[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11217-11226]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1401, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 195 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 195

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1401) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     years 2000 and 2001 for military activities of the Department 
     of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for 
     fiscal years 2000 and 2001, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule.
       Sec. 2. (a) It shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill, 
     modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived.
       (b) No further amendment to the amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute made in order as original text shall be in order 
     except the amendments printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution, amendments en bloc 
     described in section 3 of this resolution, and pro forma 
     amendments offered by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Armed Services for the purpose of 
     debate.
       (c) Except as specified in section 5 of this resolution, 
     each amendment printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. Unless otherwise specified in the 
     report, each amendment printed in the report shall be 
     debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to 
     amendment (except that the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Armed Services each may offer one 
     pro forma amendment for the purpose of further debate on any 
     pending amendment).
       (d) All points of order against amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules or amendments en bloc 
     described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
       (e) The first time after the legislative day of May 27, 
     1999, the Speaker declares the House resolved into the 
     Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for 
     further consideration of H.R. 1401 an additional period of 
     general debate shall be in order, which shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Armed Services.
       Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chairman 
     of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part C 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules not earlier disposed 
     of or germane modifications of any such amendment. Amendments 
     en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be considered 
     as read (except that modifications shall be reported), shall 
     be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Armed Services or their designees, shall not be subject to 
     amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
     Whole. For the purpose of inclusion in such amendments en 
     bloc, an amendment printed in the form of a motion to strike 
     may be modified to the form of a germane perfecting amendment 
     to the text originally proposed to be stricken. The original 
     proponent of an amendment included in such amendments en bloc 
     may insert a statement in the Congressional Record 
     immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc.
       Sec. 4. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) 
     postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
     another electronic vote without intervening business, 
     provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
     first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes.
       Sec. 5. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules out of the order printed, 
     but not sooner than one hour after the chairman of the 
     Committee on Armed Services or

[[Page 11218]]

     a designee announces from the floor a request to that effect.
       Sec. 6. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

                              {time}  1030

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a structured rule 
for H.R. 1401, the Fiscal Year 2000 Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate 
equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill. It makes in order the Committee on Armed Services' amendment in 
the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill, modified by the 
amendment printed in part A of the Committee on Rules report, which 
shall be considered as read.
  The rule also waives all points of order against the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as modified.
  The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the 
Committee on Rules report and pro forma amendments offered by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services 
for the purpose of debate.
  Amendments printed in part C of the Committee on Rules report may be 
offered en bloc. Except as specified in section 5 of the resolution, 
amendments will be considered only in the order specified in the 
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, and 
shall be considered as read, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
division of the question.
  Unless otherwise specified in the report, each amendment printed in 
the report shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to 
amendment, except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Armed Services each may offer one pro forma amendment for 
the purpose of further debate on any pending amendment.
  The rule waives all points of order against amendments printed in the 
Committee on Rules report and those amendments en bloc described in 
section 3 of the resolution.
  The rule provides for an additional 1 hour of general debate at the 
beginning of the second legislative day of consideration of H.R. 1401, 
which also shall be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services.
  The rule authorizes the Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services 
or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of the 
amendments in part C of the Committee on Rules report or germane 
modifications thereto, which shall be considered as read, except that 
modifications shall be reported, shall be debatable for 20 minutes 
equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the 
Committee on Armed Services or their designees, and shall not be 
subject to amendment or demand for a division of the question.
  For the purpose of inclusion in such amendments en bloc, an amendment 
printed in the form of a motion to strike may be modified to the form 
of a germane perfecting amendment to the text originally proposed to be 
stricken.
  The original proponent of an amendment, included in such amendments 
en bloc, may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately 
before the dispositions of the en bloc amendments.
  The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting 
time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-
minute vote.
  The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in the report out 
of order in which printed, but not sooner than 1 hour after the 
Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or a designee announces 
from the floor a request to that effect.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1401 is a good bill. It is a bill that will allow 
all of us to rest a little easier at night knowing that our national 
defense is stronger and that we have taken good care of our troops.
  We now know that China has stolen our nuclear technology, something 
the Soviet Union could not do during the entire Cold War.
  We live in a dangerous world, but Congress is doing something about 
it. We are working to protect our friends and family back home from our 
enemies abroad. We are helping to take some of our enlisted men off of 
food stamps. It has been absolutely ridiculous that our enlisted men 
are on food stamps to survive. We are giving them a 4.8 percent pay 
raise.
  We are providing for a national missile defense system so that we can 
stop a warhead from China if that day ever comes. We are boosting the 
military's budget for weapons and ammunition, and we are tightening 
security at our nuclear labs, doing something to stop the wholesale 
loss of our military secrets.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules received 89 amendments to this 
bill. We did our best to be fair and to make as many amendments in 
order as we could. The rule allows for a full and open debate on all 
the major sources of controversy, including publicly funded abortions 
and nuclear lab security. It allows for debate on a lot of smaller 
issues, too.
  I urge my colleagues to strongly support this rule and to support the 
underlying bill so we can have this good discussion on the floor today. 
Now more than ever we must provide for our national security.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following letter for the Record:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                     Washington, DC, May 26, 1999.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: In his recent letter, the President 
     indicated that the Administration considers unacceptable 
     Section 1006 of the House Armed Services Committee's FY 2000 
     National Defense Authorization bill, which restricts FY 2000 
     funds available to the Defense Department to be used for 
     supporting Kosovo military operations. Thus, the President 
     indicated that if Congress were to enact a Defense 
     Authorization bill that included Section 1006, he would veto 
     it. In an effort to resolve this issue, you asked for my 
     thoughts regarding the Administration's possible actions to 
     ensure that our military forces in Kosovo receive adequate 
     resources.
       Throughout the debate on the recently passed emergency 
     supplemental for Kosovo and other activities, the 
     Administration was clear about its objectives for funding 
     Department of Defense needs--that our forces involved in the 
     Kosovo military operation are fully funded to conduct their 
     mission and that the military readiness of all other U.S. 
     forces is protected. We believe the President's supplemental 
     request achieved these objectives. Consistent with current 
     practice, the President must retain the flexibility to access 
     various DoD funding sources to respond to immediate needs, 
     much as he has done in the past. We, of course, will work 
     with the Congress to ensure that any contingency requirements 
     are fully funded, as well as to ensure that other 
     priorities--such as military readiness and modernization--are 
     protected. With regard to Kosovo funding requirements that 
     may develop beyond the FY 1999 Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriation, to the extent that these requirements exceed 
     an amount that could be managed within the normal 
     reprogramming process without harming military readiness, we 
     will submit either a budget amendment or a supplemental 
     appropriations request.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Jacob J. Lew,
                                                         Director.


