Summary:

All articles in House section

2000 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT
(House of Representatives - March 30, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H1592-H1621] 2000 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT The SPEAKER. 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 further consideration of the bill, H.R. 3908. {time} 1006 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, March 29, 2000, amendment No. 8 printed in Part B of House report 106- 549 by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 80, line 11. Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendments shall be in order except pro forma amendments offered by the chairman and ranking minority member; the amendment printed in Part B of the report and numbered 12; and the following further amendments which may be offered only by the Member designated in the order of the House or a designee, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes 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 a division of the question: (1) An amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) regarding certain reductions and limitations; (2) An amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) regarding an across-the-board cut; (3) An amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) regarding U.S. military in Colombia; (4) An amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) regarding buy America; (5) An amendment by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) regarding building technology assistance conservation activities; (6) An amendment by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) regarding the Food and Drug Administration; (7) An amendment by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) regarding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Modification to Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification. The Clerk read as follows: Modification to Part B Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania: In the matter proposed to be inserted, strike section 512, page 4, line 4, through page 5, line 8. The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows: 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 10(b)(1) through (3) of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2106(b)(1) through (3)), $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 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. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I will not object and I will yield to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for an explanation of his modification. Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland for yielding. This amendment is offered in the spirit in a bipartisan way of clarifying the intent and the substance of our legislation and our amendment, which we hope everyone will support, to provide for the first-time major funding of an emergency nature for our Nation's domestic defenders. Mr. Chairman, it was never the intent of the author nor the coauthors of this legislation to negatively impact the use of Community Development Block Grant funds. Mr. Chairman, I will include my statement in the Record to explain in some detail the justification for what we originally intended to do and our agreement to work with the appropriate subcommittee to enact reforms to the Community Development Block Grant program. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). I want to thank the leadership for their cooperation; and I encourage our colleagues to vote for this amendment. After consultation with many of my colleagues, I am requesting unanimous consent to delete the portions of the Weldon-Hoyer amendment dealing with the reform of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). [[Page H1593]] I realize that many of my colleagues have strong feelings about CDBG and the role it plays in our low- and moderate-income communities. As a former mayor of a town that receives CDBG funds and as a former chairman of a county council that administers and distributes CDBG funds, I share that commitment. The CDBG reforms that were included in amendment 42 were intended to do two things: Clarify existing law to clearly define what fire and emergency service activities are eligible for CDBG funds under the current program. Reform CDBG to allow counties and municipalities to designate portions of their CDBG funds for activities that benefit poor communities and also other areas of the community. For example, my reforms would have allowed CDBG funds to be used for the following activities: Allow the use of CDBG funds for municipal-wide training facilities for fire and EMS personnel--including basic fire and EMS training, HAZMAT, terrorist threat response, etc. Such facilities would obviously benefit poor communities, which often have less money available for training and could take great advantage of a municipal-wide facility. CDBG funds cannot currently be used for such an activity unless the municipal government proves that 51 percent of the activities at the facility benefit low- and moderate-income families--even if the facility itself is located in a poor community. Allow the use of CDBG funds for local fire and emergency service organizations that routinely respond to emergencies in poor communities or in areas that have high concentrations of poor people--even if these groups are not themselves located in CDBG-eligible areas. For example, many fire companies located in towns bordering poor communities respond to fires and other emergencies in poor communities on a regular basis. Likewise, local fire companies from non-CDBG eligible communities are often the first response units for shopping malls, sporting arenas and other community gathering places that attract large numbers of people from low- and moderate-income communities. Allow the use of CDBG funds for local fire and emergency service organizations that are the first response units for highway accidents and traffic incidents that impact low-income communities. For example, if a major thoroughfare cuts through a low- and moderate-income community, accidents on that thoroughfare impact the safety of that community. Fire companies from surrounding municipalities are routinely called upon to assist with major incidents--even though they themselves are not located in CDBG-eligible areas. By offering CDBG reforms along these lines, I was merely recognizing the unique nature of fire and EMS response in our local communities. Local first responders do not ask whether an emergency occurs in a low- or moderate-income area, they respond without hesitation. It would seem that we could take some small steps to help these organizations that benefit many areas of the community--including our poorest communities. It would not seem unreasonable to make some of these changes, given the existing ``quirks'' in the administration of the CDBG program, under which-- 1. Curb cuts in even the wealthiest communities count as assisting low- and moderate-income people, and 2. CDBG monies can be used for historic preservation in even the wealthiest parts of the community once the municipality has certified its CDBG spending for low- and moderate-income communities. I am pleased that there are efforts to reform many parts of the CDBG program in an authorization bill being authored by my friend Congressman Lazio. I look forward to working with him to reform CDBG to make it easier for counties and municipalities to spend CDBG funds in cost-effective ways to benefit our low-income communities. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his action, and I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who has been the principal sponsor of a very large bill pending which will be heard on April 12, of which this is a part. Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, our leader on this issue, and on many issues, has spoken. I think that this change is in order and is something that all the sides have agreed upon. We should move quickly as our first down payment on what we will hope will be the beginning of a series of responses to the 32,000 fire departments and the hundreds of thousands of fire fighters in America. So I want to commend all of those who worked through the night to put this together, and I believe it is absolutely necessary that we do this to get it done. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), chairman of the subcommittee overseeing these matters. Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I also am introducing a bill that hopefully takes care of this problem. I think because those with low-income need this protection, because fire departments are seeing a lot of damage in those homes that have bad wiring, it is a consideration that we need to work out; and we are going to do that. So in a more complete bill, we are headed in that direction. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), my friend and cochair of the Fire Service Caucus. Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, because of this bipartisan agreement, the House is about to vote this morning for the first time in its history for $100 million in direct aid to the fire service. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) has really spearheaded this whole effort and deserves enormous praise, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) for bringing forth the amendment, as well as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for championing it. And let me say to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) that she deserves praise for bringing to our attention a very serious item that was corrected. I do believe that communities should be able to use Community Development Block Grant money to help low-income areas for fire and public safety, but the proper venue to make that decision is through the authorizing process and in the appropriate committees. Because of the gentlewoman's leadership, we are going to do this. I support this. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving my right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); and I first thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for the flexibility he showed, because I think we have a solution here which preserves the very important purpose that he and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) have been working on of getting assistance to the fire fighters without impinging negatively elsewhere. The gentleman from Maryland played an important roll here, as well as the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), who has made her entrance as I speak. I do not know if the meek are going to inherit the earth, but they are entitled to inherit this bill after the brilliant work of the gentlewoman from Florida. {time} 1015 Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, under my reservation, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) who, in fact, I think has led us to this very outstanding resolution of this issue. Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for removing all of the CDBG provisions from the amendment. As my colleagues all well know, I have been a strong supporter of the fire service for many years, and I am glad to see that we were able to come to an agreement that provides firemen with the needed funds and without injuring the CDBG low- and moderate-income Americans that the CDBG program serves. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) for her outstanding leadership. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment to H.R. 3908 by both Congressmen Curt Weldon and Nick Smith. Throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and other States, millions of people in cities, towns, and rural areas depend on the volunteer fire service to be there when a fire burns a home or a child breaks a leg. If there is no money to help our volunteer firefighters what will our neighbors do in an emergency? The Weldon/Smith amendment will ensure that our volunteer firefighters will [[Page H1594]] have the money to purchase the equipment needed to help the victims of tragedy. As a Member of Congress who represents a district that depends on dozens of volunteer fire companies to keep its communities safe, I would like to applaud the sponsors of this amendment. My State of Pennsylvania is home to the largest number of volunteer fire companies in the United States. Unfortunately, a great majority of them are underfunded. The typical budget for a volunteer fire department is less than $20,000 a year. This amendment would provide for $80,000,000 for a competitive grant program to award money to volunteer, paid, and combined departments that provide fire and emergency medical services and can demonstrate a legitimate financial need. I am also pleased that this amendment expands on a bill I sponsored, H.R. 3155, known as the Firefighter's Local-Federal Assistance for Management of Emergencies Act of 1999, or FLAME Act. The idea for the FLAME Act started with one of my constituents, Mr. Francis Ditzler of the Lickdale Volunteer Fire Company in Lebanon County, PA. Mr. Ditzler pointed out that as the rate and severity of highway accidents has increased in the last 10 years along Interstate 81 in Lebanon County, the rate of funding increases for volunteer fire companies has not kept pace. In my home State, struggling Lickdale Volunteer Fire Company, like other struggling volunteer fire companies, does not have the money to purchase the equipment necessary to help treat the victims of auto accidents that occur along their 25 mile stretch of the Interstate. Twenty years ago, the answer in Pennsylvania was the Volunteer Loan Assistance Program that would allow volunteer companies to take out low-interest loans for needed equipment. Today, 20 years after this low-interest loan program was drafted, volunteer fire companies still need financial help. The FLAME Act would provide a competitive grant program to those States that have a Volunteer Loan Assistance Program. The FLAME Act, which was introduced in the first session of the 106th Congress, creates a partnership between Federal, State and local governments that encourages volunteer fire companies to pay off their low-interest State-sponsored loans for equipment and buildings. H.R. 3155 will help our volunteer fire companies help themselves without raising taxes or earmarking another appropriation. My legislation would provide a Federal matching grant of up to $15,000 to any volunteer fire company that has a State-sponsored volunteer loan program and may raise equal amounts of money through voluntary contribution and through local government grants. The goal of the FLAME Act is to encourage other States to establish volunteer firefighter loan assistant programs. The Federal Government is not the only level of government working to better fund our volunteer fire departments. The Pennsylvania Legislature is considering a $25,000,000 grant program that mirrors the FLAME Act and will provide similar benefits as my bill. The Pennsylvania measure would also provide competitive grant programs to volunteer fire companies throughout the State. The amendment we have before us today will accomplish many of the same goals as my legislation. These award grants may be used for purchase of personal protective equipment, apparatus, establishing fitness programs for firefighting personnel, for the purchase of computers to integrate computer technology to improve records management and training capabilities, and to modernize fire stations among a myriad of other items. In an era of fiscal responsibility and Federal and State financial partnerships, I find this legislation to be one of the most important the House passes this year. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the earlier voice vote is vacated. There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified, and the Chair will put the question on its adoption de novo. Thre was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentlemen from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) will be postponed. Amendment No. 12 Offered By Mr. Kasich Mr. KASICH. 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. 12 offered by Mr. Kasich: At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the following new section: Sec. ____. (a) Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund'' for military operations in Kosovo, not more than 50 percent may be obligated until the President certifies in writing to Congress that the European Commission, the member nations of the European Union, and the European member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have, in the aggregate-- (1) obligated or contracted for at least 33 percent of the amount of the assistance that those organizations and nations committed to provide for 1999 and 2000 for reconstruction in Kosovo; (2) obligated or contracted for at least 75 percent of the amount of the assistance that those organizations and nations committed for 1999 and 2000 for humanitarian assistance in Kosovo; (3) provided at least 75 percent of the amount of the assistance that those organizations and nations committed for 1999 and 2000 for the Kosovo Consolidated Budget; and (4) deployed at least 75 percent of the number of police, including special police, that those organizations and nations pledged for the United Nations international police force for Kosovo. (b) The President shall submit to Congress, with any certification submitted by the President under subsection (a), a report containing detailed information on-- (1) the commitments and pledges made by each organization and nation referred to in subsection (a) for reconstruction assistance in Kosovo, humanitarian assistance in Kosovo, the Kosovo Consolidated Budget, and police (including special police) for the United Nations international police force for Kosovo; (2) the amount of assistance that has been provided in each category, and the number of police that have been deployed to Kosovo, by each such organization or nation; and (3) the full range of commitments and responsibilities that have been undertaken for Kosovo by the United Nations, the European Union, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the progress made by those organizations in fulfilling those commitments and responsibilities, an assessment of the tasks that remain to be accomplished, and an anticipated schedule for completing those tasks. (c) If the President does not submit to Congress a certification and report under subsections (a) and (b) on or before June 1, 2000, then, beginning on June 2, 2000, the 50 percent of the amounts appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund'' for military operations in Kosovo that remain unobligated (as required by subsection (a)) shall be available only for the purpose of conducting a safe, orderly, and phased withdrawal of United States military personnel from Kosovo, and no other amounts appropriated for the Department of Defense in this Act or any Act enacted before the date of the enactment of this Act may be obligated to continue the deployment of United States military personnel in Kosovo. In that case, the President shall submit to Congress, not later than June 30, 2000, a report on the plan for the withdrawal. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) each will control 15 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the Members of the House, this is actually not a burden-sharing amendment. This is just designed to get our friends across the ocean to live up to their commitment. Just to give my colleagues a sense of where we are, the United States has a GDP, an economy, the size of about $8.9 trillion. The Europeans compare favorably of $8.3 trillion. Yet we spend $283 billion on defense; they only spend $180 billion. I wonder why we have to have our people over there for 40 years, because they have not been carrying the load. This is not even an issue about them carrying the load in a more aggressive way. What this is designed to say is that the United States has committed $20 billion to Bosnia, to Kosovo over the last few years. When we went into Kosovo, regardless of how one may feel about the action, let us put that aside for a second, and let us talk about the pledge that the Europeans made. They told us that they would help in rebuilding the country. They told us they would help in a variety of ways. What this amendment is designed to do is to carry forward the idea of Senator Warner who said that we need to get them to honor their commitment. This is not designed to increase their commitment. This is really not designed to [[Page H1595]] increase burden sharing. This amendment is only designed to say to the Europeans they made a pledge to us; keep it. The Europeans pledged 3,883 policemen in Kosovo. They have only paid for 1,878. Our amendment says they pledged 3,800; deliver 3,800. They made a promise to do it. They said they would do it. Why do they not step up to the plate and keep their word. The Europeans' pledge for the rebuilding of Kosovo, for civil administration, they pledged $140 million. They have only given $30 million. Now, how unreasonable is it to say to our European allies, you promised us $140 million, come through with $140 million? That is what you pledged to do. In terms of reconstruction aid, rebuilding those arts of Kosovo that we bombed to a large degree on their behalf, they pledged $410 million, but they have only delivered $44 million. So what does this amendment say? It does not say we expect them to dramatically increase their contribution. It only says that they ought to live up to the pledge that they made and keep their word. Their economy is relatively the same size as the United States. The least they can do, after we flew all those sorties and they made their pledges, is to simply keep their word. This is a time to change the way in which we conduct business post-World War II. My colleagues are going to hear today, ``not the right time,'' ``not the right amendment,'' ``not the right wording.'' Baloney. All we have to do in the United States is to say, keep your word. What we will find is the Europeans will. Now is the time to act. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, very reluctantly, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I do so, not because I disagree with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), because I agree with almost everything that he said. The problem is with the amendment itself. I am concerned that his limitation on not more than 50 percent of the funds in the Kosovo section could not be released until certain things happened. The problem with this is, Mr. Chairman, money has already been spent. We are not providing money in this bill for Kosovo to rebuild Kosovo. We are not doing anything in this bill to actually deploy troops to Kosovo. What we do in this bill is replace the money that has already been spent by the deployment to Kosovo. Now, if we were in a position to demand certain things from the European allies, I would be standing up here with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) to do that, because I think that that is only fair. But as I read this amendment closely, not only on the first page, but the third page, just let me make one comment about a section on the third page, it says, if the President does not submit to Congress a certification required, et cetera, et cetera, then beginning on June 2, the 50 percent of the amounts appropriated in this act can only be used to remove the troops. Now, I am for removing the troops. But I have to tell my colleagues that the money in the bill is not there to remove the troops. This money is to replace monies that have already been spent. The monies have been spent from the fourth quarter operations and maintenance accounts of our military services. Now, if we do not replenish this money, we are going to have to stand down our training exercises, park the ships, park the airplanes, park the trucks, park the tanks, and training will grind to a halt. We do not have until June 2 to make that decision. That decision has got to be made late in April or early in May because, for those exercises that have to be stood down. The planning has to begin in April or May. So as strongly as I agree with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and what he is trying to accomplish, this amendment will not accomplish that; and this amendment will cause severe chaos, in fact, in the operations and maintenance of our military during the last quarter of this fiscal year. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just to point out that, last night, we approved an additional $4 billion in this bill. It is never the right time, never the right place. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus). Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, let me say this, we have an agreement here, and I think there is a consensus building which ought to pass this amendment. What that consensus is is that the military needs more money. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full committee, said they may need money to withdraw from Kosovo. But if we do not approve this amendment, if we do not approve this bill, there is no money there. Well, let me say something to every Member. Every cent of the money in the bill will go to the military if this amendment passes. This amendment does not stop any funding of our military. All the funding, every penny will go to our armed services. If our allies live up to their commitments, if they deliver what they promised, look again, this is what they promised. This is what they promised. This is what they promised. But look on that right-hand side as to what they deliver. If they deliver what they promised, every cent will go to the military to be used in Kosovo. Now, if they do not deliver what they promised, then as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the committee, said, our troops need to come home. That is what we provide. If they do not deliver on their promises, the money is available to bring the troops home. But every cent of the money is available under the amendment. Wesley Clark testified before the Senate, and he said the failure to have civil implementation is threatening the peace. It is threatening the military victory. We have either got to have a speedier implementation, or we need withdrawal. Let me quote to my colleagues one other thing. How long are we going to be in Kosovo? Well, General Klaus Reinhardt last week said, ``I am talking 5 years and it could be 10 years.'' ``I am talking 5 years and it could be 10 years.'' The reason we fail to commit the forces necessary to keep the peace, World War II lasted 4 years and World War I, 2 years. Korea lasted 3 years. Do we want to commit our third graders to Kosovo? Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) mentioned that we did add additional money to the defense part of this bill. That is true. However, it is not applicable to the section that we are dealing with in his amendment, and that is the problem that I have in his amendment. The money that we added yesterday was for specific purposes other than Kosovo. The gentleman's amendment goes directly to the issue of Kosovo, and that is not where the extra money was added. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the author of the amendment a question, please. Last night, I had thought that I was going to be supporting this amendment, but I have a question. The House adopted last night a human rights amendment which had a presidential waiver on the subject, which is important to us, but certainly is not absolutely essential to our own national security interests. It is my understanding now this morning that the gentleman's amendment does not have the authority for presidential waiver even if he believes that this would threaten national security or put U.S. troops in danger. Is that correct? Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, there is no waiver. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I find that incredibly troubling. Perhaps it was fortunate we did not take this up last night so we have had a chance to reread the gentleman's amendment. What appeared to be innocent last night, absent the presidential waiver, would be extremely troubling, especially in light of the Secretary of Defense's statement it would put the interest of U.S. troops at risk. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to make a point. It is [[Page H1596]] about time that the Congress of the United States started asserting itself when it comes to foreign policy. We are not engaging in some major foreign policy decision other than to tell the Europeans to live up to their commitment. What is the message that gets sent when this is defeated? Do my colleagues know what it is? If you make a promise and you break it and you stiff us, that is okay. That is wrong. We better get on the stick and realize that we are a big chunk of how we set foreign policy. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, by the end of next year, we will have spent $20 billion, $20 billion in the Balkans. The amendment that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and I are introducing is really the amendment of the chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Mr. Warner. {time} 1030 And basically it says that our allies need to pay 33 percent of the construction costs they committed and 75 percent of the humanitarian assistance, the Kosovo Consolidated Budget and the international police budget. And if they do not, then we will withdraw our troops. We are saying they should live up to their commitments. Now, why would we care if they pay their commitment? One reason is we ask the Japanese to pay 75 percent of the nonsalary costs of our troops in the Japan theater, and they give us $3.6 billion. We ask the Europeans to pay for the 100,000 troops stationed on that continent, and they give us $66 million. This is a joke, and it has got to end. So at the very least, when our allies make a commitment, they should live up to it. They should pay their bills. And if they are not willing to, let them stop taking us for a ride. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), 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, the gentleman from Ohio just said that Members of Congress should assert themselves on foreign policy. I would like to bring to the attention of the chairman of the Committee on the Budget the law, the law written by the Committee on Appropriations and passed by this House. The law, in accompanying report language, specifically denies the ability of the administration to spend more than 15 percent of the total expenditures in Kosovo. So we have already addressed this issue. The percentage that the gentleman from Ohio is using is going to be confusing because it appears to increase the ability of the United States. I wish the gentleman from Ohio would listen to this because I am responding to his indication. But it appears as if his amendment, although it is not his intent, might even say with the higher percentage factor that we are backing down on our insistence that our administration only spend 15 percent. So I would invite the gentleman from Ohio to read existing law whereby this Congress prohibits the administration from spending more than 15 percent. Under the law, the President must come back to the Congress if indeed they violate that. They came to us in December of 1999, and they certified that the United States' contribution was only 14.9 percent. So I share the sentiment of the gentleman from Ohio; I think he is moving in the right direction, but fortunately, the Congress has very responsibly already addressed this issue and the law is the law. We do not need confusing additional law to complicate the issue. The President requested $100 million for assistance in Kosovo. The committee rejected that, and we only included $12 million. So I feel like the amendment, although I know that is not the intent of the gentleman from Ohio, the amendment would actually deplete the ability of the administration to have money to replenish money already spent. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate that we just heard from the gentleman in charge of foreign aid, because this is the biggest foreign aid program in the history of America. It is one in which the United States' taxpayers consistently and generously subsidize the other richest people in the world. Europe will be very happy if the combined establishment here, the leadership, the President, all these putative opponents, come together to defeat this, because no bigger present could be given the European taxpayers than this amendment. The gentleman from Alabama says we have already done that; we said they cannot spend more than 15 percent. Lo and behold it came to 14.9 percent, no doubt an independently arrived at calculation. But here is what the facts are. On March 1, two articles, which at an appropriate point I will put in the Record, reflect what General Shelton said. ``General Shelton's letter reflected anger at European allies for not contributing as many troops as requested for expected in Kosovo.'' That is from the New York Times. Here is The Washington Post quoting Mr. Bacon, the Pentagon spokesperson. ``The chairman, General Shelton, made it clear he doesn't think it's appropriate for American troops to go to out-of-sector operations on a regular basis to take up police work that should be done by the forces in those other sectors.'' Yes, we have said that they should help out, but we have zero enforcement. This is the only enforcement. Now, I know when in control of the administration and in control of the appropriations process, one can always say it is not perfect. Agreed, it is not perfect. It is just better than anything that we have come up with. Let us be very clear here. What we are seeing is the pattern in this House. When we see the administration do something, we will yell; we will scream; we will beat our chests. We will do everything but vote to change it. There is no doctrine of executive usurpation in foreign policy. What we have is a consistent unbroken pattern of congressional dereliction of duty in foreign policy. There are Members here who will go home and make great speeches, some will not even wait to go home, saying it is terrible we are in Kosovo; we are spending too much; the Europeans are not doing anything. Here is a vehicle to do something about it, and there is not room under the table as Members jump to get under it. This is the only enforcement vehicle we have. All this talk about what the rules are means nothing. Look at what General Shelton said. They are not there; we are there. My colleagues say we have to help our troops. Do we help our troops by continuing to allow Europe not to do this? What this House will be if we defeat this amendment, we will continue our roles as the enablers of European dependence. We will say to the Europeans, promise them anything, but do not follow through. And when anybody tries to enforce that promise, they do not have to worry, because they will come back and say, well, it is not perfect, it is not this. As far as the waiver is concerned, the amendment does say the withdrawal has to be safe and orderly. The fact is this is the only enforcement vehicle around. Mr. Chairman, the articles I referred to above are included for the Record. [From the New York Times, Mar. 1, 2000] Joint Chiefs Chairman Protests Troops' Mission to Kosovo Town (By Jane Perlez) Irritated that American troops had to retreat from a bottle-throwing mob in Kosovo, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Henry H. Shelton, has written to NATO's supreme commander, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, telling him not to use American troops outside their designated sector. The letter, according to Pentagon and NATO officials, told General Clark that other countries involved in the NATO peacekeeping operation had to send more troops to Kosovo before significant numbers of American troops would again be allowed on a mission outside the sector assigned to the United States' control. General Shelton sent the letter to General Clark a few days after the retreat on Feb. 20 of 350 American soldiers from Mitrovica. The American soldiers had been sent out to the [[Page H1597]] troubled city, where Albanian and Serbian residents are at a standoff and where French troops needed reinforcements. Pentagon officials acknowledged today that General Shelton had concurred with General Clark's plan to send the troops from their sector in southeast Kosovo to Mitrovica before the mission was under way. But although General Shelton had agreed ahead of time to the mission, the underlying tone of the letter, according to officials, questioned the wisdom of sending American troops into a volatile situation involving hostile Serbian civilians. General Shelton's letter, and a mood of discontent about the Kosovo peacekeeping operation in the Senate Armed Services Committee during a hearing with General Clark today, reflected anger at European allies for not contributing as many troops as requested or expected in Kosovo. Several senators complained that after the United States had led the air campaign in the Kosovo war, the Europeans had pledged to lead the peacekeeping in Kosovo but had failed to live up to their promise. ``There is more than whiff of hype, where the Europeans talk of doing more,'' then fail to carry out their commitments in Kosovo, said Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan. The chairman of the committee, Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, asked General Clark why American troops were involved in house-to-house searches for weapons in Mitrovica. Senator Warner recalled that in Somalia, where American troops were involved in an ill-fated peacekeeping operation in 1992, house-to-house searches by American soldiers were ruled out as too dangerous. General Clark said that in contrast to Somalia, where American troops were not welcome, the NATO troops in Kosovo were respected and wanted by large groups of the local population. But pressing ahead, Senator Warner questioned the utility of a weapons search in a city that was only a few miles from a porous border with Serbia across which weapons freely flowed. Senator Warner asked, ``What was the total number of arms'' seized in Mitrovica? General Clark replied, ``Twenty-five.'' A NATO official explained after the hearing that the searches for weapons in Mitrovica were conducted by troops of several nations and were announced to the community by community leaders just beforehand so that the searches appeared evenhanded. Both Albanian and Serbian homes were searched, in northern and southern Mitrovica, the official said. In his testimony, General Clark said that the Yugoslav president, Slobodan Milosevic, was very much in control in Serbia and that he was unlikely to be defeated or disappear any time soon. ____ [From the Washington Post, Mar. 1, 2000] American Troops in Kosovo Restricted to U.S. Sector (By Roberto Suro) U.S. troops in Kosovo will stick to their own turf under orders announced by the Pentagon yesterday that sharply limit missions to assist the peacekeepers of other nationalities. The new restrictions reflect concerns in the Defense Department and the White House over a violent encounter last week between a Serbian mob and American soldiers who had been sent to help French peacekeepers with a police action in the French sector, according to a senior military official. ``The issue here is, how often do we get dragged into a situation where we have to perform out-of-sector operations that can diminish our ability to operate within our own sector?'' Pentagon spokesman Kenneth H. Bacon said. About 5,300 U.S. troops patrol the southeastern sector of Kosovo. French, Italian, German and British forces are in charge of their own sector of the troubled Serbian province. The extent to which troops of various nationalities are available to reinforce each other has become a matter of both military and diplomatic dispute, as NATO peacekeepers contend with rising unrest while their own numbers decline. The new orders came in a letter from Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to NATO's top military commander, U.S. Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark. ``The chairman made it clear that he doesn't think it's appropriate for American troops to go to out-of-sector operations on a regular basis to take up police work that should be done by the forces in those other sectors,'' Bacon said. The still-classified letter was dated Feb. 20, Bacon said. That was the day when a battalion of 350 U.S. soldiers helped conduct a house-to-house search for illegal weapons in Mitrovica, a town in the French sector where Serbs and the ethnic Albanians who dominate Kosovo have frequently clashed. The Americans encountered a rock-throwing mob of protesting Serbs; and although no U.S. soldier was seriously injured, senior civilian and military policy makers felt the mission was risky and unnecessary, senior officials said. Clark informed Washington about the mission but ordered it on his own authority, just as he had on two previous occasions when U.S. forces went to the aid of peacekeepers in other sectors. Appearing before a congressional hearing yesterday, Clark defended cross-sector operations as essential in Kosovo. Under the terms of Shelton's letter, however, U.S. troops will operate in other sectors only ``on an extraordinary emergency basis,'' Bacon said. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair advise us of the remaining time on each side. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 9 minutes remaining. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). Mr. CALLAHAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I just wanted to say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, surely he does not think the President of the United States or the Secretary of State would lie to Congress. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman from Alabama, that I do not think they would lie. I think they would be willing, however, to mislead my colleague, if he were as willing to be misled as he is. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the very distinguished leading expert on national defense issues. Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, this deployment is not about Europe; this is about the United States. When we deploy troops, we deploy in our national security. Now, this is a cute way of trying to reduce our deployment to Europe. We had 400,000 troops in there for years against the Soviet Union. Now, we can argue about how many troops ought to be there right now, but when we are doing it this way, NATO's in command. We said the U.N. could not do it, so we put NATO in command. This amendment says no presidential waiver. It says, okay, if they do not live up to their obligation, then we have to pull our troops out. Now, let us take Luxembourg; let us take Iceland. Let us say there is a lobbying effort for those two little countries, and they get them to pull their troops out. They are deciding the foreign policy of the United States. Iceland and Luxembourg, under this amendment, would be setting the foreign policy for the United States. We are in Kosovo to save lives. Now, there is a lot of people that can disclaim that. A lot of people can say let the Europeans do it. They, obviously, could not get their act together, or we would not be involved. We are involved because of the security of the United States. Do my colleagues know how many wars have started in the Balkans? Two wars started in the Balkans. My dad and three of his brothers served in World War II. We are talking about the security of the United States, and we are not going to allow Iceland, and we are not going to allow Luxembourg to set the policy for the United States. And that is exactly what these four gentlemen are doing. They are surreptitiously trying to figure out a way to get the troops out of Europe, reduce our deployment to Europe. This is not the way to do it. If we want to limit the deployments, let us face it up front. Let us argue about it. Let us debate it and say we are going to limit the amount of money and we are going to pull our troops out. Let us not do it in a way that lets Luxembourg or Iceland take control, and then not have a presidential waiver that speaks to the security of our troops, or if the Secretary of Defense says this is endangering our troops, and there is no waiver in order to cover that. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, of course, Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about Luxembourg and Iceland, as the gentleman knows. The gentleman wants to get into burlesque. We are talking about France and Germany. They are the ones who made the commitment. They are the ones whose taxpayers the gentleman is so valiantly defending. Secondly, the amendment says there must be a safe and orderly withdrawal. But, finally, we are not making policy. We are just telling people to live up to it. It is General Shelton who said I am not letting the American troops be put at risk because of the failure of the Europeans to live up to their commitments. It is General Shelton, the [[Page H1598]] chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who has said, the failure, the ongoing failure of the Europeans, France and Germany, and Italy and England, they are the ones who are endangering the troops. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly). Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment offered by my friend from Ohio because the elimination of funding in Kosovo would not only make the time and resources that the U.S. has already expended a total waste, but it would also render meaningless the loss of life, the suffering and the hardship imposed on the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. We are talking about people and their lives. For us to walk away from a commitment to peace in Kosovo would essentially give Slobodan Milosevic free reign in his campaign to force the remaining ethnic Albanians out of Yugoslavia and Kosovo. Peace in this region will not be coming overnight. Our forces who are currently stationed in Kosovo are working in partnership with our NATO allies. This is not our burden to carry alone. If our NATO allies are not paying up, why punish the Kosovar people? Order, peace, and hope for long-term security are beginning to spread in Kosovo. However, without our leadership and commitment, I think our allies will not continue their efforts; and everything we have already spent will be for nothing. Please join me, my colleagues, in opposing this amendment. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus). Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, because he and I agree. We should not let the Europeans dictate our military policy. But, in fact, under the present status quo, they are directing our military policy. In fact, President Clinton, in a letter to us in October, and I am going to introduce that, when asked when will we withdraw our armed forces, he said, ``Our armed forces will be withdrawn from operations based on the assessment of the progress of civil implementation, and that depends on our European allies.'' Here is the progress of that civil implementation. There has been no progress. As General Klaus said, we could be there 10 years. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who is the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Our friend from Ohio said that we should assert ourselves and send a message. Let me tell my colleagues what that message would be. The message would be that raising the possibility of American troops withdrawing from Kosovo encourages extremist elements in Kosovo and Belgrade who are determined to see NATO's mission fail in the Balkans. This amendment would damage the readiness of our armed forces for the rest of the fiscal year and for the rest of our efforts there. Sure, European allies should and they will do more to meet their commitments in Kosovo. We should continue to encourage them to do so. But we do not by this amendment want to surrender to foreign nations the ultimate decision-making authority on the deployment of United States' troops. Congress and the executive branch should make that decision. Cutting off funds and forcing the withdrawal of our forces from Kosovo should not be an automatic based on what the Europeans do. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I can hardly believe the arguments here. We have spent over $20 billion in the Balkans. We flew 75 percent of the sorties using American flesh and blood to do it. And what this amendment says is that when the Europeans make a pledge, they ought to live up to it. If my colleague goes to a town hall meeting in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, and says the Europeans said they were going to give us $140 million and they only gave us $30 million, they are in trouble and so we have to cough up the rest of the bill. I would suggest to my colleague that, in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, he will be run out on a rail. {time} 1045 The fact is that all we are doing in this amendment is to say, when they make a pledge, when they say they are going to give $140 million to help Kosovo, just give it. When it is said that we degrade the military by offering this amendment, that is total bunk. The military does not lose this money. In fact, the money would give increased readiness because it would say that we do not have to spread ourselves out all over the world. The military does not lose anything. My colleagues should stand up for their taxpayers. Because if they do not, they are going to come to the town halls and they are going to hold them accountable. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say that I agree with what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) is saying, but that is not what his amendment does. What he is saying is great, but what his amendment does is not what he is saying. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 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 opposition to this amendment because I think it is the right policy being put forth by the wrong branch of government. The idea that we should assert ourselves in foreign policy is right. The issue is when should we assert ourselves in foreign policy. I believe it is before we put thousands of young Americans at risk in a region of the world. I think the administration should have come to us before they made this commitment, and we should have had this debate before the country got involved. But they did not. I do not see this as an affirmation of legislative authority. I see this as an affirmation of a need to protect thousands of young Americans who are in Kosovo today. Conditions change every day, every hour, every minute; and when conditions change, there needs to be the authority to make decisions quickly and flexibly. This amendment deprives the President of that authority. For that reason, I cannot support it. I urge its defeat. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I hope some alert journalist is going to publish a catalogue of the excuses for Congress never to make a tough decision. We should have done it before. We cannot do it after. We are told, by the way, that it is too dangerous for the troops to be there. Now, how do we increase the danger by withdrawing them? There may be good reasons for keeping them there. I believe there are. But protecting them from the danger of being there is hardly a good reason to keep them there. And that is what they are saying. People say they agree, the Europeans ought to pay more. But this House has consistently refused to do anything to force the Europeans to do it. And they know empty rhetoric when they see it. They are very sophisticated. What this amendment is intending to do, by the way, is not to pull out. This is an amendment that says Europe should begin to pay up. Apparently, there is a lack of confidence in our European allies amongst some of the leadership in the Committee on Appropriations that is greater than there is for us. Because they say, if we condition our staying there on the Europeans doing what General Shelton complains that they are not doing, that will lead to abandonment. Well, if the troops are overexposed and it is costing us too much money, there are two things to do, have the Europeans pay their fair share or withdraw them. We hope it is the former. But in neither case are we increasing the danger to the troops. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), as a member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which threatens the unilateral withdrawal of U.S. forces and resources from Kosovo. [[Page H1599]] The need in Kosovo for peacekeeping reconstruction and development of civil and judicial administration is greater than all the promises put together by the NATO allies and the U.S. The authors of this amendment are right in one respect. Every diplomatic effort to hold NATO allies to their agreement is entirely appropriate. But threatening to unilaterally end our freely given commitment just makes the peacekeeping job so ably done by our deployed men and women and the massive reconstruction that is needed, the job of massive reconstruction, makes those a great deal harder. And, God forbid, if we were to actually act upon this threat, the end result could only be giving the final initiative back to Milosevic. Vote against this amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform Members that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, by the end of next year, we will have spent $20 billion in the Ba

