Congressional RecordUN

UME PLURIBUS

United Statesof America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 106th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

b This symbol represents the time of day during the House proceedings, e.g., b 1407 is 2:07 p.m.Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor.

.

H3697

Vol. 145 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1999 No. 78

House of RepresentativesThe House met at 10 a.m.The Reverend John Putka, S.M.,

Ph.D., Department of PoliticalScience, University of Dayton, Dayton,Ohio, offered the following prayer:

Eternal God and Father of us all, inscripture we read that:Unless the Lord build the house,They labor in vain who build it;Unless the Lord guard the city.In vain do the watchmen keep vigil.

Engraved on the wall above ourSpeaker are the words, ‘‘In God WeTrust.’’ We ask You to bless our Nationin abundance with Your grace and wis-dom as we thank You for Your giftsand entrust ourselves to You.

Bless Your people, and grant that ourrepresentatives in this Congress maybecome increasingly aware of Yourlaw, present in their hearts, and ofYour will, discerned in the crucible ofconscience, so that they may succeedin securing the blessings of liberty toourselves and our posterity.

We ask this through Jesus Christ,Your Son and our Lord. Amen.f

THE JOURNALThe SPEAKER. The Chair has exam-

ined the Journal of the last day’s pro-ceedings and announces to the Househis approval thereof.

Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Jour-nal stands approved.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, Idemand a vote on agreeing to theSpeaker’s approval of the Journal.

The SPEAKER. The question is onthe Chair’s approval of the Journal.

The question was taken; and theSpeaker announced that the ayes ap-peared to have it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.Speaker, I object to the vote on theground that a quorum is not presentand make the point of order that aquorum is not present.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evi-dently a quorum is not present.

The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-sent Members.

The vote was taken by electronic de-vice, and there were—yeas 309, nays 76,not voting 49, as follows:

[Roll No 166]

YEAS—309

AbercrombieAckermanAllenAndrewsArcherBachusBakerBaldwinBallengerBarciaBarrBarrett (NE)Barrett (WI)BartlettBassBatemanBecerraBentsenBereuterBerkleyBermanBiggertBilirakisBishopBlileyBlumenauerBluntBoehlertBoehnerBoucherBoydBrady (PA)Brady (TX)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCalvertCampCampbellCanadyCannonCappsCapuanoCardinCastleChabotChamblissChenowethClementCobleCoburnCollinsCombestCook

CookseyCoxCoyneCramerCrowleyCubinCunninghamDannerDavis (FL)Davis (VA)DealDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeLayDeMintDiaz-BalartDickeyDingellDixonDooleyDoolittleDoyleDreierDuncanDunnEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEmersonEshooEtheridgeEverettEwingFarrFletcherFoleyForbesFossellaFowlerFranks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFrostGalleglyGanskeGejdensonGekasGilchrestGillmorGilmanGonzalezGoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGordon

GossGrahamGrangerGreen (TX)Green (WI)GreenwoodHall (OH)Hall (TX)HansenHastertHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHergerHill (IN)HincheyHinojosaHobsonHoeffelHoldenHornHostettlerHoughtonHoyerHutchinsonHydeInsleeIsaksonIstookJackson (IL)JenkinsJohnJohnson (CT)Johnson, SamJones (NC)KapturKellyKildeeKind (WI)King (NY)KleczkaKlinkKnollenbergKolbeKuykendallLaHoodLampsonLargentLarsonLathamLaTouretteLazioLewis (CA)Lewis (GA)Lewis (KY)

LinderLipinskiLofgrenLoweyLucas (KY)Lucas (OK)LutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)ManzulloMarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcCreryMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcIntyreMcKeonMeehanMeek (FL)MetcalfMicaMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMooreMoran (VA)MorellaMurthaMyrickNadlerNapolitanoNethercuttNeyNorthupNussleObeyOrtizOseOxley

PackardPascrellPaulPaynePeasePeterson (PA)PetriPhelpsPickeringPittsPorterPortmanPrice (NC)Pryce (OH)QuinnRadanovichRahallRangelRegulaReyesReynoldsRileyRiversRodriguezRoemerRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRushRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)SalmonSanchezSandlinSanfordSawyerSaxtonScottSensenbrennerSerranoSessionsShadeggShawShaysShermanSherwoodShimkus

ShowsShusterSimpsonSisiskySkeenSkeltonSmith (MI)Smith (WA)SnyderSouderSpenceStabenowStearnsStumpSununuSweeneyTalentTauzinTaylor (NC)TerryThomasThornberryThuneThurmanTiahrtTierneyToomeyTownsTraficantTurnerUptonVentoWalshWampWatersWatkinsWatts (OK)WaxmanWeinerWeldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WeygandWhitfieldWickerWilsonWiseWolfYoung (FL)

NAYS—76

AderholtBairdBaldacciBerryBilbrayBoniorBorskiBoswellBrown (OH)ConditCostelloCraneDeFazioDeutschDicks

EngelEnglishFilnerFordFrank (MA)GephardtGibbonsGutierrezGutknechtHefleyHill (MT)HillearyHoekstraHooleyHulshof

Jackson-Lee(TX)

KennedyKilpatrickKingstonKucinichLaFalceLantosLevinLoBiondoMcDermottMcGovernMcNultyMenendezMiller, George

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3698 May 27, 1999Moran (KS)NealOberstarOlverPallonePastorPeterson (MN)PickettPomeroyRamstadRoybal-Allard

SaboSchafferSchakowskySlaughterSprattStarkStenholmStricklandStupakTancredoTanner

TauscherTaylor (MS)Thompson (CA)Thompson (MS)Udall (CO)Udall (NM)VelazquezViscloskyWellerWu

NOT VOTING—49

ArmeyBartonBlagojevichBonillaBonoBrown (CA)Brown (FL)CallahanCarsonClayClaytonClyburnConyersCummingsDavis (IL)DoggettEvans

FattahHastings (FL)HilliardHoltHunterJeffersonJohnson, E. B.Jones (OH)KanjorskiKasichLeachLeeMcKinneyMeeks (NY)Millender-

McDonaldNorwood

OwensPelosiPomboRothmanRoukemaRoyceSandersScarboroughSmith (NJ)Smith (TX)WaldenWatt (NC)WexlerWoolseyWynnYoung (AK)

b 1021

So the Journal was approved.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.Stated for:Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall

vote No. 166, on approving the Journal, I wasunavoidably detained. Had I been present, Iwould have voted ‘‘yea.’’

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Speaker,on Thursday, May 27, 1999, I was unavoid-ably detained while conducting official busi-ness and missed rollcall vote 166, a motion toapprove the Journal. Had I been present, Iwould have voted ‘‘yea.’’

f

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.LAHOOD). Will the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. REYNOLDS) come forward andlead the House in the Pledge of Alle-giance.

Mr. REYNOLDS led the Pledge of Al-legiance as follows:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of theUnited States of America, and to the Repub-lic for which it stands, one nation under God,indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

f

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A message from the Senate by Mr.Lundregan, one of its clerks, an-nounced that the Senate had passedwithout amendment bills of the Houseof the following titles:

H.R. 1034. An act to declare a portion of theJames River and Kanawha Canal in Rich-mond, Virginia, to be nonnavigable waters ofthe United States for purposes of title 46,United States Code, and the other maritimelaws of the United States.

H.R. 1121. An act to designate the Federalbuilding and United States courthouse lo-cated at 18 Greenville Street in Newman,Georgia, as the ‘‘Lewis R. Morgan FederalBuilding and United States Courthouse’’.

The message also announced thatpursuant to Public Law 94–201, asamended by Public Law 105–275, theChair, on behalf of the President protempore, appoints the following indi-viduals as members of the Board of

Trustees of the American Folklife Cen-ter of the Library of Congress—

Janet L. Brown, of South Dakota;and

Mickey Hart, of California.f

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKERPRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. TheChair will recognize the gentlemanfrom Ohio (Mr. BOEHNER). Other 1-min-utes will be taken up at the end of theday.f

WELCOME TO FATHER JOHNPUTKA

(Mr. BOEHNER asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, we arevery glad this morning to have FatherJohn Putka as our guest chaplain.

President Andrew Jackson is famousfor saying, and I will quote, ‘‘One manwith courage makes a majority.’’ Thatdescription I think is particularly suit-ed to Father Putka.

As a priest of the Society of Mary,and as a professor at the University ofDayton, Father Putka has had a dra-matic and positive impact on the livesof tens of thousands of students overthe years. I know of few professors whotake such a personal interest in theacademic and spiritual growth of theirstudents.

Before going to the University ofDayton in 1989, though, Father Putkataught at my alma mater and the almamater of our colleague, the gentlemanfrom Colorado (Mr. BOB SCHAFFER),Moeller High School in Cincinnati.

Although I was gone, Father Putkadid teach most of my eight youngerbrothers, and the gentleman from Colo-rado (Mr. SCHAFFER) as well.

He is truly one of a kind, and not justbecause there are not many Marianistpriests out there sporting a flat tophaircut. He is a dear friend to many,and through his service to his church,his community, and his country, Ithink he is a unique leader for all of us.

I might also add that as a professorat the University of Dayton, he hasdone a marvelous job in attractingmany of us to come speak to his class,Members from both sides of the polit-ical aisle.