[[Page 11219]]


  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dixon).
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to announce that on Thursday, June 10, the House 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will hold a public meeting 
to examine the Chinese embassy bombing. Witnesses from the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence community, including the Director of 
Central Intelligence and from the Department of Defense are expected to 
attend.
  It is the committee's intention that this hearing will provide the 
American people with a clear understanding of why this tragic event 
occurred.
  Mr. Speaker, on May 7, 1999, the Embassy of the People's Republic of 
China in Belgrade was bombed by U.S. aircraft acting as part of the 
NATO operation in Yugoslavia. The embassy building was mis-identified 
as the Yugoslavian Federal Directorate of Supply and Procurement, the 
intended target.
  That mistakes were made, is clear. We need to know why, and what can 
be done to lessen the chance that similar mistakes will be made in the 
future.
  On June 10, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will 
hold a public hearing to examine the Chinese embassy bombing. Witnesses 
from the intelligence community, including the Director of Central 
Intelligence, and from the Department of Defense are expected to 
attend. It is the committee's intention that this hearing will provide 
the American people with a clear understanding of why this tragic event 
occurred.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss), chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
California for yielding to me. I want to confirm that the bipartisan 
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is obviously well 
aware of our colleagues' concerns on what went wrong in the bombing, 
and we are going to do our best to provide information to our 
colleagues and to all Americans who are interested in the subject.
  It was a bad mistake, it had serious consequences and we believe the 
public right to know in this matter needs to be brought forth in a 
timely way, and we believe this schedule will work.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1401, the Fiscal Year 2000 
National Defense Authorization Act, and I will reluctantly support this 
rule.
  The Republican majority on the Committee on Rules has recommended a 
rule to the House which denies Democratic Members the right to offer 
important policy amendments, and it is for that reason that some 
Members of the Democratic Caucus will not support this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules reported this rule at 11 o'clock 
last night on a straight party line vote. I opposed this rule in 
committee because the Republican majority specifically excluded four 
major amendments that Democrats had considered top priority amendments. 
Two of those amendments were truly bipartisan amendments relating to 
matters of great importance to our national security.
  It only seems logical that for matters of such a serious nature that 
the House be afforded the opportunity to consider a bipartisan 
response. This rule closes off that opportunity, and the debate in the 
House will suffer as a result.
  Specifically, Mr. Speaker, this rule does not allow an amendment 
proposed by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), which relates to 
counterintelligence activities at the Department of Energy.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) was the Ranking Democrat on 
the Cox committee, and his amendment reflects the important 
recommendations made by that committee.
  This amendment was cosponsored not only by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), but by the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. 
Wilson), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), and the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham). This was truly a bipartisan amendment 
sponsored by Members with expertise in national security.
  In addition, the Ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services 
specifically asked that the Dicks amendment be included in the rule. In 
spite of this substantive support for the Dicks amendment, the 
Republican majority has chosen to not allow the House the opportunity 
to consider it.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that decision reflects a serious lapse in 
comity and certainly a serious lapse in the ability of this House to 
address matters of such serious national security importance.
  Secondly, the Committee on Rules failed to make in order an amendment 
proposed by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). The Dingell 
amendment would have stricken language in the Committee on Armed 
Services bill which transfers the authority for security operations 
within the Department of Energy to the Department of Defense.
  The gentleman from Michigan is of course the Ranking Democrat on the 
Committee on Commerce, which has, under the rules of the House, 
jurisdiction over the Department of Energy. His amendment was 
cosponsored by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman 
of the Committee on Commerce.
  In addition, the chairman and Ranking Democrat of the Committee on 
Science, which also has jurisdiction over the Department of Energy, 
were sponsors of the Dingell amendment.
  The chairman of the Committee on Rules last night said it was not 
necessary to make the Dingell amendment in order since the matters in 
his amendment were included in an amendment which will be offered by 
the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a difference of opinion about how closely the 
Spence amendment tracks the intent of the Dingell amendment. In the 
interests of comity, I think it would have been preferable for the 
Committee on Rules to allow the Dicks amendment to be considered by the 
full House.
  Finally, the Republican majority of the Committee on Rules excluded 
amendments proposed by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) 
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters). These amendments seek 
to extend a program which has established contract goals for minority 
and other disadvantaged businesses for the Department of Defense, yet 
the Republican majority on the Committee on Rules failed to make this 
important matter part of our discussion during the consideration of the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, there will be a number of speakers who will follow me in 
this debate who oppose the rule, and I would certainly hope that the 
Republican leadership will listen very carefully to what they have to 
say. These are Members who have substantive expertise in the issues 
before us, and it is, quite frankly, demeaning to this body that they 
should have been excluded from the debate.
  I would like to say, however, that the bill made in order by the rule 
is a good bill. Mr. Speaker, when we ask our men and women in uniform 
to do the heavy lifting for us, when we ask them to shoulder such an 
important burden, it is vital that we make sure that they have the best 
training and the best equipment and that they be fully compensated for 
the work they do. It is our responsibility to make sure that all of 
those things happen. Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill goes a long way 
toward meeting that responsibility.
  The bill provides a 4.8 percent pay raise effective next January and, 
more importantly, ensures that future pay raises for the military will 
keep pace with private sector pay increases. I cannot stress too much 
how important this provision is to the retention problem we currently 
face with our active duty military.
  The bill also reforms retirement pay which will help with retention. 
The housing allowance budget is significantly increased in the bill, 
which will result in lower out-of-pocket costs for housing for military 
personnel.