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

2000 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT
(House of Representatives - March 30, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H1592-H1621] 2000 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT The SPEAKER. 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 further consideration of the bill, H.R. 3908. {time} 1006 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, March 29, 2000, amendment No. 8 printed in Part B of House report 106- 549 by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 80, line 11. Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendments shall be in order except pro forma amendments offered by the chairman and ranking minority member; the amendment printed in Part B of the report and numbered 12; and the following further amendments which may be offered only by the Member designated in the order of the House or a designee, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes 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 a division of the question: (1) An amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) regarding certain reductions and limitations; (2) An amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) regarding an across-the-board cut; (3) An amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) regarding U.S. military in Colombia; (4) An amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) regarding buy America; (5) An amendment by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) regarding building technology assistance conservation activities; (6) An amendment by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) regarding the Food and Drug Administration; (7) An amendment by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) regarding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Modification to Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification. The Clerk read as follows: Modification to Part B Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania: In the matter proposed to be inserted, strike section 512, page 4, line 4, through page 5, line 8. The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows: 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 10(b)(1) through (3) of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2106(b)(1) through (3)), $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 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. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I will not object and I will yield to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for an explanation of his modification. Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland for yielding. This amendment is offered in the spirit in a bipartisan way of clarifying the intent and the substance of our legislation and our amendment, which we hope everyone will support, to provide for the first-time major funding of an emergency nature for our Nation's domestic defenders. Mr. Chairman, it was never the intent of the author nor the coauthors of this legislation to negatively impact the use of Community Development Block Grant funds. Mr. Chairman, I will include my statement in the Record to explain in some detail the justification for what we originally intended to do and our agreement to work with the appropriate subcommittee to enact reforms to the Community Development Block Grant program. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). I want to thank the leadership for their cooperation; and I encourage our colleagues to vote for this amendment. After consultation with many of my colleagues, I am requesting unanimous consent to delete the portions of the Weldon-Hoyer amendment dealing with the reform of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). [[Page H1593]] I realize that many of my colleagues have strong feelings about CDBG and the role it plays in our low- and moderate-income communities. As a former mayor of a town that receives CDBG funds and as a former chairman of a county council that administers and distributes CDBG funds, I share that commitment. The CDBG reforms that were included in amendment 42 were intended to do two things: Clarify existing law to clearly define what fire and emergency service activities are eligible for CDBG funds under the current program. Reform CDBG to allow counties and municipalities to designate portions of their CDBG funds for activities that benefit poor communities and also other areas of the community. For example, my reforms would have allowed CDBG funds to be used for the following activities: Allow the use of CDBG funds for municipal-wide training facilities for fire and EMS personnel--including basic fire and EMS training, HAZMAT, terrorist threat response, etc. Such facilities would obviously benefit poor communities, which often have less money available for training and could take great advantage of a municipal-wide facility. CDBG funds cannot currently be used for such an activity unless the municipal government proves that 51 percent of the activities at the facility benefit low- and moderate-income families--even if the facility itself is located in a poor community. Allow the use of CDBG funds for local fire and emergency service organizations that routinely respond to emergencies in poor communities or in areas that have high concentrations of poor people--even if these groups are not themselves located in CDBG-eligible areas. For example, many fire companies located in towns bordering poor communities respond to fires and other emergencies in poor communities on a regular basis. Likewise, local fire companies from non-CDBG eligible communities are often the first response units for shopping malls, sporting arenas and other community gathering places that attract large numbers of people from low- and moderate-income communities. Allow the use of CDBG funds for local fire and emergency service organizations that are the first response units for highway accidents and traffic incidents that impact low-income communities. For example, if a major thoroughfare cuts through a low- and moderate-income community, accidents on that thoroughfare impact the safety of that community. Fire companies from surrounding municipalities are routinely called upon to assist with major incidents--even though they themselves are not located in CDBG-eligible areas. By offering CDBG reforms along these lines, I was merely recognizing the unique nature of fire and EMS response in our local communities. Local first responders do not ask whether an emergency occurs in a low- or moderate-income area, they respond without hesitation. It would seem that we could take some small steps to help these organizations that benefit many areas of the community--including our poorest communities. It would not seem unreasonable to make some of these changes, given the existing ``quirks'' in the administration of the CDBG program, under which-- 1. Curb cuts in even the wealthiest communities count as assisting low- and moderate-income people, and 2. CDBG monies can be used for historic preservation in even the wealthiest parts of the community once the municipality has certified its CDBG spending for low- and moderate-income communities. I am pleased that there are efforts to reform many parts of the CDBG program in an authorization bill being authored by my friend Congressman Lazio. I look forward to working with him to reform CDBG to make it easier for counties and municipalities to spend CDBG funds in cost-effective ways to benefit our low-income communities. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his action, and I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who has been the principal sponsor of a very large bill pending which will be heard on April 12, of which this is a part. Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, our leader on this issue, and on many issues, has spoken. I think that this change is in order and is something that all the sides have agreed upon. We should move quickly as our first down payment on what we will hope will be the beginning of a series of responses to the 32,000 fire departments and the hundreds of thousands of fire fighters in America. So I want to commend all of those who worked through the night to put this together, and I believe it is absolutely necessary that we do this to get it done. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), chairman of the subcommittee overseeing these matters. Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I also am introducing a bill that hopefully takes care of this problem. I think because those with low-income need this protection, because fire departments are seeing a lot of damage in those homes that have bad wiring, it is a consideration that we need to work out; and we are going to do that. So in a more complete bill, we are headed in that direction. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), my friend and cochair of the Fire Service Caucus. Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, because of this bipartisan agreement, the House is about to vote this morning for the first time in its history for $100 million in direct aid to the fire service. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) has really spearheaded this whole effort and deserves enormous praise, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) for bringing forth the amendment, as well as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for championing it. And let me say to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) that she deserves praise for bringing to our attention a very serious item that was corrected. I do believe that communities should be able to use Community Development Block Grant money to help low-income areas for fire and public safety, but the proper venue to make that decision is through the authorizing process and in the appropriate committees. Because of the gentlewoman's leadership, we are going to do this. I support this. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving my right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); and I first thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for the flexibility he showed, because I think we have a solution here which preserves the very important purpose that he and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) have been working on of getting assistance to the fire fighters without impinging negatively elsewhere. The gentleman from Maryland played an important roll here, as well as the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), who has made her entrance as I speak. I do not know if the meek are going to inherit the earth, but they are entitled to inherit this bill after the brilliant work of the gentlewoman from Florida. {time} 1015 Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, under my reservation, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) who, in fact, I think has led us to this very outstanding resolution of this issue. Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for removing all of the CDBG provisions from the amendment. As my colleagues all well know, I have been a strong supporter of the fire service for many years, and I am glad to see that we were able to come to an agreement that provides firemen with the needed funds and without injuring the CDBG low- and moderate-income Americans that the CDBG program serves. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) for her outstanding leadership. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment to H.R. 3908 by both Congressmen Curt Weldon and Nick Smith. Throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and other States, millions of people in cities, towns, and rural areas depend on the volunteer fire service to be there when a fire burns a home or a child breaks a leg. If there is no money to help our volunteer firefighters what will our neighbors do in an emergency? The Weldon/Smith amendment will ensure that our volunteer firefighters will [[Page H1594]] have the money to purchase the equipment needed to help the victims of tragedy. As a Member of Congress who represents a district that depends on dozens of volunteer fire companies to keep its communities safe, I would like to applaud the sponsors of this amendment. My State of Pennsylvania is home to the largest number of volunteer fire companies in the United States. Unfortunately, a great majority of them are underfunded. The typical budget for a volunteer fire department is less than $20,000 a year. This amendment would provide for $80,000,000 for a competitive grant program to award money to volunteer, paid, and combined departments that provide fire and emergency medical services and can demonstrate a legitimate financial need. I am also pleased that this amendment expands on a bill I sponsored, H.R. 3155, known as the Firefighter's Local-Federal Assistance for Management of Emergencies Act of 1999, or FLAME Act. The idea for the FLAME Act started with one of my constituents, Mr. Francis Ditzler of the Lickdale Volunteer Fire Company in Lebanon County, PA. Mr. Ditzler pointed out that as the rate and severity of highway accidents has increased in the last 10 years along Interstate 81 in Lebanon County, the rate of funding increases for volunteer fire companies has not kept pace. In my home State, struggling Lickdale Volunteer Fire Company, like other struggling volunteer fire companies, does not have the money to purchase the equipment necessary to help treat the victims of auto accidents that occur along their 25 mile stretch of the Interstate. Twenty years ago, the answer in Pennsylvania was the Volunteer Loan Assistance Program that would allow volunteer companies to take out low-interest loans for needed equipment. Today, 20 years after this low-interest loan program was drafted, volunteer fire companies still need financial help. The FLAME Act would provide a competitive grant program to those States that have a Volunteer Loan Assistance Program. The FLAME Act, which was introduced in the first session of the 106th Congress, creates a partnership between Federal, State and local governments that encourages volunteer fire companies to pay off their low-interest State-sponsored loans for equipment and buildings. H.R. 3155 will help our volunteer fire companies help themselves without raising taxes or earmarking another appropriation. My legislation would provide a Federal matching grant of up to $15,000 to any volunteer fire company that has a State-sponsored volunteer loan program and may raise equal amounts of money through voluntary contribution and through local government grants. The goal of the FLAME Act is to encourage other States to establish volunteer firefighter loan assistant programs. The Federal Government is not the only level of government working to better fund our volunteer fire departments. The Pennsylvania Legislature is considering a $25,000,000 grant program that mirrors the FLAME Act and will provide similar benefits as my bill. The Pennsylvania measure would also provide competitive grant programs to volunteer fire companies throughout the State. The amendment we have before us today will accomplish many of the same goals as my legislation. These award grants may be used for purchase of personal protective equipment, apparatus, establishing fitness programs for firefighting personnel, for the purchase of computers to integrate computer technology to improve records management and training capabilities, and to modernize fire stations among a myriad of other items. In an era of fiscal responsibility and Federal and State financial partnerships, I find this legislation to be one of the most important the House passes this year. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the earlier voice vote is vacated. There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified, and the Chair will put the question on its adoption de novo. Thre was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentlemen from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) will be postponed. Amendment No. 12 Offered By Mr. Kasich Mr. KASICH. 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. 12 offered by Mr. Kasich: At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the following new section: Sec. ____. (a) Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund'' for military operations in Kosovo, not more than 50 percent may be obligated until the President certifies in writing to Congress that the European Commission, the member nations of the European Union, and the European member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have, in the aggregate-- (1) obligated or contracted for at least 33 percent of the amount of the assistance that those organizations and nations committed to provide for 1999 and 2000 for reconstruction in Kosovo; (2) obligated or contracted for at least 75 percent of the amount of the assistance that those organizations and nations committed for 1999 and 2000 for humanitarian assistance in Kosovo; (3) provided at least 75 percent of the amount of the assistance that those organizations and nations committed for 1999 and 2000 for the Kosovo Consolidated Budget; and (4) deployed at least 75 percent of the number of police, including special police, that those organizations and nations pledged for the United Nations international police force for Kosovo. (b) The President shall submit to Congress, with any certification submitted by the President under subsection (a), a report containing detailed information on-- (1) the commitments and pledges made by each organization and nation referred to in subsection (a) for reconstruction assistance in Kosovo, humanitarian assistance in Kosovo, the Kosovo Consolidated Budget, and police (including special police) for the United Nations international police force for Kosovo; (2) the amount of assistance that has been provided in each category, and the number of police that have been deployed to Kosovo, by each such organization or nation; and (3) the full range of commitments and responsibilities that have been undertaken for Kosovo by the United Nations, the European Union, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the progress made by those organizations in fulfilling those commitments and responsibilities, an assessment of the tasks that remain to be accomplished, and an anticipated schedule for completing those tasks. (c) If the President does not submit to Congress a certification and report under subsections (a) and (b) on or before June 1, 2000, then, beginning on June 2, 2000, the 50 percent of the amounts appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund'' for military operations in Kosovo that remain unobligated (as required by subsection (a)) shall be available only for the purpose of conducting a safe, orderly, and phased withdrawal of United States military personnel from Kosovo, and no other amounts appropriated for the Department of Defense in this Act or any Act enacted before the date of the enactment of this Act may be obligated to continue the deployment of United States military personnel in Kosovo. In that case, the President shall submit to Congress, not later than June 30, 2000, a report on the plan for the withdrawal. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) each will control 15 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the Members of the House, this is actually not a burden-sharing amendment. This is just designed to get our friends across the ocean to live up to their commitment. Just to give my colleagues a sense of where we are, the United States has a GDP, an economy, the size of about $8.9 trillion. The Europeans compare favorably of $8.3 trillion. Yet we spend $283 billion on defense; they only spend $180 billion. I wonder why we have to have our people over there for 40 years, because they have not been carrying the load. This is not even an issue about them carrying the load in a more aggressive way. What this is designed to say is that the United States has committed $20 billion to Bosnia, to Kosovo over the last few years. When we went into Kosovo, regardless of how one may feel about the action, let us put that aside for a second, and let us talk about the pledge that the Europeans made. They told us that they would help in rebuilding the country. They told us they would help in a variety of ways. What this amendment is designed to do is to carry forward the idea of Senator Warner who said that we need to get them to honor their commitment. This is not designed to increase their commitment. This is really not designed to [[Page H1595]] increase burden sharing. This amendment is only designed to say to the Europeans they made a pledge to us; keep it. The Europeans pledged 3,883 policemen in Kosovo. They have only paid for 1,878. Our amendment says they pledged 3,800; deliver 3,800. They made a promise to do it. They said they would do it. Why do they not step up to the plate and keep their word. The Europeans' pledge for the rebuilding of Kosovo, for civil administration, they pledged $140 million. They have only given $30 million. Now, how unreasonable is it to say to our European allies, you promised us $140 million, come through with $140 million? That is what you pledged to do. In terms of reconstruction aid, rebuilding those arts of Kosovo that we bombed to a large degree on their behalf, they pledged $410 million, but they have only delivered $44 million. So what does this amendment say? It does not say we expect them to dramatically increase their contribution. It only says that they ought to live up to the pledge that they made and keep their word. Their economy is relatively the same size as the United States. The least they can do, after we flew all those sorties and they made their pledges, is to simply keep their word. This is a time to change the way in which we conduct business post-World War II. My colleagues are going to hear today, ``not the right time,'' ``not the right amendment,'' ``not the right wording.'' Baloney. All we have to do in the United States is to say, keep your word. What we will find is the Europeans will. Now is the time to act. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, very reluctantly, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I do so, not because I disagree with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), because I agree with almost everything that he said. The problem is with the amendment itself. I am concerned that his limitation on not more than 50 percent of the funds in the Kosovo section could not be released until certain things happened. The problem with this is, Mr. Chairman, money has already been spent. We are not providing money in this bill for Kosovo to rebuild Kosovo. We are not doing anything in this bill to actually deploy troops to Kosovo. What we do in this bill is replace the money that has already been spent by the deployment to Kosovo. Now, if we were in a position to demand certain things from the European allies, I would be standing up here with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) to do that, because I think that that is only fair. But as I read this amendment closely, not only on the first page, but the third page, just let me make one comment about a section on the third page, it says, if the President does not submit to Congress a certification required, et cetera, et cetera, then beginning on June 2, the 50 percent of the amounts appropriated in this act can only be used to remove the troops. Now, I am for removing the troops. But I have to tell my colleagues that the money in the bill is not there to remove the troops. This money is to replace monies that have already been spent. The monies have been spent from the fourth quarter operations and maintenance accounts of our military services. Now, if we do not replenish this money, we are going to have to stand down our training exercises, park the ships, park the airplanes, park the trucks, park the tanks, and training will grind to a halt. We do not have until June 2 to make that decision. That decision has got to be made late in April or early in May because, for those exercises that have to be stood down. The planning has to begin in April or May. So as strongly as I agree with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and what he is trying to accomplish, this amendment will not accomplish that; and this amendment will cause severe chaos, in fact, in the operations and maintenance of our military during the last quarter of this fiscal year. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just to point out that, last night, we approved an additional $4 billion in this bill. It is never the right time, never the right place. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus). Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, let me say this, we have an agreement here, and I think there is a consensus building which ought to pass this amendment. What that consensus is is that the military needs more money. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full committee, said they may need money to withdraw from Kosovo. But if we do not approve this amendment, if we do not approve this bill, there is no money there. Well, let me say something to every Member. Every cent of the money in the bill will go to the military if this amendment passes. This amendment does not stop any funding of our military. All the funding, every penny will go to our armed services. If our allies live up to their commitments, if they deliver what they promised, look again, this is what they promised. This is what they promised. This is what they promised. But look on that right-hand side as to what they deliver. If they deliver what they promised, every cent will go to the military to be used in Kosovo. Now, if they do not deliver what they promised, then as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the committee, said, our troops need to come home. That is what we provide. If they do not deliver on their promises, the money is available to bring the troops home. But every cent of the money is available under the amendment. Wesley Clark testified before the Senate, and he said the failure to have civil implementation is threatening the peace. It is threatening the military victory. We have either got to have a speedier implementation, or we need withdrawal. Let me quote to my colleagues one other thing. How long are we going to be in Kosovo? Well, General Klaus Reinhardt last week said, ``I am talking 5 years and it could be 10 years.'' ``I am talking 5 years and it could be 10 years.'' The reason we fail to commit the forces necessary to keep the peace, World War II lasted 4 years and World War I, 2 years. Korea lasted 3 years. Do we want to commit our third graders to Kosovo? Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) mentioned that we did add additional money to the defense part of this bill. That is true. However, it is not applicable to the section that we are dealing with in his amendment, and that is the problem that I have in his amendment. The money that we added yesterday was for specific purposes other than Kosovo. The gentleman's amendment goes directly to the issue of Kosovo, and that is not where the extra money was added. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the author of the amendment a question, please. Last night, I had thought that I was going to be supporting this amendment, but I have a question. The House adopted last night a human rights amendment which had a presidential waiver on the subject, which is important to us, but certainly is not absolutely essential to our own national security interests. It is my understanding now this morning that the gentleman's amendment does not have the authority for presidential waiver even if he believes that this would threaten national security or put U.S. troops in danger. Is that correct? Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, there is no waiver. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I find that incredibly troubling. Perhaps it was fortunate we did not take this up last night so we have had a chance to reread the gentleman's amendment. What appeared to be innocent last night, absent the presidential waiver, would be extremely troubling, especially in light of the Secretary of Defense's statement it would put the interest of U.S. troops at risk. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to make a point. It is [[Page H1596]] about time that the Congress of the United States started asserting itself when it comes to foreign policy. We are not engaging in some major foreign policy decision other than to tell the Europeans to live up to their commitment. What is the message that gets sent when this is defeated? Do my colleagues know what it is? If you make a promise and you break it and you stiff us, that is okay. That is wrong. We better get on the stick and realize that we are a big chunk of how we set foreign policy. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, by the end of next year, we will have spent $20 billion, $20 billion in the Balkans. The amendment that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and I are introducing is really the amendment of the chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Mr. Warner. {time} 1030 And basically it says that our allies need to pay 33 percent of the construction costs they committed and 75 percent of the humanitarian assistance, the Kosovo Consolidated Budget and the international police budget. And if they do not, then we will withdraw our troops. We are saying they should live up to their commitments. Now, why would we care if they pay their commitment? One reason is we ask the Japanese to pay 75 percent of the nonsalary costs of our troops in the Japan theater, and they give us $3.6 billion. We ask the Europeans to pay for the 100,000 troops stationed on that continent, and they give us $66 million. This is a joke, and it has got to end. So at the very least, when our allies make a commitment, they should live up to it. They should pay their bills. And if they are not willing to, let them stop taking us for a ride. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), 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, the gentleman from Ohio just said that Members of Congress should assert themselves on foreign policy. I would like to bring to the attention of the chairman of the Committee on the Budget the law, the law written by the Committee on Appropriations and passed by this House. The law, in accompanying report language, specifically denies the ability of the administration to spend more than 15 percent of the total expenditures in Kosovo. So we have already addressed this issue. The percentage that the gentleman from Ohio is using is going to be confusing because it appears to increase the ability of the United States. I wish the gentleman from Ohio would listen to this because I am responding to his indication. But it appears as if his amendment, although it is not his intent, might even say with the higher percentage factor that we are backing down on our insistence that our administration only spend 15 percent. So I would invite the gentleman from Ohio to read existing law whereby this Congress prohibits the administration from spending more than 15 percent. Under the law, the President must come back to the Congress if indeed they violate that. They came to us in December of 1999, and they certified that the United States' contribution was only 14.9 percent. So I share the sentiment of the gentleman from Ohio; I think he is moving in the right direction, but fortunately, the Congress has very responsibly already addressed this issue and the law is the law. We do not need confusing additional law to complicate the issue. The President requested $100 million for assistance in Kosovo. The committee rejected that, and we only included $12 million. So I feel like the amendment, although I know that is not the intent of the gentleman from Ohio, the amendment would actually deplete the ability of the administration to have money to replenish money already spent. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate that we just heard from the gentleman in charge of foreign aid, because this is the biggest foreign aid program in the history of America. It is one in which the United States' taxpayers consistently and generously subsidize the other richest people in the world. Europe will be very happy if the combined establishment here, the leadership, the President, all these putative opponents, come together to defeat this, because no bigger present could be given the European taxpayers than this amendment. The gentleman from Alabama says we have already done that; we said they cannot spend more than 15 percent. Lo and behold it came to 14.9 percent, no doubt an independently arrived at calculation. But here is what the facts are. On March 1, two articles, which at an appropriate point I will put in the Record, reflect what General Shelton said. ``General Shelton's letter reflected anger at European allies for not contributing as many troops as requested for expected in Kosovo.'' That is from the New York Times. Here is The Washington Post quoting Mr. Bacon, the Pentagon spokesperson. ``The chairman, General Shelton, made it clear he doesn't think it's appropriate for American troops to go to out-of-sector operations on a regular basis to take up police work that should be done by the forces in those other sectors.'' Yes, we have said that they should help out, but we have zero enforcement. This is the only enforcement. Now, I know when in control of the administration and in control of the appropriations process, one can always say it is not perfect. Agreed, it is not perfect. It is just better than anything that we have come up with. Let us be very clear here. What we are seeing is the pattern in this House. When we see the administration do something, we will yell; we will scream; we will beat our chests. We will do everything but vote to change it. There is no doctrine of executive usurpation in foreign policy. What we have is a consistent unbroken pattern of congressional dereliction of duty in foreign policy. There are Members here who will go home and make great speeches, some will not even wait to go home, saying it is terrible we are in Kosovo; we are spending too much; the Europeans are not doing anything. Here is a vehicle to do something about it, and there is not room under the table as Members jump to get under it. This is the only enforcement vehicle we have. All this talk about what the rules are means nothing. Look at what General Shelton said. They are not there; we are there. My colleagues say we have to help our troops. Do we help our troops by continuing to allow Europe not to do this? What this House will be if we defeat this amendment, we will continue our roles as the enablers of European dependence. We will say to the Europeans, promise them anything, but do not follow through. And when anybody tries to enforce that promise, they do not have to worry, because they will come back and say, well, it is not perfect, it is not this. As far as the waiver is concerned, the amendment does say the withdrawal has to be safe and orderly. The fact is this is the only enforcement vehicle around. Mr. Chairman, the articles I referred to above are included for the Record. [From the New York Times, Mar. 1, 2000] Joint Chiefs Chairman Protests Troops' Mission to Kosovo Town (By Jane Perlez) Irritated that American troops had to retreat from a bottle-throwing mob in Kosovo, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Henry H. Shelton, has written to NATO's supreme commander, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, telling him not to use American troops outside their designated sector. The letter, according to Pentagon and NATO officials, told General Clark that other countries involved in the NATO peacekeeping operation had to send more troops to Kosovo before significant numbers of American troops would again be allowed on a mission outside the sector assigned to the United States' control. General Shelton sent the letter to General Clark a few days after the retreat on Feb. 20 of 350 American soldiers from Mitrovica. The American soldiers had been sent out to the [[Page H1597]] troubled city, where Albanian and Serbian residents are at a standoff and where French troops needed reinforcements. Pentagon officials acknowledged today that General Shelton had concurred with General Clark's plan to send the troops from their sector in southeast Kosovo to Mitrovica before the mission was under way. But although General Shelton had agreed ahead of time to the mission, the underlying tone of the letter, according to officials, questioned the wisdom of sending American troops into a volatile situation involving hostile Serbian civilians. General Shelton's letter, and a mood of discontent about the Kosovo peacekeeping operation in the Senate Armed Services Committee during a hearing with General Clark today, reflected anger at European allies for not contributing as many troops as requested or expected in Kosovo. Several senators complained that after the United States had led the air campaign in the Kosovo war, the Europeans had pledged to lead the peacekeeping in Kosovo but had failed to live up to their promise. ``There is more than whiff of hype, where the Europeans talk of doing more,'' then fail to carry out their commitments in Kosovo, said Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan. The chairman of the committee, Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, asked General Clark why American troops were involved in house-to-house searches for weapons in Mitrovica. Senator Warner recalled that in Somalia, where American troops were involved in an ill-fated peacekeeping operation in 1992, house-to-house searches by American soldiers were ruled out as too dangerous. General Clark said that in contrast to Somalia, where American troops were not welcome, the NATO troops in Kosovo were respected and wanted by large groups of the local population. But pressing ahead, Senator Warner questioned the utility of a weapons search in a city that was only a few miles from a porous border with Serbia across which weapons freely flowed. Senator Warner asked, ``What was the total number of arms'' seized in Mitrovica? General Clark replied, ``Twenty-five.'' A NATO official explained after the hearing that the searches for weapons in Mitrovica were conducted by troops of several nations and were announced to the community by community leaders just beforehand so that the searches appeared evenhanded. Both Albanian and Serbian homes were searched, in northern and southern Mitrovica, the official said. In his testimony, General Clark said that the Yugoslav president, Slobodan Milosevic, was very much in control in Serbia and that he was unlikely to be defeated or disappear any time soon. ____ [From the Washington Post, Mar. 1, 2000] American Troops in Kosovo Restricted to U.S. Sector (By Roberto Suro) U.S. troops in Kosovo will stick to their own turf under orders announced by the Pentagon yesterday that sharply limit missions to assist the peacekeepers of other nationalities. The new restrictions reflect concerns in the Defense Department and the White House over a violent encounter last week between a Serbian mob and American soldiers who had been sent to help French peacekeepers with a police action in the French sector, according to a senior military official. ``The issue here is, how often do we get dragged into a situation where we have to perform out-of-sector operations that can diminish our ability to operate within our own sector?'' Pentagon spokesman Kenneth H. Bacon said. About 5,300 U.S. troops patrol the southeastern sector of Kosovo. French, Italian, German and British forces are in charge of their own sector of the troubled Serbian province. The extent to which troops of various nationalities are available to reinforce each other has become a matter of both military and diplomatic dispute, as NATO peacekeepers contend with rising unrest while their own numbers decline. The new orders came in a letter from Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to NATO's top military commander, U.S. Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark. ``The chairman made it clear that he doesn't think it's appropriate for American troops to go to out-of-sector operations on a regular basis to take up police work that should be done by the forces in those other sectors,'' Bacon said. The still-classified letter was dated Feb. 20, Bacon said. That was the day when a battalion of 350 U.S. soldiers helped conduct a house-to-house search for illegal weapons in Mitrovica, a town in the French sector where Serbs and the ethnic Albanians who dominate Kosovo have frequently clashed. The Americans encountered a rock-throwing mob of protesting Serbs; and although no U.S. soldier was seriously injured, senior civilian and military policy makers felt the mission was risky and unnecessary, senior officials said. Clark informed Washington about the mission but ordered it on his own authority, just as he had on two previous occasions when U.S. forces went to the aid of peacekeepers in other sectors. Appearing before a congressional hearing yesterday, Clark defended cross-sector operations as essential in Kosovo. Under the terms of Shelton's letter, however, U.S. troops will operate in other sectors only ``on an extraordinary emergency basis,'' Bacon said. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair advise us of the remaining time on each side. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 9 minutes remaining. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). Mr. CALLAHAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I just wanted to say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, surely he does not think the President of the United States or the Secretary of State would lie to Congress. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman from Alabama, that I do not think they would lie. I think they would be willing, however, to mislead my colleague, if he were as willing to be misled as he is. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the very distinguished leading expert on national defense issues. Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, this deployment is not about Europe; this is about the United States. When we deploy troops, we deploy in our national security. Now, this is a cute way of trying to reduce our deployment to Europe. We had 400,000 troops in there for years against the Soviet Union. Now, we can argue about how many troops ought to be there right now, but when we are doing it this way, NATO's in command. We said the U.N. could not do it, so we put NATO in command. This amendment says no presidential waiver. It says, okay, if they do not live up to their obligation, then we have to pull our troops out. Now, let us take Luxembourg; let us take Iceland. Let us say there is a lobbying effort for those two little countries, and they get them to pull their troops out. They are deciding the foreign policy of the United States. Iceland and Luxembourg, under this amendment, would be setting the foreign policy for the United States. We are in Kosovo to save lives. Now, there is a lot of people that can disclaim that. A lot of people can say let the Europeans do it. They, obviously, could not get their act together, or we would not be involved. We are involved because of the security of the United States. Do my colleagues know how many wars have started in the Balkans? Two wars started in the Balkans. My dad and three of his brothers served in World War II. We are talking about the security of the United States, and we are not going to allow Iceland, and we are not going to allow Luxembourg to set the policy for the United States. And that is exactly what these four gentlemen are doing. They are surreptitiously trying to figure out a way to get the troops out of Europe, reduce our deployment to Europe. This is not the way to do it. If we want to limit the deployments, let us face it up front. Let us argue about it. Let us debate it and say we are going to limit the amount of money and we are going to pull our troops out. Let us not do it in a way that lets Luxembourg or Iceland take control, and then not have a presidential waiver that speaks to the security of our troops, or if the Secretary of Defense says this is endangering our troops, and there is no waiver in order to cover that. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, of course, Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about Luxembourg and Iceland, as the gentleman knows. The gentleman wants to get into burlesque. We are talking about France and Germany. They are the ones who made the commitment. They are the ones whose taxpayers the gentleman is so valiantly defending. Secondly, the amendment says there must be a safe and orderly withdrawal. But, finally, we are not making policy. We are just telling people to live up to it. It is General Shelton who said I am not letting the American troops be put at risk because of the failure of the Europeans to live up to their commitments. It is General Shelton, the [[Page H1598]] chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who has said, the failure, the ongoing failure of the Europeans, France and Germany, and Italy and England, they are the ones who are endangering the troops. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly). Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment offered by my friend from Ohio because the elimination of funding in Kosovo would not only make the time and resources that the U.S. has already expended a total waste, but it would also render meaningless the loss of life, the suffering and the hardship imposed on the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. We are talking about people and their lives. For us to walk away from a commitment to peace in Kosovo would essentially give Slobodan Milosevic free reign in his campaign to force the remaining ethnic Albanians out of Yugoslavia and Kosovo. Peace in this region will not be coming overnight. Our forces who are currently stationed in Kosovo are working in partnership with our NATO allies. This is not our burden to carry alone. If our NATO allies are not paying up, why punish the Kosovar people? Order, peace, and hope for long-term security are beginning to spread in Kosovo. However, without our leadership and commitment, I think our allies will not continue their efforts; and everything we have already spent will be for nothing. Please join me, my colleagues, in opposing this amendment. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus). Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, because he and I agree. We should not let the Europeans dictate our military policy. But, in fact, under the present status quo, they are directing our military policy. In fact, President Clinton, in a letter to us in October, and I am going to introduce that, when asked when will we withdraw our armed forces, he said, ``Our armed forces will be withdrawn from operations based on the assessment of the progress of civil implementation, and that depends on our European allies.'' Here is the progress of that civil implementation. There has been no progress. As General Klaus said, we could be there 10 years. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who is the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Our friend from Ohio said that we should assert ourselves and send a message. Let me tell my colleagues what that message would be. The message would be that raising the possibility of American troops withdrawing from Kosovo encourages extremist elements in Kosovo and Belgrade who are determined to see NATO's mission fail in the Balkans. This amendment would damage the readiness of our armed forces for the rest of the fiscal year and for the rest of our efforts there. Sure, European allies should and they will do more to meet their commitments in Kosovo. We should continue to encourage them to do so. But we do not by this amendment want to surrender to foreign nations the ultimate decision-making authority on the deployment of United States' troops. Congress and the executive branch should make that decision. Cutting off funds and forcing the withdrawal of our forces from Kosovo should not be an automatic based on what the Europeans do. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I can hardly believe the arguments here. We have spent over $20 billion in the Balkans. We flew 75 percent of the sorties using American flesh and blood to do it. And what this amendment says is that when the Europeans make a pledge, they ought to live up to it. If my colleague goes to a town hall meeting in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, and says the Europeans said they were going to give us $140 million and they only gave us $30 million, they are in trouble and so we have to cough up the rest of the bill. I would suggest to my colleague that, in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, he will be run out on a rail. {time} 1045 The fact is that all we are doing in this amendment is to say, when they make a pledge, when they say they are going to give $140 million to help Kosovo, just give it. When it is said that we degrade the military by offering this amendment, that is total bunk. The military does not lose this money. In fact, the money would give increased readiness because it would say that we do not have to spread ourselves out all over the world. The military does not lose anything. My colleagues should stand up for their taxpayers. Because if they do not, they are going to come to the town halls and they are going to hold them accountable. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say that I agree with what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) is saying, but that is not what his amendment does. What he is saying is great, but what his amendment does is not what he is saying. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 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 opposition to this amendment because I think it is the right policy being put forth by the wrong branch of government. The idea that we should assert ourselves in foreign policy is right. The issue is when should we assert ourselves in foreign policy. I believe it is before we put thousands of young Americans at risk in a region of the world. I think the administration should have come to us before they made this commitment, and we should have had this debate before the country got involved. But they did not. I do not see this as an affirmation of legislative authority. I see this as an affirmation of a need to protect thousands of young Americans who are in Kosovo today. Conditions change every day, every hour, every minute; and when conditions change, there needs to be the authority to make decisions quickly and flexibly. This amendment deprives the President of that authority. For that reason, I cannot support it. I urge its defeat. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I hope some alert journalist is going to publish a catalogue of the excuses for Congress never to make a tough decision. We should have done it before. We cannot do it after. We are told, by the way, that it is too dangerous for the troops to be there. Now, how do we increase the danger by withdrawing them? There may be good reasons for keeping them there. I believe there are. But protecting them from the danger of being there is hardly a good reason to keep them there. And that is what they are saying. People say they agree, the Europeans ought to pay more. But this House has consistently refused to do anything to force the Europeans to do it. And they know empty rhetoric when they see it. They are very sophisticated. What this amendment is intending to do, by the way, is not to pull out. This is an amendment that says Europe should begin to pay up. Apparently, there is a lack of confidence in our European allies amongst some of the leadership in the Committee on Appropriations that is greater than there is for us. Because they say, if we condition our staying there on the Europeans doing what General Shelton complains that they are not doing, that will lead to abandonment. Well, if the troops are overexposed and it is costing us too much money, there are two things to do, have the Europeans pay their fair share or withdraw them. We hope it is the former. But in neither case are we increasing the danger to the troops. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), as a member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which threatens the unilateral withdrawal of U.S. forces and resources from Kosovo. [[Page H1599]] The need in Kosovo for peacekeeping reconstruction and development of civil and judicial administration is greater than all the promises put together by the NATO allies and the U.S. The authors of this amendment are right in one respect. Every diplomatic effort to hold NATO allies to their agreement is entirely appropriate. But threatening to unilaterally end our freely given commitment just makes the peacekeeping job so ably done by our deployed men and women and the massive reconstruction that is needed, the job of massive reconstruction, makes those a great deal harder. And, God forbid, if we were to actually act upon this threat, the end result could only be giving the final initiative back to Milosevic. Vote against this amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform Members that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, by the end of next year, we will have spent $20 billion in the Balkans. What we are asking is t

