[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12274-12281]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         KOSOVO PEACE AGREEMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tancredo). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a few minutes rebutting the 
previous comments that we have all just heard. I will summarize it like 
this, and then I will move on to the subject that I really came to 
speak about this evening.
  Do not misunderstand. Members on both sides of the aisle, both 
Republicans and Democrats, want to get a medical system out there, 
health care out there that is effective and delivers a good product to 
help America stay healthy.
  It is amazing to me sometimes that some of my colleagues, strictly 
for political purposes, will stand up here in front of everyone and 
preach about how some on both sides of the aisle must not want health 
care for America. It is kind of like when we hear the education 
arguments up here, as if somebody on this floor really truly does not 
care about children. I have never met anybody that truly does not care 
about children. I have never met anybody that truly does not care about 
health care for America. I have never really met anybody that does not 
care about patients' rights. Of course, we all care about it, but we 
all have different approaches. And in order to fairly hear those 
different approaches we have to have some type of process. We have to 
have some type of order in the House.
  The complaint that we have heard in the previous hour is that they 
just would prefer not to follow that order of the House. They would 
like to go out of the process. They would like to have it their way. 
Well, I do not blame them for wanting it their way, but in the House 
Chamber we have to follow the process. We have rules. If we all follow 
those rules, we have a chance to be heard.
  My gosh, how many hours every day does the American public listen to 
us talk. Of course, we have freedom of speech. I was surprised, 
disappointed, even somewhat amused that in the last hour someone had 
the audacity to stand up and say we do not have freedom of speech in 
this country. Oh, my gosh, being on the House floor, which by the way 
is one of the highest privileges an individual can get in this country, 
but they say they do not have freedom of speech. Of course they have 
their freedom of speech.
  Both Republicans and Democrats in education, in health care, in 
transportation, in military, they care about those issues. Of course 
they care about those issues. And I think it is just plain wrong for 
somebody to stand up here and imply or directly state that one side or 
the other, like the Republicans tonight, the Republicans must not care 
about patient health care, the Republicans must not care about freedom 
of speech.
  Come on, grow up, folks. We have a lot of responsibilities out there 
to the American people, let us appreciate and let us respect the right 
that we have to stand on this floor without worrying about government 
oppression and speaking our minds, and that we also have the obligation 
to follow some type of process to have that order.
  Well, enough said about that. This evening I really want to visit a 
little more specifically about a couple of areas. Number one, about 
Kosovo.
  As we all now know, the news in Kosovo is good news. We have heard 
some good news in the last few hours. The peace treaty, if that is what 
we want to call it, has been signed. That is good news, regardless of 
where we all are on Kosovo. I, for example, do not believe we should 
have been there in a military sense. I think we had a humanitarian 
obligation. And I objected to the strategy that has been used by the 
administration, their approach to the problem in Yugoslavia, but 
despite that fact, regardless of where we may stand, we all ought to be 
happy that some type of peace agreement has been signed in the next 
couple of weeks. Hopefully, it will be executed in such a way that the 
death and the raping and the burning will come to a stop over in 
Yugoslavia.
  But while many people tonight will celebrate what happened with this 
peace agreement, we have to remember that old saying that the devil is 
in the details. What are the details of this peace agreement? What do 
we have in Kosovo? What is the situation? There are a number of areas 
that we should look at.
  Remember what is very important about any action taken by a 
government, really any action taken by anyone, and that is that intent 
cannot be measured. We must measure results. The intent here was 
probably well-founded. I have never criticized the President for his 
intent. I think it was well-founded. Or the administration and the 
other officers in the administration. It is the results that I 
question. What are the results of what we have done?
  Now that we are about to go into Kosovo with military forces on a 
peacekeeping mission, we need to see what were the results of the last 
78 days of bombing. Take a look at the Yugoslavian economy. We are 
discussing our defense budget. To give an idea of the

[[Page 12275]]

total gross national product of Yugoslavia, the total gross national 
product of Yugoslavia is one-fifteenth of our defense budget. In 
Colorado, that is my home State, our gross State product is about $95 
billion a year. Ninety-five billion dollars a year in the State of 
Colorado. In the entire country of Yugoslavia it is about $17 billion. 
It took us 78 days to get to this point. What is the result of that 78 
days of warfare?
  There are some questions we need to ask, and I hope we get 
satisfactory answers. I do not like being a person who constantly 
criticizes, but I do have an obligation as an elected Member of the 
United States Congress to stand up and ask questions where I have doubt 
about the strategy that is being deployed.

