us? This is not 
national security. This is special interest spending. This is 
conservative welfarism; that is what it is.
  We condemn all the welfare from the left, but we always have our own 
welfare on the right, and it is not for national defense. We should do 
less of this military adventurism overseas and put it into national 
defense, take better care of our troops, which would boost morale, and 
increase our ability to defend our country. But, instead, what do we 
do? We subsidize our enemies to the tune of many billions of dollars 
for a country like China at the same time, when they are aggravated and 
annoyed with Taiwan, we send more weapons to Taiwan and then promise to 
send American servicemen to stand in between the two of them.
  Some day we should ask the question of whether is this policy in good 
for us. I am frightened to think that this will only change either when 
we are in such a mess, a lot worse than Vietnam, or we totally go broke 
or both. But we should not wait. We should speak out and do what is 
best for our country. We have a good guideline as to what we should do 
in foreign policy, and it comes from the constitution, certainly we 
should note the tradition of the last 50 years. The Constitution gives 
us the guidance to pursue a proper foreign policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time 
I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 7 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, let me take this opportunity to associate 
myself with the comments of the chairman, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young). He is right on on this.
  What this amendment does is absolutely ignores the history and the 
role the United States has played since the days of Harry Truman, and I 
think that opposition to this amendment is proper and just and it must 
be defeated.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time and let me begin by congratulating the gentleman 
in the manner in which he has conducted this debate. I think he has 
done a wonderful job, both yesterday and today.
  I do rise in opposition to this amendment, because I believe it goes 
too far, it covers too many things, and withdraws from too many places 
and too many important operations. However, I do want to speak more 
favorably at least on one aspect of the amendment. This appropriation 
package has, as its linchpin, aid to Colombia. That is both its 
greatest strength and, I am afraid, its greatest risk. It is risky 
because its success in the long run is dependent upon cooperation and 
commitment, a commitment to justice on the part of the Colombian 
government, and this is, I am afraid, where I have some doubts.
  Just over a year ago three innocent Americans were discovered, their 
bodies. They had been brutally slaughtered in northeast Colombia, 
slaughtered while they were educating the people of northeast Colombia, 
slaughtered by thugs from FARC narcoterrorists. One of these Americans 
was a constituent of mine, Ingrid Washinawatok of Menominee County, 
Wisconsin. If we are not careful, I am afraid these three Americans may 
become victimized yet once again. And here is why.
  Last October, this body unanimously, unanimously, passed a Sense of 
the Congress Resolution which decried these murders, condemned FARC, 
but also, and this is the most important part, called upon the 
government of Colombia to arrest and to extradite to the United States 
for criminal trial these awful people. Some weeks ago, at a 
subcommittee hearing before the Committee on International Relations, I 
had the chance to ask our drug czar, the esteemed General Barry 
McCaffrey, for help in pushing for extradition. He assured me he would, 
and he assured me that he would keep me and my constituents posted. 
Unfortunately, I have to report today that we have heard nothing from 
him.
  And now, just recently, we have heard from the president of Colombia 
that he will not extradite at least one of these murderers, German 
Briceno. So it looks as though the family of Ingrid Washinawatok may be 
let down once again. For this initiative, for this initiative aiding 
Colombia, to work, there must be trust, there must be understanding, 
and there must be a commitment to justice; and I am afraid that 
commitment may be slipping away.
  I see my friend and colleague, the esteemed chairman of the Committee 
on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), 
and I would ask him and ask the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the drug czar, 
and the President all to help us push for extradition.
  I do speak in opposition. I believe this amendment goes too far, but 
some of the sentiments are valid.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
because I want to assure him that we will try to work with him in 
conference, and wherever we can, to assist in his desire in getting 
this criminal extradited.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman. That means a great deal to us. And I thank the chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations as well, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat that this is a serious amendment and 
should

[[Page H1610]]

be rejected in a very serious way. Now, the issues that our colleague, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), has raised, are major policy 
decisions that need to be made, but this is not the bill to do so.
  I would suggest to the gentleman that he should go to the Committee 
on International Relations or he should go to the Committee on Armed 
Services to deal with the issues that he has raised. He deserves a 
debate on those issues but not on this bill. This is an appropriations 
bill, this is not a bill where policy is set. And so I ask the Paul 
amendment be rejected in a very strong and serious way.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for debate on this amendment has 
expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Paul).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi:
       To restrict funding for in excess of 300 U.S. military 
     personnel in Colombia.
       On page 80 after line 11, insert the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be expended for the support of in excess of 300 United States 
     military personnel in Colombia.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Wednesday, March 29, 2000, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) 
and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
claims the time in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I ask my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, for a few minutes to try to 
remember what it was like before we all got caught up in which party we 
are in and which committee chairman is for something and which 
committee chairman is against it, and try to remember why I think all 
of us ran for this office. It was to do good things and to keep bad 
things from happening.
  It is the second point that I would like to discuss today, because I 
think that the needless loss of an American service person is quite 
possibly the worst thing that can happen.
  The amendment that I am offering today is an effort to keep a bad 
thing from needlessly happening. Colombia is a dangerous place. The 
FARC and the ELN, the two primary guerilla groups, now control better 
than 40 percent of the Colombian countryside. They are well financed, 
they are well armed, they are well trained. And in increasing 
instances, they are working in large units to overwhelm Colombian army 
outposts; and just this week killed about 30 Colombian policemen.
  In my opinion, they threaten the Nation of Colombia. And yet the 
political leaders of Colombia in the past year have reduced their 
defense spending. The political leaders of Colombia in the past couple 
of months have actually changed their law so that people who hold a 
high school diploma are no longer eligible for the draft in Colombia. 
In private conversations with their business leaders, they tell me, 
yes, there are taxes on the books, but they do not pay them. And I 
suspect that they are expecting someone else's kid to defend their 
country.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. We have no problem on this side with the amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank 
the gentleman and assure him I will go quickly.
  Usually it is some poor uneducated kid from the Colombian 
countryside, and I get every indication that they expect American kids 
to fight in a war they will not fight in and the American taxpayers to 
pay for a war that they will not pay for.
  It is with some hesitation that I will vote to help them with 
America's money and equipment. I will not, however, vote to send 
America's sons and daughters off to fight a war in Colombia that the 
sons and daughters of Colombia and their political leaders often will 
not fight in.
  This amendment would limit America's troop strength in Colombia to 
300 military personnel. In a hearing before the House Committee on 
Armed Services last week on Colombia, General Charles Wilhelm, the 
United States Commander in Chief of the Southern Command, was told of 
my reservations and asked if he would agree to a troop limitation. His 
response was:

       Would I be willing, as the Commander in Chief of the United 
     States Southern Command, to subscribe to a properly 
     considered and developed troop cap for Colombia? I certainly 
     would. Categorically, yes.

