[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16613-16617]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 AMERICAN EMBASSY SECURITY ACT OF 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247 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. 2415.

                              {time}  2030


                     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. 2415) to enhance security of United States missions and 
personnel overseas, to authorize appropriations for the Department of 
State for fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes, with Mr. Miller of 
Florida (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole House rose 
earlier today, a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 6 printed 
in part B of House Report 106-235 had been postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in Part B of 
House Report 106-235.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered By Mr. Paul

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

       Part B amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Paul:
       Page 16, strike line 5 and all that follows through line 17 
     on page 21, and insert the following: None of the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated under subsection (a) are 
     authorized to be appropriated for a United States 
     contribution to the United Nations, any organ of the United 
     Nations, or any entity affiliated with the United Nations.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) 
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield half of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) and ask unanimous consent that 
she be allowed to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) 
will be recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the authorizations in section 106 
for all U.N.-related operations. We have a bill here tonight dealing 
with embassy security, U.S. embassy security, and we are all very 
concerned about it.
  But in typical fashion, about all we have been offered so far has 
been just to put more money into our embassies and never raising the 
question about why our embassies might be more vulnerable. My amendment 
deals with that, because I would like to deal with the foreign policy 
involved with our commitment to the United Nations.
  There are many in this Congress who readily admit they are 
internationalists. I readily admit that I am not an internationalist 
when it comes to political action and warmongering. Therefore, I think 
much of what we do in foreign policy makes ourselves more vulnerable. 
If we look at the two most recent bombings in Africa, these were 
brought about by our own foreign policy.
  Those supporters of internationalism generally accuse those of us who 
are opposed to it by saying that we are isolationists. This is not 
true. I am not an isolationist. But I do believe in national 
sovereignty. I happen to sincerely believe that one cannot become an 
endorser of some form of internationalism without some sacrifice of our 
own sovereignty. I think this is the subject that we must address.
  I believe in free trade. I do not believe in protectionism. I am not 
a protectionist. I think people, goods, and services and ideas should 
flow across

[[Page 16614]]