[[Page 11220]]



                              {time}  1045

  The bill extends several special pay and bonus provisions, reforms 
the reenlistment program and creates several new special pay programs 
specifically designed to enhance retention. The Committee on Armed 
Services is to be commended for its excellent work in this area.
  I would also like to commend the committee for its inclusion of 
$250.1 million to procure 10 F-16C aircraft, as the President had 
requested, as well as the requested funds for the F-22 Raptor, the 
next-generation air dominance fighter. The bill contains $1.2 billion 
for research and development, $1.6 billion for six low-rate initial 
production aircraft, and $277.1 million for advance procurement of 10 
LRIP aircraft in fiscal year 2001.
  The bill also provides $987.4 million for 11, V-22s, one aircraft 
more than the President's request. The Committee on Armed Services has 
acted wisely by adding this additional aircraft so that the Marine 
Corps will be able to more quickly replace its aging fleet of CH-46 
helicopters.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1401 is a good bill, a bill we can be proud of. 
But, Mr. Speaker, this rule does not reflect the bipartisan support of 
the bill it makes in order. I will oppose the previous question and ask 
for an open rule at the appropriate time.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time. I would like to point out that this is a rule of which I do not 
believe the authors should be proud. This rule, I believe, strictly 
limits a serious debate with regards to our national defense and our 
involvement in war at this particular time.
  Today, the International War Crimes Tribunal decided to indict 
Milosevic. Milosevic is obviously a character that deserves severe 
criticism, but at this particular junction in the debate over this 
erroneous and ill-gotten war in Yugoslavia, this indicates to most of 
the world that there is no attempt whatsoever on the part of NATO to 
attempt any peace negotiations. This is a guarantee of the perpetuation 
of war.
  Milosevic is going to be further strengthened by this. He will not be 
weakened. It was said the bombing would weaken Milosevic, and yet he 
was strengthened. This same move, this pretense that this kangaroo 
court can indict Milosevic and carry this to fruition indicates only 
that there are some who will enjoy perpetuating this war, because there 
is no way this can enhance peace. This is a sign of total hypocrisy, I 
believe, on the part of NATO. NATO, eventually, by history, will be 
indicted.
  But today we are dealing with this process, and this is related to 
the bill that is about to be brought to the floor because, 
specifically, as this bill came out of committee, it said that monies 
in this bill should be used for defense, not for aggressive warfare in 
Kosovo, and yet that was struck in the Committee on Rules. That is a 
serious change in the bill. I think all our colleagues must remember 
this when it comes time to vote for the final passage.
  We could have had a bill that made a statement against spending this 
money to perpetuate this illegal NATO war, and yet it was explicitly 
removed from the bill. I think this is reason to question the efforts 
on this rule. Certainly it should challenge all of us on the final 
passage of this bill, because much of this money will not be spent on 
the national defense, but to perpetuate war, which is a direct 
distraction from our national defense because it involves increasing 
threats to our national security. It does not protect our national 
security.
  It might be well to also note that this bill does not do much more 
for fiscal conservatives. The President asked for a certain amount for 
the defense of this country, but we have seen fit to raise him more 
than $8 billion, spend more money, more money that is so often not 
spent in our national defense. At the same time, we must also remember 
that when we vote on this bill, and this rule allows it, more than $10 
billion will be in excess of the budget agreement of 1997.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, we must defeat this rule today. We must 
defeat it because it lets down the American people. It forbids this 
House from voting on vital changes to policies and procedures of the 
Department of Energy, procedures that have led directly to the loss of 
some of our Nation's most valuable secrets.
  Let me read to my colleagues a list of some of the national security 
protections the House will not be allowed to vote on today if this rule 
passes.
  The House will not be allowed to vote to double penalties on the 
traitors who betray our Nation by divulging our secrets. The House will 
not be allowed to vote to ensure that seasoned FBI counterintelligence 
professionals are hired at the national labs to perform 
counterintelligence. The House will not be allowed to vote to ensure 
that never again are counterintelligence agents forced to stand by, 
unable to search the office or computer of a spy while our Nation's 
secrets are being poured straight into the arms of potential 
adversaries.
  The House will not be allowed to vote to give the Secretary of Energy 
the authority to expedite polygraphing of people with access to our 
most sensitive nuclear secrets, even if the Secretary believes that 
doing so is vital to protect our national security.
  The House will not be allowed to vote to protect individuals who 
risked their own careers by bringing to light security lapses at DOE 
before more secrets are lost. The House will not be allowed to vote to 
require a comprehensive outside analysis of computer vulnerabilities at 
the national labs. And the House will not be allowed to vote to require 
a red team from the FBI and the NSA to find open ways into DOE's 
classified system and close them.
  Mr. Speaker, it is simply an outrage that the House has been denied a 
vote on these measures. But what is most disappointing is the reason 
why this has been done. The flaw which kept the House from voting for 
any of these measures is that they were part of a bipartisan bill which 
was agreed to by both Republicans and Democrats; thoughtful national 
security experts, like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) joined with me and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), and 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Combined, these Members have over 50 years of service on National 
Security Committees of the House, but we were denied because we chose 
to work together.
  I also understand that an amendment offered by two Republican full 
committee chairmen and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the 
longest serving and one of the most respected Members of this House, 
who warned everyone about problems at DOE when everything we have lost 
today could have still been saved, was denied a vote in the House.
  Today is a low day for the House, Mr. Speaker, unless we turn back 
this rule and start over.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and I worked very hard 
together on a bipartisan basis to bring to this House our best 
recommendations on what could be done to improve national security at 
these labs, and I am very disappointed that the Republican leadership 
has chosen to take a partisan approach to implementing our report. We 
spent 9 months working on this. We did our very best to give the House 
our best work product and to have the first effort here to implement 
these recommendations turned down by the Committee on Rules is an 
insult to the people who served on this committee.
  It was a bipartisan effort. Everyone on the committee was asked to 
join as cosponsors. I do not understand this. I am very offended by it 
and I hope that the people and the press will take note