                              {time}  2200

  There are a number of questions that we should ask. And we should not 
let this peace agreement, which will be spun extensively, the spin 
doctors are already at work tonight, I can tell my colleagues they are 
burning midnight oil to spin this as a huge victory for the American 
people, a huge victory for the freedom of this world.
  Well, maybe so. I do not think so. But maybe so. But let me say the 
way we measure, remember, we measure results.
  Let us take a look at what we have accomplished. Let us talk about 
what is going to happen now. Remember that the United States, in 
effect, chose sides when the administration decided to go into the 
sovereign territory of another country, which, by the way, just a 
couple of years ago, about 7 years ago, we went to war over.
  As my colleagues will remember, when Iraq invaded the sovereign 
territory of Kuwait, we, as a country, said you should not invade the 
sovereign territory of another country so we will go to war with you to 
push you outside that sovereign territory. Well, now the United States, 
through the auspices of NATO, is doing exactly the same thing. They 
invaded the sovereign territory of Yugoslavia.
  Now, do not take me wrong. There were some very atrocious things 
going on in Yugoslavia. But they were not only being committed by the 
Serbs. They were also being committed by an organization called the 
KLA, the Kosovo Liberation Army.
  Do we know anything about the Kosovo Liberation Army with whom we 
sided in this conflict? The answer is yes. Do my colleagues know how we 
knew of them? They are terrorists. These people, this organization, was 
listed by our State Department as terrorists. They committed acts of 
terrorism. Our country recognized them as terrorists.
  So what our administration consciously decided to do was to go into 
the sovereign territory, to go into the sovereign territory of another 
country to take sides with an organization that we ourselves label as 
terrorists and to go to battle.
  Well, now that we have apparently pushed the Yugoslavian Serbs out of 
the territory of Kosovo, I can tell my colleagues that the Kosovo 
Liberation Army will not stop there. They do not want the Serbs just 
out of Kosovo. They want an independent State of Kosovo.
  If the United States were to grant that or NATO or the world were to 
say that is what should happen, in effect we would have given our sign 
of approval and actually participated in the invasion of a foreign 
country by a defensive organization. Remember, NATO is a defensive 
organization. So we have NATO go on offense. We go into the sovereign 
territory of another country. We portion out a part of that country and 
turn that portion over to an organization called the Kosovo Liberation 
Army, which we know are terrorists.
  Well, let us think about what is going to happen. Who is going to 
disarm the Kosovo Liberation Army? Who is going to control them? We 
have controlled the Serbs. But remember, this latest conflict started 
when the Kosovo Liberation Army people started assassinating Serb 
police officers.
  How are we going to disarm the Kosovo Liberation Army? In my opinion, 
we are not going to disarm them. This is the onset of a new problem 
that will last for a long time. And I can tell my colleagues that our 
European allies will expect the United States to resolve it. I am going 
to talk about burden sharing a little later on in my comments. But the 
United States is going to be the one in the future that is looked upon 
to resolve this.
  We have got some other questions. How are we going to police these 
areas? This is what we want to see in the details of that agreement. 
Again, if we have got an agreement and if we can answer these questions 
with a positive result, and that is what we want to measure are the 
results, then this is great. But we ought to ask those questions.
  And my colleagues, do not let the spin that is going to come off this 
agreement tomorrow by the administration or whoever, do not let that 
spin mask the fact that we all need to look at what the details of this 
agreement are. Who is going to police the areas? How are we going to 
set up a judiciary system? What are we going to do about the economy?
  Remember, in Kosovo they did not have any time to plant the seeds. 
They did not get in their spring plantings. They do not have an 
economy. My colleagues, many of those refugees, who, by the way, I 
think will claim political asylum and ask to stay in the United States, 
many of those refugees will not go back into Kosovo. Many of those 
refugees who do go back into Kosovo are going back to burned bridges, 
destroyed schools, destroyed clinics, destroyed roads, destroyed 
fields, no economy, no health care, no type of welfare system, no 
transportation system, no heat for the winter, no air conditioning for 
the summer, no water that is kind of like the water we have, purified 
and clean water.
  This is a huge problem over there. Who is going to pay the tab of 
that? Well, you got it. In my opinion, the United States will. But I am 
going to address that a little later on.
  We also know that the Serbs have destroyed all these legal documents. 
I mean, let us face it, the Kosovo Liberation Army and the Serbs are 
both bad characters; the leaders, not the citizens. The citizens are 
innocent and they are good people. But the leaderships of these two 
organizations are murderers, both sides of them. They are murderers. 
They are criminals. They are bandits. They are crooks.
  Well, what the Serbs did is they made sure that for the innocent 
citizens in Kosovo, they destroyed all their legal documents. Who is 
going to set up the judiciary over there, the judicial process? 
Remember, our military, our soldiers are not judges. They are not 
police officers. And there is a difference between a police officer and 
a soldier. I used to be a police officer. I have a little understanding 
of that.
  How are we going to set up the judiciary system? How will command and 
control work? What will Russia's role be in here? What is the future of 
American foreign policy? What we have done is set a legal precedent 
here. As I mentioned earlier, we have entered the sovereign territory 
of another country to resolve a civil war.
  Now, some people will tell us that this was a genocide, that this is 
like Adolf Hitler, that the United States of America had a moral 
obligation to step in and stop this. Well, number one, it is not like 
Adolf Hitler. Number two, there are in fact atrocities. But three, they 
are driven more by civil war than by a dictator who is intent on 
destroying a population. It is a civil war dispute that we are getting 
into.
  I am very appreciative of my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) 
coming to join us, because as he and I have discussed, these are very 
critical issues. But let me wrap up this legal point.
  What is going to be our policy? This is an abrupt change for the 
United States and for NATO. NATO has never carried out a mission like 
this. Nor has the United States ever broken with legal precedence and 
done this.
  What happens now if Quebec decides to vote for independence in 
Canada? Should we go to war with Canada to defend Quebec? What happens 
if some people in Mexico want to become U.S.

[[Page 12276]]