I might also mention that FatherPutka is currently a professor for thestudent, the daughter of our colleague,the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. RAYLAHOOD), who is in the Chair.

We are glad that Father Putka iswith us, and hope that he will returnsoon.f

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATIONOF H.R. 1401, NATIONAL DEFENSEAUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FIS-CAL YEAR 2000

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direc-tion of the Committee on Rules, I call

up House Resolution 195 and ask for itsimmediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-lows:

H. RES. 195Resolved, That at any time after the adop-

tion of this resolution the Speaker may, pur-suant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare theHouse resolved into the Committee of theWhole House on the state of the Union forconsideration of the bill (H.R. 1401) to au-thorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000and 2001 for military activities of the Depart-ment of Defense, to prescribe military per-sonnel strengths for fiscal years 2000 and2001, and for other purposes. The first read-ing of the bill shall be dispensed with. Allpoints of order against consideration of thebill are waived. General debate shall be con-fined to the bill and shall not exceed onehour equally divided and controlled by thechairman and ranking minority member ofthe Committee on Armed Services. Aftergeneral debate the bill shall be consideredfor amendment under the five-minute rule.

SEC. 2. (a) It shall be in order to consideras an original bill for the purpose of amend-ment under the five-minute rule the amend-ment in the nature of a substitute rec-ommended by the Committee on ArmedServices now printed in the bill, modified bythe amendment printed in part A of the re-port of the Committee on Rules accom-panying this resolution. That amendment inthe nature of a substitute shall be consideredas read. All points of order against thatamendment in the nature of a substitute arewaived.

(b) No further amendment to the amend-ment in the nature of a substitute made inorder as original text shall be in order exceptthe amendments printed in the report of theCommittee on Rules accompanying this res-olution, amendments en bloc described insection 3 of this resolution, and pro formaamendments offered by the chairman andranking minority member of the Committeeon Armed Services for the purpose of debate.

(c) Except as specified in section 5 of thisresolution, each amendment printed in thereport of the Committee on Rules shall beconsidered only in the order printed in thereport, may be offered only by a Member des-ignated in the report, shall be considered asread, and shall not be subject to a demandfor division of the question in the House orin the Committee of the Whole. Unless other-wise specified in the report, each amendmentprinted in the report shall be debatable for 10minutes equally divided and controlled bythe proponent and an opponent and shall notbe subject to amendment (except that thechairman and ranking minority member ofthe Committee on Armed Services each mayoffer one pro forma amendment for the pur-pose of further debate on any pendingamendment).

(d) All points of order against amendmentsprinted in the report of the Committee onRules or amendments en bloc described insection 3 of this resolution are waived.

(e) The first time after the legislative dayof May 27, 1999, the Speaker declares theHouse resolved into the Committee of theWhole House on the state of the Union forfurther consideration of H.R. 1401 an addi-tional period of general debate shall be inorder, which shall be confined to the bill andshall not exceed one hour equally dividedand controlled by the chairman and rankingminority member of the Committee onArmed Services.

SEC. 3. It shall be in order at any time forthe chairman of the Committee on ArmedServices or his designee to offer amendmentsen bloc consisting of amendments printed inpart C of the report of the Committee on

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3699May 27, 1999Rules not earlier disposed of or germanemodifications of any such amendment.Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to thissection shall be considered as read (exceptthat modifications shall be reported), shallbe debatable for 20 minutes equally dividedand controlled by the chairman and rankingminority member of the Committee onArmed Services or their designees, shall notbe subject to amendment, and shall not besubject to a demand for division of the ques-tion in the House or in the Committee of theWhole. For the purpose of inclusion in suchamendments en bloc, an amendment printedin the form of a motion to strike may bemodified to the form of a germane perfectingamendment to the text originally proposedto be stricken. The original proponent of anamendment included in such amendments enbloc may insert a statement in the Congres-sional Record immediately before the dis-position of the amendments en bloc.

SEC. 4. The chairman of the Committee ofthe Whole may: (1) postpone until a timeduring further consideration in the Com-mittee of the Whole a request for a recordedvote on any amendment; and (2) reduce tofive minutes the minimum time for elec-tronic voting on any postponed question thatfollows another electronic vote without in-tervening business, provided that the min-imum time for electronic voting on the firstin any series of questions shall be 15 min-utes.

SEC. 5. The Chairman of the Committee ofthe Whole may recognize for consideration ofany amendment printed in the report of theCommittee on Rules out of the order printed,but not sooner than one hour after the chair-man of the Committee on Armed Services ora designee announces from the floor a re-quest to that effect.

SEC. 6. At the conclusion of considerationof the bill for amendment the Committeeshall rise and report the bill to the Housewith such amendments as may have beenadopted. Any Member may demand a sepa-rate vote in the House on any amendmentadopted in the Committee of the Whole tothe bill or to the amendment in the nature ofa substitute made in order as original text.The previous question shall be considered asordered on the bill and amendments theretoto final passage without intervening motionexcept one motion to recommit with or with-out instructions.

b 1030

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for thepurpose of debate only, I yield the cus-tomary 30 minutes to the gentlemanfrom Texas (Mr. FROST), pending whichI yield myself such time as I may con-sume. During consideration of this res-olution, all time yielded is for the pur-pose of debate only.

Yesterday, the Committee on Rulesmet and granted a structured rule forH.R. 1401, the Fiscal Year 2000 Depart-ment of Defense Appropriations Act.The rule provides for 1 hour of generaldebate equally divided between thechairman and ranking minority mem-ber of the Committee on Armed Serv-ices.

The rule waives all points of orderagainst consideration of the bill. Itmakes in order the Committee onArmed Services’ amendment in the na-ture of a substitute now printed in thebill, modified by the amendment print-ed in part A of the Committee on Rulesreport, which shall be considered asread.

The rule also waives all points oforder against the amendment in thenature of a substitute, as modified.

The rule makes in order only thoseamendments printed in the Committeeon Rules report and pro forma amend-ments offered by the chairman andranking minority member of the Com-mittee on Armed Services for the pur-pose of debate.

Amendments printed in part C of theCommittee on Rules report may be of-fered en bloc. Except as specified insection 5 of the resolution, amend-ments will be considered only in theorder specified in the report, may be of-fered only by a Member designated inthe report, and shall be considered asread, and shall not be subject to a de-mand for division of the question.

Unless otherwise specified in the re-port, each amendment printed in thereport shall be debatable for 10 minutesequally divided and controlled by theproponent and an opponent and shallnot be subject to amendment, exceptthat the chairman and ranking minor-ity member of the Committee onArmed Services each may offer one proforma amendment for the purpose offurther debate on any pending amend-ment.

The rule waives all points of orderagainst amendments printed in theCommittee on Rules report and thoseamendments en bloc described in sec-tion 3 of the resolution.

The rule provides for an additional 1hour of general debate at the beginningof the second legislative day of consid-eration of H.R. 1401, which also shall beequally divided and controlled by thechairman and ranking minority mem-ber of the Committee on Armed Serv-ices.

The rule authorizes the Chairman ofthe Committee on Armed Services orhis designee to offer amendments enbloc consisting of the amendments inpart C of the Committee on Rules re-port or germane modifications thereto,which shall be considered as read, ex-cept that modifications shall be re-ported, shall be debatable for 20 min-utes equally divided between the chair-man and ranking member of the Com-mittee on Armed Services or their des-ignees, and shall not be subject toamendment or demand for a division ofthe question.

For the purpose of inclusion in suchamendments en bloc, an amendmentprinted in the form of a motion tostrike may be modified to the form ofa germane perfecting amendment tothe text originally proposed to bestricken.

The original proponent of an amend-ment, included in such amendments enbloc, may insert a statement in theCONGRESSIONAL RECORD immediatelybefore the dispositions of the en blocamendments.

The rule allows the Chairman of theCommittee of the Whole to postponevotes during consideration of the billand to reduce voting time to 5 minuteson a postponed question if the vote fol-lows a 15-minute vote.

The rule allows the Chairman of theCommittee of the Whole to recognizefor consideration of any amendmentprinted in the report out of order inwhich printed, but not sooner than 1hour after the Chairman of the Com-mittee on Armed Services or a designeeannounces from the floor a request tothat effect.

Finally, the rule provides for one mo-tion to recommit, with or without in-structions.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1401 is a good bill.It is a bill that will allow all of us torest a little easier at night knowingthat our national defense is strongerand that we have taken good care ofour troops.

We now know that China has stolenour nuclear technology, something theSoviet Union could not do during theentire Cold War.

We live in a dangerous world, butCongress is doing something about it.We are working to protect our friendsand family back home from our en-emies abroad. We are helping to takesome of our enlisted men off of foodstamps. It has been absolutely ridicu-lous that our enlisted men are on foodstamps to survive. We are giving thema 4.8 percent pay raise.

We are providing for a national mis-sile defense system so that we can stopa warhead from China if that day evercomes. We are boosting the military’sbudget for weapons and ammunition,and we are tightening security at ournuclear labs, doing something to stopthe wholesale loss of our military se-crets.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rulesreceived 89 amendments to this bill. Wedid our best to be fair and to make asmany amendments in order as wecould. The rule allows for a full andopen debate on all the major sources ofcontroversy, including publicly fundedabortions and nuclear lab security. Itallows for debate on a lot of smallerissues, too.