[[Page 11221]]

of the fact that within hours of our report being presented to the 
House, already partisan considerations in terms of implementing these 
recommendations are being put forward. It is an insult.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Hansen).
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise on this particular bill as a Member 
of the Committee on Armed Services. I am distraught and somewhat upset 
that there is so little money going into the military at a time when it 
is being cut back so dramatically.
  Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to talk about today is a provision I put 
in the bill in the subcommittee chaired by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Hefley). In Utah, we have what is called the Utah Test and 
Training Range. It is a huge range, and probably one of the jewels as 
far as training ranges go. It has a place for the cruise missile, the 
tactical missile. The F-16 out of Hill is used there; the F-15 out of 
Nellis; the Navy uses out of Fallon, Nevada, it is used out of Mountain 
Home. It is 0 to 58,000 feet of clear airspace. There is no other place 
like that in the world that the United States has.
  We tried to protect that and have done our very best to do it. At the 
present time, the Governor of the State of Utah, Mike Leavitt, and the 
Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Babbitt, are working on trying to come 
up with some kind of wilderness issue along the west side of Utah. I 
have to compliment both the Secretary and the Governor for the good 
work they have done.
  As it has been a while, bringing this to pass, we found ourselves in 
a situation that we had to protect the Utah Test and Training Range, 
and so in this bill that we have coming up there is an issue about 
protecting that range. I have now talked to both the Secretary and the 
Governor and this language is no longer necessary with the bill that 
will come about eventually; and therefore, at the proper time, and 
working with leadership and working with the Parliamentarian and 
others, we will strike this language.
  I am not quite sure where that is, but I wanted to make people aware 
of that. There are a lot of folks, though, who have a total 
misunderstanding of how this system worked, who thought this was not 
done correctly. It was done correctly and in the open light of day, and 
this will be done at the proper time. I wanted to let the House know 
that that will be done, which will take care of the problem that seems 
to be bothering some of the folks from the environmental community who, 
frankly, do not understand the procedure.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, you need to have served here in the 1980s when the 
Democrats had a majority, and by a wide margin, to understand how 
unfair, outrageous and insulting this rule is. We had restricted rules 
then. We had closed rules then. But when the defense authorization bill 
came to the floor in those days, we were spending big money and it was 
felt that this was a free marketplace of ideas.
  I have seen years in the past when we had hundreds of amendments, 200 
or more amendments, filed in the Committee on Rules, and half of them 
were made in order. We came to the floor on some occasions and it took 
us 2 to 3 weeks to get off the floor, but we had a free marketplace of 
ideas and a full and robust debate. We will not have that full and 
robust debate today on a matter of utmost importance.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has told us that together 
with me and other Members, bipartisan, we sat down and took the 
recommendations of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and 
Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China and 
implemented them with respect to the Department of Energy and the 
national laboratories. We made a series of serious substantive 
recommendations supported by Members who know best because they come 
from those areas where these facilities are located: the gentlewoman 
from New Mexico (Mrs. Heather Wilson), who has Los Alamos; the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), who has Savannah River; the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), who has Lawrence 
Livermore. They participated in the formulation of this amendment. A 
truly bipartisan effort. Is it made in order? No.
  Now, in years past it was unthought of for senior members of the 
committee, for ranking members of serious committees of the House, when 
they offered a substantive, serious amendment, not a curve ball, not an 
undercut, and this is not that at all anyway, this is substantive 
legislation, to be stiff-armed like this by the Committee on Rules and 
the other side of the aisle.
  This rule says we have time to consider how lease proceeds from the 
dairy farmer in Annapolis will be allocated, but we cannot talk about 
security in the national labs. We have time to talk about how whether 
or not we will buy American when we buy weight training equipment, but 
we cannot talk about espionage in the national labs, not at least with 
respect to our well-thought-out bill. We have time to talk about how 
the Air Force will buy modular firefighting equipment, but not this 
important bipartisan amendment.
  This is a travesty. This is not the way to run the House of 
Representatives. We should defeat this rule and let everyone know that 
in the future, when efforts like this are made, they deserve at least a 
hearing in the well of the House.

                              {time}  1100

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to assure the gentleman from South Carolina that there 
is going to be a lot of discussion on the nuclear labs problem on this 
House floor.
  Mr. SPRATT. But, if the gentlewoman will yield, there is no 
discussion about the amendment which we offered which we have worked on 
for 2 weeks and in which there has been broad bipartisan participation. 
This is an outrage. We should at least be able to make it in order on 
the House floor.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Reclaiming my time, we had 89 amendments to consider in 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. First of all, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, just to respond to my good friend and someone for whom I 
have the highest respect, I do not know of any Republican on the Cox 
committee that was consulted on the amendment. I was not. As the 
gentleman knows, I spend a lot of time on these issues in the Cox 
committee. I take my work on the Cox committee very seriously. There is 
no member of the Cox committee on our side of the aisle who is on that 
amendment because I was not aware of it.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. It is my understanding that the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks) talked to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) about it 
and that my staff talked to your staff about it.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. No. I am not a cosponsor of the 
amendment, did not know it was coming up, would have helped the 
gentleman in the Committee on Rules if I would have known. But I just 
found out from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry). He is on it.
  I am just saying, I think we would have had a better chance for a 
truly bipartisan effort if the Republicans on the Cox committee had 
been involved and engaged to help make this process before it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. We gave this to the chairman, and I talked to him about it