  That was 1 week ago today.
  I am asking my colleagues to put such a cap on American troop 
strength in Colombia. Should it be the will of the majority of this 
House to break that cap, then it should be done in a deliberate manner 
and by a vote of this body, and not something that some president on a 
whim gets us involved in.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment is an 
important one because it helps point out the fact that the strategic 
thought on the fight against drugs is being directed in the wrong 
place.

                              {time}  1230

  What should happen and should, of course, come from the Colombian 
military and their government is to put a stop to the traffic, the drug 
traffic coming across the Andes by air as the Peruvians stopped, and 
through the three, and only three, mountain passes through the Andes. 
Instead, we might find ourselves enmeshed in a civil war, going after 
one-third of the guerillas who, of course, are being supported by the 
drug trafficking.
  The proposed strategy is a 6-year strategy; that should not be. It 
should be one where you shoot down the airplanes as they fly over the 
Andes and stop up the three passes and then should we look at assisting 
in going after the guerillas if that be our policy. Let us go the first 
things first.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield our 10 minutes for 
purposes of control to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Without 
objection, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) will control 10 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, as my colleague, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), indicated we are not going to have any 
problem with this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Bateman).
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman (Mr. 
Lewis of California) for yielding me this time. I do not rise in 
opposition to this amendment. I would not ask for a rollcall vote on 
this amendment.
  I do have to tell my colleagues in the House that within the last 
hour, I have spoken to General Wilhelm; and General Wilhelm says that 
he does not believe this figure of a 300-person cap on military 
personnel in Colombia is realistic. And he does not know where it came 
from.
  If there was going to be a cap, as he said in his statement before 
the committee, it should be properly considered and developed. This, I 
do not believe meets that test. I am not opposed

[[Page H1611]]

to there being one. And I would hope in the course of the legislative 
process that that kind of deliberation on what the cap should be and 
what exemptions might be in order to that cap would be a matter that 
would be considered.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for 
time, but I reserve the balance of my time. I am prepared to yield it 
back as soon as we are through on both sides.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful for the 
help of the committee chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I think that it is very, very 
important, speaking as a Member of the Committee on Armed Services who 
was there when this statement was made, and reflecting for a moment on 
very cogent remarks of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman), the 
reason that we need to pass this today is to at least set in motion the 
fact that we are not going to make an open-ended commitment here.
  We are dealing with numbers that have been the case so far with the 
commitment of the United States. It is very, very important in the 
context of what has happened from Vietnam on that we not find ourselves 
stumbling into something from which we cannot come back, getting into 
something from which we cannot retreat if it is found to be necessary. 
Of course, we need to take into account exactly what should be done 
with respect to numbers or anything else, but failing to do this today 
we will find ourselves in a position where that kind of benchmark has 
not been established.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is very, very important for us to pass this 
amendment today on the basis that we do not find ourselves drifting 
inextricably into a situation that we cannot only control, but for the 
consequences of which may be something that all of us would find most 
grievous in terms of what the Congress of the United States did.
  I recognize that we are near the end of a day in which people may be 
leaving; that the full attention may not be on this question right now. 
That is even a more important reason that we pass this amendment today.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to yield the 
balance of my time, presuming the other side is as well.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Wicker) for their assistance in this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for debate on this amendment has 
expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

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

       Amendment No. 16 printed in the Congressional Record 
     offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       At the end of the bill, add the following section.
       Sec. __. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for RELATED 
     AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF 
     HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES--Food and Drug Administration 
     Buildings and Facilities by $20 million.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Wednesday, March 29, 2000, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in the proud tradition of the $500 hammer, the $1,000 
toilet seat and the $1 million outhouse, the FDA and this bill now 
bring us a hugely expensive Federal office building in Los Angeles. 
This building, 133,000 square feet, will cost us, when it is done both 
in construction and in land acquisition and design, some $53 million. 
That is an extraordinarily expensive piece of property, and as you can 
see by this picture here, it looks nothing like what one would consider 
to be an appropriate design building for a Federal Government agency.
  By the way, this amount, this $52 million, $53 million for this 
133,000 square foot building does not include the cost of furniture, 
telecommunications, or security systems. It is just the building and 
the land. Yes, there are some laboratories in the building, but that 
does not account for the massive expense.
  It is the incredible opulence of this building, the building itself, 
a rendering of which, by the way, the architect proudly displays on his 
Web site, and proud he should be.
  Look at this thing. Does this look like a building designed with the 
slightest consideration for cost containment? Of course not. But why 
should anyone care. After all, it is just government money.
  Let us take this $20 million that they are asking this year and use 
it for debt reduction and not for pork production.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this construction project is not included in this bill 
at the request of any Member. This replacement laboratory has been in 
the agency's program of requirements for some time. It was included in 
the President's budget request last year, and it was included in the 
House-passed bill last year.
  As we moved towards our conference agreement last year, this was one 
item that we could not fit within our overall spending levels. But that 
did not mean that the requirement went away. It only meant that the 
building has gotten older, more decrepit, and more dangerous for 
employees.
  What is done in this laboratory? This lab does the scientific and 
analytical work that backs up the FDA's consumer-protection mission, 
with a heavy emphasis on the surveillance of important products. Fully 
25 percent of the agency's laboratory work related to imports is done 
in this one location.
  What happens if this replacement construction is further delayed? 
Eventually, and the time is soon, operations in the existing facility 
will have to halt because of the combination of lack of worker safety 
and questionable scientific results due to substandard conditions.
  What happens then? Laboratory work will be performed elsewhere at 
reduced efficiency and higher costs. Turnaround time on sample analysis 
will increase, and fresh imported foods being held for this analysis 
will rot on the dock; or worse yet, unsafe food will find its way to 
our homes and tables.
  So if the goal is to increase the cost of Federal efforts to ensure 
the safety of imported products, increase the health risks to the 
American consumer, increase the risk to Federal workers in doing their 
jobs, and increase the cost of industry of complying with necessary 
regulation, then, by all means, my colleagues should support this 
amendment.
  I do not support those goals; and, therefore, I oppose the amendment. 
Mr. Chairman, I ask all Members to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been on the ground at this facility. It is an 
absolutely ruinous situation, very dangerous. I do not know whose 
artistic presentation that was. But in a place where this facility is 
today, it has to be redone and has to be moved, or we will lose it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
in response.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, the artist rendering of the building that 
we presented here is the architect, the architect that has been hired 
by FDA. This we took off of his Web site. This is not our 
representation. This is the artist rendering the building that they are 
going to put on a piece of property that