citizens in the State of Texas and decides that Texans should seek 
independence and become part of the country of Mexico?
  My colleagues, these are not imaginary questions. These are issues we 
should address.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Kingston). As the gentleman knows, the peace agreement has been 
signed. I am asking questions about, you know, the devil is in the 
details; what do we really have in these details? I have not seen the 
details. The briefing I got indicated it has been signed, but we have 
not been presented with any details.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I 
appreciate his basic opposition to our operations over there. And I 
have shared that opposition.
  It is interesting to see where will this be as opposed to the 
previously tried agreement. I hope that it works. I am optimistic 
anytime we have a peace agreement. But, at the same time, my colleague 
is asking all the pertinent questions. He had asked our reason for 
being there to begin with.
  Here we are now, 70 days of bombing, and I am still wondering, as a 
Member of Congress, as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, as 
somebody who sat in hearings and listened to Madeleine Albright and 
Secretary Cohen and General Shelton and Ambassador Pickering and all 
these other folks, and I have asked them and I have heard other Members 
ask them, What are we doing there to begin with? And we got very vague, 
nebulous answers.
  My colleague has raised the point about a civil war. What is going on 
in Sudan right now? Is there not a civil war? Is there not persecution 
of Christians over there?
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in fact, in Sudan and 
Rwanda there is not a civil war. That truly is a genocide. And that is 
the difference. And if our policy is going to be to stop genocide, we 
ought to be in Rwanda tomorrow or, as my colleague said, Sudan. There 
are hundreds of thousands of deaths, many, many, many multiples of the 
kinds of deaths that we have in Yugoslavia.
  Yugoslavia was a civil war, as the gentleman has correctly pointed 
out. In Rwanda and Sudan, there is truly a genocide. But we do not see 
that on CNN. We do not see the administration gung ho about doing that.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, no, we do not. And there is also a border 
war between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Will we be over there? What is going 
to be the policy?
  And where will NATO come to play? As my colleague pointed out, NATO 
is a defensive organization and yet this was an offensive operation. 
Are we going to be seeing NATO doing that all over the world? And then 
what are they going to do about the Middle East? Is NATO going to have 
a role in that? We probably will not see that. But what kind of 
precedent does that set?
  In any case, as the gentleman has alluded to many times, in terms of 
the details, let us assume everything that he has mentioned to this 
point, everything works out. The big question then is how is it going 
to be paid for?
  One of the things that has shocked me as a Member of Congress is that 
on peace agreements it is usually good ol' Uncle Sam, our hard-working 
taxpayers back home, our money basically buying off both sides. But 
over there, and it might be the President hosts something and you have 
all the heads of state and you have a big fanfare and it is in some 
strange and unusual place we have never heard of. And yet, at the 
bottom line, they all have one thing in common; and that is that the 
American taxpayers have paid both sides to quit fighting.
  There can be a great advantage to that. It might be cheaper than to 
continue fighting. And it certainly may save American lives. And yet 
how much of this out of 19 NATO countries will we be paying?
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Georgia, I 
think that point is a very valid point and I think it is something that 
everyone on this floor has an obligation to explore.
  Six hundred out of the 800 towns in Kosovo have been destroyed. There 
has been mass destruction, mass refugees who have exiled from that 
country who are going to have to go back.
  I mentioned earlier the economy. This is going to cost a lot of 
money. The United States has already carried by far the vast majority 
of the financial obligation of this war. There are American forces. It 
is American equipment. And it is the taxpayer, every one of my 
colleagues in this Chamber, all of our constituents that are employed 
out there, we are carrying the burden for this.
  So far it is $16 billion. But that is not very accurate. I think it 
is much higher than that. I think the tab to repair this is going to be 
around $100 billion.
  Now, does that mean that we should not repair it, that we should not 
provide these people with heat in the winter, that they should not be 
provided with food, that we should not try to boost their economy? No. 
Just the opposite. I think there is an obligation to go in there and 
help these refugees rebuild their country, help maintain peace.
  But I am tired of the taxpayers of the United States of America 
always carrying the burden. Where are our European allies? This is a 
problem in Europe. But I know what is carrying the burden. It is the 
United States taxpayers.
  Now, as my colleague knows, I do not have any objection to helping 
out somebody; we help people on welfare; if we can help out a neighbor. 
That is why America is great. That is what makes our country great. But 
we also believe in sharing, sharing the burden. And that is the big 
question.
  I am fully committed as long as I serve in this Congress to standing 
up to this President and this administration and drawing a line in the 
sand and say, look, Mr. President, we have got to have burden sharing 
here. What share are the Europeans going to carry in this? Is it going 
to be the United States taxpayers that for many, many years into the 
future will spend a lot of money that otherwise would go to our Social 
Security, that otherwise would go to our schools, that otherwise would 
go to our health care programs?
  My colleagues, do not kid yourselves. If we do not have burden 
sharing by our neighbors and the other members of NATO, and I mean 
fair, proportionate burden sharing, it will be a sacrifice in this 
country.
  Now, we are all willing to make a sacrifice to help a hungry person 
get food. But after a while, when we have got neighbors that can help 
feed them too, we cannot sacrifice our families. So this is a hot issue 
for me.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, just to put it in Georgia terms, I 
represent coastal Georgia from Savannah to Brunswick to St. Mary's, 
Georgia. I also have, a little west of there, Vidalia, home of the 
Vidalia onions; Statesboro, Georgia, home of Georgia Southern 
University. You take all the 18 counties of the First District of 
Georgia, it is about 600,000 people. Go down just south of that to 
Jacksonville and we are talking about approximately 855,000 people, the 
entire coast of Georgia and part of the coast of Florida. That is who 
the refugees would constitute if we put numbers to it. We would have 
that many refugees.

                              {time}  2215

  You take all those people out of coastal Georgia and let us say a 
hurricane came and the hurricane destroyed all the roads, all the 
bridges, all the factories so there are no jobs, there are no schools, 
there are no hospitals, there are no homes, and you have got to rebuild 
all that.
  And then as you have pointed out, our NATO allies have not been 
carrying their fair share in this war effort. I seriously doubt that 
they are going to be willing to do this in the peace effort. But as the 
President obligates us to rebuild Yugoslavia, think about what also is 
on the table. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, children's health 
care, immunizations, research for multiple sclerosis, for Parkinson's 
disease, for cancer, all this.
  Now, in an ordinary household, the American taxpayer is saying, 
``Okay, I understand, you got to spend some money in Kosovo so you're 
going to reduce spending over here, and these are