[[Page 11222]]

two or three times as we were doing these various joint appearances. 
Admittedly, with all the attention there has been on getting this 
report out, we may not have done our finest job in getting this to 
everybody as quickly as possible, and I regret that, but the chairman 
was given the amendment and I asked him to cosponsor it.
  Mr. SPRATT. I am told that our staff met with your staff last week 
and gave you a copy. We would have been happy to have you as a 
cosponsor.
  Mr. DICKS. The chairman was busy, too, though.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Reclaiming my time, I would be happy to 
work with my colleagues and friends because they do have good ideas. As 
our friends know, there were 38 recommendations in the Cox committee. 
In fact, I was somewhat appalled that the White House spun a public 
response to those 38 confidential recommendations on February 1, before 
the Director of the CIA had even read the report, which he said 2 days 
later on February 3.
  I think a constructive as opposed to a political approach to solving 
the problems identified in the Cox committee is in order. I will pledge 
to work with both of my friends in that regard.
  Mr. DICKS. We appreciate that.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I just wanted to clarify that, that I 
would liked to have been a part of that effort and will pledge to work 
with you in the future.
  This rule, I ask that our Members support. It is a good rule. There 
are some things I perhaps would have done differently, but it is a good 
rule in a very large bill.
  I want to point to some specific things that are in here. We took the 
recommendations of Deputy Secretary John Hamre and his Chief 
Information Dominance Officer Art Money and we increased what they 
asked us for.
  We see cyberterrorism and the use of information technology as a 
major weapon in the future of rogue nations. We increase the requests 
in those areas, so this Congress has been moving ahead of the request 
by the Pentagon in that area. We, I think, reversed what would have 
been one of the most destabilizing issues in working with the Russians 
that we have. The administration originally proposed defunding the only 
cooperative program we have with Russia on missile defense technology. 
That was the RAMOS program. That alarmed the Russians. We have heard a 
lot of the rhetoric about missile defense itself and steps that we are 
taking to back Russia into a corner.
  It was in this bill that we restore that funding with the cooperation 
of our colleague on the other side, Senator Levin, who felt it was 
critically important that we reverse this decision by the 
administration.
  This rule is worthy of our support. I ask our colleagues to vote 
``yes.''
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this rule degrades 
democracy. It is a conscious decision for the democratically elected 
House of Representatives to avoid open discussion and debate on the 
most important national security issues. Let us put aside the 
suggestion that time dictated that.
  The gentlewoman from North Carolina said, well, there were 89 
amendments submitted. The leadership that decided not to go forward 
with the debate on these significant issues gave us all a present a 
week ago of 3 days off next week that were scheduled for work. The 
original work schedule called for us to meet next week. Three days were 
canceled. So it was not time. It was a political decision.
  We have on the other side Members who say, and some on this side, 
that one of the problems that is driving the military budget and 
causing strains in the budget like we just saw agony on this floor over 
the agriculture bill. Why? Because there is a general perception that 
the amount of money we have to work with does not equal the amount that 
people think is necessary to meet various programmatic needs. Clearly, 
as you increase military spending, you cause a problem there.
  One argument has been, we have to increase military spending because 
the Clinton administration has exceeded its capacity by overcommitment. 
Now, that is a valid argument to be debated, but we will not be 
debating it here, because that is too hard. That is one that might make 
people mad politically. That is too fundamental. We will debate the 
proceeds of the dairy farm at the Naval Academy and strength equipment 
and whether or not it is being bought right, and nonsecure tactical 
radios for the 82nd Airborne. Those will all be separately debated.
  But should America continue to have 100,000 ground troops in Western 
Europe on a permanent basis subsidizing the Europeans 50-some-odd years 
after the end of World War II? Nine of us, five Republicans and four 
Democrats, put together an amendment to say, let us cut that to 25,000, 
subject to the President's right to send more if there is an emergency, 
an absolutely untrammeled right to say in an emergency, they go over, 
but as an ongoing, permanent situation, let us not continue to have 
100,000 American troops there.
  Many of my Republican colleagues say, ``Well, we don't want ground 
troops going into Kosovo. We didn't want ground troops in Bosnia.'' I 
have agreed with that, but I am willing to vote that way. What we have 
are people who want the easy rhetorical out of denouncing something, 
but do not want to get caught voting for it because voting for it might 
someday have political consequences.
  So this leadership refuses to allow the House to debate an amendment 
put forward by five Republican, three Democratic and one Independent 
Member to say, ``Let's reduce troops from Europe.''
  In 1989, a group of us began working on burdensharing, on saying to 
our wealthy allies in Japan and Europe and in a few other places, the 
American taxpayer cannot keep paying that defense burden. We have had 
some successes. It has been bipartisan. My friend from Connecticut and 
I have been working on it.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is here. The 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), Ms. Schroeder when she was here, 
we had a good bipartisan group. This is the first time in my memory, 
the first time since 1989, when we have been refused an opportunity to 
debate burdensharing.
  So let me say to the people of Europe, I hope you are grateful to the 
Republican leadership, because having ended one welfare program, they 
decided to keep another. They are keeping the most expensive welfare 
program in human history, the one by which American taxpayers, year 
after year after year--I cannot give all the years because it has been 
since 1945--in which we subsidize the budgets of Western Europe.
  Now, you may think America ought to keep 100,000 troops in Western 
Europe so the Europeans can cut their budget, even though we do not 
ever want to use those troops, but how do you justify in the House of 
Representatives of this great democracy not allowing it to be debated 
and voted on?
  There is nothing in this bill, nothing, I take it back, there is one 
thing, there is an amendment that would say, we will remove our troops 
from Haiti on a permanent basis, one of the smaller interventions. But 
I heard the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) talk about 
Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda, et cetera.
  People denounce the level of commitment and say that is driving up 
the cost of defense. But this bill quite deliberately guarantees that 
whether or not we should maintain those commitments will not be 
debated. It is very cowardly. It is a stance of people who want to talk 
tough and take no action whatsoever.
  It is easy to wave your arms and denounce all these commitments, but 
then, however, to guarantee that they cannot be debated on this floor 
so Members never have to take responsibility for what they proclaim 
politically is unworthy of a democratic process.
  This bill ought to be, as it was in the past, as the gentleman from 
South

[[Page 11223]]