[[Page H1612]]

they have purchased for somewhere around $9.8 million is the cost they 
gave us for land acquisition and for some design.
  Let us assume that the design was for a million dollars. Let us 
assume that the architect got to us for a million dollars for the 
design. That still means that we paid almost, what, $800,000 or 
$900,000 an acre for the property on which this is going to sit. And 
after we do that, we are going to build a building that will cost us 
$100 to $300 a square foot.
  This is enormously expensive, incredibly opulent. This is not a 
conservative stewardship of tax dollars when it comes to building 
Federal buildings. And then let me say that my colleague has indicated 
what happens in this building and he leads us to believe that there is 
a great deal of concern that we should have if these people do not have 
all this room.
  There is almost, by the way, 700 square feet individual space per 
employee in this building. The GSA standard, by the way, runs to about 
175 feet; and that is even including the expanse outside of one's work 
space, the average that the GSA indicates. This is a 700-square-foot-
per-employee building.
  Let me tell my colleagues what is going to go on in this building 
that is so incredibly important to the health and safety of the Nation. 
We took this off of the FDA's Web site about what they do. This is what 
they describe as what will be going on in this building for the Office 
of Regulatory Affairs:
  Advises and assists the commissioner and other key officials in 
regulations; coordinates, interprets, and evaluates the agency's 
overall compliance efforts; stimulates awareness within the agency of 
the need for prompt and positive action to assure compliance; evaluates 
and coordinates all proposed legal actions to ascertain compliance; 
executes direct-line authority over all agency field operations; 
provides direction and counsel to the regional food and drug directors; 
develops and/or recommends to the commissioner policy programs plans.
  All this bureaucratic gobbledygook, which we know really and truly, 
when we get down to it, what is this all about but a lot of paper 
shuffling.
  We are not talking about a massive building with a great many 
laboratories in it. What has happened here is that they are 
consolidating two office buildings and one lab into this building. But 
the majority is office building, office building.

                              {time}  1245

  Look at that office building. I ask my colleagues, how many buildings 
even here in Washington, DC, do we see that look like that? It is not 
the cost of what goes on inside that building necessarily or the 
construction of it that is so expensive, it is what it looks like.
  This is something again, even if it is necessary, Mr. Chairman, even 
if everything that my colleague has said is necessary, I ask, is this 
an emergency, on the level of the hurricane disaster, on the level of 
all the other things that we know to be in the true definition of the 
term emergency it is known to fit. But if some FDA employee has to go 
to a building that is less convenient, perhaps less opulent, certainly 
dustier and in a seedier neighborhood, because that is what they list 
here as being their big problem, they do not like the neighborhood 
where they presently are housed. They do not like the neighborhood. I 
am sorry about that. A lot of folks I know are not terribly pleased, 
but they do not have the luxury of just coming to the Congress and 
getting $52 million to move out.
  I should say to my colleagues that if that is what really prompts 
this kind of move, it is not an emergency, it should not be in here. If 
all the things that are true about the need for this kind of 
construction are there, then it should come through the regular 
process, go through the regular appropriations process and end up yea 
or nay on the floor. It should not be in this particular piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I want to say 
to the gentleman from Colorado that had he contacted our subcommittee 
at any point during our discussions on this, perhaps we could have 
clarified some of the misinformation that he is bringing to the floor. 
This is not an office building. This is a laboratory. One-quarter of 
all imported food that comes into our country is probed and the samples 
from that are sent through this lab.
  Keep in mind that in our country today, we only are able to test, the 
American people cannot even believe this but it is true, less than 2 
percent of what comes over our borders. But of what we do test, one-
quarter is sent to this lab, which by the way I wish he would put up 
the picture of the current obsolescent, dilapidated embarrassment that 
sits in South Los Angeles today that calls itself a building and a lab 
which is unsafe for the workers to work in.
  The reason this is an emergency, and we should have passed this last 
year, is simply because the building is in such bad shape if this does 
not pass and we cannot start construction very soon, and this has been 
a competitively bid project, that means that we are going to have to 
move everybody out of that lab and put them somewhere else which will 
be a waste of taxpayers' money. We ought to get this building up. If he 
takes the trees off that little drawing he has got there and just look 
at the building, it does not look too fancy to me.
  They had to come in within budget, what was budgeted for it. If we 
think about what is happening in our country today, 5,000 people died 
last year of food poisoning in our country. Seventy-three million had 
different types of illnesses related to food. Of what is coming over 
the border, over 5 percent of what we do test has microbiological 
pathogens such as E. coli and salmonella and shigella.
  This is a serious situation. We should not ask people to work in 
those kinds of conditions. It is an embarrassment to the city of Los 
Angeles to have this antiquated structure there. I do not think it 
would be a very pleasant place to go to work. As conditions are today, 
it certainly is not. This particular lab located where it is in 
Southern California, way out there in the Southwest, I am sure his 
California colleagues do not support this because we have so much 
produce coming in from Mexico now and it is growing at alarming rates, 
we have to be able to test this in the public interest.
  I should tell the gentleman that the L.A. district, not just this lab 
or the border but the L.A. district, the region, represents one of the 
three largest ports of entry for all commodities coming into the United 
States. This is a place that needs attention. I do not think it would 
be very wise to shut it down or to try to transfer it to some other 
part of the country. If we probe in Texas, we have to send the probes 
over to Los Angeles because we do not have enough money to build other 
labs. I say let us build a structure that will stand for a number of 
years.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman, if he had come to 
our committee and we could have spent time talking with him about this, 
we would be happy to work with him in the months ahead. I personally 
will be willing to go with the gentleman out there and see what we have 
got now. I leave it to the experts to build the new lab, but let us 
move on with it. It is the 21st century, let us get out of the 19th. 
Defeat the Tancredo amendment.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The information that we have about this facility comes to us from the 
FDA. It is their own information. It is their own documentation. It is 
the rationale for their budget request. It states that restricted funds 
will serve to consolidate three district's sites, the laboratory on 
People Boulevard, the current district office in Irvine, and the San 
Pedro resident post.
  If that has changed and it is a different configuration than this, I 
will be happy to entertain that consideration, but that is what they 
said this is for. They also said that this replacement facility was 
going to house 75 laboratory staff and 120 office personnel at an 
estimated construction cost of $40.4 million.
  Again, $40.4 million for the building and the gentlewoman and I both 
know that the building will never come in at that amount. When was the 
last time a

[[Page H1613]]