[[Page 12277]]

good programs but I understand choice, because I the American worker 
have to do that. I have to choose between a new dryer or a new set of 
tires for the family van. And so I understand that.''
  But that is not the case. Here in Washington what happens is you just 
continue spending in both places. That is one of the things that just 
drives us crazy with this administration, as conservative Members of 
Congress, is that if the administration wants to obligate us to spend 
all the money in Kosovo and let NATO not carry their fair share, then 
you would think they would at least say, ``Okay, but we are going to 
spend a little less elsewhere,'' but they do not do that. They continue 
to spend at extravagant and high levels of other causes, both worthy 
and wasteful. There again, the hardworking American families of middle 
class taxpayers who are already putting in 50 to 60 hours a week, two-
income families and they are running back and forth, they are paying 
taxes, one more time they are going to get stuck with the tab.
  Mr. McINNIS. My district is Colorado. In fact the gentleman from 
Georgia comes out to Colorado and vacations out in the Colorado 
mountains. I happen to feel like him, I feel very lucky about the 
district that I represent. But we camp out a lot in our district, out 
there in the mountains. We kind of have a rule. It gets cold almost 
every night, even in the hottest day of the summer it still gets cold 
in the Colorado mountains at night. It still cools down, so you build a 
fire. We have a rule. ``If you want to sit by the fire, you got to help 
gather the firewood.'' That is just a basic obligation. In the morning 
if you want to eat breakfast, you too got to get out of your sleeping 
bag when it is darn cold and help get things put together for 
breakfast. If we have got somebody who has got a broken leg or injured 
or is otherwise incapable of helping gather the firewood, then the rest 
of us pitch in and there is no complaint. Where the complaints start is 
when somebody is capable of pitching in and they simply say, ``Hey, let 
Jack do it. Jack's good at gathering firewood. I'd just as soon sit by 
the fire and not have to go out and do the work.''
  That is what I am concerned about here. I want a peace agreement. I 
want this thing resolved. I think there are a lot of details we have to 
talk about, and I think we should all seriously assess what are the 
legal precedents that have been set. But at the same time I think this 
administration, and I hope they are doing it, but I think this 
administration has an absolute obligation to the citizens of this 
country to say, ``Hey, we've been gathering all the firewood,'' and I 
can assure you that on this war in Yugoslavia, all of the firewood or 
90 something percent of the firewood that has gone into that fire was 
gathered by the United States, not by the other 19 people at the 
campsite. There are 19 people at that campsite. One of them gathered 90 
something percent. Our good allies and good friends, the United 
Kingdom, who have always been good, solid allies for us, they gathered 
a proportionate share, about 10 percent or a little less, they have 
been putting in a little firewood, but they have had their arms full 
when they were coming in so they are working. But what are the others 
doing? They are not carrying their fair share of the firewood. Now that 
the real expenses are going to come into play here, now I think it is 
absolutely critical that a couple of us stand up. We are not going to 
be popular because at this campsite there are 19 people, 17 who really 
are not contributing too much, so the two of us who stand up to the 
other 17 and say, ``You got to pitch in,'' you can imagine those 17 are 
going to say, ``Be quiet, what are you moaning about?'' and so on. But 
we have a responsibility to the American taxpayer to stand up and say 
to our European allies, ``You're going to have to pitch in on this 
rebuilding. You're going to have to help too. You're going to have to 
help gather that firewood.''
  Mr. KINGSTON. I think the point is that what we need to do as Members 
of Congress is to make sure that the President does everything he can 
do to get everybody to, I guess, pass the hat fairly, because if this 
is truly a European peril and Europe has the primary interest in it, 
then Europe has to also have the primary obligation to help funding in 
it.
  Mr. McINNIS. I think we are at a real advantage tonight because our 
colleague from California has come in with some more details that have 
happened just in the last few minutes or have at least been released. I 
thank the gentleman for coming out. I think it is a great opportunity 
for us to send this message out.
  I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
  Mr. OSE. I thank the gentleman from Colorado and the gentleman from 
Georgia for their generosity. As many of the Members know, we have 
access over the Internet to any number of things. I have taken the time 
this evening to track down off the Internet the draft text of the 
proposed peace agreement. I found it at msnbc.com/news/277886.asp.
  It is the text of the U.N. draft on Kosovo. While this is the draft, 
and it was put together yesterday, it does contain a number of things 
that I think merit our attention in line with the gentleman from 
Georgia's comments about our commitments here and our obligations as we 
go into the future. I would just like to highlight a couple of those in 
particular. There are three parts to this agreement. There is the 21 
paragraph preamble, if you will, then there is Annex 1 and then Annex 
2. I do not recall which of the gentlemen referred to it, but the 
phrase was the devil is in the details. I would particularly commend to 
your reading Annex 1 and Annex 2.
  In Annex 1, the document calls for a political process towards the 
establishment of an interim political framework agreement providing for 
a substantial self-government for Kosovo taking full account of the 
Rambouillet accords and the principles of sovereignty and territorial 
integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
  Now, what I am concerned about is what does that mean? It says a 
political process towards the establishment of an interim political 
framework. Now, I thought we were trying to find a political framework 
that would allow the solution, not work towards a political framework. 
The consequence of this is that we still have doubt and uncertainty as 
to our ultimate goals.
  There are three other points I would like to make about this draft 
text. Again, that was in Annex 1. In Annex 2, paragraph 5, there is a 
statement, ``Agreement should be reached on the following principles to 
move toward a resolution of the Kosovo crisis,'' item number 5 being an 
establishment of an interim administration for Kosovo as part of the 
international civil presence under which the people of Kosovo can enjoy 
substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to be 
decided by the Security Council of the United Nations.
  Take note, if you would, please. We have been there as NATO. Now we 
are transferring to the United Nations the responsibility for 
establishing interim administration and an international civil 
presence. Again in Annex 2, paragraph 6, there is agreement to allow an 
agreed number of Yugoslav and Serbian personnel to return to Kosovo to 
perform various civil and security functions after the agreement is 
made.
  Now, that is all well and good. But then, going back again in Annex 
2, the last one, is a comprehensive approach to economic development 
and stabilization of the region, including a stability pact for 
Southeastern Europe.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we have agreed to autonomy for Kosovo, self-
government for Kosovo, an international civil presence in Kosovo to 
protect the Kosovars and their autonomy, the return after their initial 
withdrawal of Yugoslavian and Serbian personnel for limited civil and 
security purposes, deployment in Kosovo of an international and civil 
security presence, and a blank check for economic development and 
stabilization. Well, who is going to bear the burden here? It begs the 
question. Who is going to pay for this? I am serious about this. We 
have spent $2 billion at least to date. Between now and the end of the 
fiscal year, we are scheduled to spend