Carolina said, the form in which this great democratic body debates, 
should we have a two-war strategy? What kind of nuclear strategy should 
we have? What should the role of the American armed forces be?
  You demean democracy with this refusal to allow fundamental issues 
even to be debated.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I would just like to clarify that for the last 15 years this bill has 
always been structured. There are over 16 hours of debate. There are 39 
amendments, the same as always, on this defense bill.
  As to the question of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) 
regarding that subject, there are 10 amendments that have been made in 
order on that subject, one of which is the gentleman from Washington's.
  I would also like to say that yesterday in the Committee on Rules 
that the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), said it was the best defense authorization bill he had ever 
seen except for one provision regarding Kosovo which we have dealt 
with.
  According to the ratio, also there are more Republican amendments 
filed than Democrat amendments that were filed, which is the norm.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. 
I just want to say from the outset that I have serious reservations 
about this rule, and I have serious reservations about our military. I 
believe our military is in trouble and needs significant help and 
assistance from this Congress.
  Our military is not as strong as it should be because, in my 
judgment, we have too many bases at home and abroad. Our military is 
not as strong as it should be because we are oversubscribed in weapons 
systems. Our military is not as strong as it should be because we have 
not asked our allies to pay their fair share of the nonsalary costs of 
stationing our troops overseas.
  We have asked the Japanese to pay their fair share. They pay over 75 
percent of the nonsalary costs. The Japanese give us more than $3 
billion in actual cash payment for the 40,000 U.S. troops stationed in 
Japan.
  The Europeans have more than 100,000 of our troops on their soil and 
they give us a grand total of $200 million. We offered an amendment, 
five Republicans and four Democrats, to initiate a U.S. troop reduction 
in Europe from 100,000 to 25,000 over 3 years. We thought this was a 
sensible proposal. We thought it should have been debated.
  I just want to express again my reservation that this amendment was 
not made in order. Europeans have the ability to do more for the 
defense of their part of this world. They have the ability to pay more, 
but if we do not ask them to, they will not do so. They will be more 
than grateful to get this welfare from these United States.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I am disgusted today. We are going to 
debate defense, and we are not addressing our subsidies to Japan and 
Germany, who attacked us and took us to war in World War II. We are not 
going to talk about financing the Chinese military arsenal that has 21 
rockets pointed at us and not one of those rockets has a trigger lock. 
And we are going to have a debate on national security and we are not 
going to debate our borders that are wide open, they could drive a 
Chinese missile across it, and launch it from within America at any one 
of our cities.
  I am disgusted today. Literally. I do not see a national security 
debate. I see a national insecurity Congress, afraid of their shadow, 
afraid of some of the politics on our border. Literally.
  Well, while we are talking about politics, we are placing the 
American people at risk. I am disappointed.
  I have been a very objective Member. That debate on the border should 
have been allowed in this bill and, shame, shame on this Congress for 
making the American people vulnerable. Vulnerable to terrorism, 
vulnerable to narcotics.
  And I even struck out immigration. That is too damn political around 
here. Let narcotics come into the country and destroy our cities, let 
terrorists come into the country and blow up our trade centers, but let 
us not debate it, Congress. It is just too damn hot.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Members should avoid using 
profanity during their speeches on the floor.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise with grave concern today, both for 
the stature and status of our United States armed forces which 
desperately need a buildup and revisions with our national capacity to 
defend ourselves because of the trickling and actual flood of secrets 
from this country to China. But how we can debate today a bill without 
dealing with the issue of Kosovo, I do not understand.
  In the supplemental appropriations bill, we were supposedly 
rebuilding our armed forces. But we allowed reprogramming to occur from 
the buildup towards Kosovo. We had rapid deployment force moneys 
without a restriction for Kosovo. And in this bill, as of last night, 
the bill that went to the membership had a ban on funds from this bill 
being used for the war in the Balkans.

                              {time}  1115

  But mysteriously it disappeared. Apparently, the other party was 
notified this morning that it was out, but in our notices to our 
members we did not realize until we come to the floor and get ready for 
debate that no longer is there a protection in this bill and the bill 
that was distributed to the membership; not only were they not going to 
allow the debate, but the bill that was given to us had the impression 
that it had a ban in. I had an amendment that would have restricted the 
funds even more broadly than that, but that is not in order.
  How we can debate about our Armed Forces and whether we need to 
rebuild and restructure our armed forces and not debate the one thing 
that is depleting, that is unifying Jimmy Carter and his great 
editorial today in the New York Times saying civilians are victims of 
our flawed approach, and Henry Kissinger and an increasing majority of 
Americans realizing that we are burning up in a futile effort, in an 
effort over there that is actually worsening world conditions without 
accomplishing its goals; how we can have a defense authorization debate 
and, for that matter, an appropriations debate without allowing 
amendments that would restrict these funds in the name of a military 
buildup while armed forces are being destroyed is beyond me.
  I have not voted against a rule this year or a procedure, but I 
cannot in good conscience vote for this rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to register my concern and my 
disappointment that this rule eliminates a portion of the bill that 
would have blocked funding for the further prosecution of the war in 
Kosovo and Serbia beyond October 1, 1999. As such, it has canceled 
debate over U.S. and NATO policy at a critical moment. The war is 
proceeding without the requisite permission of Congress prescribed by 
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. We are correctly concerned 
about the plight of the Kosovar Albanians, but we should be no less 
concerned about our own constitutional process. An air war has 
continued despite Congress' disapproval.
  This war has imposed death and destruction on innocent civilians. A 
ground war is being planned. As we speak, 50,000 NATO troops are 
massing at the Kosovo border. British Defense Secretary George 
Robertson yesterday told NBC news that said troops would go into the 
southern Serbian province at the earliest opportunity and may well face 
a hostile environment.
  The United States is about to send its sons and daughters into a 
death trap in Kosovo, and this Congress will not have, with this rule, 
a moment to

