Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to notify my colleagues of the death on Friday, May 21st, of Holly Caudill, of San Diego, California, a vigorous and tireless advocate for persons with disabilities to have a fighting chance to achieve the American Dream. Ms. Caudill was a young lawyer, a native of the State of Washington, and an Assistant U.S. Attorney in San Diego. And she was a quadriplegic, the result of a motor vehicle accident at age 14. Her experience, and the inspiration of her late father Paul Caudill, taught this determined woman several things--most importantly that there was little that she could not do, given a chance. I met Ms. Caudill some years ago in a meeting where she gave me the benefit of her experience. Notwithstanding the fact that she was eager and qualified to work, the existing system of medical benefits, disability coverage, and other government programs made productive work almost impossible. A job with greater pay meant a severe reduction in benefits payments, providing a powerful disincentive against paid work for her and for other Americans with severe disabilities. Her knowledge of the system, and her determination to succeed, together with support from others that she inspired, helped Ms. Caudill to continue to work and be a tax-paying citizen. When it came to this basic principle--that people who work for pay should not have the government arrayed against them--Holly Caudill was second to none as a vigorous, determined, effective and inspirational advocate. I recall most vividly that in the 105th Congress, at her request, I helped her to meet with House Speaker Newt Gingrich. He was the sponsor of H.R. 2020, the Medicaid Community Attendant Services Act, which would have made a greater amount of attendant services benefits payable under the Medicaid program. She had a long and wide-ranging discussion with the Speaker and his staff--about her life, about the Speaker's bill, and, most importantly, about how important it was to stop government programs from being such a barrier to work and dignity for persons with disabilities. The Speaker himself remarked to me on several occasions about Ms. Caudill's vigor and determination, and what an inspiration she was. With her advice, I was privileged to add my name as a cosponsor to H.R. 2020, which had 76 cosponsors at the close of the 105th Congress. And in this Congress, I am honored to be one of 163 cosponsors of a similar measure introduced by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Lazio, which is H.R. 1180, the Work Incentives Improvement Act. I hope that we can enact this legislation. San Diego Union-Tribune columnist Peter Rowe was the preeminent chronicler of Holly Caudill's life and her advocacy the past couple of years. I would like to quote from his column of March 23, 1999, in describing why Ms. Caudill worked as hard and fought as vigorously as she did. ``Caudill's situation is distressingly common. ``There are thousands of people--there may be tens of thousands of people--just like her,'' said Cyndi Jones, director of the Accessible Society Action Project (ASAP), a San Diego-based organization that lobbies on behalf of the disabled. ``These people want to go back to work, but they are caught in a Catch-22. ``Here's the catch: ``If you are disabled and Washington--via Social Security or Medicare--pays some of your health bills, you cannot work. Without a job, there's a good chance you'll end up on welfare. ``You want to work? Fine. You lose your benefits. Without benefits, there's an outstanding chance you won't make enough money to afford treatment. ``Today, roughly 9 million disabled Americans receive federal disability benefits. While many cannot work, others retain the ability and the desire.'' Mr. Speaker, Holly Caudill had the ability. She had the desire. She found the whole system aligned against her iron will to work. Yet she did work. She helped to make our system of justice work as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, while she so vigorously advocated for justice and dignity in work for persons with disabilities. Before she reached her goal, of an American where people with disabilities could work and enjoy the fruits of their labors, our Heavenly Father brought her home. There are no wheelchairs there, Mr. Speaker. Let the permanent Record of the Congress of the United States today note that Ms. Holly Caudill, Assistant U.S. Attorney in San Diego, California, was an inspiration to me and to many others, and a friend of America. May God rest her soul, and give peace to her family, friends, co-workers, and to so many others that she touched. And may we remember well her life's purpose.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, I come tonight to give maybe a little different perspective on the war in Kosovo than most people have seen from the spin from NATO and the White House. I would like to give some information that has not been widely disseminated but I think is important before any solution in the Balkans is possible. First of all, Rambouillet, which was an attempt at an agreement which was not an agreement, to bring the Muslim and Serbian Yugoslavs together. Let me go back first with Rambouillet and explain where Rambouillet was a very failed foreign policy effort. I use the quotes of both Larry Eagleburger and Henry Kissinger in saying that Rambouillet was a failed foreign policy from the start. Look at history, and I met with the Reverend Jesse Jackson, who I disagree with probably more than I agree, but one thing I respected about Reverend Jackson was not necessarily that he brought our prisoners back, that was good, but his ability to place himself in the shoes of either side of an argument. Even if he disagrees with one side or another, he understands that before someone can ever have a solution that they have to understand the feelings and what is in the mind and the heart of both sides, or there is no choice whatsoever. Part of that understanding is the history of greater Yugoslavia. On April 5, 1941, just last month the anniversary, Germany bombed Belgrade. They put over 700,000 Nazis into Kosovo in the area. The Nazis were supported by a half a million Croatians, and about a quarter of that number of Muslims. One in three Serbs died in Kosovo fighting the Nazis, the Croatians and the Muslims. The civilians in Kosovo had to flee across the Danube River for their lives, while the