[[Page 12278]]

an additional 3 to $4 billion. And we have opened the door to a draw 
because we are the only country that can do it, to a draw on the United 
States Treasury to reconstruct what we just finished destroying.
  Now, the gentleman from Colorado and the gentleman from Georgia are 
correct. At what point do we make a choice as to the best interests of 
the United States and its residents? Do we in fact spend the money in 
Kosovo and Yugoslavia for reconstruction? Or do we spend the money on 
education and health care and infrastructure here in the United States? 
That is a true and unavoidable choice.
  I regret to say, and I do want to say, I mean, I have been an 
opponent of our activities in Yugoslavia. I think the President made a 
serious mistake. I want to make sure that I am clear about this. I 
commend him for his behind-the-scene efforts in getting us to this 
point where we at least have the draft, as yet unsigned, of a treaty, a 
peace agreement that will allow us to terminate our activities there. I 
commend the administration for that. Mr. Speaker, it is a great thing 
for us to get to this point. But there is substantial uncertainty that 
remains here. As Members of the House exercising our constitutional 
oversight authority, we need to be cognizant that the United States 
remains the bank, if you would, on which the rest of the world will 
ultimately come calling to fund all of these measures that lack 
specificity, that are not well defined, that would not be used in 
private industry for any transaction whatsoever. This is a step in the 
right direction. I hope between now and the time when the United 
Nations Security Council adopts this and the members of NATO affirm it 
that definition is added to this agreement sufficient to answer these 
questions as to what the various phrases in here mean about substantial 
autonomy, substantial self-government and the like.
  Mr. McINNIS. I think the gentleman from California's points are very 
well made. He says the choice. Is the choice that we take, and I think 
actually the costs run about $1 billion a day. I spent a lot of time in 
business and in cost accounting. In fact back here I like to track the 
numbers. I like to figure out where we are. There is a lot of money 
shifting, not illegally but they put it in this account or take it out 
of that so it is hard to get a true, accurate reflection of what this 
is going to cost us. My estimation is by the time it is all rebuilt, it 
will cost somebody about $100 billion. Now, I think militarily we have 
probably spent about $16 billion, would be my guess. Now, they only got 
the supplemental appropriation for an amount but there are other moneys 
that they have drawn upon. But, that said, the question that the 
gentleman from California asked, which is a very sound question and, 
that is, do we take away from Social Security and from the programs, 
domestic programs of the United States? I think the people of the 
United States are willing to help make a contribution. Or the other 
option is, do you completely ignore the needs of these refugees? Do we 
ignore the fact that these villages have been destroyed primarily by 
NATO military aircraft? I am not saying it is NATO's fault, I am just 
saying that is the fact, that is how they were destroyed. Do we ignore 
the fact they do not have electricity for the winter, they did not put 
in their spring crops, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera? No, we cannot 
ignore that. What is the answer? I think the answer is a third option, 
that is, we go to our European partners and say, ``Look, this wasn't 
supposed to be a one-sided deal. You weren't supposed to get a free 
ride. You're supposed to help on this thing. You've got to help gather 
wood for the fire. If you want to sit by the campsite and sit by the 
fire, you've got to help gather wood.''
  So I think the option that we have to be very aggressive about and 
reach out and grab hold of is the fact that our European partners, our 
colleagues in NATO, have an obligation to pitch in.

                              {time}  2230

  They have got to help pay for this. They have to have their taxpayers 
help with this. Not just the American taxpayers, but the European 
taxpayers. And do not just make American programs like our schools, our 
Social Security, our transportation, our Medicare, et cetera, et 
cetera, do not make just the American taxpayers go up to the bar and 
throw money on the bar; make the Europeans. They are our allies.
  Frankly, I think they have gotten a free ride. Ninety percent of our 
military force over there has been American. Now, the British, let me 
make one exception when I say European allies. The British, the United 
Kingdom, they have been wonderful. They are as solid as you can get.
  Frankly, the other allies we have over there are not gathering enough 
firewood. I am one of those people, and the gentleman is one of those 
people who have been doing a lot of gathering.
  I am saying to the other 17 people out of the 19 at this campsite, I 
am saying guys, gals, I am stopping. You are going to help pitch, or we 
are not going to have a fire. Now, obviously we are going to have a 
fire, but it is not going to be warm enough for all of us. You have to 
pitch in.
  Mr. OSE. If the gentleman will yield, the United States has a long 
list try, as recently exhibited in the early nineties, of going to our 
allies and asking them to pitch in, as the gentleman suggested.
  It is curious, we have received from one ally a contribution, that 
being the ally from Taiwan. They have put up significant money, and I 
apologize for this, I don't recall whether it is 300 thousand or 300 
million, but the money they have contributed has gone towards medical 
and assistance, other assistance, with our refugee and humanitarian 
aid. So it is not a question of whether or not there are countries, 
allies of ours, even non-NATO Members, to whom we can turn for 
assistance. That exists. There are people who will help us in this 
challenge that we all face. It is a question of are we asking them? 
Have we asked them for their contribution?
  Mr. McINNIS. You know, we are about to face some tough budget 
decisions coming up this summer. We are the Republicans, we are in the 
majority, it is our decision. Somebody has to lead the charge. We have 
got to make tough decisions. I am not running from a tough decision.
  But the President in his budget has all kinds of program requests 
which in my opinion will greatly exceed the budget caps, or so you are 
familiar with it, the budget discipline that we put upon ourselves.
  We figured years ago, as the gentleman knows, that in order for this 
economy to stay solid, for the government to not continue to go into 
annual debt, we already have the national debt, to reduce the national 
debt and avoid the annual deficits, we have got to exercise some fiscal 
discipline that has not been exercised in the past. So we got an 
agreement out of the President that we would all live within what we 
call the caps.
  Well, the President's budget, what it does is it raises taxes so it 
allows expenses to go way up, but he says it is within the caps, the 
administration, because they raise taxes. We are saying you are not 
going to raise taxes, we have got to control spending.
  Now, out of this, it is going to be tough. We do not have a lot of 
money laying around back here. While you hear the word ``surplus'' a 
lot, when you really take an accurate picture, we still have that 
national debt.
  What is going to happen is if we do not go to our European allies, 
then this amount of money we have in the pot for American domestic 
programs, which is going to be tight as it now exists, in other words, 
it is going to be a really tough year fiscally, we now are going to 
have to make additional contributions out of our programs, out of the 
programs that are the highest priority for us as American citizens, to 
pitch in.
  As I said earlier, the gentleman has talked about this off the floor 
to me, we have an obligation to pitch in. We have a humanitarian 
obligation. That is what made our country great, is the fact that 
America always stood up to the plate. The United States was always 
there to help the underprivileged