I urge my colleagues to strongly sup-port this rule and to support the under-lying bill so we can have this good dis-cussion on the floor today. Now morethan ever we must provide for our na-tional security.

Mr. Speaker, I include the followingletter for the RECORD:

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESI-DENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENTAND BUDGET,

Washington, DC, May 26, 1999.Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT,Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: In his recent letter,the President indicated that the Administra-tion considers unacceptable Section 1006 ofthe House Armed Services Committee’s FY2000 National Defense Authorization bill,which restricts FY 2000 funds available tothe Defense Department to be used for sup-porting Kosovo military operations. Thus,the President indicated that if Congress wereto enact a Defense Authorization bill thatincluded Section 1006, he would veto it. In aneffort to resolve this issue, you asked for mythoughts regarding the Administration’spossible actions to ensure that our militaryforces in Kosovo receive adequate resources.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3700 May 27, 1999Throughout the debate on the recently

passed emergency supplemental for Kosovoand other activities, the Administration wasclear about its objectives for funding Depart-ment of Defense needs—that our forces in-volved in the Kosovo military operation arefully funded to conduct their mission andthat the military readiness of all other U.S.forces is protected. We believe the Presi-dent’s supplemental request achieved theseobjectives. Consistent with current practice,the President must retain the flexibility toaccess various DoD funding sources to re-spond to immediate needs, much as he hasdone in the past. We, of course, will workwith the Congress to ensure that any contin-gency requirements are fully funded, as wellas to ensure that other priorities—such asmilitary readiness and modernization—areprotected. With regard to Kosovo funding re-quirements that may develop beyond the FY1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropria-tion, to the extent that these requirementsexceed an amount that could be managedwithin the normal reprogramming processwithout harming military readiness, we willsubmit either a budget amendment or a sup-plemental appropriations request.

Sincerely,JACOB J. LEW,

Director.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance ofmy time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. DIXON).

(Mr. DIXON asked and was given per-mission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I thank thegentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to announce thaton Thursday, June 10, the House Per-manent Select Committee on Intel-ligence will hold a public meeting toexamine the Chinese embassy bombing.Witnesses from the Permanent SelectCommittee on Intelligence community,including the Director of Central Intel-ligence and from the Department ofDefense are expected to attend.

It is the committee’s intention thatthis hearing will provide the Americanpeople with a clear understanding ofwhy this tragic event occurred.

Mr. Speaker, on May 7, 1999, the Embassyof the People’s Republic of China in Belgradewas bombed by U.S. aircraft acting as part ofthe NATO operation in Yugoslavia. The em-bassy building was mis-identified as the Yugo-slavian Federal Directorate of Supply and Pro-curement, the intended target.

That mistakes were made, is clear. Weneed to know why, and what can be done tolessen the chance that similar mistakes will bemade in the future.

On June 10, the House Permanent SelectCommittee on Intelligence will hold a publichearing to examine the Chinese embassybombing. Witnesses from the intelligence com-munity, including the Director of Central Intel-ligence, and from the Department of Defenseare expected to attend. It is the committee’sintention that this hearing will provide theAmerican people with a clear understanding ofwhy this tragic event occurred.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield tothe gentleman from Florida (Mr.GOSS), chairman of the Permanent Se-lect Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank thedistinguished gentleman from Cali-

fornia for yielding to me. I want toconfirm that the bipartisan House Per-manent Select Committee on Intel-ligence is obviously well aware of ourcolleagues’ concerns on what wentwrong in the bombing, and we aregoing to do our best to provide infor-mation to our colleagues and to allAmericans who are interested in thesubject.

It was a bad mistake, it had seriousconsequences and we believe the publicright to know in this matter needs tobe brought forth in a timely way, andwe believe this schedule will work.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield my-self such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R.1401, the Fiscal Year 2000 National De-fense Authorization Act, and I will re-luctantly support this rule.

The Republican majority on theCommittee on Rules has recommendeda rule to the House which denies Demo-cratic Members the right to offer im-portant policy amendments, and it isfor that reason that some Members ofthe Democratic Caucus will not sup-port this rule.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rulesreported this rule at 11 o’clock lastnight on a straight party line vote. Iopposed this rule in committee becausethe Republican majority specificallyexcluded four major amendments thatDemocrats had considered top priorityamendments. Two of those amend-ments were truly bipartisan amend-ments relating to matters of great im-portance to our national security.

It only seems logical that for mattersof such a serious nature that the Housebe afforded the opportunity to considera bipartisan response. This rule closesoff that opportunity, and the debate inthe House will suffer as a result.

Specifically, Mr. Speaker, this ruledoes not allow an amendment proposedby the gentleman from Washington(Mr. DICKS), which relates to counter-intelligence activities at the Depart-ment of Energy.

The gentleman from Washington (Mr.DICKS) was the Ranking Democrat onthe Cox committee, and his amend-ment reflects the important rec-ommendations made by that com-mittee.

This amendment was cosponsored notonly by the gentleman from SouthCarolina (Mr. SPRATT), but by the gen-tlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. WIL-SON), the gentleman from Texas (Mr.THORNBERRY), and the gentleman fromSouth Carolina (Mr. GRAHAM). This wastruly a bipartisan amendment spon-sored by Members with expertise in na-tional security.

In addition, the Ranking Democraton the Committee on Armed Servicesspecifically asked that the Dicksamendment be included in the rule. Inspite of this substantive support forthe Dicks amendment, the Republicanmajority has chosen to not allow theHouse the opportunity to consider it.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that decisionreflects a serious lapse in comity and

certainly a serious lapse in the abilityof this House to address matters ofsuch serious national security impor-tance.

Secondly, the Committee on Rulesfailed to make in order an amendmentproposed by the gentleman from Michi-gan (Mr. DINGELL). The Dingell amend-ment would have stricken language inthe Committee on Armed Services billwhich transfers the authority for secu-rity operations within the Departmentof Energy to the Department of De-fense.

The gentleman from Michigan is ofcourse the Ranking Democrat on theCommittee on Commerce, which has,under the rules of the House, jurisdic-tion over the Department of Energy.His amendment was cosponsored by thegentleman from Virginia (Mr. BLILEY),the chairman of the Committee onCommerce.

In addition, the chairman and Rank-ing Democrat of the Committee onScience, which also has jurisdictionover the Department of Energy, weresponsors of the Dingell amendment.

The chairman of the Committee onRules last night said it was not nec-essary to make the Dingell amendmentin order since the matters in hisamendment were included in anamendment which will be offered bythe chairman of the Committee onArmed Services.

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference ofopinion about how closely the Spenceamendment tracks the intent of theDingell amendment. In the interests ofcomity, I think it would have beenpreferable for the Committee on Rulesto allow the Dicks amendment to beconsidered by the full House.

Finally, the Republican majority ofthe Committee on Rules excludedamendments proposed by the gentle-woman from New York (Ms.VELÁZQUEZ) and the gentlewoman fromCalifornia (Ms. WATERS). These amend-ments seek to extend a program whichhas established contract goals for mi-nority and other disadvantaged busi-nesses for the Department of Defense,yet the Republican majority on theCommittee on Rules failed to makethis important matter part of our dis-cussion during the consideration of thebill.

Mr. Speaker, there will be a numberof speakers who will follow me in thisdebate who oppose the rule, and Iwould certainly hope that the Repub-lican leadership will listen very care-fully to what they have to say. Theseare Members who have substantive ex-pertise in the issues before us, and it is,quite frankly, demeaning to this bodythat they should have been excludedfrom the debate.

I would like to say, however, that thebill made in order by the rule is a goodbill. Mr. Speaker, when we ask our menand women in uniform to do the heavylifting for us, when we ask them toshoulder such an important burden, itis vital that we make sure that theyhave the best training and the best

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3701May 27, 1999equipment and that they be fully com-pensated for the work they do. It is ourresponsibility to make sure that all ofthose things happen. Mr. Speaker, I be-lieve this bill goes a long way towardmeeting that responsibility.

The bill provides a 4.8 percent payraise effective next January and, moreimportantly, ensures that future payraises for the military will keep pacewith private sector pay increases. Icannot stress too much how importantthis provision is to the retention prob-lem we currently face with our activeduty military.

The bill also reforms retirement paywhich will help with retention. Thehousing allowance budget is signifi-cantly increased in the bill, which willresult in lower out-of-pocket costs forhousing for military personnel.

b 1045

The bill extends several special payand bonus provisions, reforms the reen-listment program and creates severalnew special pay programs specificallydesigned to enhance retention. TheCommittee on Armed Services is to becommended for its excellent work inthis area.

I would also like to commend thecommittee for its inclusion of $250.1million to procure 10 F–16C aircraft, asthe President had requested, as well asthe requested funds for the F–22Raptor, the next-generation air domi-nance fighter. The bill contains $1.2 bil-lion for research and development, $1.6billion for six low-rate initial produc-tion aircraft, and $277.1 million for ad-vance procurement of 10 LRIP aircraftin fiscal year 2001.

