[Pages H1495-H1585]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

2000 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT

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

{time} 1232

In the Committee of the Whole

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

[[Page H1496]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T29MR00.001

[[Page H1497]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T29MR00.002

[[Page H1498]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T29MR00.003

[[Page H1499]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T29MR00.004

[[Page H1500]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T29MR00.005

[[Page H1501]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T29MR00.006

[[Page H1502]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T29MR00.007

[[Page H1503]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T29MR00.008

[[Page H1504]]

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

{time} 1245

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

[[Page H1505]]

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

[[Page H1506]]

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

{time} 1300

We recognize that. But what we are training up is this narcotics
police battalion. They are very serious in their efforts.
The core plan of Colombia, in training these battalions, is very
serious. The transportation of the them for the helicopters is
necessary. I believe that Congress needs to step up to the plate. The
President has acknowledged the commitment of the president of Colombia.
We need the comprehensive strategy to fight this war, and this is the
initial first step.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the issue is not whether we should fight drugs. We
should. The issue is what is the most effective way to do that. The
issue is not whether we like the president of Colombia. I do. The
question is whether his country, his society, and his military are
reliable reeds to lean on when we are talking about starting a 5-year
or more commitment of military involvement.
I would like to once again read some of the comments made by James
Hoagland, who I think everyone knows to be an objective, middle-of-the-
road, and very sage reporter on international issues. This is some of
what he said on March 19:
``In Colombia, the United States pursues unattainable goals largely
for domestic political reasons with inappropriate tools.''
Mr. Chairman, I will insert the full text in the Record when we are
in the full House, but I am quoting portions now.
He goes on to say, ``Questions not being asked, much less answered,
now in the rush into quagmire include the following: What happens when
it becomes clear of the considered judgment of the U.S. Air Force
officers that the Colombian military will not be able to maintain the
Blackhawks under the conditions in which they will be flying is shown
to be correct? Will the United States replace the helicopters that
crash or are shot down at 13 million a copy? Will large numbers of U.S.
advisors be provided to maintain the helicopter force? If cocaine
exports from South America continue unabated, will 30 more or 300 more
Blackhawks be furnished to expand the war?
``Clinton, of course, will not be around to provide the answers.
Colombia's first Blackhawks will not arrive until 6 months after he
leaves office. His successor will inherent an open-ended military
obligation that can be trimmed back or abandoned only at domestic
political cost.
``Sound familiar? Do the names Kennedy and Johnson come to mind?''
He then goes on to say, ``House Republicans have championed super-
sized aid to Colombia with an eye to blasting Clinton and Gore if it is
not passed. They are the true catalysts for this foreign policy fiasco.
The Clintonites merely show the courage of their cynicism jumping
aboard a train they hope will be derailed in the Senate.
``The House Republicans blithely ignore the fact that American demand
is at the root of the drug problem more than Colombian supply. They
vote down efforts by Representative Nancy Pelosi to add funds for drug
treatment at home in the catch-all bill that provides aid to Colombia.
They slice out of that same bill $211 million in debt relief for the
world's poorest countries. They will shoot away the problems of the
Third World.
``That has been tried elsewhere with similar fuzzy and contradictory
thinking in Washington at the takeoff. I can

[[Page H1507]]

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

[[Page H1508]]

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

{time} 1315

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

[[Page H1509]]

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

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

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

{time} 1330

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

[[Page H1510]]

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

[[Page H1511]]

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

[[Page H1512]]

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

[[Page H1513]]

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

[[Page H1514]]

Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to
consider the amendments printed in Part A of House Report 106-549. Each
amendment printed in Part A may be considered only in the order printed
in the report.
Amendments printed in Part B of the report may be offered only at the
appropriate point in the reading of the bill.
Amendments printed in the report may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered read, debatable for the
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered as read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sanford

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

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

{time} 1345

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

[[Page H1515]]

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

Recorded Vote

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

[Roll No. 82]

AYES--108

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

[[Page H1516]]

Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thurman
Toomey
Upton

NOES--315

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

NOT VOTING--11

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

{time} 1417

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

Amendment No. 2 Offered By Mr. Toomey

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

The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

CHAPTER 7

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of the Public Debt

gifts to the united states for reduction of the public debt

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

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

[[Page H1517]]