forces under a General Miholevic, not Milosevic but Miholevic, supported both the partisans and the loyalists. The Chetniks were more of a guerilla warfare. In the three-year period of over a million Nazis, the Chetniks, the partisans and the loyalists either killed or pushed out every Croatian, Muslim and Nazi out of Kosovo. In 1387, the Serbs celebrate still Kosovo and the founding of their Orthodox Catholic church at 1,600 different churches and shrines. So Rambouillet, I would ask after that kind of history, would a person if they were in any of the United States, if they were in Texas, if they were in California and say Mexico populated either one of those States by 90 percent and all of a sudden they wanted California or Texas to go to Mexico, does anyone think the United States would allow that to happen? I do not, absolutely. The second part of Rambouillet said that, oh, by the way, you cannot have any of your police force in Kosovo; that even though Kosovo is part of greater Serbia or Yugoslavia, none of your laws apply; only the laws of the majority which are the Albanians, and in 3 years there will be a vote as to whether Albania remains part of Serbia. Not Milosevic but the Serbian people, and the understanding of what Kosovo means to the Serbs, was a great, great failure of this administration and the President to recognize. Either the President recognized it and wanted us to go to war or he did not recognize the importance of Kosovo to the Serbian people. Either way, it is why we are at the position we are today. To say that diplomatic efforts were exhausted is far from the truth, and there are still ways for us to get out of this particular nightmare. I fought in Vietnam. I spent 20 years of my life in the military as a senior commander, responsible both for a Navy fighter weapons top gun and at Naval staff on the planning, the invasion of Southeast Asia and European countries, and my friends from the Pentagon have told me that they told the President not to conduct air strikes into Kosovo. Why? They said, first of all, air strikes alone would not achieve a single goal that the President wanted. Secondly, that every one of the problems that existed then would be exacerbated, would be increased. They told the President that it is highly probable and most likely that the Serb forces would force evacuation of Albanians, since that had been, in their eyes, a big problem over the last two decades. Madam Speaker, take a look at the children's eyes that are refugees today, a million refugees walking through the snow. I have two daughters and I looked as if my own daughters had to go through this, and we need to thank God every day that we live in a country where that does not happen. In my view, there are two people that have caused that mass evacuation and forced the refugees. One is Milosevic and the other is the President of the United States by forcing the bombing. Most people do not realize the hysteria: This is another Nazi, this is another Holocaust. Most people do not realize the total number, the total number of people killed in Kosovo in a 1-year period prior to the United States and NATO bombing was 2,012 people killed. We kill more people than that in New York City and Washington, D.C. every year. Now, each individual is important, but it is also important to realize that one-third of those 2,000 people were Serbs that were killed by the KLA. Did they have a fight? Yes. Were there atrocities? Yes, on both sides. Until one puts themselves in the shoes of either side and both sides in the eyes of what is important to them, what are their fears? The Serbs fear the Germans. They did not want NATO troops with Germans in there. They fear that Kosovo will be taken away from them, much like if California or Texas was taken away from the United States. The Albanians want some kind of participation in the government. They have about 90 percent of the population, but most people do not realize 60 percent of that 90 percent of the Albanians are there illegally. They are not citizens of Kosovo. They have come across the border from Albania illegally. And that, in itself, is a problem. Listen to the briefs. Watch the television, Madam Speaker, and listen to the Albanians talk about how they were forced out of their homes by the Serbs. Were they forced prior? No. There are 300,000 Albanians that live in Belgrade and not a single one has left because they live there peacefully. They live there peacefully together. But listen to the debriefs from Kosovo. They were forced out of their homes. They were not fleeing prior to the bombing, but like the military told the President, upon NATO's strikes, the Serbs started forcing the Albanians out of Kosovo. They knew that the KLA on the ground was a threat to them. Is it right? No, I am not saying it is right, but I am saying we have to look at the total picture. Well, Mr. President, if you are trying to change your legacy with a war or be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, one is not nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by killing more civilians in these strikes than the Serbs killed in the one-year period prior. One does not get nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for forcing millions of people to evacuate and then claiming it is a Holocaust, which it was not. I spoke to General Clark face-to-face in Brussels a month ago, and I asked General Clark, I said, how many of the sorties, how many of the flights is the United States participating in? There are 19 nations in NATO, 18 other nations. The United States, part of NATO in a European problem, is flying 75 percent of the strike missions. The United States, 75 percent. Tony Blair gets up and says, put in ground troops, put in ground troops. He only has 18 airplanes in Kosovo in those strikes, but yet he beats on his chest and says put in ground troops. Madam Speaker, 75 percent of the strikes does not include the B-2 strikes out of the United States; it does not include the C-17s, it does not include the tanking and the logistics flights, which puts the United States' flights in Kosovo at over 86 percent, Madam Speaker. Ninety percent of the weapons dropped are from the United States, and yet there are 18 nations, other nations in this. I asked General Clark, I said, well, why are we flying all of these missions? He said, Duke, most of the NATO nations do not have these stand-off weapons. They do not have