Federal building project ever came in at budget? But our best hope is 
$40.4 million. Again add the $9.8 million to that that we have spent 
for land and design, and we have got a building that is now approaching 
$400 per square foot in cost. This is extraordinary.
  I repeat, that if all of the information provided is inaccurate that 
we have here, if there is greater need than what we are able to 
identify on this floor and certainly than what has been able to be 
offered here on the other side as a justification for this expenditure, 
I suggest that all could have been done in an even more appropriate 
setting and, that is, the regular appropriations process, a committee 
of reference, not just an appropriations committee but an authorizing 
committee.
  The Citizens for Government Waste has identified this particular 
project as a particularly egregious example of government waste, and 
they are supporting the amendment. They and others have looked at this 
whole thing and recognize that once again it is not just the fact that 
we may need a building. I am not arguing that point. Some facility may 
be necessary. I certainly would not stand here and tell Members that 
all of the claims to the contrary are accurate, but I am saying that a 
building of this nature is what I am concerned about and a building 
this expensive. Eight hundred, $900,000 an acre for the building for 10 
acres to build a 133,000 square foot building seems to me to be 
exorbitant.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have some questions for the proponent of this amendment. Regarding 
the gentleman's figures on the cost per square foot of the facility, 
does the gentleman realize that you do not test for botulism and 
salmonella in a garage? Does the gentleman understand that you do not 
test for E. coli with a high school science kit in your kitchen? Would 
the gentleman be happy if FDA were testing the food that he and his 
family eat and that the families of all the Members here eat using old, 
outmoded equipment in poor facilities?
  Is there a Member in this body who does not want the country to have 
the safest and best food supply in the world? Is there a Member in this 
body who thinks that we can do that on the cheap?
  Mr. Chairman, here in Washington, we are pretty good at taking care 
of ourselves. We have nice offices, nice staff, lots of parking. We 
even have our own police force. We work here less than half the days in 
the year. Why then do we expect Federal government employees to protect 
our food supply and our health every day of every week of every year 
and not give them the means to do it?
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I go back again to the information provided by the FDA about 
what exactly goes on in the Office of Regulatory Affairs for which this 
building is being constructed, the Office of Regulatory Affairs. I read 
the list. I certainly did not give a detailed description of each one 
of these things because, quite frankly, they are quite amorphous. But I 
assure Members that none of them, not one of the things identified on 
this entire list except the last thing that says operates the Federal 
medical products quality assurance program for the agency is even 
remotely connected to the kind of thing my colleague brings up about 
what FDA does.
  Then we went to the Web site to find out exactly what the medical 
products quality assurance staff does to determine just exactly how 
close it came to this quality control issue. Here is what they do. This 
is again from the FDA. The functional statement for the medical quality 
assurance staff are develop and maintain liaison with the government 
agencies procuring medical products, develop and manage operational 
agreements and systems, receive and process requests from other Federal 
agencies, maintain liaison, coordinate, direct field and headquarter 
activities relating to the governmentwide assurance program.
  Mr. Chairman, nothing in here, nothing they have given us certainly, 
would lead us to believe that any of the activities going on in this 
building reach the level of importance in terms of maintaining the food 
quality of this Nation that has been identified.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
has expired.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to our colleagues, do not take a 
safe food supply for granted. We have to thank the lab workers across 
our country who work at wages below what they would earn in the private 
sector and in this Los Angeles lab I want to pin a gold star on every 
one of them because they work under terrible, terrible conditions.
  Yet they are there because they are dedicated to the public health 
and welfare of the people of the United States and to food safety. We 
still have the safest food supply in the world but we have got some 
tears in the fabric. One of the answers for us is to try to provide a 
more modern facility where we can test faster, move more product 
through and increase the amount of surveillance that we do as imports 
absolutely avalanche into this country.
  Remember, we only check now under 2 percent of the food that you buy, 
the fresh fruits and vegetables that you buy in the store, we only 
check less than 2 percent. We have had outbreaks across this country. 
The question becomes, are we going to put our money where our mouth is 
in terms of food safety for our families and for our children? Defeat 
the Tancredo amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think the essence of this thing is, Mr. Chairman, I do not know how 
many Members have seen this FDA laboratory in Los Angeles. I have. It 
is an absolute ruin. I have been there. I have seen what it is like for 
the FDA employees who work in the trenches, so to speak, doing the job 
that we all want them to do to ensure the safety of the food supply. 
They are in danger of their own situation because the place has been 
broken into time after time. It is in a terrible location. It is in a 
terrible state of repair. It is not worth this effort that we have gone 
through.
  I would say to the gentleman, a trip out there to see it would 
probably change his whole viewpoint because he has been led down the 
primrose path. Is this construction project an emergency? My answer is 
``yes.'' This facility is in such poor shape that it is getting in the 
way of FDA's performance and its consumer protection mission. That is 
not a small statement on the situation that we have in this particular 
laboratory. You have to go and see it. You cannot do it from the 
presentation that you have had from this today.
  I would like to read part of the letter I have received from an 
association known as the Grocery Manufacturers of America.
  I quote:

       On behalf of the members of the Grocery Manufacturers of 
     America (GMA), I want to express support for the continued 
     inclusion in H.R. 3908, the FY 2000 Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, of funding for the Food and Drug 
     Administration's (FDA) Los Angeles, California, laboratory 
     facility.
       The food industry agrees that FDA must have up-to-date 
     facilities and state-of-the-art laboratory instrumentation to 
     stay on top of the huge task of monitoring imported food 
     products, many of which enter the U.S. through southern 
     California. The current Los Angeles laboratory is an old, 
     outdated facility, with equipment and instrumentation that is 
     quite simply not up to the task. With more than 1 million 
     import entries through this facility alone, the undertaking 
     is enormous and the potential risk to the public of failing 
     to do the job properly is significant.
       As you may know, GMA is the world's largest association of 
     food, beverage and consumer product companies. With U.S. 
     sales of more than $460 billion, GMA members employ more than 
     2.5 million workers in all 50 states. The organization 
     applies legal, scientific and political expertise from its 
     member companies to vital food, nutrition and public policy 
     issues affecting the industry. Led by a board of 42 Chief 
     Executive Officers, GMA speaks for food and consumer product 
     manufacturers at the state, federal and international levels 
     on legislative and regulatory issues. The association also 
     leads efforts to increase productivity, efficiency and growth 
     in the food, beverage and consumer products industry.
       Food safety is one of our highest priorities, as we know it 
     is yours. Providing FDA with

[[Page H1614]]

     the funds it needs for its Los Angeles laboratory project is 
     definitely a needed component of a broad food safety agenda, 
     as it will ensure better response and more appropriate 
     scientific evaluations of potential risk from imported foods.