[[Page 12279]]

and to help the needy. We will fulfill that obligation. But, by gosh, I 
do not want it always coming out of the hide of the American taxpayer 
and out the hide of the people who benefit from our domestic programs.
  So my message tonight, as is shared by my colleague from California, 
is you all, European allies, we all need to say hey, pitch in. No free 
rides. We have got a problem out there, let us get the solution. And if 
we all pitch in, by the way, it is not going to be too heavy a burden 
on any one of us. We can all help carry the pack up the mountain. But 
so far it is you and I, speaking of the United States, that have 
carried it this far up the mountain.
  I am getting tired of it. I want to give some benefit to our 
taxpayers.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I wanted to shift gears with the gentleman, if it is 
okay. One of the issues which the gentleman and I have spoken about, 
the gentleman being from Colorado, me being from Georgia, we have had 
shootings at schools recently, is what is the cause of this? I hope the 
gentleman from California stays, if he can.
  But I go back to my Clark Central High School in 1973. It was a large 
public school. We had the usual share of problems, of teens. We had 
love, we had breakups, we had couples, we had drugs, we had alcohol, we 
had DUIs, we had fast cars, we had the pressures of the post-sixties 
generation and long hair and hippies and good times and bad times 
associated with that. We did have school violence, we had fights and we 
had inner-city problems and some racial tension here and there. But we 
did not have random shooting of children.
  You ask yourself as a parent, I have four children, and I ask myself, 
what is it in 1999 that is different than 1973 that causes children to 
randomly shoot each other? What is it out there? Is it in the air? Is 
it in the entertainment business? Is it in education? Are we missing 
something in early childhood development? What can we do?
  One of the things which the gentleman has been a leader of is 
pointing out the amount of time that children spend before violent TV 
shows or before violent video shows.
  One of the statistics, interestingly enough I wanted to share with 
the gentleman, if I can put my hand on it right now, well, this is not 
the statistic I wanted to share right here, but the gentleman has 
brought this chart, and if the gentleman wants to explain it, I will 
bring it down there to him, but here is one of the I would say typical 
video games which our children are exposed to.
  If you go to just about any shopping mall, they are going to have a 
video arcade parlor. The gentleman and I growing up, we thought okay, 
that is foozball and air hockey and maybe one of those games where you 
go inside and drive real fast.
  But this is what they have. This game is it is made by Interplay, who 
is a big donor to political causes, but the name of the game is 
``You're Gonna Die.'' It is actually Kingpin. ``Kingpin is the life of 
crime.''
  In it are children. This is not adults who play this game, this is 
children at the shopping mall on Saturday. They can decide who their 
gang members are going to be, they can decide who they are going to 
shoot. They can steal a bicycle or hop a train to get around town. Even 
when you are in jail, you can recruit gang members to your side. You 
can talk to people the way you want to, from smack to pacifying, and 
then you can shoot and have actual damage done, including exit wounds 
to specific body parts.
  This is the cheerful manna that American children are exposed to over 
and over again. Because these kids, to play this game, you do not just 
walk in. Frankly, I do not think an adult could walk in and plunge a 
quarter or two down and start playing it. You have to develop the 
expertise. So this game is geared for kids who play lots of video, and, 
as we know, kids who play lots of video have a kind of addiction to it, 
and they play many hours worth a week. It could be football, it could 
be hockey or basketball, but, for some kids, unfortunately, it is 
Kingpin, Life of Crime, talking about ``You're Gonna Die'' and all 
these cheerful things. We wonder what kind of message we are sending to 
our children.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman, you know what has been 
exciting though the last couple of weeks. As you know, Mr. Kingston, 
you and I a couple of weeks ago talked about this very specific problem 
we think exists out there with society, and that is go to your local 
arcade. You will be surprised. These games are actually murder 
simulators.
  As I spoke a couple of weeks ago, it is very similar to the 
simulators that we use to train pilots how to fly an airplane, to teach 
drivers how to drive a car. These simulators teach people how to kill.
  Now, if you do not believe me, I know how it sounds. ``Come on, 
Scott.'' Go into the arcade and see it for yourself. I had not been to 
an arcade for a long time. My three children, Daxon, he is 22, Tess is 
21, Andrea is 17, so I hadn't been in an arcade. So I went into an 
arcade and I was surprised.
  But what was exciting to me as a result of our conversations here on 
the floor was, number one, we came to the conclusion, we do not need 
more laws. That may not necessarily be the answer. Let us go out and be 
consumers. Both the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and I 
represent constituents, and I think we have the bully pulpit right 
here. We can use this to talk about the executives at Interplay 
Corporation and make requests.
  You know what happened, Mr. Kingston? Well, you know. But for my 
colleagues, what happened after Mr. Kingston and I discussed it a 
couple of weeks ago, I had parents start calling me. ``What can I do,'' 
they said? I said go to your local arcade. If you think there is a game 
in there that is a murder simulator or is too violent for young people, 
the age of people playing it, tell the proprietor of that shop and 
demand that they remove it. Ask them to remove it and if they do not, 
demand they remove it.
  I followed that. I went to the Denver International Airport, right in 
the Denver International Airport Denver, Colorado, there were violent, 
horrible games in their arcade located on city property. I called the 
mayor of Denver, Wellington Webb. Within an hour those games were 
yanked. That is cooperation.
  Disney Corporation, Knoxville Farms, Six Flags. There are a number of 
people. Even the Video Association came in and expressed cooperation. 
They are concerned about this.
  So what I think is an important message here for us to get out, 
because you and I are not proponents of more laws, that is not 
automatically the answer, we will pass more laws and then we will all 
be satisfied.
  The answer is getting out there, get swift action, which you do not 
get with the United States Congress just because of the way the system 
is set up. Go out there, use consumer demand, go into the private 
marketplace, use the leverage we have and tell the producers, the 
manufacturers, the advertisers in the magazines and the people, 
retailers that put these games out there, look, no more. The game is 
over. Get those things out of here.
  A couple of the executives I talked to, I asked them, I said, ``Do 
your kids play these games? Do you have this game at home, the one you 
just showed us?'' I said, ``If you do not, do you not have an 
obligation to the rest of the children in our society?''
  We are going to make it out there so consumers do not want this 
product, consumers are going to want this product out.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Under the title of Rapid Response, let me give our 
viewers a web page so they can look this up. It is interesting, I think 
this web page has been cleaned up in recent days since the pressure you 
have put on them, but I checked it out and it does not really say that 
much. But you can get a little bit of a feel.
  Mr. McINNIS. If the gentleman would yield, if the gentleman would 
give the web page to the colleagues on the floor, that would be 
helpful.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Absolutely.
  WWW.INTERPLAY.COM/KINGPINCORPSE.
  So it is WWW.INTERPLAY.COM/KINGPINCORPSE.