The bill also provides $987.4 millionfor 11, V–22s, one aircraft more thanthe President’s request. The Com-mittee on Armed Services has actedwisely by adding this additional air-craft so that the Marine Corps will beable to more quickly replace its agingfleet of CH–46 helicopters.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1401 is a good bill,a bill we can be proud of. But, Mr.Speaker, this rule does not reflect thebipartisan support of the bill it makesin order. I will oppose the previousquestion and ask for an open rule atthe appropriate time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance ofmy time.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3minutes to the gentleman from Texas(Mr. PAUL).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given per-mission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank thegentlewoman for yielding me this time.I would like to point out that this is arule of which I do not believe the au-thors should be proud. This rule, I be-lieve, strictly limits a serious debatewith regards to our national defenseand our involvement in war at this par-ticular time.

Today, the International War CrimesTribunal decided to indict Milosevic.Milosevic is obviously a character that

deserves severe criticism, but at thisparticular junction in the debate overthis erroneous and ill-gotten war inYugoslavia, this indicates to most ofthe world that there is no attemptwhatsoever on the part of NATO to at-tempt any peace negotiations. This is aguarantee of the perpetuation of war.

Milosevic is going to be furtherstrengthened by this. He will not beweakened. It was said the bombingwould weaken Milosevic, and yet hewas strengthened. This same move,this pretense that this kangaroo courtcan indict Milosevic and carry this tofruition indicates only that there aresome who will enjoy perpetuating thiswar, because there is no way this canenhance peace. This is a sign of totalhypocrisy, I believe, on the part ofNATO. NATO, eventually, by history,will be indicted.

But today we are dealing with thisprocess, and this is related to the billthat is about to be brought to the floorbecause, specifically, as this bill cameout of committee, it said that moniesin this bill should be used for defense,not for aggressive warfare in Kosovo,and yet that was struck in the Com-mittee on Rules. That is a seriouschange in the bill. I think all our col-leagues must remember this when itcomes time to vote for the final pas-sage.

We could have had a bill that made astatement against spending this moneyto perpetuate this illegal NATO war,and yet it was explicitly removed fromthe bill. I think this is reason to ques-tion the efforts on this rule. Certainlyit should challenge all of us on thefinal passage of this bill, because muchof this money will not be spent on thenational defense, but to perpetuatewar, which is a direct distraction fromour national defense because it in-volves increasing threats to our na-tional security. It does not protect ournational security.

It might be well to also note thatthis bill does not do much more for fis-cal conservatives. The President askedfor a certain amount for the defense ofthis country, but we have seen fit toraise him more than $8 billion, spendmore money, more money that is sooften not spent in our national defense.At the same time, we must also re-member that when we vote on this bill,and this rule allows it, more than $10billion will be in excess of the budgetagreement of 1997.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4minutes to the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. DICKS).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, we must de-feat this rule today. We must defeat itbecause it lets down the American peo-ple. It forbids this House from votingon vital changes to policies and proce-dures of the Department of Energy,procedures that have led directly tothe loss of some of our Nation’s mostvaluable secrets.

Let me read to my colleagues a listof some of the national security protec-tions the House will not be allowed tovote on today if this rule passes.

The House will not be allowed to voteto double penalties on the traitors whobetray our Nation by divulging our se-crets. The House will not be allowed tovote to ensure that seasoned FBI coun-terintelligence professionals are hiredat the national labs to perform coun-terintelligence. The House will not beallowed to vote to ensure that neveragain are counterintelligence agentsforced to stand by, unable to search theoffice or computer of a spy while ourNation’s secrets are being pouredstraight into the arms of potential ad-versaries.

The House will not be allowed to voteto give the Secretary of Energy the au-thority to expedite polygraphing ofpeople with access to our most sen-sitive nuclear secrets, even if the Sec-retary believes that doing so is vital toprotect our national security.

The House will not be allowed to voteto protect individuals who risked theirown careers by bringing to light secu-rity lapses at DOE before more secretsare lost. The House will not be allowedto vote to require a comprehensive out-side analysis of computervulnerabilities at the national labs.And the House will not be allowed tovote to require a red team from theFBI and the NSA to find open waysinto DOE’s classified system and closethem.

Mr. Speaker, it is simply an outragethat the House has been denied a voteon these measures. But what is mostdisappointing is the reason why thishas been done. The flaw which kept theHouse from voting for any of thesemeasures is that they were part of a bi-partisan bill which was agreed to byboth Republicans and Democrats;thoughtful national security experts,like the gentleman from Texas (Mr.THORNBERRY), the gentleman fromSouth Carolina (Mr. GRAHAM), and thegentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs.WILSON) joined with me and the gen-tleman from South Carolina (Mr.SPRATT), the gentleman from Arkansas(Mr. SNYDER), and the gentlewomanfrom California (Mrs. TAUSCHER).

Combined, these Members have over50 years of service on National Secu-rity Committees of the House, but wewere denied because we chose to worktogether.

I also understand that an amendmentoffered by two Republican full com-mittee chairmen and the gentlemanfrom Michigan (Mr. DINGELL), the long-est serving and one of the most re-spected Members of this House, whowarned everyone about problems atDOE when everything we have losttoday could have still been saved, wasdenied a vote in the House.

Today is a low day for the House, Mr.Speaker, unless we turn back this ruleand start over.

The gentleman from California (Mr.COX) and I worked very hard togetheron a bipartisan basis to bring to thisHouse our best recommendations onwhat could be done to improve nationalsecurity at these labs, and I am very

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3702 May 27, 1999disappointed that the Republican lead-ership has chosen to take a partisanapproach to implementing our report.We spent 9 months working on this. Wedid our very best to give the House ourbest work product and to have the firsteffort here to implement these rec-ommendations turned down by theCommittee on Rules is an insult to thepeople who served on this committee.

It was a bipartisan effort. Everyoneon the committee was asked to join ascosponsors. I do not understand this. Iam very offended by it and I hope thatthe people and the press will take noteof the fact that within hours of our re-port being presented to the House, al-ready partisan considerations in termsof implementing these recommenda-tions are being put forward. It is an in-sult.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3minutes to the gentleman from Utah(Mr. HANSEN).

(Mr. HANSEN asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise onthis particular bill as a Member of theCommittee on Armed Services. I amdistraught and somewhat upset thatthere is so little money going into themilitary at a time when it is being cutback so dramatically.

Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to talkabout today is a provision I put in thebill in the subcommittee chaired bythe gentleman from Colorado (Mr.HEFLEY). In Utah, we have what iscalled the Utah Test and TrainingRange. It is a huge range, and probablyone of the jewels as far as trainingranges go. It has a place for the cruisemissile, the tactical missile. The F–16out of Hill is used there; the F–15 out ofNellis; the Navy uses out of Fallon, Ne-vada, it is used out of Mountain Home.It is 0 to 58,000 feet of clear airspace.There is no other place like that in theworld that the United States has.

We tried to protect that and havedone our very best to do it. At thepresent time, the Governor of the Stateof Utah, Mike Leavitt, and the Sec-retary of the Interior, Mr. Babbitt, areworking on trying to come up withsome kind of wilderness issue along thewest side of Utah. I have to com-pliment both the Secretary and theGovernor for the good work they havedone.

As it has been a while, bringing thisto pass, we found ourselves in a situa-tion that we had to protect the UtahTest and Training Range, and so in thisbill that we have coming up there is anissue about protecting that range. Ihave now talked to both the Secretaryand the Governor and this language isno longer necessary with the bill thatwill come about eventually; and there-fore, at the proper time, and workingwith leadership and working with theParliamentarian and others, we willstrike this language.

I am not quite sure where that is, butI wanted to make people aware of that.There are a lot of folks, though, who

have a total misunderstanding of howthis system worked, who thought thiswas not done correctly. It was donecorrectly and in the open light of day,and this will be done at the propertime. I wanted to let the House knowthat that will be done, which will takecare of the problem that seems to bebothering some of the folks from theenvironmental community who, frank-ly, do not understand the procedure.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3minutes to the gentleman from SouthCarolina (Mr. SPRATT).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me thistime.

Mr. Speaker, you need to have servedhere in the 1980s when the Democratshad a majority, and by a wide margin,to understand how unfair, outrageousand insulting this rule is. We had re-stricted rules then. We had closed rulesthen. But when the defense authoriza-tion bill came to the floor in thosedays, we were spending big money andit was felt that this was a free market-place of ideas.

I have seen years in the past when wehad hundreds of amendments, 200 ormore amendments, filed in the Com-mittee on Rules, and half of them weremade in order. We came to the floor onsome occasions and it took us 2 to 3weeks to get off the floor, but we hada free marketplace of ideas and a fulland robust debate. We will not havethat full and robust debate today on amatter of utmost importance.

The gentleman from Washington (Mr.DICKS) has told us that together withme and other Members, bipartisan, wesat down and took the recommenda-tions of the Select Committee on U.S.National Security and Military/Com-mercial Concerns with the People’s Re-public of China and implemented themwith respect to the Department of En-ergy and the national laboratories. Wemade a series of serious substantiverecommendations supported by Mem-bers who know best because they comefrom those areas where these facilitiesare located: the gentlewoman fromNew Mexico (Mrs. HEATHER WILSON),who has Los Alamos; the gentlemanfrom South Carolina (Mr. GRAHAM),who has Savannah River; the gentle-woman from California (Mrs.TAUSCHER), who has Lawrence Liver-more. They participated in the formu-lation of this amendment. A truly bi-partisan effort. Is it made in order? No.