  Again, I oppose this amendment, and I ask all members to oppose this 
amendment.
  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. Tancredo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1300


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Baldacci

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Baldacci:
       On page 80, after line 11, insert the following:
       ``Sec. __. Funds made available under title IV of this act 
     for weatherization activities shall also be available for 
     other building technology assistance conservation activities 
     authorized in law''

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, March 
29, 2000, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) and the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to talk about the need for an energy 
policy, something that the leadership in this Congress has not yet 
addressed today or for the last 6 years.
  The amendment that I have introduced is a modest expansion of a 
number of programs funded with $19 million for weatherization 
assistance grants. Although it is a small change, it is all that was 
allowed; but it raises a larger question: When is this Congress going 
to do something, and what they do do is counterproductive to the 
interests of the American public.
  When one lives in a State where the temperature dips in below zero 
and dramatic increases in heating oil prices are serious matters, for 
people who are on fixed incomes, it has presented a life-threatening 
choice between paying for the delivery of heating oil or buying 
medicine, between heating the house and buying groceries.
  Now OPEC has decided to increase production and non-OPEC countries 
have also increased production.
  The most important tool that is available to the President of the 
United States and the Secretary of Energy is said to expire tomorrow, 
the tool that has allowed them to negotiate with OPEC and non-OPEC 
countries to increase the production, readily available so that our 
consumers, our small business people, our truckers, our potato farmers 
and fishermen can make sure that they have reasonable costs for energy 
and are not being put on the of business.
  Millions and hundreds of millions have been spent on low-income 
heating assistance and hundreds of millions more need to be spent. The 
one tool is set to expire tomorrow. It has been languishing in the 
committee, and an extension has been sought by the President to last 
until 2003. This reserve was created during the Nation's energy crisis. 
What tools are we going to have to make sure that OPEC and non-OPEC are 
increasing their production, and how are we going to be assured that 
they honor that increase and not another emergency arises?
  There have been suggestions in the Office of Energy Information that 
there may be shortages in New England and California this summer, even 
with the increased production. This inaction compromises the 
President's ability to negotiate with our allies. It raises doubts 
about the President's ability to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 
emergencies. The last thing that we want to do is to send a message to 
the world, a message that the President of the United States' ability 
has been compromised because of the failure of this Congress to act.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who has shown leadership in this and many 
other matters.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Baldacci 
amendment. This year we faced a major crisis in the Northeast where 
there was not a sufficient oil supply to take care of the people in our 
districts who desperately rely on home heating oil as the way they heat 
their homes in cold winters, and we have cold winters in the Northeast. 
We had a supply problem leading to a serious price increase. Hard-
working American families trying to heat their homes, drive to work, 
fill the tanks of their trucks and boats are suffering from these price 
hikes.
  Two days ago, thanks to heavy pressure from the administration, OPEC 
and non-OPEC countries agreed to increase the oil supply. This will 
help to bring prices down.
  In the meantime, the Republican leadership of this House has done 
little more than point fingers at the administration, but it is 
important to lay out the energy policy of this same Republican 
leadership over the past 5 years. Their policy abolishes the Department 
of Energy, sells off the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, slashes funding 
for alternative energy sources, underfunds conservation programs that 
would help to make us energy independent, the kinds of programs that 
are listed in the Baldacci amendment.
  What is more, they will not bring up a bill that extends the 
President's authority to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve if there is a national emergency in this country. This 
authority expires tomorrow. This is leverage with the OPEC countries. 
They would handcuff the President, jeopardize our national security. My 
God, this would be laughable if it were not so serious.
  We need to move forward on a national energy policy, and we should 
get an energy policy in order. That is why we should immediately 
reauthorize the President's authority in the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. We should consider our investments in energy efficiency, 
conservation, alternative energy sources like those listed in this 
amendment. We should provide tax incentives for our domestic oil and 
gas industry, and we should set up a Northeast home heating reserve in 
order to ensure that our constituents do not have to choose between 
heating their homes and eating their meals.
  Mr. Chairman, that is the way to an energy policy. Let us stop 
pointing fingers; let us roll up our sleeves; let us get to work. Let 
us start that with the Baldacci amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman's purpose in offering this amendment is good. The need 
to reauthorize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is very real. I would 
point out that it was delayed downtown for 5 days last year.
  However, the gentleman's amendment does not accomplish his stated 
purpose of reauthorizing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Indeed, it 
deals with another program all together.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman to withdraw his amendment, 
and I give him my commitment to work with him through the appropriate 
venue to reach his goal of a Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
reauthorization. I think the gentleman's comments focus our attention 
on this need, and we certainly will do everything possible to get it 
done. I hope the administration will support it.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Maine.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman 
in wanting to work on this and addressing this in a constructive way, 
and I look forward to doing that.
  I have one other speaker, and then that would be it.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a leader in these matters also, and an 
esteemed colleague here in the Chamber.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this 
issue of

[[Page H1615]]

what this Congress has to do in order to deal with the long-term energy 
security of our country.
  Mr. Chairman, we are very fortunate that between 1980 and the year 
2000, the percentage of our gross domestic product that oil represents 
has dropped from 7 percent to 3 percent. That is good. But much of that 
is as a result of decisions that were made by this Congress. We forced 
the automobile industry to improve its energy efficiency from 13.5 
miles a gallon to 27 miles a gallon. If we had not done that, we would 
have to import 4 million barrels of oil a day additionally.
  The same thing is true with all of our appliances, those with Federal 
regulation. Money for weatherization, which the gentleman from Maine 
has wisely used as the vehicle to have this discussion, that money 
helped, to make sure that homes were more energy efficient, less oil 
had to be imported.
  Now, short term, we do have to reauthorize the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. And this time, maybe we will buy when oil is cheap, $12 a 
barrel. We will sell when it is expensive. We do it just the opposite 
in this Congress. We buy when it is expensive, and we sell when it is 
cheap. If we had 1 billion barrels, we could do 2 million barrels a day 
for nearly 3 years. Let us give some future President that weapon going 
up against the heads of the states across this world that seek to hold 
us hostage. Mr. Chairman, 2 million barrels a day. We do not have that 
capacity right now. We are down to 560 million. We should still use it. 
And a regional petroleum reserve, which the gentleman from Maine is 
leading on, to make sure that New England, New York, New Jersey are not 
held hostage every single winter.
  Moreover, let us talk about better fuel economy standards for our 
automobiles. If we just increased it up to 35 miles a gallon, we could 
push out another 2 million or 3 million barrels ourselves. All of 
Alaska, all of Alaska only gives us 1 million barrels a day. If we have 
the biggest strike of all time up in Alaska, we might only add another 
500,000 million barrels. It does not even touch what we could to make 
sure homes are weatherized, automobiles are more efficient, 
refrigerators and stoves and light bulbs do not consume as much energy.
  The power is within ourselves, I say to my colleagues. But the 
Congress acted in the 1970s and 1980s. They have not acted in the 
1990s. That is what is central. Short term, Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, let us fill it, make sure we can deploy it, a regional 
petroleum reserve, let us fill it. We are going to have to use that, no 
question about it. But long term, let us work smarter, not harder. Let 
us use our advantage in technology. Let us ensure that we make the 
investment, pass the regulations, and then we can just thumb our noses 
at OPEC. We have the power within ourselves to do it. We do not have to 
drill off of the coast of California, off Florida. We can do it in our 
own vehicles, our own technologies and make ourselves energy 
independent.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the gentleman that it 
was the Subcommittee on the Interior of the Committee on Appropriations 
that refused to sell the oil, so it is still there.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Ohio for 
yielding me this time.
  Let me just say to the gentlewoman from Connecticut and the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, I have also had the opportunity to live in New 
England, and I know how sensitive it is up there. In fact, during the 
energy crisis I was up there, and I was well aware that people were 
heating their homes with wood stoves; the cost of energy was soaring. 
But I thought I would put in the Record something that perhaps should 
be put in. It is not the end of the world if the EPCA, the Energy 
Policy and Conservation Act, expires. It is supposed to expire, as I 
understand, tomorrow. It is not the end of the world. In fact, the 
House and Senate passed a reauthorization for the EPCA on September 30, 
1999, last year. It was sent to the President on the day it was to 
expire. The President of the United States, President Clinton, did not 
sign it. In fact, he waited 5 days and it lapsed.
  So I point out that here it is not a crisis. We are going to take 
care of this, and I assure my colleagues, I am on the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Power, and working with the appropriators, we will do this; 
and I assure the gentleman we will. I am very sensitive and empathetic 
and sympathetic to what he has to say here.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would again urge the gentleman to 
withdraw his amendment. The gentleman has our assurance as well as the 
authorizing committee that we will deal with this issue. The gentleman 
pointed out a problem that is necessary for us to take action on, and I 
commend the gentleman for that.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula). I want to make a point, and then I will ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  I wanted to raise the point that a year ago, it makes a big 
difference in the situation that we are now in, in the negotiations 
that have been taking place, and we have all been watching it. Not just 
us, but the people we represent and our families, the gas prices, home 
heating oil prices, daily, hourly, weekly. So it is different, and to 
take this tool away and not to be sure that he has it to be able to 
negotiate with our allies diminishes his being able to do the job of 
the national security interests of this country.
  I look forward to working with the gentleman on this matter, this 
very important matter, and to begin to accomplish some energy 
legislation in a comprehensive way.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maine?
  There was no objection.