[[Page 12280]]

  Now, the music is provided by a group called Cypress Hill the 4th. 
That is their album. The band is Cypress Hill. They have a web site 
also. You can reach that by just going CYPRESSONLINE.COM you can get a 
feel for where our kids are.
  One of the things that the gentleman and I as parents have done from 
time to time is sit down and talk to our kids deliberately about 
alcohol or drugs or sex or violence or whatever is going on in the teen 
world, and it is amazing to me what you find out when you take that 
time.
  As a father of teens, you have to wait until they are ready to talk. 
You cannot just walk in there and say ``Hi, I am dad of the year, I am 
feeling guilty. I want to interface with you.'' It does not work like 
that. You have to be available to them. But when they want to talk, you 
can get it out of them.
  It is shocking the exposure they have to violent lyrics or CDs or 
violent TV shows and R-rated movies where people are slashed from the 
very first frame to the final frame.

                              {time}  2245

  Then this arcade stuff, where they do it just over and over again. 
You know, if you start with small children, the desensitizing, by the 
time they are 10 or 11 years old, what a message we are sending them.
  The pastor, in Paducah, Kentucky, they had a tragic school shooting 
about a year ago. The kids were praying. The pastor pointed out who was 
presiding over one of the funerals of the kids, and I am paraphrasing; 
he said: We live in a society where we tell our children it is okay for 
us to kill our unborn children, so why are we surprised when our born 
children start killing each other? We should not be surprised.
  What he has done with that statement is raise this whole issue of 
violence to a different plane. What is the signal we are sending out 
here with the various messages that we are pummeling our children with 
over and over again?
  It could be irreligious, it could be video entertainment, it could be 
movies. It might be the way we as parents say something. It might be 
something altogether different.
  But what bothers me is we look at the actions by the U.S. Senate as 
they rushed on the blood of these children to pass strict gun control. 
For those who have no children at home, in most of the cases, to 
pretend that they have done something to protect my children or your 
children is absurd.
  In Columbine, Klebold and Harris broke 23 existing gun control laws. 
In Georgia, the 22 which the student grabbed was locked up. He broke 
into it and went out and shot kids.
  It sounds good, okay, we are going to pass gun control, but nothing 
that has been done by the Senate would protect my kids or the 
gentleman's kids or future grandchildren from anything that could 
happen at their school, which is similar to Columbine or what happened 
in Rockdale County, at Heritage High School.
  I think we as parents and we as a responsible culture need to examine 
everything that is out there. What is the toxin that is getting into 
our kids? As I said in my opening statement, what was it in 1973 when I 
was in a large public high school with all kinds of tensions and all 
kinds of influences, what was it that is different than 1999, when kids 
just randomly start shooting each other?
  Mr. McINNIS. I appreciate the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. I want to read 
a couple of letters here, but I do want to thank the gentleman. I 
appreciate the gentleman, I would like to point out, as a father of 
several children, and I think he has a great family.
  The key here is we can do something as consumers. As consumers we can 
do something about some of these products. Let us go out into an 
arcade. If we see a violent game, talk to the proprietor.
  What I found is when we talk to these people, for example, when I 
talk to the mayor's office in Denver, I am not sure they were aware of 
that. I will tell the Members, they were really cooperative. They got 
right on it. They did something about it.
  I think Members are going to find a lot of positive reaction within 
our community without more laws being passed by the Congress, being 
imposed upon citizens of this country. Without more laws, I think as a 
consumer we have some leverage.
  Let me conclude first of all by thanking my colleague from the State 
of Georgia. I appreciate very much his participation this evening, and 
my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
  I am going to shift gears completely. I had the opportunity a couple 
of weeks ago, I make it a point when I go back to my district to try 
and go teach classes in the schools. Before the schools got out for the 
summer I went and taught some young people.
  I wanted to read some of their responses in the thank-you letters. I 
like to leave this speech with a high note. We talked about Kosovo, we 
talked about violent video. Now let us leave it with a high note and 
talk about a few cute letters.