[[Page 11224]]

debate this awful prospect. This, even as we proceed with an 
authorization of the budget of the Department of Defense.
  Today's reports of the war crime indictment of Slobodan Milosevic are 
fueling the fiery coals of war glowing in the eyes of NATO hawks. This 
means a ground war they call down. Congress must speak out clearly and 
convincingly against a ground war. Congress should pass Mr. Weldon's 
House Resolution 99 which calls for a peaceful resolution of this war 
through negotiations to stop the bombing, remove Serb troops from 
Kosovo, cease the military activities of the KLA, repatriate the 
Kosovar Albanians under the watchful eyes of armed international 
peacekeepers.
  Even at this moment peace is still possible without further war, but 
peace becomes increasingly difficult without further debate, and peace 
becomes increasingly distant without imposing limitations on this 
administration.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding this time to me, and I rise to express my disappointment in 
this rule.
  I read, as many Members did, with intense interest the Cox report. In 
particular I was very interested in the section on the proliferation of 
missile technology to the Communist Chinese primarily through them 
launching our satellites from China, and I was very pleased that the 
Cox report included language that said expansion of U.S. launch 
capacity is in the national security interests of the United States. 
Further, it went on to say it is the national security interests of the 
United States to increase this launch capacity in the summary, and it 
is in one of the recommendations. But this bill does absolutely nothing 
to address this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I had an amendment that was not made in order that was 
attempting to address this issue simply by implementing something that 
the Air Force itself recommended in one of its own studies, and that is 
to add additional personnel at a launch range that would allow them to 
increase the capacity at the range, and I was extremely disappointed 
that this was not made in order, and I am extremely concerned that we, 
as a Congress, are not doing anything about this problem. We are 
complaining and getting very concerned about the proliferation of U.S. 
technology through the Communist Chinese going to all of these rogue 
nations like Iran and Iraq and North Korea, but here we are. We have a 
bill before us that attempts to do absolutely nothing to address this 
very, very critical issue. We have U.S. satellite manufacturers 
building U.S. satellites and then going to Communist China to launch 
those satellites, and one of the reasons they do that is they cannot 
actually get it scheduled at places like Cape Canaveral, and my 
amendment simply would have called for the expense of a very modest 
amount of money, $7 million, that would have dramatically increased the 
capacity at the launch range, and I am extremely disappointed that that 
amendment was not made in order.
  Another feature of my amendment, which is something that is another 
extremely critical issue, is the Air Force has for years been raiding 
the accounts that are used to modernize the launch range. We still have 
equipment at these ranges that operate on vacuum tubes, and my 
amendment simply would say: Stop raiding this account, let us modernize 
the launch range and make sure it is operating efficiently and at low 
costs.
  Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed in this rule. This is truly 
a national security issue, the proliferation and the transmission of 
U.S. technology to the Communist Chinese. We are not doing anything 
about it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
rule. I would like to remind my colleagues that they have but one 
chance a year to define defense policy for the United States of 
America, and that is the defense authorization bill.
  But I also like to remind my colleagues that Article I, Section 8 of 
the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall have the 
power to provide for the common defense, to declare war, to raise and 
support armies, to provide and maintain a Navy, to make rules for the 
government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
  For over 60 days American airmen have been at war in the Federal 
Republic of Yugoslavia, and for 60 days neither the President of the 
United States, nor the Congress of the United States, has said what we 
hope to accomplish.
  I had offered an amendment that would state America's goals in this 
conflict. I realize many of my colleagues wish it had not happened. I 
think for the sake of the people who are fighting this war we need to 
do one or the other. Either let those who are opposed to it prevail and 
get the troops out or establish a clearly definable set of goals so 
that we know what we are aiming for as a Nation in Yugoslavia.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition; that is, 
opposition, to this rule.
  When the Committee on Armed Services reported this bill, it very 
wisely included a provision saying that the funds in this bill for 
fiscal year 2000 could not be used for continuing the war in Kosovo for 
another year. But the Committee on Rules has decided and have taken it 
upon themselves to use this rule to strike out that provision. That 
means, if we are to adopt this rule, this bill would become an 
authorization to continue the war for another year.
  This is unconscionable. If our leadership or the Committee on Rules 
wants to authorize the continuation of this war in the Balkans, they 
should allow an up-or-down vote on that issue. Instead, they have made 
this rule a vote on whether or not to continue the war in the Balkans.
  I say vote no on keeping this war going into the next millennium, 
vote no on this rule, and send a message to the leadership of both 
parties that we expect this body to be handled in a democratic fashion 
and not autocratically.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
  For the past 3 weeks, Mr. Speaker, a bipartisan group of Members has 
worked to develop a comprehensive, responsible approach to addressing 
our concerns over insufficient security at the national laboratories. 
This group included the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) 
and me.
  Incredibly, the Committee on Rules has refused to allow this 
amendment to be considered by the House. Instead, Mr. Speaker, the 
Committee on Rules has decided to turn our Nation's security into a 
partisan issue. It has rejected a sincere bipartisan effort to improve 
our counterintelligence programs and protect the secrets at our labs. 
The Dicks amendment, Mr. Speaker, would put into law many of the 
measures Energy Secretary Richardson has pledged to undertake. We would 
provide the Secretary the authority to implement polygraph examinations 
of scientists with access to the most sensitive information. We would 
increase financial penalties for employees who mishandle classified 
material, provide whistleblower protection for employees who report 
misdeeds and clarify that the Energy Secretary has the authority to 
order the examination of computers in offices owned by the Federal 
Government. Most importantly, our legislation would establish direct 
lines of counterintelligence authority at the Department of Energy with 
the ultimate responsibility resting with the Secretary. The greatest 
error in our counterintelligence efforts has been a lack of any clear 
individual responsible for protecting our Nation's

[[Page 11225]]

secrets. Energy Secretary Richardson has stepped forward to assume that 
responsibility, and our legislation would provide him the authority he 
needs to manage the job.
  The Committee on Rules' decision to bar this amendment from 
consideration is misguided. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly support this rule; I 
repeat, to strongly support the rule.
  Now I have heard Members on both sides who have made very strong and 
compelling arguments about a number of very important issues. But Fort 
Bragg and Pope Air Force Base are an integral part of the Eighth 
District of North Carolina, and to me the issue here is simply putting 
forth a rule that allows us to buy ammunition for training, it allows 
us to buy fuel for our helicopters, it allows us to buy spare parts 
that are missing.
  So I would simply ask that these very important issues not be laid 
aside but be temporarily displaced so that we can send a message and 
the materiel that are badly needed by our troops.
  This rule is about advancing the cause of our men and women in the 
Armed Services, and both parties have done an excellent job of speaking 
out and saying this is the year of the troops.
  So please join me, support this rule, and let us support our troops.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Turner).