Now, in years past it was unthoughtof for senior members of the com-mittee, for ranking members of seriouscommittees of the House, when they of-fered a substantive, serious amend-ment, not a curve ball, not an under-cut, and this is not that at all anyway,this is substantive legislation, to bestiff-armed like this by the Committeeon Rules and the other side of the aisle.

This rule says we have time to con-sider how lease proceeds from the dairyfarmer in Annapolis will be allocated,but we cannot talk about security inthe national labs. We have time to talk

about how whether or not we will buyAmerican when we buy weight trainingequipment, but we cannot talk aboutespionage in the national labs, not atleast with respect to our well-thought-out bill. We have time to talk abouthow the Air Force will buy modularfirefighting equipment, but not thisimportant bipartisan amendment.

This is a travesty. This is not theway to run the House of Representa-tives. We should defeat this rule andlet everyone know that in the future,when efforts like this are made, theydeserve at least a hearing in the well ofthe House.

b 1100Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.I would like to assure the gentleman

from South Carolina that there isgoing to be a lot of discussion on thenuclear labs problem on this Housefloor.

Mr. SPRATT. But, if the gentle-woman will yield, there is no discus-sion about the amendment which weoffered which we have worked on for 2weeks and in which there has beenbroad bipartisan participation. This isan outrage. We should at least be ableto make it in order on the House floor.

Mrs. MYRICK. Reclaiming my time,we had 89 amendments to consider inthis bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to thegentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.WELDON).

(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania askedand was given permission to revise andextend his remarks.)

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Firstof all, I thank the gentlewoman foryielding.

Mr. Speaker, just to respond to mygood friend and someone for whom Ihave the highest respect, I do not knowof any Republican on the Cox com-mittee that was consulted on theamendment. I was not. As the gen-tleman knows, I spend a lot of time onthese issues in the Cox committee. Itake my work on the Cox committeevery seriously. There is no member ofthe Cox committee on our side of theaisle who is on that amendment be-cause I was not aware of it.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Iyield to the gentleman from SouthCarolina.

Mr. SPRATT. It is my understandingthat the gentleman from Washington(Mr. DICKS) talked to the gentlemanfrom California (Mr. COX) about it andthat my staff talked to your staffabout it.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. No. Iam not a cosponsor of the amendment,did not know it was coming up, wouldhave helped the gentleman in the Com-mittee on Rules if I would have known.But I just found out from the gen-tleman from Texas (Mr. THORNBERRY).He is on it.

I am just saying, I think we wouldhave had a better chance for a truly bi-partisan effort if the Republicans on

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3703May 27, 1999the Cox committee had been involvedand engaged to help make this processbefore it.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Iyield to the gentleman from Wash-ington.

Mr. DICKS. We gave this to thechairman, and I talked to him about ittwo or three times as we were doingthese various joint appearances. Ad-mittedly, with all the attention therehas been on getting this report out, wemay not have done our finest job ingetting this to everybody as quickly aspossible, and I regret that, but thechairman was given the amendmentand I asked him to cosponsor it.

Mr. SPRATT. I am told that our staffmet with your staff last week and gaveyou a copy. We would have been happyto have you as a cosponsor.

Mr. DICKS. The chairman was busy,too, though.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Re-claiming my time, I would be happy towork with my colleagues and friendsbecause they do have good ideas. Asour friends know, there were 38 rec-ommendations in the Cox committee.In fact, I was somewhat appalled thatthe White House spun a public responseto those 38 confidential recommenda-tions on February 1, before the Direc-tor of the CIA had even read the report,which he said 2 days later on February3.

I think a constructive as opposed toa political approach to solving theproblems identified in the Cox com-mittee is in order. I will pledge to workwith both of my friends in that regard.

Mr. DICKS. We appreciate that.Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I just

wanted to clarify that, that I wouldliked to have been a part of that effortand will pledge to work with you in thefuture.

This rule, I ask that our Memberssupport. It is a good rule. There aresome things I perhaps would have donedifferently, but it is a good rule in avery large bill.

I want to point to some specificthings that are in here. We took therecommendations of Deputy SecretaryJohn Hamre and his Chief InformationDominance Officer Art Money and weincreased what they asked us for.

We see cyberterrorism and the use ofinformation technology as a majorweapon in the future of rogue nations.We increase the requests in thoseareas, so this Congress has been mov-ing ahead of the request by the Pen-tagon in that area. We, I think, re-versed what would have been one of themost destabilizing issues in workingwith the Russians that we have. Theadministration originally proposeddefunding the only cooperative pro-gram we have with Russia on missiledefense technology. That was theRAMOS program. That alarmed theRussians. We have heard a lot of therhetoric about missile defense itselfand steps that we are taking to backRussia into a corner.

It was in this bill that we restorethat funding with the cooperation ofour colleague on the other side, Sen-ator LEVIN, who felt it was criticallyimportant that we reverse this decisionby the administration.

This rule is worthy of our support. Iask our colleagues to vote ‘‘yes.’’

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5minutes to the gentleman from Massa-chusetts (Mr. FRANK).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.Speaker, this rule degrades democracy.It is a conscious decision for the demo-cratically elected House of Representa-tives to avoid open discussion and de-bate on the most important nationalsecurity issues. Let us put aside thesuggestion that time dictated that.

The gentlewoman from North Caro-lina said, well, there were 89 amend-ments submitted. The leadership thatdecided not to go forward with the de-bate on these significant issues gave usall a present a week ago of 3 days offnext week that were scheduled forwork. The original work schedulecalled for us to meet next week. Threedays were canceled. So it was not time.It was a political decision.

We have on the other side Memberswho say, and some on this side, thatone of the problems that is driving themilitary budget and causing strains inthe budget like we just saw agony onthis floor over the agriculture bill.Why? Because there is a general per-ception that the amount of money wehave to work with does not equal theamount that people think is necessaryto meet various programmatic needs.Clearly, as you increase militaryspending, you cause a problem there.

One argument has been, we have toincrease military spending because theClinton administration has exceededits capacity by overcommitment. Now,that is a valid argument to be debated,but we will not be debating it here, be-cause that is too hard. That is one thatmight make people mad politically.That is too fundamental. We will de-bate the proceeds of the dairy farm atthe Naval Academy and strength equip-ment and whether or not it is beingbought right, and nonsecure tacticalradios for the 82nd Airborne. Those willall be separately debated.

But should America continue to have100,000 ground troops in Western Eu-rope on a permanent basis subsidizingthe Europeans 50-some-odd years afterthe end of World War II? Nine of us,five Republicans and four Democrats,put together an amendment to say, letus cut that to 25,000, subject to thePresident’s right to send more if thereis an emergency, an absolutelyuntrammeled right to say in an emer-gency, they go over, but as an ongoing,permanent situation, let us not con-tinue to have 100,000 American troopsthere.

Many of my Republican colleaguessay, ‘‘Well, we don’t want groundtroops going into Kosovo. We didn’twant ground troops in Bosnia.’’ I haveagreed with that, but I am willing to

vote that way. What we have are peo-ple who want the easy rhetorical out ofdenouncing something, but do not wantto get caught voting for it because vot-ing for it might someday have politicalconsequences.

So this leadership refuses to allowthe House to debate an amendment putforward by five Republican, threeDemocratic and one Independent Mem-ber to say, ‘‘Let’s reduce troops fromEurope.’’

In 1989, a group of us began workingon burdensharing, on saying to ourwealthy allies in Japan and Europe andin a few other places, the Americantaxpayer cannot keep paying that de-fense burden. We have had some suc-cesses. It has been bipartisan. Myfriend from Connecticut and I havebeen working on it.

The gentleman from California (Mr.ROHRABACHER) is here. The gentlemanfrom Michigan (Mr. BONIOR), Ms.Schroeder when she was here, we had agood bipartisan group. This is the firsttime in my memory, the first timesince 1989, when we have been refusedan opportunity to debateburdensharing.

So let me say to the people of Eu-rope, I hope you are grateful to the Re-publican leadership, because havingended one welfare program, they de-cided to keep another. They are keep-ing the most expensive welfare pro-gram in human history, the one bywhich American taxpayers, year afteryear after year—I cannot give all theyears because it has been since 1945—inwhich we subsidize the budgets ofWestern Europe.

Now, you may think America oughtto keep 100,000 troops in Western Eu-rope so the Europeans can cut theirbudget, even though we do not everwant to use those troops, but how doyou justify in the House of Representa-tives of this great democracy not al-lowing it to be debated and voted on?

There is nothing in this bill, nothing,I take it back, there is one thing, thereis an amendment that would say, wewill remove our troops from Haiti on apermanent basis, one of the smallerinterventions. But I heard the gen-tleman from California (Mr.CUNNINGHAM) talk about Bosnia,Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda, et cetera.