        Sequential Votes Postponed in the 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:
  The amendment offered by Mr. Stearns of Florida;
  Amendment No. 5 printed in the Record by Mr. Paul of Texas; and
  Amendment No. 16 printed in the Record by Mr. Tancredo of Colorado.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first in this series.


                    Amendment Offered By Mr. Stearns

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) 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 126, 
noes 291, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 91]

                               AYES--126

     Archer
     Bachus
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Brady (TX)
     Burton
     Camp
     Campbell
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ewing
     Foley
     Fossella
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     LaHood
     Largent
     Lazio
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions

[[Page H1616]]


     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Terry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Weldon (FL)
     Wu

                               NOES--291

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     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, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Becerra
     Burr
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Crane
     Everett
     Franks (NJ)
     Granger
     Klink
     McIntosh
     Quinn
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rush
     Spence
     Thompson (MS)
     Vento
     Weiner

                              {time}  1335

  Mrs. JONES of Ohio and Messrs. LIPINSKI, BRYANT, MARTINEZ, DAVIS of 
Virginia, JONES of North Carolina, and NEY changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. LUTHER, HUNTER, WU, SESSIONS, DOOLITTLE, MEEHAN, and LAZIO 
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 
he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Paul

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 5 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) 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 CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 45, 
noes 367, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 92]

                                AYES--45

     Archer
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Danner
     Deal
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Duncan
     Ewing
     Gekas
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Jones (NC)
     Largent
     Linder
     Manzullo
     Metcalf
     Moran (KS)
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Simpson
     Stark
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Toomey

                               NOES--367

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu

[[Page H1617]]


     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Becerra
     Burr
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Crane
     Everett
     Franks (NJ)
     Granger
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Istook
     Kaptur
     Klink
     McIntosh
     Quinn
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rush
     Spence
     Thompson (MS)
     Vento
     Waxman
     Weiner

                              {time}  1344

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1345


                Amendment No. 16 Offered By Mr. Tancredo

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 16 printed in the Congressional Record offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 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 CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 146, 
noes 267, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 93]

                               AYES--146

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Biggert
     Blunt
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Camp
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cubin
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     English
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     LaHood
     Largent
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Luther
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Paul
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--267

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Velazquez
       

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bateman
     Becerra
     Burr
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Crane
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Franks (NJ)
     Granger
     Klink
     Martinez
     McIntosh
     Quinn
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rush
     Spence
     Thompson (MS)
     Vento
     Weiner

                              {time}  1353

  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 93, I was summoned from the 
House Chamber for a meeting and was unable to return before this vote 
was completed. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last two lines.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``2000 Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act''.

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition 
to this bill.
  There are good things in it that I support. The parts of the bill 
that truly concern ``emergencies''--funding to help low-income families 
cope with sharply rising home heating oil bills; funding to repair 
damaged roads and bridges and to develop affordable housing for those 
dislocated by recent floods, tornadoes, and other natural disasters; 
disaster loans for small businesses, farm aid, and rural economic and 
community development grants to meet needs arising from natural 
disasters--these are all important and worthwhile and appropriate 
purposes for an ``emergency'' spending bill. Also important is funding 
that the bill provides for NASA's Space Shuttle upgrades, security at 
our nation's three nuclear weapons laboratories, and funds to 
accelerate environmental cleanup of DOE facilities.
  But these good things are far outweighed by what I consider to be 
some very problematic provisions in the bill. One of the most 
troublesome is the $1.7 billion package for Colombia. I don't doubt the 
magnitude of the problem that the proposal attempts to address. Indeed, 
there is much cause for alarm. Colombia produces 80 percent of the 
world's cocaine and about two-thirds of the heroin consumed in this 
country, and new estimates show that cocaine production in Colombia is 
up 126 percent in the last five years. That said, I am not convinced 
that a costly military approach is the best response to the problem. I 
believe we should be considering other ways to address the source of 
the problem--the U.S. demand for drugs--by funding additional treatment 
and education programs right here at home.
  There is very little about the Colombia package that has been shown 
to merit our support. Think for a moment about the dismal human rights 
record of the Colombian military. The