borders freely. But when it comes to our armaments, under the guise of 
the U.N. orders or NATO orders, I do not believe this should be called 
something favorably as internationalism and those who oppose that as 
being isolationists.
  I object to imposing our will on other people. I believe this is what 
we so often do. When we do that, we build hatreds around the world. 
That is why our embassies are less secure than many other nations. This 
is why we are bombed. We bomb Iraq endlessly. No wonder they hate us.
  Iran right now, they have dissidents in the street; but they are 
blaming America, because there was a time when we put our dictator in 
charge of Iran as we have done so often around the world. Yet they only 
can come back by making our embassies vulnerable. It might be wiser for 
those countries that we cannot protect our embassies to put in a 
computerized operation because, in this day and age, we do not have to 
have embassies in the countries that are so dangerous.
  But it is not the lack of security that is the problem, it is our 
type of policy that prompts the hatred toward America. I suggest we 
should look at some of this U.N. activity.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul). I know that many of us are often frustrated with the 
U.N. and especially some of its activities. But I do believe that the 
amendment does risk throwing the baby out with the bath water.
  The amendment would effectively take us out of the U.N., while it has 
its blemishes, and the previous amendments certainly underscored my 
concern that the UNFPA, for example, has been absolutely complicit in 
the forced abortion program in the People's Republic of China; and I do 
believe a calibrated focused approach like that is the way to make our 
point. But look at some of the good things that the U.N. has done again 
with blemishes and all.
  I will never forget, back in the early 1980s, I was in El Salvador 
when the United Nations Children's Fund, UNICEF, under Jim Grant, 
working with the Catholic church, working with the Duarte government, 
and working with the FMLN, the Communist insurgency, headed days of 
tranquility. Hundreds of thousands of children were immunized against 
the world's leading killers of children and those that extract or 
impose a great morbidity on young lives. Pertussis, tetanus, all of 
these diseases were wiped away from these kids, and because of these 
immunizations. The U.N. played a very, very important role in that.
  Look at the world food program which provides necessary foods to 
children and families, the victims of torture. Our subcommittee, and I 
offered the bill, it became law, provided an additional amount of money 
to the U.N. voluntary fund for torture to help the people who suffer 
from torture. There are 400,000 former torture victims living in the 
U.S. with posttraumatic stress and all kinds of other problems. Many 
hundreds of thousands abroad, they need our help.
  Then when it comes to such things as peacekeeping, yes, it is flawed. 
The UNPROFOR was a very flawed deployment, but there are many that had 
been successful.
  I would just remind Members that, when we had the Gulf War, the U.N. 
played a pivotal position in mobilizing, especially through the 
Security Council, our efforts to try to mitigate the abuses of Saddam 
Hussein.
  While I deeply respect the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), I do 
think it overreaches, and I would hope that Members would vote it down.
  But remembering that it does have its problems, the U.N. certainly is 
not a perfect organization, it is far from it, but it does have some 
agencies and things that do some very, very good things. I missed it, 
but on refugees, the UNHCR is vital to proceeding refugee protection 
and assistance.
  So I do ask Members to vote ``no''.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) 
will have the right to close.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not addressing the imperfections of the United 
Nations. I am addressing the imperfection of our policy with the United 
Nations, which is a lot different.
  We ignore the rule of law; we ignore international law when it 
pleases us. We did not accept the United Nations role when it came to 
Kosovo. We did not even accept NATO when it came to Kosovo. What we 
did, we just totally ignored it.
  We invaded a sovereign nation. We did not abide by the rules of the 
United Nations. Then when we needed rescue from our policy, then we go 
limping to the United Nations to come in and please save our policy in 
Kosovo.
  That is what I object to. I think that we should not renege and turn 
over our sovereignty to these international bodies. I believe there is 
motivation for this. When our commercial interests and financial 
interests are at stake, yes, we do get involved in the Persian Gulf; 
yes, we do get involved in Eastern Europe. But do we get involved in 
Rwanda? No, we do not. We ignore it.
  So I say that we should have a policy that is designed for the 
sovereignty of this Nation; that we should not have troops serving 
under the United Nations; that we should not pretend to be a member of 
the United Nations and pretend to be a member of NATO and then not even 
follow the rules that have been laid down and that we have agreed to.
  Generally, we always make our problems worse. Our wars are endless, 
and our occupations are endless. Someday we are going to have to wake 
up and design a new policy because this will not stop as long as we 
capitulate to the use of the United Nations and try to sacrifice our 
sovereignty to these international parties.
  Now, this does not get us out of the United Nations. It is a step in 
that direction, obviously. But it is a step in the right direction 
because I think it is the proper use of our military if we do not 
capitulate and put it under NATO and put it in the United Nations. We 
need to use our military strictly in the defense of U.S. sovereignty.
  Ms. MCKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree that bad diplomacy does make us more 
vulnerable. But this amendment represents the height of bad diplomacy. 
We should be trying to pay our more than $1 billion debt that we owe to 
the United Nations. Great nations should pay their bills.
  Unfortunately, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) compounds our 
shame by introducing an amendment to eliminate all funds for the United 
Nations, an action that would effectively end U.S. participation in the 
U.N. Make no mistake, this would spell the demise of the world's most 
universal forum.
  Why would anyone want to kill an organization that has brought food 
to the starving, help to the homeless, pure water to the thirsty, 
health to the diseased, stability to peoples in conflict, and free 
elections to the oppressed?
  But this is not just about altruism. Withholding funds from the U.N. 
would harm collective efforts to deal with threats that cut across 
borders, from terrorists to organized crime, and from drug traffickers 
to environmental damage.
  Poll after poll has shown that Americans want to participate in 
solving global problems, but they do not want to do it alone. Americans 
want to share the burden of responsibility with the peoples of other 
nations, and we can best do that through the United Nations.
  Mr. Chairman, the very introduction of this amendment sends a message 
to the world that there are Americans who live in fear, fear of others 
and fear of the loss of control. I believe that this fear is a greater 
threat than that posed by the United Nations.
  The children of the 21st century deserve a world of peace, stability, 
and prosperity across the globe. The United States cannot achieve this 
dream alone. However, with an effective

[[Page 16615]]

United Nations, the dream can become a reality.
  I suggest that my colleagues should not kill this dream, but kill 
this amendment.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Paul amendment which will prohibit all authorizations for 
appropriations from the United States to the United Nations or any 
entity affiliated with the United Nations. This is an irresponsible 
amendment which, if passed, would do severe damage to the United States 
ability to conduct foreign policy, and to humanitarian efforts around 
the world.
  The United Nations, while not perfect, is a forum where member states 
can come together to work for peaceful solutions to international 
problems. Currently, the U.N. is operating 16 peacekeeping missions in 
different countries which are upholding cease-fires, ensuring free and 
fair elections, monitoring troop withdrawals, deterring violence, and 
creating free countries. These endeavors deserve our support, not our 
condemnation.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would do damage to U.N. 
humanitarian efforts around the world which I have seen in such places 
like Sudan, North Korea, Bosnia, and Kosovo. I have seen first hand the 
U.N.'s humanitarian work through organizations like the World Food 
Program, U.N. Development Program, the U.N. High Commissioner for 
Refugees, and UNICEF. The U.N. is a leader in humanitarian and 
development work. It has helped to eradicate smallpox, provide safe 
drinking water for over one billion people, deliver aid to millions of 
refugees, and generate a worldwide commitment to the needs of children.
  Mr. Chairman, the Paul amendment should be defeated soundly because 
if it is passed, it would show that the United States simply does not 
care about the U.N.'s humanitarian work around the world or its efforts 
to find peaceful solutions to international problems.
  Ms. McKinney. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I 
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Bereuter