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

{time} 1430

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

[[Page H1518]]

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

[[Page H1519]]

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

{time} 1445

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

Recorded Vote

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

[Roll No. 83]

AYES--420

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

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--3

Frank (MA)
Obey
Schakowsky

NOT VOTING--12

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

{time} 1507

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

TITLE I

COUNTERNARCOTICS

CHAPTER 1

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Salaries and Expenses

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

[[Page H1520]]

CHAPTER 2

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense

(including transfer of funds)

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

GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

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

CHAPTER 3

BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

Funds Appropriated to the President

Department of State

Assistance for Plan Colombia and for Andean Regional Counternarcotics
Activities

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

CHAPTER 4

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, DEFENSE-WIDE

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

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

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Obey

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

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

GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

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

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

[[Page H1521]]

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

{time} 1515

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

[[Page H1522]]

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

{time} 1530

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

[[Page H1523]]

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

Recorded Vote

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

[Roll No. 84]

AYES--186

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

NOES--239

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

NOT VOTING--10

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

{time} 1557

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

[[Page H1524]]

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

amendment offered by ms. pelosi

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

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

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

{time} 1600

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

[[Page H1525]]

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

{time} 1615

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

[[Page H1526]]

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

[[Page H1527]]

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

{time} 1630

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

Department of the Navy,

Office of the Secretary,

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

[[Page H1528]]

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

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

[[Page H1529]]

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

{time} 1645

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

[[Page H1530]]

U.S. Congress,

House of Representatives,

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

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

Congress Must Act on Colombia

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

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

Rebel Attacks on 2 Colombian Villages Kill 30

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

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

[[Page H1531]]

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

[[Page H1532]]

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

{time} 1700

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

[[Page H1533]]

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

{time} 1715

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

[[Page H1534]]

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

[[Page H1535]]

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

{time} 1730

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

[[Page H1536]]

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

{time} 1745

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

[[Page H1537]]

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

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

[[Page H1538]]

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

{time} 1800

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

[[Page H1539]]

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

[[Page H1540]]

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

{time} 1815

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

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hutchinson

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

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

Office of Justice Programs

community oriented policing services

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

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

[[Page H1541]]

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

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Sawyer

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

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

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

[[Page H1542]]

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

{time} 1830

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

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

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

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

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

[[Page H1543]]

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

Point of Order

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

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Gilman

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

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

CHAPTER 5

GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS TITLE

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

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

[[Page H1544]]

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

{time} 1845

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

[[Page H1545]]

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

[[Page H1546]]

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

{time} 1900

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

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Lewis of California

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

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

[[Page H1547]]

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

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

[[Page H1548]]

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

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

(in thousands)
Military Personnel, Army........................................$70,000
Military Personnel, Navy.........................................56,000
Military Personnel, Marine Corps.................................17,100
Military Personnel, Air Force....................................58,600
Reserve Personnel, Army...........................................4,100
Reserve Personnel, Navy...........................................4,000
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps.....................................600
Reserve Personnel, Air Force........................................300
National Guard Personnel, Army....................................6,900
National Guard Personnel, Air Force...............................3,400
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide..........................10,000
__________

Total.......................................................231,000
Military Personnel Recruiting Incentives: The amendment
includes Section 2208, which appropriates a total of
$600,600,000 for recruiting and advertising programs, as
follows:
Military Personnel, Army........................................$76,400
Military Personnel, Navy.........................................69,100
Military Personnel, Marine Corps..................................6,000
Military Personnel, Air Force...................................108,800
Reserve Personnel, Army..........................................47,500
Reserve Personnel, Navy..........................................14,100
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps...................................1,000
Reserve Personnel, Air Force.....................................11,700
National Guard Personnel, Army..................................103,300
National Guard Personnel, Air Force..............................12,700
Operation and Maintenance, Army..................................45,900
Operation and Maintenance, Navy..................................26,200
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps..........................14,700
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force.............................21,600
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide...........................8,800
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve..........................11,900
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve...........................1,600
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve...................1,000
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve......................2,100
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard...................14,000
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard.....................2,200
__________

Total.......................................................600,600
Defense Health Program: The amendment includes Section 2209
which appropriates a total of $750,000,000 for urgently
needed improvements to the military health care system.
Depot Maintenance: The amendment includes Section 2210
which appropriates $1,205,600,000 to fund shortfalls in
Department of Defense depot maintenance programs to be
distributed as follows. (Included in this amount is
$220,000,000 for the unfunded backlog of ship depot
maintenance that has emerged in execution of the fiscal year
2000 ship depot maintenance program.)