[[Page H1618]]

military would itself be the recipient of the billions of dollars in 
U.S. aid. Human rights organizations have linked right-wing 
paramilitary groups to the Colombian military and to drug trafficking 
and atrocities against civilians. How can we be content to pass a bill 
that could well make this situation worse?
  We should also think about the lack of clear objectives for this 
program. There is no ``exit'' strategy spelled out. There is no way to 
ensure farmers won't resume cultivating drug crops once this billion-
dollar assistance package dries up. None of these questions about the 
long-term goals for this program have been adequately answered. Still, 
we're being asked to support a program that could draw U.S. troops into 
a protracted counterinsurgency struggle--and one that may ultimately 
have little effect on the drug trade.
  On top of that, Mr. Chairman, was the adoption of the amendment 
yesterday that increases military spending levels by an additional $4 
billion. That makes my opposition to this bill that much stronger. 
While I agree that defense health programs and recruitment and 
retention are areas of legitimate concern, I don't understand why we 
should make $4 billion exceptions for our military that we can't seem 
to make for prescription drugs or our children's education or shoring 
up Social Security. The military budget was increased substantially 
last year and well may be again this year through the regular 
appropriations process. This isn't the time or the place to prematurely 
commit to additional billions of dollars in military spending or to 
label it as an `'emergency'' item.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope that as we go forward with this year's 
appropriations process, we do so in a thoughtful and careful manner and 
that we try to come up with spending bills that deserve the full 
support of the entire House.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I speak today to express my strong 
opposition to this so-called Supplemental Appropriations bill and to 
express my outrage at its ridiculous level of funding.
  H.R. 3908, as approved by the House Appropriations Committee on March 
9, would appropriate $1.701 billion for counter-narcotics activities, 
including $1.07 billion for Colombia, $4.956 billion for peacekeeping 
operations in Kosova and related matters, and $2.243 billion for 
Hurricane Floyd and other disaster assistance, plus several smaller 
non-emergency items.
  Amendments considered during the course of debate on this measure 
have dramatically increased its cost.
  A major concern of mine regarding this supplemental is that no 
authorization language was passed to allow Members the opportunity to 
argue for funding for projects important to them. As a Member of the 
Committee on International Relations and the Representative of the 
largest Colombian-American community in the U.S., I was hoping to be 
involved in the development of our policy on Colombia.
  We should have developed a bill that would strike a balance between 
the needs of international concerns, such as Colombia, human rights and 
Kosova, and domestic spending priorities. I would have supported such a 
bill. Unfortunately, despite the inclusion of the amendment by 
Congressmen Gilman, Goss, Delahunt and Farr, this supplemental doesn't 
balance these issues.
  Mr. Chairman, the reasons to oppose this legislation are too numerous 
to list in a short floor statement, so I will just highlight some key 
issues, mostly dealing with the military and counter-narcotics 
assistance provided in this package.
  First, I object to the fact that such a large change in U.S. policy 
regarding Colombia and counter-narcotics assistance has not gone 
through the normal authorization process. The Republican leadership and 
the International Relations Committee had ample time to introduce 
legislation and have it debated in Committee. As it now stands, we are 
appropriating billions of dollars in military and counter-narcotics 
assistance, and who knows what else, without the benefit of thoughtful 
policy evaluation that the authorization's process was designed to 
give.
  Second, the supplemental originally sent to the House floor is about 
$3.8 billion higher than the President's request and the Appropriations 
Committee had only offset $421 million. Meaning the rest must come out 
of the budget surplus--not that there is any left after the Republican 
tax cut scheme passed recently.
  Third, while I am extremely supportive of assistance to Colombia, it 
needs to be the right kind of assistance. The provisions in this 
legislation dealing with civil society programs are woefully 
inadequate, especially when compared to the vast funding levels for 
counter-narcotics assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, I have met with Colombia leaders in Washington, D.C., 
in my Congressional District and in Colombia. I have traveled to 
Colombia and seen the need for U.S. assistance. I know the problems of 
the Colombian people and I am especially supportive of judicial reform 
efforts, but this supplemental is not going to help them.
  Fourth, where is the money for domestic prevention and treatment? 
Interdiction plays a role, but it is next to useless without prevention 
and treatment programs. Demand will always find supply. Congresswoman 
Pelosi's amendment should have been protected under the rule.
  Fifth, I am troubled by some of the provisions in this supplemental 
which are being termed an emergency. Certainly, I believe the money for 
LIHEAP, the assistance for Colombia civil society and money for 
peacekeeping funds for Kosova warrant an emergency, although one we saw 
coming last year. However, there are a number of spending provisions 
which do not come close to meeting the definition of an emergency, yet 
they are not offset.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the supplemental and I 
request that the relevant committees be asked to deal with these 
funding increases through the normal budget process.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3908, 
the FY 2000 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill. Since coming to 
Congress last year, I have been determined to carefully review federal 
spending to ensure we spend our taxpayers money efficiently and 
effectively. Our Nation has many needs and our government can do much 
to address these problems. Using our resources wisely is very 
important.
  As a member of the House Budget Committee, I have been fortunate 
enough to be able to focus on our federal budget and our priorities. 
Although not perfect, our budget and appropriations process allows for 
orderly consideration of spending requests. When unexpected 
expenditures are necessary, we have the flexibility to pass emergency 
supplemental appropriations bills. However, this process is for true 
emergencies, not for readily predictable expenditures that can be 
incorporated into the annual appropriations process.
  I don't understand why we are here today considering a bill that 
would spend more than $13 billion. We do not have $13 billion in 
emergency spending needs. Most of the money we are spending in this 
bill is not in response to real emergencies. These initiatives should 
be considered as part of the normal appropriations process.
  Is $1.7 billion in military assistance for Colombia to fight the drug 
war and its insurgency an emergency?
  Is $4.0 billion in military maintenance, health care coverage for our 
soldiers, and housing upgrades an emergency?
  Is $75 million for upgrades to the space shuttle and hiring of 300 
new NASA employees an emergency?
  Is $73 million for the purchase of a used aircraft for the Foreign 
Emergency Support Team an emergency?
  Is $55 million for workforce and infrastructure improvements at 
nuclear weapons facilities an emergency?
  Is $37 million for operating expenses for the Coast Guard an 
emergency?
  None of these items need to be addressed this month. All of these can 
wait for the normal funding process. I support many of these spending 
priorities. For example, the $4.0 billion in benefits for our men and 
women in uniform is a very worthwhile expenditure, which I would 
otherwise support. However, this money can be provided as part of the 
regular appropriations process--it does not require an emergency 
spending bill.
  The majority talks a lot about spending discipline, but what we have 
before us today a huge spending bill that funds programs that were 
never authorized. This is not the right way to spend taxpayer money.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I rise today to express my support for the $600 million 
in emergency LIHEAP funding and to express my disappointment that the 
disaster relief provided in this emergency supplemental appropriations 
bill will not help apple growers in the Northeast.
  The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is nothing 
less than a life-saver. LIHEAP provides the means for low-income 
households to purchase energy for their homes. This past winter was one 
of the coldest in memory. Combined with the high cost of home heating 
oil, this winter placed a huge strain on many families in the 
Northeast. Fortunately, President Clinton did the right thing by 
releasing the entire amount of emergency LIHEAP funds during the course 
of the crisis.
  However, this emergency fund provides relief not only during the 
winter months but also for the extreme summer heat that occurs 
throughout this country. The emergency LIHEAP money undoubtedly saved 
many lives in the Northeast during a true crisis. It is only right that 
we replenish this fund, and I fully support providing $600 million to 
do so.
  The amount of LIHEAP funding provided in this bill is a stark 
contrast from years past, when the Republican majority attempted time