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

       Part B amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Bereuter:
       Page 35, after line 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 211. LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENTS.

       Whenever the Department of State enters into lease-purchase 
     agreements involving property in foreign countries pursuant 
     to section 1 of the Foreign Service Buildings Act (22 U.S.C. 
     292), budget authority shall be scored on an annual basis 
     over the period of the lease in an amount equal to the annual 
     lease payments.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to raise a point of 
order on the amendment of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Bereuter) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member offers this amendment for one simple 
reason, a glitch in the current interpretation, or the 
misinterpretation, of the Budget Act has resulted in a situation where 
Americans overseas are needlessly being placed at risk.
  There is no question that many of America's diplomatic facilities are 
at risk from terrorist attack. Recommendations were made in 1985 by the 
Inman Commission to significantly upgrade security and replace outdated 
facilities. But a decade and a half later, only 15 percent of the U.S. 
embassies meet Inman standards.
  The reason is that it takes decades to go through the labyrinth of 
bureaucracy associated with the U.S. government constructing a new 
embassy. The addition to the Moscow embassy took almost two decades. 
The State Department has been considering additions to the terribly 
outdated Beijing chancery for almost a decade, and construction has yet 
to begin.
  There are many, many facilities that do not receive much-needed 
attention because the few contractors the State Department relies upon 
are overwhelmed.
  In desperation, our U.S. ambassadors are taking it upon themselves to 
cut through the red tape, contacting private engineering firms to 
develop plans for necessary embassy upgrades. The notion is that 
private firms are able to construct diplomatic facilities that meet the 
Inman standards, and then lease the facilities to the United States.

                              {time}  2045

  Such lease-purchase arrangements for facilities built by the private 
sector would eliminate the likely delays caused by the tortuous, slow 
State Department bureaucracy, where decisions on embassy construction 
literally require decades.
  According to the Assistant Secretary of State for Administration, 
``The bottom line is I can get more embassies built faster if the 
private sector was doing the construction with its own money.''
  This Member's amendment would permit budgetary scoring of leased 
properties on an annual basis. This amendment permits the speedy 
construction of more secure diplomatic facilities.
  I would tell my colleagues this has, in fact, long been the intent of 
this body. Section 134 of the Foreign Relations Act for fiscal years 
1994 and 1995 spoke directly to this problem. According to that 
legislation, ``Whenever the Department of State enters into lease-
purchase agreements involving property in foreign countries, the 
Department shall account for such transactions in accordance with 
fiscal year obligations.''
  Regrettably, the administration has written an opinion stating that 
this provision of law does not alter Office of Management and Budget 
scoring rules. OMB is steadfastly opposed to lease-purchase scoring on 
an annual basis. Rather, they insist the entire value of the lease be 
scored on the first year of the lease. As a result, there is no 
incentive to engage in lease-purchases and we lose a highly creative 
approach to addressing our security concerns.
  This Member's amendment simply would permit scoring of lease-purchase 
properties on an annual basis. If this amendment is offered, we will 
have secure embassy facilities years earlier. Thus, the security of 
U.S. diplomatic personnel overseas will be dramatically increased.
  The bottom line is this: The current OMB interpretation of lease-
purchase scoring regulations needlessly endangers American lives 
overseas. This Member would ask his colleagues to work to address this 
situation by allowing lease-purchase scoring on an annual basis. And I 
urge my colleagues to support the Bereuter amendment on embassy 
construction.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith), the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman 
of our Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on 
International Relations for a very, very fine amendment. I would hope 
the Committee on the Budget would not object, but it looks like they 
may.
  We need safe embassies now, Mr. Chairman, and our diplomatic 
personnel overseas need and deserve that security. Moreover, the image 
of the U.S. should not be one of easy vulnerability. Where our posts 
are not secure and cannot be made secure, we need to build safe posts 
as soon as we can.
  The fastest way to build them is for the private sector to put up the 
money and build them. We then lease-purchase