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, this bill came out of the Committee on Armed 
Services with a provision that would have prohibited the use of any of 
the funds in the bill for operations in the Republic of Yugoslavia, 
whether it be for the current operations or peacekeeping operations. I 
was pleased that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking 
Democrat, offered an amendment to try to strike that irresponsible 
language. Joined by all of the Democratic Members of the committee and 
a few Republicans, we still came up short, but I am pleased to see that 
the Committee on Rules has recognized the irresponsible language and 
has stricken it from the bill.
  This language is irresponsible because on September 30 all funds 
would have been cut off for our military operations in Yugoslavia, and 
it would have endangered the lives of our men and women serving in the 
armed forces. We would have airmen in the air on a night when we would 
be telling our Defense Department they could no longer expend funds for 
their safety or their operations.
  The language also sent a very terrible signal to President Milosevic 
at a very critical time in the negotiation process. The fate of the 1.5 
million ethnic Albanians hangs in the balance and the moral imperative 
for involvement is undeniable. The NATO alliance which was formed out 
of the ashes of World War II has protected the peace and security of 
Europe for 50 years. It stood against the Communist threat until 
Western ideals of freedom and democracy prevailed. President Milosevic 
is the last remaining vestige of the old order in Eastern Europe.
  The International War Crimes Tribunal has correctly indicted him for 
war crimes. His totalitarian rule, his repression of basic human 
rights, his manipulation of the media, and his incomprehensible 
genocidal campaign of rape and murder has no place in civilized 
society.
  The strength of our resolve against him will define our American 
national character for the 21st century, and will have great bearing 
upon the safety and security of the world that we pass on to our 
children and grandchildren.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. A vote in favor of this 
rule is a green light to send U.S. ground troops into Kosovo and 
Yugoslavia. If my colleagues believe, as I believe, that Congress must 
approve first the sending of any American soldiers, then my colleagues 
should vote ``no'' on the rule.
  The rule removes language which the Committee on Armed Services had 
put in to restrict the use of ground troops in Yugoslavia. A vote for 
the rule is a vote permitting those ground troops to be sent.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a 10-day break before us. We do not want to send 
a message such as this on the eve of that break, especially since 
newspapers in Great Britain are reporting that the President is 
planning to send 90,000 troops in. Our American media are reporting 
that airmen are being denied their normal discharges because they must 
stay to continue being a part of this unauthorized war being prosecuted 
by the President.
  The Constitution says it is our obligation before any war should be 
underway. Follow the Constitution, do not give a green light unless 
Congress says so. Vote ``no'' on the rule.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Metcalf).
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with deep disappointment in 
the rule we have before us. I offered an amendment yesterday in the 
Committee on Rules that gave us a chance for this House to take an 
essential step toward helping unravel the mystery of the Gulf War 
illnesses.
  I can understand the difficult task of the Committee on Rules in 
crafting this bill with over 78 amendments. However, my amendment 
simply required the Department of Defense to follow up on the 
recommendations of the General Accounting Office regarding the presence 
of squalene antibodies in the blood of Gulf War veterans. To not allow 
this debate is irresponsible.
  Mr. Speaker, we have over 100,000 sick Gulf War veterans in the 
United States today, and this House must stand in the breech to protect 
and ensure that every avenue is pursued to find for our veterans the 
truth about Gulf War illnesses.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend the 
debate for 30 minutes.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Objection is heard.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Reynolds).
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Rules, I 
think it is important to remind my colleagues that the Committee on 
Rules received 89 amendments to this bill. We did our best to be fair 
and to make as many amendments in order as we could.
  The rule clearly allows for full and open debate on all major sources 
of controversy, including publicly funded abortions and nuclear lab 
security. It also allows a lot of debate on a lot of smaller issues as 
well.
  We live in a dangerous world, but Congress is doing something about 
it. Congress is working to protect our friends and family back home 
from our enemies abroad. There are some very important things that need 
to be understood that are contained in this legislation as it comes to 
the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1401 helps take some of our enlisted men off of 
food stamps by giving them a 4.8 percent pay raise. It provides for a 
national missile defense system so we can stop a warhead from China if 
that day ever comes. H.R. 1401 boosts the military budget for weapons 
and ammunition, providing $55.6 billion, $2.6 billion more than the 
President requested. And H.R. 1401 tightens security at our nuclear 
labs, doing something to stop the wholesale loss of our military 
secrets.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this rule so that debate can begin on 
the appropriations for our armed services.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think the case has been made 
here today by a broad number of Members, both Democrat and Republican, 
to defeat this rule. Let us go back and do this right.
  The point has been made by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dicks), 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and others. Let us look 
at the

[[Page 11226]]

very important lessons from the report that has just come out with 
respect to national security. In fairness to the committee, the report 
was just issued. But let us do it right the first time.
  Let me offer one specific example. The Weldon amendment that was not 
allowed to be made in order by the Committee on Rules provides a 
perfect opportunity to respond to the recommendation that we begin to 
invest in the United States domestic launch capacity instead of 
relying, unduly so, on other countries to launch communications 
satellites. The Weldon amendment, which was the product of a study done 
by the Air Force, recommended a very specific investment by the Kennedy 
Space Center. There are other space centers around the country that are 
well suited for this investment.
  Let us go back and do this right the first time. Let us begin to 
respond to the solutions identified by the Chris Cox report, and the 
Weldon amendment would be a good place to start.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina 
withdraws the resolution.

                          ____________________