People denounce the level of commit-ment and say that is driving up thecost of defense. But this bill quite de-liberately guarantees that whether ornot we should maintain those commit-ments will not be debated. It is verycowardly. It is a stance of people whowant to talk tough and take no actionwhatsoever.

It is easy to wave your arms and de-nounce all these commitments, butthen, however, to guarantee that theycannot be debated on this floor soMembers never have to take responsi-bility for what they proclaim politi-cally is unworthy of a democratic proc-ess.

This bill ought to be, as it was in thepast, as the gentleman from South

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3704 May 27, 1999Carolina said, the form in which thisgreat democratic body debates, shouldwe have a two-war strategy? What kindof nuclear strategy should we have?What should the role of the Americanarmed forces be?

You demean democracy with this re-fusal to allow fundamental issues evento be debated.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume. Iwould just like to clarify that for thelast 15 years this bill has always beenstructured. There are over 16 hours ofdebate. There are 39 amendments, thesame as always, on this defense bill.

As to the question of the gentlemanfrom Washington (Mr. DICKS) regardingthat subject, there are 10 amendmentsthat have been made in order on thatsubject, one of which is the gentlemanfrom Washington’s.

I would also like to say that yester-day in the Committee on Rules thatthe ranking minority member, the gen-tleman from Missouri (Mr. SKELTON),said it was the best defense authoriza-tion bill he had ever seen except forone provision regarding Kosovo whichwe have dealt with.

According to the ratio, also there aremore Republican amendments filedthan Democrat amendments that werefiled, which is the norm.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to thegentleman from Connecticut (Mr.SHAYS).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank thegentlewoman for yielding me time. Ijust want to say from the outset that Ihave serious reservations about thisrule, and I have serious reservationsabout our military. I believe our mili-tary is in trouble and needs significanthelp and assistance from this Congress.

Our military is not as strong as itshould be because, in my judgment, wehave too many bases at home andabroad. Our military is not as strong asit should be because we are oversub-scribed in weapons systems. Our mili-tary is not as strong as it should be be-cause we have not asked our allies topay their fair share of the nonsalarycosts of stationing our troops overseas.

We have asked the Japanese to paytheir fair share. They pay over 75 per-cent of the nonsalary costs. The Japa-nese give us more than $3 billion in ac-tual cash payment for the 40,000 U.S.troops stationed in Japan.

The Europeans have more than100,000 of our troops on their soil andthey give us a grand total of $200 mil-lion. We offered an amendment, fiveRepublicans and four Democrats, toinitiate a U.S. troop reduction in Eu-rope from 100,000 to 25,000 over 3 years.We thought this was a sensible pro-posal. We thought it should have beendebated.

I just want to express again my res-ervation that this amendment was notmade in order. Europeans have theability to do more for the defense oftheir part of this world. They have theability to pay more, but if we do notask them to, they will not do so. They

will be more than grateful to get thiswelfare from these United States.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Ohio(Mr. TRAFICANT).

(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I amdisgusted today. We are going to de-bate defense, and we are not addressingour subsidies to Japan and Germany,who attacked us and took us to war inWorld War II. We are not going to talkabout financing the Chinese militaryarsenal that has 21 rockets pointed atus and not one of those rockets has atrigger lock. And we are going to havea debate on national security and weare not going to debate our bordersthat are wide open, they could drive aChinese missile across it, and launch itfrom within America at any one of ourcities.

I am disgusted today. Literally. I donot see a national security debate. Isee a national insecurity Congress,afraid of their shadow, afraid of someof the politics on our border. Literally.

Well, while we are talking about poli-tics, we are placing the American peo-ple at risk. I am disappointed.

I have been a very objective Member.That debate on the border should havebeen allowed in this bill and, shame,shame on this Congress for making theAmerican people vulnerable. Vulner-able to terrorism, vulnerable to nar-cotics.

And I even struck out immigration.That is too damn political around here.Let narcotics come into the countryand destroy our cities, let terroristscome into the country and blow up ourtrade centers, but let us not debate it,Congress. It is just too damn hot.ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.LAHOOD). Members should avoid usingprofanity during their speeches on thefloor.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Indiana(Mr. SOUDER).

(Mr. SOUDER asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I risewith grave concern today, both for thestature and status of our United Statesarmed forces which desperately need abuildup and revisions with our nationalcapacity to defend ourselves because ofthe trickling and actual flood of se-crets from this country to China. Buthow we can debate today a bill withoutdealing with the issue of Kosovo, I donot understand.

In the supplemental appropriationsbill, we were supposedly rebuilding ourarmed forces. But we allowed re-programming to occur from the build-up towards Kosovo. We had rapid de-ployment force moneys without a re-striction for Kosovo. And in this bill,as of last night, the bill that went tothe membership had a ban on fundsfrom this bill being used for the war inthe Balkans.

b 1115But mysteriously it disappeared. Ap-

parently, the other party was notifiedthis morning that it was out, but inour notices to our members we did notrealize until we come to the floor andget ready for debate that no longer isthere a protection in this bill and thebill that was distributed to the mem-bership; not only were they not goingto allow the debate, but the bill thatwas given to us had the impressionthat it had a ban in. I had an amend-ment that would have restricted thefunds even more broadly than that, butthat is not in order.

How we can debate about our ArmedForces and whether we need to rebuildand restructure our armed forces andnot debate the one thing that is deplet-ing, that is unifying Jimmy Carter andhis great editorial today in the NewYork Times saying civilians are vic-tims of our flawed approach, and HenryKissinger and an increasing majority ofAmericans realizing that we are burn-ing up in a futile effort, in an effortover there that is actually worseningworld conditions without accom-plishing its goals; how we can have adefense authorization debate and, forthat matter, an appropriations debatewithout allowing amendments thatwould restrict these funds in the nameof a military buildup while armedforces are being destroyed is beyondme.

I have not voted against a rule thisyear or a procedure, but I cannot ingood conscience vote for this rule.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Ohio(Mr. KUCINICH).

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise toregister my concern and my dis-appointment that this rule eliminatesa portion of the bill that would haveblocked funding for the further pros-ecution of the war in Kosovo and Ser-bia beyond October 1, 1999. As such, ithas canceled debate over U.S. andNATO policy at a critical moment. Thewar is proceeding without the requisitepermission of Congress prescribed byArticle I, Section 8, of the Constitu-tion. We are correctly concerned aboutthe plight of the Kosovar Albanians,but we should be no less concernedabout our own constitutional process.An air war has continued despite Con-gress’ disapproval.

This war has imposed death and de-struction on innocent civilians. Aground war is being planned. As wespeak, 50,000 NATO troops are massingat the Kosovo border. British DefenseSecretary George Robertson yesterdaytold NBC news that said troops wouldgo into the southern Serbian provinceat the earliest opportunity and maywell face a hostile environment.

The United States is about to sendits sons and daughters into a deathtrap in Kosovo, and this Congress willnot have, with this rule, a moment todebate this awful prospect. This, evenas we proceed with an authorization ofthe budget of the Department of De-fense.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3705May 27, 1999Today’s reports of the war crime in-

dictment of Slobodan Milosevic arefueling the fiery coals of war glowingin the eyes of NATO hawks. Thismeans a ground war they call down.Congress must speak out clearly andconvincingly against a ground war.Congress should pass Mr. WELDON’sHouse Resolution 99 which calls for apeaceful resolution of this war throughnegotiations to stop the bombing, re-move Serb troops from Kosovo, ceasethe military activities of the KLA, re-patriate the Kosovar Albanians underthe watchful eyes of armed inter-national peacekeepers.

Even at this moment peace is stillpossible without further war, but peacebecomes increasingly difficult withoutfurther debate, and peace becomes in-creasingly distant without imposinglimitations on this administration.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3minutes to the gentleman from Florida(Mr. WELDON).

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speak-er, I thank the gentlewoman for yield-ing this time to me, and I rise to ex-press my disappointment in this rule.

I read, as many Members did, withintense interest the Cox report. In par-ticular I was very interested in the sec-tion on the proliferation of missiletechnology to the Communist Chineseprimarily through them launching oursatellites from China, and I was verypleased that the Cox report includedlanguage that said expansion of U.S.launch capacity is in the national secu-rity interests of the United States.Further, it went on to say it is the na-tional security interests of the UnitedStates to increase this launch capacityin the summary, and it is in one of therecommendations. But this bill doesabsolutely nothing to address thisissue.

Mr. Speaker, I had an amendmentthat was not made in order that wasattempting to address this issue simplyby implementing something that theAir Force itself recommended in one ofits own studies, and that is to add addi-tional personnel at a launch range thatwould allow them to increase the ca-pacity at the range, and I was ex-tremely disappointed that this was notmade in order, and I am extremely con-cerned that we, as a Congress, are notdoing anything about this problem. Weare complaining and getting very con-cerned about the proliferation of U.S.technology through the CommunistChinese going to all of these rogue na-tions like Iran and Iraq and NorthKorea, but here we are. We have a billbefore us that attempts to do abso-lutely nothing to address this very,very critical issue. We have U.S. sat-ellite manufacturers building U.S. sat-ellites and then going to CommunistChina to launch those satellites, andone of the reasons they do that is theycannot actually get it scheduled atplaces like Cape Canaveral, and myamendment simply would have calledfor the expense of a very modestamount of money, $7 million, that

would have dramatically increased thecapacity at the launch range, and I amextremely disappointed that thatamendment was not made in order.