[[Page H1619]]

and time again to cut the funding for this program. I am pleased that 
the majority has realized the importance of this program. However, I am 
very disappointed and dismayed that the same Republican leadership has 
prevented the U.S. House of Representatives from providing emergency 
disaster assistance to another group that needs our help--namely, the 
Northeast apple growers.
  Many people don't realize that the apple crop in the Northeast was 
damaged due to adverse weather conditions, including Hurricane Floyd, 
which caused tremendous damage up and down the East Coast. The crop 
damage in states like North Carolina and Florida was much different 
than the crop damage in the Northeast. The crop production in Southern 
states was damaged by the hurricane. Although production in the 
Northeast was not affected, the quality of the apple crop was. The 
damage diminished the value of the apple. Apple growers are now selling 
their crop at reduced prices because the quality is not as good as it 
would have been if Hurricane Floyd had not hit the Northeast.
  This supplemental appropriations bill contains relief for Hurricane 
Floyd for some of the states that need help. Unfortunately, the 
Republican majority does not feel that everyone who needs help should 
get it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hastings of Washington) 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, pursuant to 
House Resolution 450, he reported the bill back to the House with 
sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                 Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. OBEY. I most certainly am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3908, to the 
     Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House with provisions that appropriate 
     $262,000,000 to the Office of National Drug Control policy 
     for grants to recognized national, State, or local prevention 
     and treatment organizations.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a general instruction to the 
committee. The committee has the authority and latitude to bring a bill 
back within existing or lower levels, and it is fully authorized.
  This motion would require the Committee on Appropriations to report a 
new supplemental bill that includes $262 million for the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy for purposes of distributing grants to 
State, local, or national organizations that provide substance abuse 
treatment and prevention services.
  The intention is to recognize that if the House is going to spend 
$1.3 billion for source-country control of cocaine, then we ought to 
include at least some funds for treatment services which, according to 
the Rand Corporation, are 23 times more effective.
  This motion recognizes that only 37 percent of the 5.5 million 
Americans in need of treatment can get it, and a vote for recommittal 
will reduce that treatment gap in all of our communities.
  If we want to destroy the drug traffickers, we should destroy their 
source of income. That is the best way to get at them. If we invest in 
drug treatment and drug prevention, we are destroying their source of 
income. That is the way to kill them.
  Vote for this motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit).
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to 
recommit. I do this out of respect for the other side and not to 
lecture anyone. But I, like many of my colleagues, have traveled 
through Colombia and Peru and Bolivia, took the drug routes, the roads 
that the drug traffickers took, and met with coca leaf farmers, met 
with law enforcement and a variety of different other individuals and 
groups in those countries.
  I came to the conclusion that the drug problem is our problem, and 
for us to solely blame it on those folks is misplaced. Today, we have 
an opportunity, I think, to correct that. We could do a great service 
to this country by making sure that we fight the war on our terms and 
in this country and not in somebody else's country.
  Now, for us not to believe that this is our problem, I believe we are 
sort of like an individual that is addicted. We are in denial. We are 
in denial that we have to come to grips with this problem.
  For us to pick a group of people, whatever country one wants, talk 
about interdiction, which we ought to do some, but we ought to have 
drug treatment programs for people in this country.
  We as a Congress, Republicans and Democrats, we can do one good thing 
before we leave here this year, and that is provide a safety net to 
families, to individuals in this country so that they do not go through 
the dilemma of, where do I send my young child, where do I send my 
spouse. We have all been confronted with that. This is a problem that 
has probably touched every life in this Chamber and probably most 
families throughout this country.

                              {time}  1400

  So I am here today not to just lecture anyone, but simply say that 
for us to think that it is someone else's problem, that it is not our 
problem, is misplaced. And if we want to do a service for the people of 
this country, I think we should recommit this bill, send it to 
committee, put a program in for people across the country, and I think 
then we can really talk seriously about a drug war within our borders, 
not somebody else's.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for 
his comments, and close by simply saying that we are putting the money 
in the drug czar's office because this subcommittee which funds this 
office currently has $262 million remaining under its existing 302(b) 
allocation. I ask for a vote in support of the motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Does the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) rise in opposition?
  Mr. YOUNG OF Florida. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the issue that the gentleman's 
motion brings to the attention of the House is an important issue and 
one that in the next few weeks, as we go to prepare for marking up the 
regular appropriation bills, I would like to work with the gentleman to 
try to find the proper way to handle this and not just do it here at 
the last minute. If we were to agree to this motion to recommit, we 
will have undone basically everything we have done here in the last 
difficult 16 hours, yesterday and today.
  So I just simply ask the Members to vote ``no'' on the motion to 
recommit, then vote ``yes'' on final passage, and then for everyone to 
have a safe trip back home to their districts, visit with their 
constituents, and come back next week all fired up for another round.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H1620]]

  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a 
vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of 
passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194, 
noes 220, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 94]

                               AYES--194

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--220

     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Archer
     Becerra
     Burr
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Crane
     Everett
     Franks (NJ)
     Granger
     Klink
     McDermott
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rush
     Spence
     Thompson (MS)
     Vento
     Weiner

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. BACHUS and Mr. LoBIONDO changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Ms. DeLAURO and Mr. McINTYRE changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on Rollcall No. 94, I was unavoidably 
detained at a meeting. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, on Rollcall No. 94, I inadvertently 
voted ``yes.'' I meant to vote ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 263, 
nays 146, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 95]

                               YEAS--263

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     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
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Scott
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page H1621]]



                               NAYS--146

     Archer
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeMint
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Nadler
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pitts
     Porter
     Ramstad
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Barton
     Becerra
     Bilbray
     Brown (FL)
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Crane
     Diaz-Balart
     Everett
     Ewing
     Franks (NJ)
     Granger
     Klink
     Largent
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Quinn
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rush
     Spence
     Thompson (MS)
     Vento
     Walsh
     Weiner

                              {time}  1429

  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 95, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 95, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 95, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 95, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable 
to be present for the vote on final passage of H.R. 3908. Had I been 
present I would have, albeit reluctantly, voted in favor of the bill.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 95, supplemental 
final passage, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________