Summary:

All articles in House section

2000 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT
(House of Representatives - March 30, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H1592-H1621] 2000 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT The SPEAKER. 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 further consideration of the bill, H.R. 3908. {time} 1006 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, March 29, 2000, amendment No. 8 printed in Part B of House report 106- 549 by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 80, line 11. Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendments shall be in order except pro forma amendments offered by the chairman and ranking minority member; the amendment printed in Part B of the report and numbered 12; and the following further amendments which may be offered only by the Member designated in the order of the House or a designee, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes 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 a division of the question: (1) An amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) regarding certain reductions and limitations; (2) An amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) regarding an across-the-board cut; (3) An amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) regarding U.S. military in Colombia; (4) An amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) regarding buy America; (5) An amendment by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) regarding building technology assistance conservation activities; (6) An amendment by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) regarding the Food and Drug Administration; (7) An amendment by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) regarding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Modification to Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification. The Clerk read as follows: Modification to Part B Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania: In the matter proposed to be inserted, strike section 512, page 4, line 4, through page 5, line 8. The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows: 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 10(b)(1) through (3) of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2106(b)(1) through (3)), $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 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. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I will not object and I will yield to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for an explanation of his modification. Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland for yielding. This amendment is offered in the spirit in a bipartisan way of clarifying the intent and the substance of our legislation and our amendment, which we hope everyone will support, to provide for the first-time major funding of an emergency nature for our Nation's domestic defenders. Mr. Chairman, it was never the intent of the author nor the coauthors of this legislation to negatively impact the use of Community Development Block Grant funds. Mr. Chairman, I will include my statement in the Record to explain in some detail the justification for what we originally intended to do and our agreement to work with the appropriate subcommittee to enact reforms to the Community Development Block Grant program. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). I want to thank the leadership for their cooperation; and I encourage our colleagues to vote for this amendment. After consultation with many of my colleagues, I am requesting unanimous consent to delete the portions of the Weldon-Hoyer amendment dealing with the reform of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). [[Page H1593]] I realize that many of my colleagues have strong feelings about CDBG and the role it plays in our low- and moderate-income communities. As a former mayor of a town that receives CDBG funds and as a former chairman of a county council that administers and distributes CDBG funds, I share that commitment. The CDBG reforms that were included in amendment 42 were intended to do two things: Clarify existing law to clearly define what fire and emergency service activities are eligible for CDBG funds under the current program. Reform CDBG to allow counties and municipalities to designate portions of their CDBG funds for activities that benefit poor communities and also other areas of the community. For example, my reforms would have allowed CDBG funds to be used for the following activities: Allow the use of CDBG funds for municipal-wide training facilities for fire and EMS personnel--including basic fire and EMS training, HAZMAT, terrorist threat response, etc. Such facilities would obviously benefit poor communities, which often have less money available for training and could take great advantage of a municipal-wide facility. CDBG funds cannot currently be used for such an activity unless the municipal government proves that 51 percent of the activities at the facility benefit low- and moderate-income families--even if the facility itself is located in a poor community. Allow the use of CDBG funds for local fire and emergency service organizations that routinely respond to emergencies in poor communities or in areas that have high concentrations of poor people--even if these groups are not themselves located in CDBG-eligible areas. For example, many fire companies located in towns bordering poor communities respond to fires and other emergencies in poor communities on a regular basis. Likewise, local fire companies from non-CDBG eligible communities are often the first response units for shopping malls, sporting arenas and other community gathering places that attract large numbers of people from low- and moderate-income communities. Allow the use of CDBG funds for local fire and emergency service organizations that are the first response units for highway accidents and traffic incidents that impact low-income communities. For example, if a major thoroughfare cuts through a low- and moderate-income community, accidents on that thoroughfare impact the safety of that community. Fire companies from surrounding municipalities are routinely called upon to assist with major incidents--even though they themselves are not located in CDBG-eligible areas. By offering CDBG reforms along these lines, I was merely recognizing the unique nature of fire and EMS response in our local communities. Local first responders do not ask whether an emergency occurs in a low- or moderate-income area, they respond without hesitation. It would seem that we could take some small steps to help these organizations that benefit many areas of the community--including our poorest communities. It would not seem unreasonable to make some of these changes, given the existing ``quirks'' in the administration of the CDBG program, under which-- 1. Curb cuts in even the wealthiest communities count as assisting low- and moderate-income people, and 2. CDBG monies can be used for historic preservation in even the wealthiest parts of the community once the municipality has certified its CDBG spending for low- and moderate-income communities. I am pleased that there are efforts to reform many parts of the CDBG program in an authorization bill being authored by my friend Congressman Lazio. I look forward to working with him to reform CDBG to make it easier for counties and municipalities to spend CDBG funds in cost-effective ways to benefit our low-income communities. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his action, and I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who has been the principal sponsor of a very large bill pending which will be heard on April 12, of which this is a part. Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, our leader on this issue, and on many issues, has spoken. I think that this change is in order and is something that all the sides have agreed upon. We should move quickly as our first down payment on what we will hope will be the beginning of a series of responses to the 32,000 fire departments and the hundreds of thousands of fire fighters in America. So I want to commend all of those who worked through the night to put this together, and I believe it is absolutely necessary that we do this to get it done. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), chairman of the subcommittee overseeing these matters. Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I also am introducing a bill that hopefully takes care of this problem. I think because those with low-income need this protection, because fire departments are seeing a lot of damage in those homes that have bad wiring, it is a consideration that we need to work out; and we are going to do that. So in a more complete bill, we are headed in that direction. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), my friend and cochair of the Fire Service Caucus. Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, because of this bipartisan agreement, the House is about to vote this morning for the first time in its history for $100 million in direct aid to the fire service. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) has really spearheaded this whole effort and deserves enormous praise, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) for bringing forth the amendment, as well as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for championing it. And let me say to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) that she deserves praise for bringing to our attention a very serious item that was corrected. I do believe that communities should be able to use Community Development Block Grant money to help low-income areas for fire and public safety, but the proper venue to make that decision is through the authorizing process and in the appropriate committees. Because of the gentlewoman's leadership, we are going to do this. I support this. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving my right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); and I first thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for the flexibility he showed, because I think we have a solution here which preserves the very important purpose that he and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) have been working on of getting assistance to the fire fighters without impinging negatively elsewhere. The gentleman from Maryland played an important roll here, as well as the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), who has made her entrance as I speak. I do not know if the meek are going to inherit the earth, but they are entitled to inherit this bill after the brilliant work of the gentlewoman from Florida. {time} 1015 Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, under my reservation, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) who, in fact, I think has led us to this very outstanding resolution of this issue. Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for removing all of the CDBG provisions from the amendment. As my colleagues all well know, I have been a strong supporter of the fire service for many years, and I am glad to see that we were able to come to an agreement that provides firemen with the needed funds and without injuring the CDBG low- and moderate-income Americans that the CDBG program serves. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) for her outstanding leadership. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment to H.R. 3908 by both Congressmen Curt Weldon and Nick Smith. Throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and other States, millions of people in cities, towns, and rural areas depend on the volunteer fire service to be there when a fire burns a home or a child breaks a leg. If there is no money to help our volunteer firefighters what will our neighbors do in an emergency? The Weldon/Smith amendment will ensure that our volunteer firefighters will [[Page H1594]] have the money to purchase the equipment needed to help the victims of tragedy. As a Member of Congress who represents a district that depends on dozens of volunteer fire companies to keep its communities safe, I would like to applaud the sponsors of this amendment. My State of Pennsylvania is home to the largest number of volunteer fire companies in the United States. Unfortunately, a great majority of them are underfunded. The typical budget for a volunteer fire department is less than $20,000 a year. This amendment would provide for $80,000,000 for a competitive grant program to award money to volunteer, paid, and combined departments that provide fire and emergency medical services and can demonstrate a legitimate financial need. I am also pleased that this amendment expands on a bill I sponsored, H.R. 3155, known as the Firefighter's Local-Federal Assistance for Management of Emergencies Act of 1999, or FLAME Act. The idea for the FLAME Act started with one of my constituents, Mr. Francis Ditzler of the Lickdale Volunteer Fire Company in Lebanon County, PA. Mr. Ditzler pointed out that as the rate and severity of highway accidents has increased in the last 10 years along Interstate 81 in Lebanon County, the rate of funding increases for volunteer fire companies has not kept pace. In my home State, struggling Lickdale Volunteer Fire Company, like other struggling volunteer fire companies, does not have the money to purchase the equipment necessary to help treat the victims of auto accidents that occur along their 25 mile stretch of the Interstate. Twenty years ago, the answer in Pennsylvania was the Volunteer Loan Assistance Program that would allow volunteer companies to take out low-interest loans for needed equipment. Today, 20 years after this low-interest loan program was drafted, volunteer fire companies still need financial help. The FLAME Act would provide a competitive grant program to those States that have a Volunteer Loan Assistance Program. The FLAME Act, which was introduced in the first session of the 106th Congress, creates a partnership between Federal, State and local governments that encourages volunteer fire companies to pay off their low-interest State-sponsored loans for equipment and buildings. H.R. 3155 will help our volunteer fire companies help themselves without raising taxes or earmarking another appropriation. My legislation would provide a Federal matching grant of up to $15,000 to any volunteer fire company that has a State-sponsored volunteer loan program and may raise equal amounts of money through voluntary contribution and through local government grants. The goal of the FLAME Act is to encourage other States to establish volunteer firefighter loan assistant programs. The Federal Government is not the only level of government working to better fund our volunteer fire departments. The Pennsylvania Legislature is considering a $25,000,000 grant program that mirrors the FLAME Act and will provide similar benefits as my bill. The Pennsylvania measure would also provide competitive grant programs to volunteer fire companies throughout the State. The amendment we have before us today will accomplish many of the same goals as my legislation. These award grants may be used for purchase of personal protective equipment, apparatus, establishing fitness programs for firefighting personnel, for the purchase of computers to integrate computer technology to improve records management and training capabilities, and to modernize fire stations among a myriad of other items. In an era of fiscal responsibility and Federal and State financial partnerships, I find this legislation to be one of the most important the House passes this year. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the earlier voice vote is vacated. There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified, and the Chair will put the question on its adoption de novo. Thre was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentlemen from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) will be postponed. Amendment No. 12 Offered By Mr. Kasich Mr. KASICH. 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. 12 offered by Mr. Kasich: At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the following new section: Sec. ____. (a) Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund'' for military operations in Kosovo, not more than 50 percent may be obligated until the President certifies in writing to Congress that the European Commission, the member nations of the European Union, and the European member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have, in the aggregate-- (1) obligated or contracted for at least 33 percent of the amount of the assistance that those organizations and nations committed to provide for 1999 and 2000 for reconstruction in Kosovo; (2) obligated or contracted for at least 75 percent of the amount of the assistance that those organizations and nations committed for 1999 and 2000 for humanitarian assistance in Kosovo; (3) provided at least 75 percent of the amount of the assistance that those organizations and nations committed for 1999 and 2000 for the Kosovo Consolidated Budget; and (4) deployed at least 75 percent of the number of police, including special police, that those organizations and nations pledged for the United Nations international police force for Kosovo. (b) The President shall submit to Congress, with any certification submitted by the President under subsection (a), a report containing detailed information on-- (1) the commitments and pledges made by each organization and nation referred to in subsection (a) for reconstruction assistance in Kosovo, humanitarian assistance in Kosovo, the Kosovo Consolidated Budget, and police (including special police) for the United Nations international police force for Kosovo; (2) the amount of assistance that has been provided in each category, and the number of police that have been deployed to Kosovo, by each such organization or nation; and (3) the full range of commitments and responsibilities that have been undertaken for Kosovo by the United Nations, the European Union, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the progress made by those organizations in fulfilling those commitments and responsibilities, an assessment of the tasks that remain to be accomplished, and an anticipated schedule for completing those tasks. (c) If the President does not submit to Congress a certification and report under subsections (a) and (b) on or before June 1, 2000, then, beginning on June 2, 2000, the 50 percent of the amounts appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund'' for military operations in Kosovo that remain unobligated (as required by subsection (a)) shall be available only for the purpose of conducting a safe, orderly, and phased withdrawal of United States military personnel from Kosovo, and no other amounts appropriated for the Department of Defense in this Act or any Act enacted before the date of the enactment of this Act may be obligated to continue the deployment of United States military personnel in Kosovo. In that case, the President shall submit to Congress, not later than June 30, 2000, a report on the plan for the withdrawal. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) each will control 15 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the Members of the House, this is actually not a burden-sharing amendment. This is just designed to get our friends across the ocean to live up to their commitment. Just to give my colleagues a sense of where we are, the United States has a GDP, an economy, the size of about $8.9 trillion. The Europeans compare favorably of $8.3 trillion. Yet we spend $283 billion on defense; they only spend $180 billion. I wonder why we have to have our people over there for 40 years, because they have not been carrying the load. This is not even an issue about them carrying the load in a more aggressive way. What this is designed to say is that the United States has committed $20 billion to Bosnia, to Kosovo over the last few years. When we went into Kosovo, regardless of how one may feel about the action, let us put that aside for a second, and let us talk about the pledge that the Europeans made. They told us that they would help in rebuilding the country. They told us they would help in a variety of ways. What this amendment is designed to do is to carry forward the idea of Senator Warner who said that we need to get them to honor their commitment. This is not designed to increase their commitment. This is really not designed to [[Page H1595]] increase burden sharing. This amendment is only designed to say to the Europeans they made a pledge to us; keep it. The Europeans pledged 3,883 policemen in Kosovo. They have only paid for 1,878. Our amendment says they pledged 3,800; deliver 3,800. They made a promise to do it. They said they would do it. Why do they not step up to the plate and keep their word. The Europeans' pledge for the rebuilding of Kosovo, for civil administration, they pledged $140 million. They have only given $30 million. Now, how unreasonable is it to say to our European allies, you promised us $140 million, come through with $140 million? That is what you pledged to do. In terms of reconstruction aid, rebuilding those arts of Kosovo that we bombed to a large degree on their behalf, they pledged $410 million, but they have only delivered $44 million. So what does this amendment say? It does not say we expect them to dramatically increase their contribution. It only says that they ought to live up to the pledge that they made and keep their word. Their economy is relatively the same size as the United States. The least they can do, after we flew all those sorties and they made their pledges, is to simply keep their word. This is a time to change the way in which we conduct business post-World War II. My colleagues are going to hear today, ``not the right time,'' ``not the right amendment,'' ``not the right wording.'' Baloney. All we have to do in the United States is to say, keep your word. What we will find is the Europeans will. Now is the time to act. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, very reluctantly, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I do so, not because I disagree with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), because I agree with almost everything that he said. The problem is with the amendment itself. I am concerned that his limitation on not more than 50 percent of the funds in the Kosovo section could not be released until certain things happened. The problem with this is, Mr. Chairman, money has already been spent. We are not providing money in this bill for Kosovo to rebuild Kosovo. We are not doing anything in this bill to actually deploy troops to Kosovo. What we do in this bill is replace the money that has already been spent by the deployment to Kosovo. Now, if we were in a position to demand certain things from the European allies, I would be standing up here with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) to do that, because I think that that is only fair. But as I read this amendment closely, not only on the first page, but the third page, just let me make one comment about a section on the third page, it says, if the President does not submit to Congress a certification required, et cetera, et cetera, then beginning on June 2, the 50 percent of the amounts appropriated in this act can only be used to remove the troops. Now, I am for removing the troops. But I have to tell my colleagues that the money in the bill is not there to remove the troops. This money is to replace monies that have already been spent. The monies have been spent from the fourth quarter operations and maintenance accounts of our military services. Now, if we do not replenish this money, we are going to have to stand down our training exercises, park the ships, park the airplanes, park the trucks, park the tanks, and training will grind to a halt. We do not have until June 2 to make that decision. That decision has got to be made late in April or early in May because, for those exercises that have to be stood down. The planning has to begin in April or May. So as strongly as I agree with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and what he is trying to accomplish, this amendment will not accomplish that; and this amendment will cause severe chaos, in fact, in the operations and maintenance of our military during the last quarter of this fiscal year. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just to point out that, last night, we approved an additional $4 billion in this bill. It is never the right time, never the right place. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus). Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, let me say this, we have an agreement here, and I think there is a consensus building which ought to pass this amendment. What that consensus is is that the military needs more money. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full committee, said they may need money to withdraw from Kosovo. But if we do not approve this amendment, if we do not approve this bill, there is no money there. Well, let me say something to every Member. Every cent of the money in the bill will go to the military if this amendment passes. This amendment does not stop any funding of our military. All the funding, every penny will go to our armed services. If our allies live up to their commitments, if they deliver what they promised, look again, this is what they promised. This is what they promised. This is what they promised. But look on that right-hand side as to what they deliver. If they deliver what they promised, every cent will go to the military to be used in Kosovo. Now, if they do not deliver what they promised, then as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the committee, said, our troops need to come home. That is what we provide. If they do not deliver on their promises, the money is available to bring the troops home. But every cent of the money is available under the amendment. Wesley Clark testified before the Senate, and he said the failure to have civil implementation is threatening the peace. It is threatening the military victory. We have either got to have a speedier implementation, or we need withdrawal. Let me quote to my colleagues one other thing. How long are we going to be in Kosovo? Well, General Klaus Reinhardt last week said, ``I am talking 5 years and it could be 10 years.'' ``I am talking 5 years and it could be 10 years.'' The reason we fail to commit the forces necessary to keep the peace, World War II lasted 4 years and World War I, 2 years. Korea lasted 3 years. Do we want to commit our third graders to Kosovo? Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) mentioned that we did add additional money to the defense part of this bill. That is true. However, it is not applicable to the section that we are dealing with in his amendment, and that is the problem that I have in his amendment. The money that we added yesterday was for specific purposes other than Kosovo. The gentleman's amendment goes directly to the issue of Kosovo, and that is not where the extra money was added. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the author of the amendment a question, please. Last night, I had thought that I was going to be supporting this amendment, but I have a question. The House adopted last night a human rights amendment which had a presidential waiver on the subject, which is important to us, but certainly is not absolutely essential to our own national security interests. It is my understanding now this morning that the gentleman's amendment does not have the authority for presidential waiver even if he believes that this would threaten national security or put U.S. troops in danger. Is that correct? Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, there is no waiver. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I find that incredibly troubling. Perhaps it was fortunate we did not take this up last night so we have had a chance to reread the gentleman's amendment. What appeared to be innocent last night, absent the presidential waiver, would be extremely troubling, especially in light of the Secretary of Defense's statement it would put the interest of U.S. troops at risk. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to make a point. It is [[Page H1596]] about time that the Congress of the United States started asserting itself when it comes to foreign policy. We are not engaging in some major foreign policy decision other than to tell the Europeans to live up to their commitment. What is the message that gets sent when this is defeated? Do my colleagues know what it is? If you make a promise and you break it and you stiff us, that is okay. That is wrong. We better get on the stick and realize that we are a big chunk of how we set foreign policy. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, by the end of next year, we will have spent $20 billion, $20 billion in the Balkans. The amendment that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and I are introducing is really the amendment of the chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Mr. Warner. {time} 1030 And basically it says that our allies need to pay 33 percent of the construction costs they committed and 75 percent of the humanitarian assistance, the Kosovo Consolidated Budget and the international police budget. And if they do not, then we will withdraw our troops. We are saying they should live up to their commitments. Now, why would we care if they pay their commitment? One reason is we ask the Japanese to pay 75 percent of the nonsalary costs of our troops in the Japan theater, and they give us $3.6 billion. We ask the Europeans to pay for the 100,000 troops stationed on that continent, and they give us $66 million. This is a joke, and it has got to end. So at the very least, when our allies make a commitment, they should live up to it. They should pay their bills. And if they are not willing to, let them stop taking us for a ride. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), 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, the gentleman from Ohio just said that Members of Congress should assert themselves on foreign policy. I would like to bring to the attention of the chairman of the Committee on the Budget the law, the law written by the Committee on Appropriations and passed by this House. The law, in accompanying report language, specifically denies the ability of the administration to spend more than 15 percent of the total expenditures in Kosovo. So we have already addressed this issue. The percentage that the gentleman from Ohio is using is going to be confusing because it appears to increase the ability of the United States. I wish the gentleman from Ohio would listen to this because I am responding to his indication. But it appears as if his amendment, although it is not his intent, might even say with the higher percentage factor that we are backing down on our insistence that our administration only spend 15 percent. So I would invite the gentleman from Ohio to read existing law whereby this Congress prohibits the administration from spending more than 15 percent. Under the law, the President must come back to the Congress if indeed they violate that. They came to us in December of 1999, and they certified that the United States' contribution was only 14.9 percent. So I share the sentiment of the gentleman from Ohio; I think he is moving in the right direction, but fortunately, the Congress has very responsibly already addressed this issue and the law is the law. We do not need confusing additional law to complicate the issue. The President requested $100 million for assistance in Kosovo. The committee rejected that, and we only included $12 million. So I feel like the amendment, although I know that is not the intent of the gentleman from Ohio, the amendment would actually deplete the ability of the administration to have money to replenish money already spent. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate that we just heard from the gentleman in charge of foreign aid, because this is the biggest foreign aid program in the history of America. It is one in which the United States' taxpayers consistently and generously subsidize the other richest people in the world. Europe will be very happy if the combined establishment here, the leadership, the President, all these putative opponents, come together to defeat this, because no bigger present could be given the European taxpayers than this amendment. The gentleman from Alabama says we have already done that; we said they cannot spend more than 15 percent. Lo and behold it came to 14.9 percent, no doubt an independently arrived at calculation. But here is what the facts are. On March 1, two articles, which at an appropriate point I will put in the Record, reflect what General Shelton said. ``General Shelton's letter reflected anger at European allies for not contributing as many troops as requested for expected in Kosovo.'' That is from the New York Times. Here is The Washington Post quoting Mr. Bacon, the Pentagon spokesperson. ``The chairman, General Shelton, made it clear he doesn't think it's appropriate for American troops to go to out-of-sector operations on a regular basis to take up police work that should be done by the forces in those other sectors.'' Yes, we have said that they should help out, but we have zero enforcement. This is the only enforcement. Now, I know when in control of the administration and in control of the appropriations process, one can always say it is not perfect. Agreed, it is not perfect. It is just better than anything that we have come up with. Let us be very clear here. What we are seeing is the pattern in this House. When we see the administration do something, we will yell; we will scream; we will beat our chests. We will do everything but vote to change it. There is no doctrine of executive usurpation in foreign policy. What we have is a consistent unbroken pattern of congressional dereliction of duty in foreign policy. There are Members here who will go home and make great speeches, some will not even wait to go home, saying it is terrible we are in Kosovo; we are spending too much; the Europeans are not doing anything. Here is a vehicle to do something about it, and there is not room under the table as Members jump to get under it. This is the only enforcement vehicle we have. All this talk about what the rules are means nothing. Look at what General Shelton said. They are not there; we are there. My colleagues say we have to help our troops. Do we help our troops by continuing to allow Europe not to do this? What this House will be if we defeat this amendment, we will continue our roles as the enablers of European dependence. We will say to the Europeans, promise them anything, but do not follow through. And when anybody tries to enforce that promise, they do not have to worry, because they will come back and say, well, it is not perfect, it is not this. As far as the waiver is concerned, the amendment does say the withdrawal has to be safe and orderly. The fact is this is the only enforcement vehicle around. Mr. Chairman, the articles I referred to above are included for the Record. [From the New York Times, Mar. 1, 2000] Joint Chiefs Chairman Protests Troops' Mission to Kosovo Town (By Jane Perlez) Irritated that American troops had to retreat from a bottle-throwing mob in Kosovo, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Henry H. Shelton, has written to NATO's supreme commander, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, telling him not to use American troops outside their designated sector. The letter, according to Pentagon and NATO officials, told General Clark that other countries involved in the NATO peacekeeping operation had to send more troops to Kosovo before significant numbers of American troops would again be allowed on a mission outside the sector assigned to the United States' control. General Shelton sent the letter to General Clark a few days after the retreat on Feb. 20 of 350 American soldiers from Mitrovica. The American soldiers had been sent out to the [[Page H1597]] troubled city, where Albanian and Serbian residents are at a standoff and where French troops needed reinforcements. Pentagon officials acknowledged today that General Shelton had concurred with General Clark's plan to send the troops from their sector in southeast Kosovo to Mitrovica before the mission was under way. But although General Shelton had agreed ahead of time to the mission, the underlying tone of the letter, according to officials, questioned the wisdom of sending American troops into a volatile situation involving hostile Serbian civilians. General Shelton's letter, and a mood of discontent about the Kosovo peacekeeping operation in the Senate Armed Services Committee during a hearing with General Clark today, reflected anger at European allies for not contributing as many troops as requested or expected in Kosovo. Several senators complained that after the United States had led the air campaign in the Kosovo war, the Europeans had pledged to lead the peacekeeping in Kosovo but had failed to live up to their promise. ``There is more than whiff of hype, where the Europeans talk of doing more,'' then fail to carry out their commitments in Kosovo, said Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan. The chairman of the committee, Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, asked General Clark why American troops were involved in house-to-house searches for weapons in Mitrovica. Senator Warner recalled that in Somalia, where American troops were involved in an ill-fated peacekeeping operation in 1992, house-to-house searches by American soldiers were ruled out as too dangerous. General Clark said that in contrast to Somalia, where American troops were not welcome, the NATO troops in Kosovo were respected and wanted by large groups of the local population. But pressing ahead, Senator Warner questioned the utility of a weapons search in a city that was only a few miles from a porous border with Serbia across which weapons freely flowed. Senator Warner asked, ``What was the total number of arms'' seized in Mitrovica? General Clark replied, ``Twenty-five.'' A NATO official explained after the hearing that the searches for weapons in Mitrovica were conducted by troops of several nations and were announced to the community by community leaders just beforehand so that the searches appeared evenhanded. Both Albanian and Serbian homes were searched, in northern and southern Mitrovica, the official said. In his testimony, General Clark said that the Yugoslav president, Slobodan Milosevic, was very much in control in Serbia and that he was unlikely to be defeated or disappear any time soon. ____ [From the Washington Post, Mar. 1, 2000] American Troops in Kosovo Restricted to U.S. Sector (By Roberto Suro) U.S. troops in Kosovo will stick to their own turf under orders announced by the Pentagon yesterday that sharply limit missions to assist the peacekeepers of other nationalities. The new restrictions reflect concerns in the Defense Department and the White House over a violent encounter last week between a Serbian mob and American soldiers who had been sent to help French peacekeepers with a police action in the French sector, according to a senior military official. ``The issue here is, how often do we get dragged into a situation where we have to perform out-of-sector operations that can diminish our ability to operate within our own sector?'' Pentagon spokesman Kenneth H. Bacon said. About 5,300 U.S. troops patrol the southeastern sector of Kosovo. French, Italian, German and British forces are in charge of their own sector of the troubled Serbian province. The extent to which troops of various nationalities are available to reinforce each other has become a matter of both military and diplomatic dispute, as NATO peacekeepers contend with rising unrest while their own numbers decline. The new orders came in a letter from Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to NATO's top military commander, U.S. Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark. ``The chairman made it clear that he doesn't think it's appropriate for American troops to go to out-of-sector operations on a regular basis to take up police work that should be done by the forces in those other sectors,'' Bacon said. The still-classified letter was dated Feb. 20, Bacon said. That was the day when a battalion of 350 U.S. soldiers helped conduct a house-to-house search for illegal weapons in Mitrovica, a town in the French sector where Serbs and the ethnic Albanians who dominate Kosovo have frequently clashed. The Americans encountered a rock-throwing mob of protesting Serbs; and although no U.S. soldier was seriously injured, senior civilian and military policy makers felt the mission was risky and unnecessary, senior officials said. Clark informed Washington about the mission but ordered it on his own authority, just as he had on two previous occasions when U.S. forces went to the aid of peacekeepers in other sectors. Appearing before a congressional hearing yesterday, Clark defended cross-sector operations as essential in Kosovo. Under the terms of Shelton's letter, however, U.S. troops will operate in other sectors only ``on an extraordinary emergency basis,'' Bacon said. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair advise us of the remaining time on each side. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 9 minutes remaining. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). Mr. CALLAHAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I just wanted to say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, surely he does not think the President of the United States or the Secretary of State would lie to Congress. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman from Alabama, that I do not think they would lie. I think they would be willing, however, to mislead my colleague, if he were as willing to be misled as he is. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the very distinguished leading expert on national defense issues. Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, this deployment is not about Europe; this is about the United States. When we deploy troops, we deploy in our national security. Now, this is a cute way of trying to reduce our deployment to Europe. We had 400,000 troops in there for years against the Soviet Union. Now, we can argue about how many troops ought to be there right now, but when we are doing it this way, NATO's in command. We said the U.N. could not do it, so we put NATO in command. This amendment says no presidential waiver. It says, okay, if they do not live up to their obligation, then we have to pull our troops out. Now, let us take Luxembourg; let us take Iceland. Let us say there is a lobbying effort for those two little countries, and they get them to pull their troops out. They are deciding the foreign policy of the United States. Iceland and Luxembourg, under this amendment, would be setting the foreign policy for the United States. We are in Kosovo to save lives. Now, there is a lot of people that can disclaim that. A lot of people can say let the Europeans do it. They, obviously, could not get their act together, or we would not be involved. We are involved because of the security of the United States. Do my colleagues know how many wars have started in the Balkans? Two wars started in the Balkans. My dad and three of his brothers served in World War II. We are talking about the security of the United States, and we are not going to allow Iceland, and we are not going to allow Luxembourg to set the policy for the United States. And that is exactly what these four gentlemen are doing. They are surreptitiously trying to figure out a way to get the troops out of Europe, reduce our deployment to Europe. This is not the way to do it. If we want to limit the deployments, let us face it up front. Let us argue about it. Let us debate it and say we are going to limit the amount of money and we are going to pull our troops out. Let us not do it in a way that lets Luxembourg or Iceland take control, and then not have a presidential waiver that speaks to the security of our troops, or if the Secretary of Defense says this is endangering our troops, and there is no waiver in order to cover that. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, of course, Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about Luxembourg and Iceland, as the gentleman knows. The gentleman wants to get into burlesque. We are talking about France and Germany. They are the ones who made the commitment. They are the ones whose taxpayers the gentleman is so valiantly defending. Secondly, the amendment says there must be a safe and orderly withdrawal. But, finally, we are not making policy. We are just telling people to live up to it. It is General Shelton who said I am not letting the American troops be put at risk because of the failure of the Europeans to live up to their commitments. It is General Shelton, the [[Page H1598]] chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who has said, the failure, the ongoing failure of the Europeans, France and Germany, and Italy and England, they are the ones who are endangering the troops. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly). Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment offered by my friend from Ohio because the elimination of funding in Kosovo would not only make the time and resources that the U.S. has already expended a total waste, but it would also render meaningless the loss of life, the suffering and the hardship imposed on the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. We are talking about people and their lives. For us to walk away from a commitment to peace in Kosovo would essentially give Slobodan Milosevic free reign in his campaign to force the remaining ethnic Albanians out of Yugoslavia and Kosovo. Peace in this region will not be coming overnight. Our forces who are currently stationed in Kosovo are working in partnership with our NATO allies. This is not our burden to carry alone. If our NATO allies are not paying up, why punish the Kosovar people? Order, peace, and hope for long-term security are beginning to spread in Kosovo. However, without our leadership and commitment, I think our allies will not continue their efforts; and everything we have already spent will be for nothing. Please join me, my colleagues, in opposing this amendment. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus). Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, because he and I agree. We should not let the Europeans dictate our military policy. But, in fact, under the present status quo, they are directing our military policy. In fact, President Clinton, in a letter to us in October, and I am going to introduce that, when asked when will we withdraw our armed forces, he said, ``Our armed forces will be withdrawn from operations based on the assessment of the progress of civil implementation, and that depends on our European allies.'' Here is the progress of that civil implementation. There has been no progress. As General Klaus said, we could be there 10 years. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who is the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Our friend from Ohio said that we should assert ourselves and send a message. Let me tell my colleagues what that message would be. The message would be that raising the possibility of American troops withdrawing from Kosovo encourages extremist elements in Kosovo and Belgrade who are determined to see NATO's mission fail in the Balkans. This amendment would damage the readiness of our armed forces for the rest of the fiscal year and for the rest of our efforts there. Sure, European allies should and they will do more to meet their commitments in Kosovo. We should continue to encourage them to do so. But we do not by this amendment want to surrender to foreign nations the ultimate decision-making authority on the deployment of United States' troops. Congress and the executive branch should make that decision. Cutting off funds and forcing the withdrawal of our forces from Kosovo should not be an automatic based on what the Europeans do. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I can hardly believe the arguments here. We have spent over $20 billion in the Balkans. We flew 75 percent of the sorties using American flesh and blood to do it. And what this amendment says is that when the Europeans make a pledge, they ought to live up to it. If my colleague goes to a town hall meeting in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, and says the Europeans said they were going to give us $140 million and they only gave us $30 million, they are in trouble and so we have to cough up the rest of the bill. I would suggest to my colleague that, in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, he will be run out on a rail. {time} 1045 The fact is that all we are doing in this amendment is to say, when they make a pledge, when they say they are going to give $140 million to help Kosovo, just give it. When it is said that we degrade the military by offering this amendment, that is total bunk. The military does not lose this money. In fact, the money would give increased readiness because it would say that we do not have to spread ourselves out all over the world. The military does not lose anything. My colleagues should stand up for their taxpayers. Because if they do not, they are going to come to the town halls and they are going to hold them accountable. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say that I agree with what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) is saying, but that is not what his amendment does. What he is saying is great, but what his amendment does is not what he is saying. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 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 opposition to this amendment because I think it is the right policy being put forth by the wrong branch of government. The idea that we should assert ourselves in foreign policy is right. The issue is when should we assert ourselves in foreign policy. I believe it is before we put thousands of young Americans at risk in a region of the world. I think the administration should have come to us before they made this commitment, and we should have had this debate before the country got involved. But they did not. I do not see this as an affirmation of legislative authority. I see this as an affirmation of a need to protect thousands of young Americans who are in Kosovo today. Conditions change every day, every hour, every minute; and when conditions change, there needs to be the authority to make decisions quickly and flexibly. This amendment deprives the President of that authority. For that reason, I cannot support it. I urge its defeat. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I hope some alert journalist is going to publish a catalogue of the excuses for Congress never to make a tough decision. We should have done it before. We cannot do it after. We are told, by the way, that it is too dangerous for the troops to be there. Now, how do we increase the danger by withdrawing them? There may be good reasons for keeping them there. I believe there are. But protecting them from the danger of being there is hardly a good reason to keep them there. And that is what they are saying. People say they agree, the Europeans ought to pay more. But this House has consistently refused to do anything to force the Europeans to do it. And they know empty rhetoric when they see it. They are very sophisticated. What this amendment is intending to do, by the way, is not to pull out. This is an amendment that says Europe should begin to pay up. Apparently, there is a lack of confidence in our European allies amongst some of the leadership in the Committee on Appropriations that is greater than there is for us. Because they say, if we condition our staying there on the Europeans doing what General Shelton complains that they are not doing, that will lead to abandonment. Well, if the troops are overexposed and it is costing us too much money, there are two things to do, have the Europeans pay their fair share or withdraw them. We hope it is the former. But in neither case are we increasing the danger to the troops. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), as a member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which threatens the unilateral withdrawal of U.S. forces and resources from Kosovo. [[Page H1599]] The need in Kosovo for peacekeeping reconstruction and development of civil and judicial administration is greater than all the promises put together by the NATO allies and the U.S. The authors of this amendment are right in one respect. Every diplomatic effort to hold NATO allies to their agreement is entirely appropriate. But threatening to unilaterally end our freely given commitment just makes the peacekeeping job so ably done by our deployed men and women and the massive reconstruction that is needed, the job of massive reconstruction, makes those a great deal harder. And, God forbid, if we were to actually act upon this threat, the end result could only be giving the final initiative back to Milosevic. Vote against this amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform Members that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, by the end of next year, we will have spent $20 billion in the Ba