Another feature of my amendment,which is something that is another ex-tremely critical issue, is the Air Forcehas for years been raiding the accountsthat are used to modernize the launchrange. We still have equipment at theseranges that operate on vacuum tubes,and my amendment simply would say:Stop raiding this account, let us mod-ernize the launch range and make sureit is operating efficiently and at lowcosts.

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely dis-appointed in this rule. This is truly anational security issue, the prolifera-tion and the transmission of U.S. tech-nology to the Communist Chinese. Weare not doing anything about it.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Mis-sissippi (Mr. TAYLOR).

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr.Speaker, I rise in opposition to thisrule. I would like to remind my col-leagues that they have but one chancea year to define defense policy for theUnited States of America, and that isthe defense authorization bill.

But I also like to remind my col-leagues that Article I, Section 8 of theUnited States Constitution providesthat Congress shall have the power toprovide for the common defense, to de-clare war, to raise and support armies,to provide and maintain a Navy, tomake rules for the government andregulation of the land and naval forces.

For over 60 days American airmenhave been at war in the Federal Repub-lic of Yugoslavia, and for 60 days nei-ther the President of the UnitedStates, nor the Congress of the UnitedStates, has said what we hope to ac-complish.

I had offered an amendment thatwould state America’s goals in thisconflict. I realize many of my col-leagues wish it had not happened. Ithink for the sake of the people whoare fighting this war we need to do oneor the other. Either let those who areopposed to it prevail and get the troopsout or establish a clearly definable setof goals so that we know what we areaiming for as a Nation in Yugoslavia.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. ROHRABACHER).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, Irise in strong opposition; that is, oppo-sition, to this rule.

When the Committee on Armed Serv-ices reported this bill, it very wiselyincluded a provision saying that thefunds in this bill for fiscal year 2000could not be used for continuing thewar in Kosovo for another year. Butthe Committee on Rules has decidedand have taken it upon themselves touse this rule to strike out that provi-sion. That means, if we are to adoptthis rule, this bill would become an au-thorization to continue the war for an-other year.

This is unconscionable. If our leader-ship or the Committee on Rules wantsto authorize the continuation of thiswar in the Balkans, they should allowan up-or-down vote on that issue. In-stead, they have made this rule a voteon whether or not to continue the warin the Balkans.

I say vote no on keeping this wargoing into the next millennium, voteno on this rule, and send a message tothe leadership of both parties that weexpect this body to be handled in ademocratic fashion and notautocratically.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentlewoman from Cali-fornia (Mrs. TAUSCHER).

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I risein opposition to this rule.

For the past 3 weeks, Mr. Speaker, abipartisan group of Members hasworked to develop a comprehensive, re-sponsible approach to addressing ourconcerns over insufficient security atthe national laboratories. This groupincluded the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. DICKS), the gentleman fromTexas (Mr. THORNBERRY), the gen-tleman from South Carolina (Mr.SPRATT), the gentlewoman from NewMexico (Mrs. WILSON) and me.

Incredibly, the Committee on Ruleshas refused to allow this amendment tobe considered by the House. Instead,Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Ruleshas decided to turn our Nation’s secu-rity into a partisan issue. It has re-jected a sincere bipartisan effort to im-prove our counterintelligence pro-grams and protect the secrets at ourlabs. The Dicks amendment, Mr.Speaker, would put into law many ofthe measures Energy Secretary Rich-ardson has pledged to undertake. Wewould provide the Secretary the au-thority to implement polygraph exami-nations of scientists with access to themost sensitive information. We wouldincrease financial penalties for employ-ees who mishandle classified material,provide whistleblower protection foremployees who report misdeeds andclarify that the Energy Secretary hasthe authority to order the examinationof computers in offices owned by theFederal Government. Most impor-tantly, our legislation would establishdirect lines of counterintelligence au-thority at the Department of Energywith the ultimate responsibility rest-ing with the Secretary. The greatesterror in our counterintelligence effortshas been a lack of any clear individualresponsible for protecting our Nation’ssecrets. Energy Secretary Richardsonhas stepped forward to assume that re-sponsibility, and our legislation wouldprovide him the authority he needs tomanage the job.

The Committee on Rules’ decision tobar this amendment from consider-ation is misguided. I urge my col-leagues to oppose this rule.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from NorthCarolina (Mr. HAYES).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3706 May 27, 1999(Mr. HAYES asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise tostrongly support this rule; I repeat, tostrongly support the rule.

Now I have heard Members on bothsides who have made very strong andcompelling arguments about a numberof very important issues. But FortBragg and Pope Air Force Base are anintegral part of the Eighth District ofNorth Carolina, and to me the issuehere is simply putting forth a rule thatallows us to buy ammunition for train-ing, it allows us to buy fuel for our hel-icopters, it allows us to buy spare partsthat are missing.

So I would simply ask that thesevery important issues not be laid asidebut be temporarily displaced so that wecan send a message and the materielthat are badly needed by our troops.

This rule is about advancing thecause of our men and women in theArmed Services, and both parties havedone an excellent job of speaking outand saying this is the year of thetroops.

So please join me, support this rule,and let us support our troops.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Texas(Mr. TURNER).

b 1130

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, this billcame out of the Committee on ArmedServices with a provision that wouldhave prohibited the use of any of thefunds in the bill for operations in theRepublic of Yugoslavia, whether it befor the current operations or peace-keeping operations. I was pleased thatthe gentleman from Missouri (Mr.SKELTON), the ranking Democrat, of-fered an amendment to try to strikethat irresponsible language. Joined byall of the Democratic Members of thecommittee and a few Republicans, westill came up short, but I am pleased tosee that the Committee on Rules hasrecognized the irresponsible languageand has stricken it from the bill.

This language is irresponsible be-cause on September 30 all funds wouldhave been cut off for our military oper-ations in Yugoslavia, and it would haveendangered the lives of our men andwomen serving in the armed forces. Wewould have airmen in the air on anight when we would be telling our De-fense Department they could no longerexpend funds for their safety or theiroperations.

The language also sent a very ter-rible signal to President Milosevic at avery critical time in the negotiationprocess. The fate of the 1.5 million eth-nic Albanians hangs in the balance andthe moral imperative for involvementis undeniable. The NATO alliancewhich was formed out of the ashes ofWorld War II has protected the peaceand security of Europe for 50 years. Itstood against the Communist threatuntil Western ideals of freedom and de-mocracy prevailed. President Milosevic

is the last remaining vestige of the oldorder in Eastern Europe.

The International War Crimes Tri-bunal has correctly indicted him forwar crimes. His totalitarian rule, hisrepression of basic human rights, hismanipulation of the media, and his in-comprehensible genocidal campaign ofrape and murder has no place in civ-ilized society.

The strength of our resolve againsthim will define our American nationalcharacter for the 21st century, and willhave great bearing upon the safety andsecurity of the world that we pass on toour children and grandchildren.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Okla-homa (Mr. ISTOOK).

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I opposethis rule. A vote in favor of this rule isa green light to send U.S. groundtroops into Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Ifmy colleagues believe, as I believe,that Congress must approve first thesending of any American soldiers, thenmy colleagues should vote ‘‘no’’ on therule.

The rule removes language which theCommittee on Armed Services had putin to restrict the use of ground troopsin Yugoslavia. A vote for the rule is avote permitting those ground troops tobe sent.

Mr. Speaker, we have a 10-day breakbefore us. We do not want to send amessage such as this on the eve of thatbreak, especially since newspapers inGreat Britain are reporting that thePresident is planning to send 90,000troops in. Our American media are re-porting that airmen are being deniedtheir normal discharges because theymust stay to continue being a part ofthis unauthorized war being prosecutedby the President.

The Constitution says it is our obli-gation before any war should be under-way. Follow the Constitution, do notgive a green light unless Congress saysso. Vote ‘‘no’’ on the rule.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. METCALF).

Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, I risetoday with deep disappointment in therule we have before us. I offered anamendment yesterday in the Com-mittee on Rules that gave us a chancefor this House to take an essential steptoward helping unravel the mystery ofthe Gulf War illnesses.

I can understand the difficult task ofthe Committee on Rules in craftingthis bill with over 78 amendments.However, my amendment simply re-quired the Department of Defense tofollow up on the recommendations ofthe General Accounting Office regard-ing the presence of squalene antibodiesin the blood of Gulf War veterans. Tonot allow this debate is irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker, we have over 100,000sick Gulf War veterans in the UnitedStates today, and this House muststand in the breech to protect and en-sure that every avenue is pursued tofind for our veterans the truth aboutGulf War illnesses.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent to extend the de-bate for 30 minutes.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object.The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

LAHOOD). Objection is heard.Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. REYNOLDS).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, as amember of the Committee on Rules, Ithink it is important to remind my col-leagues that the Committee on Rulesreceived 89 amendments to this bill. Wedid our best to be fair and to make asmany amendments in order as wecould.

The rule clearly allows for full andopen debate on all major sources ofcontroversy, including publicly fundedabortions and nuclear lab security. Italso allows a lot of debate on a lot ofsmaller issues as well.