[[Page 16616]]

over the years. The current rule requires us to score the whole multi-
year lease-purchase in the first year. This amendment, instead, allows 
us to score only the annual expenditure. This change will expedite the 
necessary and urgent construction of safe posts without increasing any 
costs.
  The scoring of lease-purchase properties on an annual basis was 
already included in the Foreign Relations Act for fiscal years 1994 and 
1995, yet the administration has opined otherwise.
  So I support this amendment of my colleague from Nebraska. It is a 
good amendment, it is common sense, and we should support it.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to simply state that the previous act I mentioned, PL 103-236, made it 
very clear that the Congress intended that we were going to overrule 
the Budget Act that will be cited here in a few seconds, and the 
President's signing statement simply flew in the face of that clear 
legislative intent. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Although I am not in opposition to this amendment, Mr. 
Chairman, I would like to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). Without objection, 
the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the amendment on embassy 
construction proposed by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), 
and I urge the House to adopt it.
  This amendment goes perfectly with the Embassy Security Act. The goal 
of the act is to provide serious money to improve embassy security. 
This amendment allows that money to be spent in a serious and 
intelligent way.
  Instead of having to charge off the entire cost of leasing buildings 
to own the first year, the Department of State could have these costs 
scored annually based on the amount of the leased payments. That is not 
a radical idea. It is how we all buy houses here.
  If people in the United States had to have enough money up front to 
pay for their houses in the year they bought them, hardly anyone would 
own a house. The State Department is in the same situation. That needs 
to change if we are going to get moving fast on security. And if we do 
not get moving fast, more people will get hurt.
  To be serious on embassy security, we need this amendment, and I urge 
my colleagues to support the Bereuter amendment.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Chambliss) insist on his point of order?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  I object to the amendment under section 306 of the Congressional 
Budget Act.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment violates section 306 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974. Section 306 prohibits the consideration of any 
amendment that is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the 
Budget and which is offered to a bill that was neither reported or 
discharged from the Committee on the Budget.
  The amendment of the gentleman from Nebraska modifies the budgetary 
treatment of certain leases entered into by the State Department. The 
budgetary treatment of such leases prescribed in the Balanced Budget 
Act and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, which is, pursuant to 
clause 1 of House Rule X, within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
the Budget.
  Under current law and existing scoring procedures, the Federal 
Government is required to appropriate the full cost of any multi-year 
lease of office space in the fiscal year in which it enters into the 
lease agreement. This amendment permits the State Department to commit 
the Federal Government to a long-term lease agreement with an 
appropriation for only the first year of the cost of the lease. 
However, once the lease is agreed to, the Federal Government is saddled 
with a long-term financial commitment.
  So I do object to the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Bereuter) wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. BEREUTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is my intention to attempt to 
amend the Budget Act to permit for lease-purchasing by the State 
Department for embassies and consulates and related facilities, but I 
do reluctantly, with great regret, acknowledge that a point of order 
does pertain against the amendment under the rule.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman that 
we look forward to working with him to reconcile any concern he has.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is sustained.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 11 is not offered at this 
point.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13, printed in Part B of 
House Report 106-235.


                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

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

       Part B amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       Page 35, after line 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 211. REPORT CONCERNING THE DIPLOMATIC INITIATIVES OF THE 
                   UNITED STATES AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES IN 
                   THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA.

       No later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to the 
     appropriate congressional committees assessing the diplomatic 
     initiatives of the United States and other interested parties 
     in the period leading up to and during the war in Kosovo. The 
     report shall be written by an independent panel of experts 
     (from the National Academy of Sciences). The report shall 
     give particular consideration to the Rambouilliet 
     negotiations, diplomatic initiatives undertaken by 
     representatives of Russia, Cyprus, Finland, United States 
     congressional members, other United States citizens, and 
     other parties. The report analysis will evaluate the role of 
     diplomacy in ending the war and compare the final agreement 
     with various proposed agreements dating from before the 
     commencement of the bombing campaign.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed, and I know 
of no opposition to this, but I would ask to claim the 5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith) will control the time in opposition.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My amendment is a simple amendment. It is not a controversial 
amendment. It would commission the Secretary of State, after 1 year, to 
submit an independent study of the diplomatic initiatives undertaken by 
the United States and other parties involved in the Balkans. It would 
carefully examine the role of diplomacy in the Kosovo conflict in the 
Balkans.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who has done 
yeoman's work on diplomacy related to this with the Duma.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I want to rise to applaud the distinguished 
member for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important that we look back at the 
Kosovo crisis and see what steps were taken, those that we are not 
aware of, in an effort to find a diplomatic solution.