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

2000 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT
(House of Representatives - March 30, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H1592-H1621] 2000 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT The SPEAKER. 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 further consideration of the bill, H.R. 3908. {time} 1006 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, March 29, 2000, amendment No. 8 printed in Part B of House report 106- 549 by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 80, line 11. Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendments shall be in order except pro forma amendments offered by the chairman and ranking minority member; the amendment printed in Part B of the report and numbered 12; and the following further amendments which may be offered only by the Member designated in the order of the House or a designee, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes 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 a division of the question: (1) An amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) regarding certain reductions and limitations; (2) An amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) regarding an across-the-board cut; (3) An amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) regarding U.S. military in Colombia; (4) An amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) regarding buy America; (5) An amendment by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) regarding building technology assistance conservation activities; (6) An amendment by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) regarding the Food and Drug Administration; (7) An amendment by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) regarding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Modification to Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification. The Clerk read as follows: Modification to Part B Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania: In the matter proposed to be inserted, strike section 512, page 4, line 4, through page 5, line 8. The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows: 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 10(b)(1) through (3) of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2106(b)(1) through (3)), $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 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. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I will not object and I will yield to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for an explanation of his modification. Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland for yielding. This amendment is offered in the spirit in a bipartisan way of clarifying the intent and the substance of our legislation and our amendment, which we hope everyone will support, to provide for the first-time major funding of an emergency nature for our Nation's domestic defenders. Mr. Chairman, it was never the intent of the author nor the coauthors of this legislation to negatively impact the use of Community Development Block Grant funds. Mr. Chairman, I will include my statement in the Record to explain in some detail the justification for what we originally intended to do and our agreement to work with the appropriate subcommittee to enact reforms to the Community Development Block Grant program. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). I want to thank the leadership for their cooperation; and I encourage our colleagues to vote for this amendment. After consultation with many of my colleagues, I am requesting unanimous consent to delete the portions of the Weldon-Hoyer amendment dealing with the reform of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). [[Page H1593]] I realize that many of my colleagues have strong feelings about CDBG and the role it plays in our low- and moderate-income communities. As a former mayor of a town that receives CDBG funds and as a former chairman of a county council that administers and distributes CDBG funds, I share that commitment. The CDBG reforms that were included in amendment 42 were intended to do two things: Clarify existing law to clearly define what fire and emergency service activities are eligible for CDBG funds under the current program. Reform CDBG to allow counties and municipalities to designate portions of their CDBG funds for activities that benefit poor communities and also other areas of the community. For example, my reforms would have allowed CDBG funds to be used for the following activities: Allow the use of CDBG funds for municipal-wide training facilities for fire and EMS personnel--including basic fire and EMS training, HAZMAT, terrorist threat response, etc. Such facilities would obviously benefit poor communities, which often have less money available for training and could take great advantage of a municipal-wide facility. CDBG funds cannot currently be used for such an activity unless the municipal government proves that 51 percent of the activities at the facility benefit low- and moderate-income families--even if the facility itself is located in a poor community. Allow the use of CDBG funds for local fire and emergency service organizations that routinely respond to emergencies in poor communities or in areas that have high concentrations of poor people--even if these groups are not themselves located in CDBG-eligible areas. For example, many fire companies located in towns bordering poor communities respond to fires and other emergencies in poor communities on a regular basis. Likewise, local fire companies from non-CDBG eligible communities are often the first response units for shopping malls, sporting arenas and other community gathering places that attract large numbers of people from low- and moderate-income communities. Allow the use of CDBG funds for local fire and emergency service organizations that are the first response units for highway accidents and traffic incidents that impact low-income communities. For example, if a major thoroughfare cuts through a low- and moderate-income community, accidents on that thoroughfare impact the safety of that community. Fire companies from surrounding municipalities are routinely called upon to assist with major incidents--even though they themselves are not located in CDBG-eligible areas. By offering CDBG reforms along these lines, I was merely recognizing the unique nature of fire and EMS response in our local communities. Local first responders do not ask whether an emergency occurs in a low- or moderate-income area, they respond without hesitation. It would seem that we could take some small steps to help these organizations that benefit many areas of the community--including our poorest communities. It would not seem unreasonable to make some of these changes, given the existing ``quirks'' in the administration of the CDBG program, under which-- 1. Curb cuts in even the wealthiest communities count as assisting low- and moderate-income people, and 2. CDBG monies can be used for historic preservation in even the wealthiest parts of the community once the municipality has certified its CDBG spending for low- and moderate-income communities. I am pleased that there are efforts to reform many parts of the CDBG program in an authorization bill being authored by my friend Congressman Lazio. I look forward to working with him to reform CDBG to make it easier for counties and municipalities to spend CDBG funds in cost-effective ways to benefit our low-income communities. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his action, and I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who has been the principal sponsor of a very large bill pending which will be heard on April 12, of which this is a part. Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, our leader on this issue, and on many issues, has spoken. I think that this change is in order and is something that all the sides have agreed upon. We should move quickly as our first down payment on what we will hope will be the beginning of a series of responses to the 32,000 fire departments and the hundreds of thousands of fire fighters in America. So I want to commend all of those who worked through the night to put this together, and I believe it is absolutely necessary that we do this to get it done. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), chairman of the subcommittee overseeing these matters. Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I also am introducing a bill that hopefully takes care of this problem. I think because those with low-income need this protection, because fire departments are seeing a lot of damage in those homes that have bad wiring, it is a consideration that we need to work out; and we are going to do that. So in a more complete bill, we are headed in that direction. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), my friend and cochair of the Fire Service Caucus. Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, because of this bipartisan agreement, the House is about to vote this morning for the first time in its history for $100 million in direct aid to the fire service. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) has really spearheaded this whole effort and deserves enormous praise, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) for bringing forth the amendment, as well as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for championing it. And let me say to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) that she deserves praise for bringing to our attention a very serious item that was corrected. I do believe that communities should be able to use Community Development Block Grant money to help low-income areas for fire and public safety, but the proper venue to make that decision is through the authorizing process and in the appropriate committees. Because of the gentlewoman's leadership, we are going to do this. I support this. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving my right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); and I first thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for the flexibility he showed, because I think we have a solution here which preserves the very important purpose that he and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) have been working on of getting assistance to the fire fighters without impinging negatively elsewhere. The gentleman from Maryland played an important roll here, as well as the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), who has made her entrance as I speak. I do not know if the meek are going to inherit the earth, but they are entitled to inherit this bill after the brilliant work of the gentlewoman from Florida. {time} 1015 Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, under my reservation, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) who, in fact, I think has led us to this very outstanding resolution of this issue. Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for removing all of the CDBG provisions from the amendment. As my colleagues all well know, I have been a strong supporter of the fire service for many years, and I am glad to see that we were able to come to an agreement that provides firemen with the needed funds and without injuring the CDBG low- and moderate-income Americans that the CDBG program serves. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) for her outstanding leadership. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment to H.R. 3908 by both Congressmen Curt Weldon and Nick Smith. Throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and other States, millions of people in cities, towns, and rural areas depend on the volunteer fire service to be there when a fire burns a home or a child breaks a leg. If there is no money to help our volunteer firefighters what will our neighbors do in an emergency? The Weldon/Smith amendment will ensure that our volunteer firefighters will [[Page H1594]] have the money to purchase the equipment needed to help the victims of tragedy. As a Member of Congress who represents a district that depends on dozens of volunteer fire companies to keep its communities safe, I would like to applaud the sponsors of this amendment. My State of Pennsylvania is home to the largest number of volunteer fire companies in the United States. Unfortunately, a great majority of them are underfunded. The typical budget for a volunteer fire department is less than $20,000 a year. This amendment would provide for $80,000,000 for a competitive grant program to award money to volunteer, paid, and combined departments that provide fire and emergency medical services and can demonstrate a legitimate financial need. I am also pleased that this amendment expands on a bill I sponsored, H.R. 3155, known as the Firefighter's Local-Federal Assistance for Management of Emergencies Act of 1999, or FLAME Act. The idea for the FLAME Act started with one of my constituents, Mr. Francis Ditzler of the Lickdale Volunteer Fire Company in Lebanon County, PA. Mr. Ditzler pointed out that as the rate and severity of highway accidents has increased in the last 10 years along Interstate 81 in Lebanon County, the rate of funding increases for volunteer fire companies has not kept pace. In my home State, struggling Lickdale Volunteer Fire Company, like other struggling volunteer fire companies, does not have the money to purchase the equipment necessary to help treat the victims of auto accidents that occur along their 25 mile stretch of the Interstate. Twenty years ago, the answer in Pennsylvania was the Volunteer Loan Assistance Program that would allow volunteer companies to take out low-interest loans for needed equipment. Today, 20 years after this low-interest loan program was drafted, volunteer fire companies still need financial help. The FLAME Act would provide a competitive grant program to those States that have a Volunteer Loan Assistance Program. The FLAME Act, which was introduced in the first session of the 106th Congress, creates a partnership between Federal, State and local governments that encourages volunteer fire companies to pay off their low-interest State-sponsored loans for equipment and buildings. H.R. 3155 will help our volunteer fire companies help themselves without raising taxes or earmarking another appropriation. My legislation would provide a Federal matching grant of up to $15,000 to any volunteer fire company that has a State-sponsored volunteer loan program and may raise equal amounts of money through voluntary contribution and through local government grants. The goal of the FLAME Act is to encourage other States to establish volunteer firefighter loan assistant programs. The Federal Government is not the only level of government working to better fund our volunteer fire departments. The Pennsylvania Legislature is considering a $25,000,000 grant program that mirrors the FLAME Act and will provide similar benefits as my bill. The Pennsylvania measure would also provide competitive grant programs to volunteer fire companies throughout the State. The amendment we have before us today will accomplish many of the same goals as my legislation. These award grants may be used for purchase of personal protective equipment, apparatus, establishing fitness programs for firefighting personnel, for the purchase of computers to integrate computer technology to improve records management and training capabilities, and to modernize fire stations among a myriad of other items. In an era of fiscal responsibility and Federal and State financial partnerships, I find this legislation to be one of the most important the House passes this year. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the earlier voice vote is vacated. There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified, and the Chair will put the question on its adoption de novo. Thre was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentlemen from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) will be postponed. Amendment No. 12 Offered By Mr. Kasich Mr. KASICH. 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. 12 offered by Mr. Kasich: At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the following new section: Sec. ____. (a) Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund'' for military operations in Kosovo, not more than 50 percent may be obligated until the President certifies in writing to Congress that the European Commission, the member nations of the European Union, and the European member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have, in the aggregate-- (1) obligated or contracted for at least 33 percent of the amount of the assistance that those organizations and nations committed to provide for 1999 and 2000 for reconstruction in Kosovo; (2) obligated or contracted for at least 75 percent of the amount of the assistance that those organizations and nations committed for 1999 and 2000 for humanitarian assistance in Kosovo; (3) provided at least 75 percent of the amount of the assistance that those organizations and nations committed for 1999 and 2000 for the Kosovo Consolidated Budget; and (4) deployed at least 75 percent of the number of police, including special police, that those organizations and nations pledged for the United Nations international police force for Kosovo. (b) The President shall submit to Congress, with any certification submitted by the President under subsection (a), a report containing detailed information on-- (1) the commitments and pledges made by each organization and nation referred to in subsection (a) for reconstruction assistance in Kosovo, humanitarian assistance in Kosovo, the Kosovo Consolidated Budget, and police (including special police) for the United Nations international police force for Kosovo; (2) the amount of assistance that has been provided in each category, and the number of police that have been deployed to Kosovo, by each such organization or nation; and (3) the full range of commitments and responsibilities that have been undertaken for Kosovo by the United Nations, the European Union, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the progress made by those organizations in fulfilling those commitments and responsibilities, an assessment of the tasks that remain to be accomplished, and an anticipated schedule for completing those tasks. (c) If the President does not submit to Congress a certification and report under subsections (a) and (b) on or before June 1, 2000, then, beginning on June 2, 2000, the 50 percent of the amounts appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund'' for military operations in Kosovo that remain unobligated (as required by subsection (a)) shall be available only for the purpose of conducting a safe, orderly, and phased withdrawal of United States military personnel from Kosovo, and no other amounts appropriated for the Department of Defense in this Act or any Act enacted before the date of the enactment of this Act may be obligated to continue the deployment of United States military personnel in Kosovo. In that case, the President shall submit to Congress, not later than June 30, 2000, a report on the plan for the withdrawal. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) each will control 15 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the Members of the House, this is actually not a burden-sharing amendment. This is just designed to get our friends across the ocean to live up to their commitment. Just to give my colleagues a sense of where we are, the United States has a GDP, an economy, the size of about $8.9 trillion. The Europeans compare favorably of $8.3 trillion. Yet we spend $283 billion on defense; they only spend $180 billion. I wonder why we have to have our people over there for 40 years, because they have not been carrying the load. This is not even an issue about them carrying the load in a more aggressive way. What this is designed to say is that the United States has committed $20 billion to Bosnia, to Kosovo over the last few years. When we went into Kosovo, regardless of how one may feel about the action, let us put that aside for a second, and let us talk about the pledge that the Europeans made. They told us that they would help in rebuilding the country. They told us they would help in a variety of ways. What this amendment is designed to do is to carry forward the idea of Senator Warner who said that we need to get them to honor their commitment. This is not designed to increase their commitment. This is really not designed to [[Page H1595]] increase burden sharing. This amendment is only designed to say to the Europeans they made a pledge to us; keep it. The Europeans pledged 3,883 policemen in Kosovo. They have only paid for 1,878. Our amendment says they pledged 3,800; deliver 3,800. They made a promise to do it. They said they would do it. Why do they not step up to the plate and keep their word. The Europeans' pledge for the rebuilding of Kosovo, for civil administration, they pledged $140 million. They have only given $30 million. Now, how unreasonable is it to say to our European allies, you promised us $140 million, come through with $140 million? That is what you pledged to do. In terms of reconstruction aid, rebuilding those arts of Kosovo that we bombed to a large degree on their behalf, they pledged $410 million, but they have only delivered $44 million. So what does this amendment say? It does not say we expect them to dramatically increase their contribution. It only says that they ought to live up to the pledge that they made and keep their word. Their economy is relatively the same size as the United States. The least they can do, after we flew all those sorties and they made their pledges, is to simply keep their word. This is a time to change the way in which we conduct business post-World War II. My colleagues are going to hear today, ``not the right time,'' ``not the right amendment,'' ``not the right wording.'' Baloney. All we have to do in the United States is to say, keep your word. What we will find is the Europeans will. Now is the time to act. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, very reluctantly, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I do so, not because I disagree with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), because I agree with almost everything that he said. The problem is with the amendment itself. I am concerned that his limitation on not more than 50 percent of the funds in the Kosovo section could not be released until certain things happened. The problem with this is, Mr. Chairman, money has already been spent. We are not providing money in this bill for Kosovo to rebuild Kosovo. We are not doing anything in this bill to actually deploy troops to Kosovo. What we do in this bill is replace the money that has already been spent by the deployment to Kosovo. Now, if we were in a position to demand certain things from the European allies, I would be standing up here with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) to do that, because I think that that is only fair. But as I read this amendment closely, not only on the first page, but the third page, just let me make one comment about a section on the third page, it says, if the President does not submit to Congress a certification required, et cetera, et cetera, then beginning on June 2, the 50 percent of the amounts appropriated in this act can only be used to remove the troops. Now, I am for removing the troops. But I have to tell my colleagues that the money in the bill is not there to remove the troops. This money is to replace monies that have already been spent. The monies have been spent from the fourth quarter operations and maintenance accounts of our military services. Now, if we do not replenish this money, we are going to have to stand down our training exercises, park the ships, park the airplanes, park the trucks, park the tanks, and training will grind to a halt. We do not have until June 2 to make that decision. That decision has got to be made late in April or early in May because, for those exercises that have to be stood down. The planning has to begin in April or May. So as strongly as I agree with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and what he is trying to accomplish, this amendment will not accomplish that; and this amendment will cause severe chaos, in fact, in the operations and maintenance of our military during the last quarter of this fiscal year. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just to point out that, last night, we approved an additional $4 billion in this bill. It is never the right time, never the right place. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus). Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, let me say this, we have an agreement here, and I think there is a consensus building which ought to pass this amendment. What that consensus is is that the military needs more money. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full committee, said they may need money to withdraw from Kosovo. But if we do not approve this amendment, if we do not approve this bill, there is no money there. Well, let me say something to every Member. Every cent of the money in the bill will go to the military if this amendment passes. This amendment does not stop any funding of our military. All the funding, every penny will go to our armed services. If our allies live up to their commitments, if they deliver what they promised, look again, this is what they promised. This is what they promised. This is what they promised. But look on that right-hand side as to what they deliver. If they deliver what they promised, every cent will go to the military to be used in Kosovo. Now, if they do not deliver what they promised, then as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the committee, said, our troops need to come home. That is what we provide. If they do not deliver on their promises, the money is available to bring the troops home. But every cent of the money is available under the amendment. Wesley Clark testified before the Senate, and he said the failure to have civil implementation is threatening the peace. It is threatening the military victory. We have either got to have a speedier implementation, or we need withdrawal. Let me quote to my colleagues one other thing. How long are we going to be in Kosovo? Well, General Klaus Reinhardt last week said, ``I am talking 5 years and it could be 10 years.'' ``I am talking 5 years and it could be 10 years.'' The reason we fail to commit the forces necessary to keep the peace, World War II lasted 4 years and World War I, 2 years. Korea lasted 3 years. Do we want to commit our third graders to Kosovo? Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) mentioned that we did add additional money to the defense part of this bill. That is true. However, it is not applicable to the section that we are dealing with in his amendment, and that is the problem that I have in his amendment. The money that we added yesterday was for specific purposes other than Kosovo. The gentleman's amendment goes directly to the issue of Kosovo, and that is not where the extra money was added. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the author of the amendment a question, please. Last night, I had thought that I was going to be supporting this amendment, but I have a question. The House adopted last night a human rights amendment which had a presidential waiver on the subject, which is important to us, but certainly is not absolutely essential to our own national security interests. It is my understanding now this morning that the gentleman's amendment does not have the authority for presidential waiver even if he believes that this would threaten national security or put U.S. troops in danger. Is that correct? Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, there is no waiver. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I find that incredibly troubling. Perhaps it was fortunate we did not take this up last night so we have had a chance to reread the gentleman's amendment. What appeared to be innocent last night, absent the presidential waiver, would be extremely troubling, especially in light of the Secretary of Defense's statement it would put the interest of U.S. troops at risk. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to make a point. It is [[Page H1596]] about time that the Congress of the United States started asserting itself when it comes to foreign policy. We are not engaging in some major foreign policy decision other than to tell the Europeans to live up to their commitment. What is the message that gets sent when this is defeated? Do my colleagues know what it is? If you make a promise and you break it and you stiff us, that is okay. That is wrong. We better get on the stick and realize that we are a big chunk of how we set foreign policy. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, by the end of next year, we will have spent $20 billion, $20 billion in the Balkans. The amendment that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and I are introducing is really the amendment of the chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Mr. Warner. {time} 1030 And basically it says that our allies need to pay 33 percent of the construction costs they committed and 75 percent of the humanitarian assistance, the Kosovo Consolidated Budget and the international police budget. And if they do not, then we will withdraw our troops. We are saying they should live up to their commitments. Now, why would we care if they pay their commitment? One reason is we ask the Japanese to pay 75 percent of the nonsalary costs of our troops in the Japan theater, and they give us $3.6 billion. We ask the Europeans to pay for the 100,000 troops stationed on that continent, and they give us $66 million. This is a joke, and it has got to end. So at the very least, when our allies make a commitment, they should live up to it. They should pay their bills. And if they are not willing to, let them stop taking us for a ride. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), 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, the gentleman from Ohio just said that Members of Congress should assert themselves on foreign policy. I would like to bring to the attention of the chairman of the Committee on the Budget the law, the law written by the Committee on Appropriations and passed by this House. The law, in accompanying report language, specifically denies the ability of the administration to spend more than 15 percent of the total expenditures in Kosovo. So we have already addressed this issue. The percentage that the gentleman from Ohio is using is going to be confusing because it appears to increase the ability of the United States. I wish the gentleman from Ohio would listen to this because I am responding to his indication. But it appears as if his amendment, although it is not his intent, might even say with the higher percentage factor that we are backing down on our insistence that our administration only spend 15 percent. So I would invite the gentleman from Ohio to read existing law whereby this Congress prohibits the administration from spending more than 15 percent. Under the law, the President must come back to the Congress if indeed they violate that. They came to us in December of 1999, and they certified that the United States' contribution was only 14.9 percent. So I share the sentiment of the gentleman from Ohio; I think he is moving in the right direction, but fortunately, the Congress has very responsibly already addressed this issue and the law is the law. We do not need confusing additional law to complicate the issue. The President requested $100 million for assistance in Kosovo. The committee rejected that, and we only included $12 million. So I feel like the amendment, although I know that is not the intent of the gentleman from Ohio, the amendment would actually deplete the ability of the administration to have money to replenish money already spent. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate that we just heard from the gentleman in charge of foreign aid, because this is the biggest foreign aid program in the history of America. It is one in which the United States' taxpayers consistently and generously subsidize the other richest people in the world. Europe will be very happy if the combined establishment here, the leadership, the President, all these putative opponents, come together to defeat this, because no bigger present could be given the European taxpayers than this amendment. The gentleman from Alabama says we have already done that; we said they cannot spend more than 15 percent. Lo and behold it came to 14.9 percent, no doubt an independently arrived at calculation. But here is what the facts are. On March 1, two articles, which at an appropriate point I will put in the Record, reflect what General Shelton said. ``General Shelton's letter reflected anger at European allies for not contributing as many troops as requested for expected in Kosovo.'' That is from the New York Times. Here is The Washington Post quoting Mr. Bacon, the Pentagon spokesperson. ``The chairman, General Shelton, made it clear he doesn't think it's appropriate for American troops to go to out-of-sector operations on a regular basis to take up police work that should be done by the forces in those other sectors.'' Yes, we have said that they should help out, but we have zero enforcement. This is the only enforcement. Now, I know when in control of the administration and in control of the appropriations process, one can always say it is not perfect. Agreed, it is not perfect. It is just better than anything that we have come up with. Let us be very clear here. What we are seeing is the pattern in this House. When we see the administration do something, we will yell; we will scream; we will beat our chests. We will do everything but vote to change it. There is no doctrine of executive usurpation in foreign policy. What we have is a consistent unbroken pattern of congressional dereliction of duty in foreign policy. There are Members here who will go home and make great speeches, some will not even wait to go home, saying it is terrible we are in Kosovo; we are spending too much; the Europeans are not doing anything. Here is a vehicle to do something about it, and there is not room under the table as Members jump to get under it. This is the only enforcement vehicle we have. All this talk about what the rules are means nothing. Look at what General Shelton said. They are not there; we are there. My colleagues say we have to help our troops. Do we help our troops by continuing to allow Europe not to do this? What this House will be if we defeat this amendment, we will continue our roles as the enablers of European dependence. We will say to the Europeans, promise them anything, but do not follow through. And when anybody tries to enforce that promise, they do not have to worry, because they will come back and say, well, it is not perfect, it is not this. As far as the waiver is concerned, the amendment does say the withdrawal has to be safe and orderly. The fact is this is the only enforcement vehicle around. Mr. Chairman, the articles I referred to above are included for the Record. [From the New York Times, Mar. 1, 2000] Joint Chiefs Chairman Protests Troops' Mission to Kosovo Town (By Jane Perlez) Irritated that American troops had to retreat from a bottle-throwing mob in Kosovo, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Henry H. Shelton, has written to NATO's supreme commander, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, telling him not to use American troops outside their designated sector. The letter, according to Pentagon and NATO officials, told General Clark that other countries involved in the NATO peacekeeping operation had to send more troops to Kosovo before significant numbers of American troops would again be allowed on a mission outside the sector assigned to the United States' control. General Shelton sent the letter to General Clark a few days after the retreat on Feb. 20 of 350 American soldiers from Mitrovica. The American soldiers had been sent out to the [[Page H1597]] troubled city, where Albanian and Serbian residents are at a standoff and where French troops needed reinforcements. Pentagon officials acknowledged today that General Shelton had concurred with General Clark's plan to send the troops from their sector in southeast Kosovo to Mitrovica before the mission was under way. But although General Shelton had agreed ahead of time to the mission, the underlying tone of the letter, according to officials, questioned the wisdom of sending American troops into a volatile situation involving hostile Serbian civilians. General Shelton's letter, and a mood of discontent about the Kosovo peacekeeping operation in the Senate Armed Services Committee during a hearing with General Clark today, reflected anger at European allies for not contributing as many troops as requested or expected in Kosovo. Several senators complained that after the United States had led the air campaign in the Kosovo war, the Europeans had pledged to lead the peacekeeping in Kosovo but had failed to live up to their promise. ``There is more than whiff of hype, where the Europeans talk of doing more,'' then fail to carry out their commitments in Kosovo, said Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan. The chairman of the committee, Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, asked General Clark why American troops were involved in house-to-house searches for weapons in Mitrovica. Senator Warner recalled that in Somalia, where American troops were involved in an ill-fated peacekeeping operation in 1992, house-to-house searches by American soldiers were ruled out as too dangerous. General Clark said that in contrast to Somalia, where American troops were not welcome, the NATO troops in Kosovo were respected and wanted by large groups of the local population. But pressing ahead, Senator Warner questioned the utility of a weapons search in a city that was only a few miles from a porous border with Serbia across which weapons freely flowed. Senator Warner asked, ``What was the total number of arms'' seized in Mitrovica? General Clark replied, ``Twenty-five.'' A NATO official explained after the hearing that the searches for weapons in Mitrovica were conducted by troops of several nations and were announced to the community by community leaders just beforehand so that the searches appeared evenhanded. Both Albanian and Serbian homes were searched, in northern and southern Mitrovica, the official said. In his testimony, General Clark said that the Yugoslav president, Slobodan Milosevic, was very much in control in Serbia and that he was unlikely to be defeated or disappear any time soon. ____ [From the Washington Post, Mar. 1, 2000] American Troops in Kosovo Restricted to U.S. Sector (By Roberto Suro) U.S. troops in Kosovo will stick to their own turf under orders announced by the Pentagon yesterday that sharply limit missions to assist the peacekeepers of other nationalities. The new restrictions reflect concerns in the Defense Department and the White House over a violent encounter last week between a Serbian mob and American soldiers who had been sent to help French peacekeepers with a police action in the French sector, according to a senior military official. ``The issue here is, how often do we get dragged into a situation where we have to perform out-of-sector operations that can diminish our ability to operate within our own sector?'' Pentagon spokesman Kenneth H. Bacon said. About 5,300 U.S. troops patrol the southeastern sector of Kosovo. French, Italian, German and British forces are in charge of their own sector of the troubled Serbian province. The extent to which troops of various nationalities are available to reinforce each other has become a matter of both military and diplomatic dispute, as NATO peacekeepers contend with rising unrest while their own numbers decline. The new orders came in a letter from Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to NATO's top military commander, U.S. Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark. ``The chairman made it clear that he doesn't think it's appropriate for American troops to go to out-of-sector operations on a regular basis to take up police work that should be done by the forces in those other sectors,'' Bacon said. The still-classified letter was dated Feb. 20, Bacon said. That was the day when a battalion of 350 U.S. soldiers helped conduct a house-to-house search for illegal weapons in Mitrovica, a town in the French sector where Serbs and the ethnic Albanians who dominate Kosovo have frequently clashed. The Americans encountered a rock-throwing mob of protesting Serbs; and although no U.S. soldier was seriously injured, senior civilian and military policy makers felt the mission was risky and unnecessary, senior officials said. Clark informed Washington about the mission but ordered it on his own authority, just as he had on two previous occasions when U.S. forces went to the aid of peacekeepers in other sectors. Appearing before a congressional hearing yesterday, Clark defended cross-sector operations as essential in Kosovo. Under the terms of Shelton's letter, however, U.S. troops will operate in other sectors only ``on an extraordinary emergency basis,'' Bacon said. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair advise us of the remaining time on each side. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 9 minutes remaining. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). Mr. CALLAHAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I just wanted to say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, surely he does not think the President of the United States or the Secretary of State would lie to Congress. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman from Alabama, that I do not think they would lie. I think they would be willing, however, to mislead my colleague, if he were as willing to be misled as he is. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the very distinguished leading expert on national defense issues. Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, this deployment is not about Europe; this is about the United States. When we deploy troops, we deploy in our national security. Now, this is a cute way of trying to reduce our deployment to Europe. We had 400,000 troops in there for years against the Soviet Union. Now, we can argue about how many troops ought to be there right now, but when we are doing it this way, NATO's in command. We said the U.N. could not do it, so we put NATO in command. This amendment says no presidential waiver. It says, okay, if they do not live up to their obligation, then we have to pull our troops out. Now, let us take Luxembourg; let us take Iceland. Let us say there is a lobbying effort for those two little countries, and they get them to pull their troops out. They are deciding the foreign policy of the United States. Iceland and Luxembourg, under this amendment, would be setting the foreign policy for the United States. We are in Kosovo to save lives. Now, there is a lot of people that can disclaim that. A lot of people can say let the Europeans do it. They, obviously, could not get their act together, or we would not be involved. We are involved because of the security of the United States. Do my colleagues know how many wars have started in the Balkans? Two wars started in the Balkans. My dad and three of his brothers served in World War II. We are talking about the security of the United States, and we are not going to allow Iceland, and we are not going to allow Luxembourg to set the policy for the United States. And that is exactly what these four gentlemen are doing. They are surreptitiously trying to figure out a way to get the troops out of Europe, reduce our deployment to Europe. This is not the way to do it. If we want to limit the deployments, let us face it up front. Let us argue about it. Let us debate it and say we are going to limit the amount of money and we are going to pull our troops out. Let us not do it in a way that lets Luxembourg or Iceland take control, and then not have a presidential waiver that speaks to the security of our troops, or if the Secretary of Defense says this is endangering our troops, and there is no waiver in order to cover that. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, of course, Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about Luxembourg and Iceland, as the gentleman knows. The gentleman wants to get into burlesque. We are talking about France and Germany. They are the ones who made the commitment. They are the ones whose taxpayers the gentleman is so valiantly defending. Secondly, the amendment says there must be a safe and orderly withdrawal. But, finally, we are not making policy. We are just telling people to live up to it. It is General Shelton who said I am not letting the American troops be put at risk because of the failure of the Europeans to live up to their commitments. It is General Shelton, the [[Page H1598]] chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who has said, the failure, the ongoing failure of the Europeans, France and Germany, and Italy and England, they are the ones who are endangering the troops. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly). Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment offered by my friend from Ohio because the elimination of funding in Kosovo would not only make the time and resources that the U.S. has already expended a total waste, but it would also render meaningless the loss of life, the suffering and the hardship imposed on the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. We are talking about people and their lives. For us to walk away from a commitment to peace in Kosovo would essentially give Slobodan Milosevic free reign in his campaign to force the remaining ethnic Albanians out of Yugoslavia and Kosovo. Peace in this region will not be coming overnight. Our forces who are currently stationed in Kosovo are working in partnership with our NATO allies. This is not our burden to carry alone. If our NATO allies are not paying up, why punish the Kosovar people? Order, peace, and hope for long-term security are beginning to spread in Kosovo. However, without our leadership and commitment, I think our allies will not continue their efforts; and everything we have already spent will be for nothing. Please join me, my colleagues, in opposing this amendment. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus). Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, because he and I agree. We should not let the Europeans dictate our military policy. But, in fact, under the present status quo, they are directing our military policy. In fact, President Clinton, in a letter to us in October, and I am going to introduce that, when asked when will we withdraw our armed forces, he said, ``Our armed forces will be withdrawn from operations based on the assessment of the progress of civil implementation, and that depends on our European allies.'' Here is the progress of that civil implementation. There has been no progress. As General Klaus said, we could be there 10 years. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who is the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Our friend from Ohio said that we should assert ourselves and send a message. Let me tell my colleagues what that message would be. The message would be that raising the possibility of American troops withdrawing from Kosovo encourages extremist elements in Kosovo and Belgrade who are determined to see NATO's mission fail in the Balkans. This amendment would damage the readiness of our armed forces for the rest of the fiscal year and for the rest of our efforts there. Sure, European allies should and they will do more to meet their commitments in Kosovo. We should continue to encourage them to do so. But we do not by this amendment want to surrender to foreign nations the ultimate decision-making authority on the deployment of United States' troops. Congress and the executive branch should make that decision. Cutting off funds and forcing the withdrawal of our forces from Kosovo should not be an automatic based on what the Europeans do. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I can hardly believe the arguments here. We have spent over $20 billion in the Balkans. We flew 75 percent of the sorties using American flesh and blood to do it. And what this amendment says is that when the Europeans make a pledge, they ought to live up to it. If my colleague goes to a town hall meeting in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, and says the Europeans said they were going to give us $140 million and they only gave us $30 million, they are in trouble and so we have to cough up the rest of the bill. I would suggest to my colleague that, in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, he will be run out on a rail. {time} 1045 The fact is that all we are doing in this amendment is to say, when they make a pledge, when they say they are going to give $140 million to help Kosovo, just give it. When it is said that we degrade the military by offering this amendment, that is total bunk. The military does not lose this money. In fact, the money would give increased readiness because it would say that we do not have to spread ourselves out all over the world. The military does not lose anything. My colleagues should stand up for their taxpayers. Because if they do not, they are going to come to the town halls and they are going to hold them accountable. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say that I agree with what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) is saying, but that is not what his amendment does. What he is saying is great, but what his amendment does is not what he is saying. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 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 opposition to this amendment because I think it is the right policy being put forth by the wrong branch of government. The idea that we should assert ourselves in foreign policy is right. The issue is when should we assert ourselves in foreign policy. I believe it is before we put thousands of young Americans at risk in a region of the world. I think the administration should have come to us before they made this commitment, and we should have had this debate before the country got involved. But they did not. I do not see this as an affirmation of legislative authority. I see this as an affirmation of a need to protect thousands of young Americans who are in Kosovo today. Conditions change every day, every hour, every minute; and when conditions change, there needs to be the authority to make decisions quickly and flexibly. This amendment deprives the President of that authority. For that reason, I cannot support it. I urge its defeat. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I hope some alert journalist is going to publish a catalogue of the excuses for Congress never to make a tough decision. We should have done it before. We cannot do it after. We are told, by the way, that it is too dangerous for the troops to be there. Now, how do we increase the danger by withdrawing them? There may be good reasons for keeping them there. I believe there are. But protecting them from the danger of being there is hardly a good reason to keep them there. And that is what they are saying. People say they agree, the Europeans ought to pay more. But this House has consistently refused to do anything to force the Europeans to do it. And they know empty rhetoric when they see it. They are very sophisticated. What this amendment is intending to do, by the way, is not to pull out. This is an amendment that says Europe should begin to pay up. Apparently, there is a lack of confidence in our European allies amongst some of the leadership in the Committee on Appropriations that is greater than there is for us. Because they say, if we condition our staying there on the Europeans doing what General Shelton complains that they are not doing, that will lead to abandonment. Well, if the troops are overexposed and it is costing us too much money, there are two things to do, have the Europeans pay their fair share or withdraw them. We hope it is the former. But in neither case are we increasing the danger to the troops. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), as a member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which threatens the unilateral withdrawal of U.S. forces and resources from Kosovo. [[Page H1599]] The need in Kosovo for peacekeeping reconstruction and development of civil and judicial administration is greater than all the promises put together by the NATO allies and the U.S. The authors of this amendment are right in one respect. Every diplomatic effort to hold NATO allies to their agreement is entirely appropriate. But threatening to unilaterally end our freely given commitment just makes the peacekeeping job so ably done by our deployed men and women and the massive reconstruction that is needed, the job of massive reconstruction, makes those a great deal harder. And, God forbid, if we were to actually act upon this threat, the end result could only be giving the final initiative back to Milosevic. Vote against this amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform Members that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, by the end of next year, we will have spent $20 billion in the Balkans. What we are asking is t