We live in a dangerous world, butCongress is doing something about it.Congress is working to protect ourfriends and family back home from ourenemies abroad. There are some veryimportant things that need to be un-derstood that are contained in this leg-islation as it comes to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1401 helps takesome of our enlisted men off of foodstamps by giving them a 4.8 percentpay raise. It provides for a nationalmissile defense system so we can stop awarhead from China if that day evercomes. H.R. 1401 boosts the militarybudget for weapons and ammunition,providing $55.6 billion, $2.6 billion morethan the President requested. And H.R.1401 tightens security at our nuclearlabs, doing something to stop thewholesale loss of our military secrets.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of thisrule so that debate can begin on the ap-propriations for our armed services.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Florida(Mr. DAVIS).

(Mr. DAVIS of Florida asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, Ithink the case has been made heretoday by a broad number of Members,both Democrat and Republican, to de-feat this rule. Let us go back and dothis right.

The point has been made by the gen-tleman from California (Mr. DICKS), thegentleman from South Carolina (Mr.SPRATT) and others. Let us look at thevery important lessons from the reportthat has just come out with respect tonational security. In fairness to thecommittee, the report was just issued.But let us do it right the first time.

Let me offer one specific example.The Weldon amendment that was notallowed to be made in order by theCommittee on Rules provides a perfectopportunity to respond to the rec-ommendation that we begin to investin the United States domestic launchcapacity instead of relying, unduly so,on other countries to launch commu-nications satellites. The Weldon

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H3707May 27, 1999amendment, which was the product ofa study done by the Air Force, rec-ommended a very specific investmentby the Kennedy Space Center. Thereare other space centers around thecountry that are well suited for this in-vestment.

Let us go back and do this right thefirst time. Let us begin to respond tothe solutions identified by the ChrisCox report, and the Weldon amendmentwould be a good place to start.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I with-draw the resolution.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-tlewoman from North Carolina with-draws the resolution.f

RECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-ant to clause 12 of rule I, the Chair de-clares the House in recess subject tothe call of the Chair.

Accordingly (at 11 o’clock and 38minutes a.m.), the House stood in re-cess subject to the call of the Chair.f

b 1223

AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the Housewas called to order by the Speaker protempore (Mr. LAHOOD) at 12 o’clock and23 minutes p.m.f

ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDINGAMENDMENT PROCESS FOR H.R.45, NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACTOF 1999

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, the Com-mittee on Rules is expected to meetthe second week of June, when we re-turn, to grant a rule which may re-strict amendments for consideration ofH.R. 45, the Nuclear Waste Policy Actof 1999.

Any Member contemplating anamendment to H.R. 45 should submit 55copies of the amendment and a briefexplanation of the amendment to theCommittee on Rules no later than noonon Tuesday, June 8. The Committee onRules office is in H–312 of the Capitol.

Amendments should be drafted to thetext of the bill as reported by the Com-mittee on Commerce on May 20.

Members should use the Office ofLegislative Counsel to ensure theiramendments are properly drafted andshould check with the Office of theParliamentarian to be certain theiramendments comply with the Rules ofthe House.f

PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ONTRANSPORTATION AND INFRA-STRUCTURE TO HAVE UNTIL 6P.M., FRIDAY, MAY 28, 1999, TOFILE A REPORT ON H.R. 1000,AVIATION INVESTMENT AND RE-FORM ACT FOR THE 21ST CEN-TURY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent that the Com-

mittee on Transportation and Infra-structure have until 6 p.m. on Friday,May 28, 1999, to file a report on the bill(H.R. 1000) to amend title 49, UnitedStates Code, to reauthorize programsof the Federal Aviation Administra-tion, and for other purposes.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the request of the gen-tleman from New York?

There was no objection.

f

REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBERAS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 853

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent that my name beremoved as a cosponsor of H.R. 853.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the request of the gen-tleman from Ohio?

There was no objection.

f

DESIGNATION OF THE HONORABLETHOMAS M. DAVIS TO ACT ASSPEAKER PRO TEMPORE TOSIGN ENROLLED BILLS ANDJOINT RESOLUTIONS THROUGHJUNE 7, 1999

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be-fore the House the following commu-nication from the Speaker:

WASHINGTON, DC,May 27, 1999.

I hereby appoint the Honorable THOMAS M.DAVIS to act as Speaker pro tempore to signenrolled bills and joint resolutions throughJune 7, 1999.

J. DENNIS HASTERT,Speaker of the House of Representatives.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Withoutobjection, the designation is agreed to.

There was no objection.

f

COMMUNICATION FROM THE HON-ORABLE ALCEE L. HASTINGS,MEMBER OF CONGRESS

The Speaker pro tempore laid beforethe House the following communica-tion from the Honorable ALCEE L.HASTINGS, Member of Congress:

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,Washington, DC, May 19, 1999.

Hon. DENNIS HASTERT,Speaker of the House of Representatives,Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I believe that I havebeen remiss in informing you that I havetaken a leave of absence from the Committeeon Science.

At the beginning of the 106th Congress Iwas appointed to the Select Committee onIntelligence. I am of the understanding thatto serve on this select committee I am re-quired to take a leave from one of my twopermanent committee assignments. There-fore I have chosen to take a leave from theCommittee on Science.

If you have any questions please feel freeto contact either me or Ann Jacobs in my of-fice at 5–1313. Thank you very much.

Sincerely,ALCEE L. HASTINGS.

f

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

A message in writing from the Presi-dent of the United States was commu-

nicated to the House by Mr. ShermanWilliams, one of his secretaries.

f

CONTINUATION OF EMERGENCYWITH RESPECT TO THE FED-ERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA(SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO)—MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENTOF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC.106–75)

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be-fore the House the following messagefrom the President of the UnitedStates; which was read and, togetherwith the accompanying papers, withoutobjection, referred to the Committeeon International Relations and orderedto be printed:

To the Congress of the United States:Section 202(d) of the National Emer-

gencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) providesfor the automatic termination of a na-tional emergency unless, prior to theanniversary date of its declaration, thePresident publishes in the Federal Reg-ister and transmits to the Congress anotice stating that the emergency is tocontinue in effect beyond the anniver-sary date. In accordance with this pro-vision, I have sent the enclosed noticeto the Federal Register for publication,stating that the emergency declaredwith respect to the Federal Republic ofYugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) isto continue in effect beyond May 30,1999, and the emergency declared withrespect to the situation in Kosovo is tocontinue in effect beyond June 9, 1999.

On December 27, 1995, I issued Presi-dential Determination 96–7, directingthe Secretary of the Treasury, interalia, to suspend the application ofsanctions imposed on the Federal Re-public of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Mon-tenegro) and to continue to block prop-erty previously blocked until provisionis made to address claims or encum-brances, including the claims of theother successor states of the formerYugoslavia. This sanctions relief, inconformity with United Nations Secu-rity Council Resolution 1022 of Novem-ber 22, 1995 (hereinafter the ‘‘Resolu-tion’’), was an essential factor moti-vating Serbia and Montenegro’s accept-ance of the General Framework Agree-ment for Peace in Bosnia andHerzegovina initialed by the parties inDayton, Ohio, on November 21, 1995,and signed in Paris, France, on Decem-ber 14, 1995 (hereinafter the ‘‘PeaceAgreement’’). The sanctions imposedon the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia(Serbia and Montenegro) were accord-ingly suspended prospectively, effec-tive January 16, 1996. Sanctions im-posed on the Bosnian Serb forces andauthorities and on the territory thatthey control within Bosnia andHerzegovina were subsequently sus-pended prospectively, effective May 10,1996, also in conformity with the PeaceAgreement and the Resolution.

Sanctions against both the FederalRepublic of Yugoslavia (Serbia andMontenegro) and the Bosnian Serbs

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3708 May 27, 1999were subsequently terminated byUnited Nations Security Council Reso-lution 1074 of October 1, 1996. This ter-mination, however, did not end the re-quirement of the Resolution thatblocked those funds and assets that aresubject to claims and encumbrances re-main blocked, until unblocked in ac-cordance with applicable law. Until thestatus of all remaining blocked prop-erty is resolved, the Peace Agreementimplemented, and the terms of the Res-olution met, this situation continuesto pose a continuing unusual and ex-traordinary threat to the national se-curity, foreign policy interests, and theeconomy of the United States. Forthese reasons, I have determined thatit is necessary to maintain in forcethese emergency authorities beyondMay 30, 1999.

On June 9, 1998, I issued ExecutiveOrder 13088, ‘‘Blocking Property of theGovernments of the Federal Republicof Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro),the Republic of Serbia, and the Repub-lic of Montenegro, and Prohibiting NewInvestment in the Republic of Serbia inResponse to the Situation in Kosovo.’’Since then, the government of Presi-dent Milosevic has rejected the inter-national community’s efforts to find apeaceful settlement for the crisis inKosovo and has launched a massivecampaign of ethnic cleansing that hasdisplaced a large percentage of the pop-ulation and been accompanied by an in-creasing number of atrocities. Presi-dent Milosevic’s brutal assault againstthe people of Kosovo and his completedisregard for the requirements of theinternational community pose a threatto regional peace and stability.

President Milosevic’s actions con-tinue t