[[Page 16617]]

  As I am well aware, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) spent 
countless hours himself trying to find a diplomatic way to end this 
crisis. I saw his efforts firsthand. I know of his contacts, I have 
applauded him for that publicly.
  I think it is important that we ask the administration to go back and 
look at what lessons can be learned from this situation, what kinds of, 
perhaps, opportunities we may have missed, what kinds of things worked 
well. Because there were successes and, perhaps, failures in both 
regards in terms of this crisis, and it is important to look back to 
see what we can do differently if a similar crisis occurs in the 
future.
  The gentleman and I were both involved, with nine of our colleagues, 
in trying to find a diplomatic solution. The Members on the gentleman's 
side of the aisle were as aggressively involved as were Members on my 
side to trying to find an alternative to the bombing that occurred as a 
way of solving the crisis.
  So I think the amendment is well worded, it is well intended, and I 
think it will be an overall help to future administrations. I applaud 
the gentleman for the effort he has undertaken, and hope that my 
colleagues on this side of the aisle would accept the amendment and 
work with the gentleman to see that his ultimate report is, in fact, 
issued so this body can learn lessons from the Kosovo crisis.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to also thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith), my distinguished chairman, who has also been a tireless 
advocate for finding peaceful solutions to international crises, and I 
look forward to adding my support to the vote on this amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to first say that my work on this amendment was inspired by the 
leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who saw a 
very important moment in the history of the Kosovo conflict and rallied 
Members from both sides of the aisle to a higher level of 
participation, and I want to publicly thank him not only for supporting 
the amendment but also for his almost singular leadership in this House 
on behalf of peace. So I thank him for his support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. 
McKinney).
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues in commending the 
gentleman from Ohio for his amendment and for the wonderful work that 
was done during this period of crisis that we have recently faced. I 
want to lend my voice of support for the work that the gentleman does, 
his efforts on behalf of peace and on this amendment, and I thank him 
for introducing it.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, but 
also want to thank the gentlewoman from Georgia for her support and for 
her participation and her efforts over the past year.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to 
how much time remains.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich), who has sponsored this amendment calling for a study of 
the role of diplomacy regarding the Kosovo conflict, and I want to 
thank him for his very thoughtful amendment. Everything he does is 
thoughtful, and this is just another example.
  I personally voted against military action, Mr. Chairman, and history 
will someday give us a clue and perhaps some real answers as to whether 
or not diplomacy before the conflict was working and whether diplomacy 
during the conflict was responsible for ending the conflict.
  I support the notion of an independent panel to examine this. We have 
ample reason for concern that a report by the administration about its 
own policies would simply be a defense or an apology for those policies 
and little more. This administration certainly has a record of paying, 
at best, lip service to congressional initiatives in foreign policy.
  I would also like to say that the report must, in addition to 
considering the question of diplomacy versus military intervention, 
assess the situation on the ground in Kosovo to which the international 
community was seeking to respond. The ideas of conflict resolution, 
preventive diplomacy, and negotiated settlements are theoretical 
concepts, and they do not incorporate the notion that one side might 
not have had one ounce of good will and instead had a clear willingness 
and desire to commit genocide instead.
  Finally, diplomatic initiatives are supposed to be motivated by good 
intentions, and most are, but the report should consider that not all 
motivations are good. Having just returned from St. Petersburg session 
of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, many of us were subject to a heavy 
dose of Russian propaganda which, among other things, alleged that 
there was no dissent here to the administration's policies. That is 
obviously false, and I must say I would not want to see Russian 
initiatives to have been considered well intentioned just because they 
were diplomatic.
  As a critic of the NATO action, I do not want to see a report which 
would simply vindicate my own beliefs. It must also assess whether 
diplomatic alternatives in dealing with a regime with a track record 
like that of Slobodan Milosevic might have made a just solution to the 
Kosovo crisis all the more elusive. Otherwise, the report would be no 
different than the latest administration proclamation of the wisdom of 
its ways.
  Having said this, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the gentleman's 
thoughtful amendment and I recommend the full House adopt it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, 
and I wish to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his thoughtful 
and analytical approach to this important question. I also want to 
thank him for his leadership on human rights, which has animated his 
support not only for this amendment but for his work in so many vital 
areas in this Congress.

                              {time}  2100

  I am very pleased to have the support on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do 
now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Bereuter) having resumed the chair, Mr. Miller of Florida, Chairman pro 
tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that the Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 2415) to enhance security of United States missions and personnel 
overseas, to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for 
fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________