(in thousands)
Operation and Maintenance, Army................................$200,000
Operation and Maintenance, Navy.................................538,800
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps..........................50,000
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force............................250,000
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve..........................33,000
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve...................5,000
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve.....................37,200
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard....................91,600
__________

Total.....................................................1,205,600
High Priority Support to Deployed Forces: The amendment
includes Section 2211 which appropriates $1,212,700,000 for
shortfalls associated with requirements of deployed U.S.
forces.

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

Total.....................................................1,212,700

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

[[Page H1549]]

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

{time} 1915

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

[[Page H1550]]

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

[[Page H1551]]

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

{time} 1930

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

recruiting funding

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

quality of life

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

defense health program

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

[[Page H1552]]

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

Amendment No. 3 Offered By Mr. Ramstad

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

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

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

[[Page H1553]]

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

{time} 1945

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

[[Page H1554]]

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Farr of California

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

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

[[Page H1555]]

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

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

{time} 2000

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

Point of Order

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

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

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

[[Page H1556]]

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

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

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

Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Lewis of California

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

Recorded Vote

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

[Roll No. 85]

AYES--289

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

NOES--130

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

NOT VOTING--15

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

{time} 2027

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

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Ramstad

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

Recorded Vote

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

[Roll No. 86]

AYES--158

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

[[Page H1557]]

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

NOES--262

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

NOT VOTING--14

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

{time} 2046

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

Announcement by the Chairman

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

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Gilman

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

Recorded Vote

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

[Roll No. 87]

AYES--380

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

NOES--39

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

[[Page H1558]]

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

NOT VOTING--15

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

{time} 2055

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

{time} 2100

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

TITLE II

PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS IN KOSOVO AND OTHER NATIONAL SECURITY MATTERS

CHAPTER 1

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

security and maintenance of united states missions

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

CHAPTER 2

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Operation and Maintenance, Army

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

Operation and Maintenance, Navy

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

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

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

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

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

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

(including transfer of funds)

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

[[Page H1559]]

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

Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

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

Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

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

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund

(including transfer of funds)

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

PROCUREMENT

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

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

OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

Defense Health Program

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

GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

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

(Including Transfer of Funds)

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

(transfer of funds)

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

(transfer of funds)

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

CHAPTER 3

BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

Funds Appropriated to the President

operating expenses of the agency for international development

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

Other Bilateral Economic Assistance

assistance for eastern europe and the baltic states

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

[[Page H1560]]

MILITARY ASSISTANCE

Funds Appropriated to the President

international military education and training

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

foreign military financing program

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

CHAPTER 4

Military Construction, Defense-Wide

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

BROOKS AIR FORCE BASE DEVELOPMENT

DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

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

[[Page H1561]]

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

Military Construction, Army Reserve-

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

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

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mrs. Fowler

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page H1562]]

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

{time} 2115

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

[[Page H1563]]

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

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Fowler

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

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

TITLE III

NATURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE AND OTHER EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS

CHAPTER 1

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Office of the Inspector General

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

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

salaries and expenses

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

Farm Service Agency

salaries and expenses

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

[[Page H1564]]

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

emergency conservation program

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

CORPORATIONS

federal crop insurance corporation fund

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

Commodity Credit Corporation Fund

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

RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

rural community advancement program

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

Rural Housing Service

rural housing insurance fund program account

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

rental assistance program

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

mutual and self-help housing grants

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

rural housing assistance grants

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

farm labor program account

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

Rural Utilities Service

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications

Loans Programs Account

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

[[Page H1565]]

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

Foreign Agricultural Service and General Sales Manager

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

RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

buildings and facilities

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

GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

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

Amendment Offered By Mrs. Clayton

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

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

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

{time} 2130

Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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