       Dear Mr. McInnis, I enjoyed you coming to my class. Thank 
     you for giving us the books, and thank you for saying I have 
     a beautiful smile. Don't I look exactly like my mom? Your job 
     sounds pretty exciting. I was really impressed with all those 
     questions, and you could answer all of them. Thank you for 
     coming. Your friend, Kyra. P.S., Josh was kind of cute.
  Josh was my legislative assistant.

       Dear Mr. McInnis, how are you? I hope your trip was great. 
     I never knew that we had the freedom of speech. On your 11th 
     birthday, what did you want to be? Thank you for coming to 
     our classroom. Kyle Webster.
       Dear Mr. McInnis, I didn't know that in some States you had 
     to smoke in your house or outside your house. Thank you for 
     coming. I think your job sounds fun. You taught us a lot, 
     your friend, Matt.
       Dear Mr. McInnis, I like you. I like how you taught us the 
     tree. Thanks for the books. Thanks for coming. Thank you for 
     teaching us. Your friend, Amber.

  The tree means the branches of the judiciary, the executive, and the 
legislative branch.

       Dear Mr. McInnis, thank you for telling me about the three 
     branches of government, the executive, legislative, and 
     judiciary. I didn't know anything about the three branches, 
     but now I do. I really liked it when you talked about all the 
     freedom of our country. Thank you for coming. From Derrick.
       Mr. McInnis, I'm glad you taught me about the tree. I like 
     the legislative branch the most. Thank you for teaching me 
     what they mean, too. I'm glad you got to come in and show my 
     class and me about all you showed us and taught us. I will 
     remember what you taught us. Your friend, Brandon.
       Dear Congressman McInnis, thank you for coming to our 
     class. I enjoyed it. I learned a lot of things. One of them 
     is that you are trying to make new rules. Your friend, Guy.
       Dear Mr. McInnis: I never knew that Wyoming had the least 
     people and California had the most people. My dad says that 
     alcohol is like pouring fuel on a fire that's already 
     burning. Thanks for coming to our class. Love, Alanna.
       Dear Mr. McInnis: Thank you for teaching me things I never 
     knew. I am still thinking smoking is not a law. Thanks for 
     telling me about the three branches of our government. I 
     never know there was such thing. I am surprised that in some 
     places you can smoke.
       Dear Mr. McInnis, thank you for coming to our classroom. I 
     liked it when you talked about the population. Your schedule 
     must be busy traveling all over. Have a safe trip!'' That was 
     from ``Your friend, Lindsey.''
       Dear Mr. McInnis, thank you for coming. We know that you 
     have a busy schedule but we are very lucky to have you come 
     to our class. I didn't know that the most population is in 
     California, and the least population is in Wyoming.
       Is it fun being a Congressman? Do you like to travel a lot? 
     I think you are a very nice man. I hope you come again. Thank 
     you for coming. Love, Joya L'Ecuyer.
       Dear Mr. McInnis, thank you for the book. How does that 
     money get to you? Does all that money go to you or do you 
     share some of the money? I will miss you. You are a good 
     teacher. I will never forget the lesson on the three 
     branches. Thank you for coming, love Megan Mueller.
       Dear Mr. McInnis, I learned the three branches and the 
     names of them. I didn't know you had to travel a lot and go 
     so far. On the tree the branch on the left is called the 
     Executive branch. The one on the right is called the 
     Judiciary. The one in the middle is called the the 
     Legislative. Thank you for coming. From Daniel.
       Dear Mr. McInnis, I never knew that California had the most 
     people in it. I thank you for coming. Your friend, Gary.
       Dear Mr. McInnis, thank you for coming to our classroom. I 
     liked it when you talked about our freedom. It was very 
     interesting. Thank you for the books. Morgan.

[[Page 12281]]

       Mr. McInnis, I think our class is very lucky to have you 
     come. Thank you so much, really. Oh, yes, by the way, thank 
     you for the books. Thanks for teaching us all about the 
     Constitution, laws, and tree branches. I think it must be 
     hard to do the stuff you do. Your friend, Brittany.
       Mr. McInnis, thank you for coming and telling us what it is 
     like in Washington. It is cool how there are three branches 
     of government. I never knew there were so many different ways 
     to have freedom. Your friend, Brittany.
       Dear Mr. McInnis, I didn't know that that is how taxes 
     worked. Thank you for coming. Thank you for the book. From 
     Douglas.

  Mr. Speaker, as we talk about some pretty tough issues up here in the 
Capitol, we should never forget how many times freedom is mentioned in 
these letters from these young people, how proud these young people are 
to be Americans.
  We often talk about what has gone wrong. I spent most of my speech 
talking about some things that were going wrong. But we should not 
forget the fact that most things are going right. If Members want to 
feel good about what is going on in this country, if they want to feel 
refreshed, go to a classroom. I have nothing but good things to say 
about a lot of teachers. It must be exciting every day to have these 
kinds of young people in their classroom.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time I had this evening to speak to my 
colleagues, and I want to thank all my little friends that sent a 
letter to us.

                          ____________________