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

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

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

[[Page H1566]]

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

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

Point of Order

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

[[Page H1567]]

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

CHAPTER 2

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

{time} 2145

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

[[Page H1568]]

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

[[Page H1569]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Economic Development Administration

economic development assistance programs

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

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

operations, research, and facilities

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

RELATED AGENCY

Small Business Administration

disaster loans program account

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

CHAPTER 3

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Corps of Engineers--Civil

General Investigations

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

Operation and Maintenance, General

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

ENERGY PROGRAMS

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

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

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

other defense activities

(including transfer of funds)

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

Amendment Offered by Ms. Kilpatrick

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

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

CHAPTER 3A--BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

agency for international development

child survival and disease programs fund

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

development assistance

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

international disaster assistance

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

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

[[Page H1570]]

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

{time} 2200

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

CHAPTER 4

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

wildland fire management

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

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

construction

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

National Park Service

construction

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

United States Geological Survey

surveys, investigations, and research

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

RELATED AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

wildland fire management

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Blagojevich

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

training and employment services

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

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

[[Page H1571]]

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

CHAPTER 5

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

low income home energy assistance

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Cardin

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

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

RELATED AGENCIES

Social Security Administration

limitation on administrative expenses

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

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

[[Page H1572]]

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

CHAPTER 6

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

COAST GUARD

Operating Expenses

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

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Federal-aid Highways

Emergency Relief Program

(Highway Trust Fund)

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

RELATED AGENCY

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

Salaries and Expenses

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

GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

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

{time} 2215

Point of Order

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

[[Page H1573]]

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

CHAPTER 7

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Community Planning and Development

home investment partnerships program

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

Administrative Provision

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

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Federal Emergency Management Agency

disaster relief

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

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

human space flight

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

science, aeronautics and technology

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

mission support

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

[[Page H1574]]

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

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

TITLE IV

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND OFFSETS

CHAPTER 1

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Weapons Activities

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

CHAPTER 2

RELATED AGENCIES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

state and private forestry

(transfer of funds)

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

energy conservation

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

CHAPTER 3

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration

salaries and expenses

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration

health resources and services

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

Administration for Children and Families

refugee and entrant assistance

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

payments to states for foster care and adoption assistance

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

Administration on Aging

aging services programs

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

GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

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

[[Page H1575]]

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Education Research, Statistics, and Improvement

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Isakson

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

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

higher education

(including transfer of funds)

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

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

GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

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

CHAPTER 4

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS

JOINT ITEMS

Capitol Police Board

security enhancements

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

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

Capitol Buildings and Grounds

fire safety

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

CHAPTER 6

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Veterans Health Administration

medical care

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Community Planning and Development

community development block grants

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

[[Page H1576]]

homeless assistance grants

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

Federal Housing Administration

fha--general and special risk program account

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

Management and Administration

office of inspector general

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

Administrative Provision--This Chapter

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

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

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Hoekstra

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

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

Corporation for National and Community Service

office of inspector general

(including transfer of funds)

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

{time} 2230

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

Environmental Protection Agency

environmental programs and management

(INCLUDING TRANSFER)

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

state and tribal assistance grants

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

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

CHAPTER 7

OFFSETS

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

(Rescission)

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

Other Defense Activities

(Rescission)

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

[[Page H1577]]

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary

general departmental management

(rescission)

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

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE
PRESIDENT

Unanticipated Needs

information technology systems and related expenses

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

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

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Largent

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

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

CHAPTER 8

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

General Administration

salaries and expenses

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

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

TITLE V

GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT

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

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania

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

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

[[Page H1578]]

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

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

[[Page H1579]]

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

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

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

{time} 2245

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

[[Page H1580]]

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

[[Page H1581]]

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

{time} 2300

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

[[Page H1582]]

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

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

[[Page H1583]]

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

{time} 2310

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Schaffer

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

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

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

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

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

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

[[Page H1584]]

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

{time} 2320

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

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mrs. Fowler

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

Recorded Vote

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

[Roll No 88]

AYES--183

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

NOES--232

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

[[Page H1585]]

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

NOT VOTING--19

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

{time} 2354

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

____________________