these stand-off weapons, and the weather is bad. You think they might have checked the weather to know that there was a two-week forecasted bad weather over Kosovo before they ever started air strikes. No, they did not. Ninety percent of the weapons. Our next supplemental should be a check from those nations. If they cannot fly the strikes, if they cannot support NATO, if they cannot supply the ordnance, then they ought to be at least burden-sharing and paying the United States for it. This ad hoc war, ground troops, in all of the tactical experience that I had in the military, working with all services and most of our friendly allies, not once would I ever tell an enemy that I was not going to use a certain type of force like ground troops. It is lunacy. It is idiotic in a tactical environment to tell your enemy that you want to change his heart and mind, but you are only going to use air strikes, to allow him to focus on one phase and not have to prepare for ground troops, not have to station his troops and deploy his weapons. Do my colleagues think that the President might have told Russia, Chernomyrdin, knowing how Russia feels, do you think they might have told the Russians that they were going to bomb Kosovo when Chernomyrdin was on his way to the United States and actually turned his airplane around and went back? Is that acceptable foreign policy? I do not think so. This ad hoc war. People said well, Duke, how can they possibly look at a map and bomb an embassy like China's? Well, when one is doing something so fast, so ad hoc, and one rips maps off without any prior planning, it is very easy to see. When one is scrambling to find targets, when one is scrambling because one's missions are not being successful, then it is easy. And they took the wrong map. Even today, they hit two other embassies and they hit a hospital, killing hundreds of civilians. Again I say, the United States and NATO has killed more civilians in Kosovo than the Serbs killed in the entire year prior to the bombing. And that is wrong. Madam Speaker, if one comes from the 1970s and one was a left-wing antiwar protestor or belonged to a protest group, and one is in leadership and one attempts to use a vehicle like the military that one neither understands or supports and even loathes, most of one's decisions, in my opinion, are going to be inept, they are going to be incorrect, because one does not have the gut feelings of what it should take. A classic example of that was in Vietnam with the President we had then that controlled every single strike, and that was Lyndon Johnson. I lost a lot of my close friends in air-to-air. I was shot down on May 10, 1972 over North Vietnam, and many of my friends died because of inept decisions by a left-wing person that neither accepted, supported or understood the military. When the President, knowing that he has surrounded himself with the Tony Lakes, with the Ira Magaziners, with the Strobe Talbotts, and he disavows, does not accept the advice of the military warfighters, that is even more of a problem, and it has been disastrous. We had a briefing from a source which I am not allowed to say, but it is a very important governmental source, and the KLA is supported by the Mujahedin and Hamas from Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. Are they in large numbers? Are they entire armies? No. But they have evidence of those individuals infiltrating the KLA units. I will say that if I was an Albanian citizen and put myself in their shoes, I would be a member of the KLA, fighting for what I believed in. But on the other hand, if I was a Serb, I would be a Serbian soldier fighting for what I believed in. And until the President recognizes that, there is no solution. The Mujahedin and Hamas have a small influence, but it is there and it has to be removed. They said, is it likely Osama bin Laden, like the Washington Times reported, has influenced and is supporting the KLA? Well, I will let my colleagues draw the inference. Osama bin Laden has organizations in over 150 areas, and everywhere there is a Muslim issue, he is involved. They said there is no direct evidence, but it is likely. It was also reported in all of the European press and the United States in The New York Times that the number one heroin dealer, the number one heroin dealers were the Albanian Kosovars. And yes, the source said that that money is going in to support the KLA. They will take money from anybody they can. They consider it their survival. General Clark, when I was in Brussels, I looked at him and besides asking him how many sorties were flying, he said, Duke, at the beginning of this NATO only wanted to fly one day and quit, because of all of these other things. They did not have their hearts and minds into this. General Clark said the President called Tony Blair from England, the German Chancellor, and they pushed this, that it is a must, it is a must. What that agenda is I do not know. All I know is that this ad hoc war has been disastrous not only for the American people, but for the Albanians and for the Serbs. Madam Speaker, I think it is improper to say that all Germans were Nazis in World War II. There were a lot of innocent people. A lot of people did not support the Nazis. There are a lot of people that are not Mujahedin and Hamas, that are fighting for their lives, and if we look into the eyes of those children, we should have as much sympathy for those children and the innocent civilians on the Albanian side and the Serb side of the innocent people that are being killed because of war. That is important also. Madam Speaker, I remember Madeleine Albright saying that if we allowed Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary into NATO, the United States would not have to participate in any European war. Well, guess what? They are all three part of NATO. And during the conflict Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary would not even let us fly over their airspace, and it took some serious arm-twisting by Madeleine Albright and others, the President, to use their airspace or even their bases and deploy. They had a NATO summit here, anniversary, and the President says that all NATO is speaking with one voice. Well, Mr. President, if that is true, why is Hungary, why is France, why is Greece, why is Russia still shipping oil to Serbs in the greater Yugoslavia? They are not speaking with one voice, and the spin that NATO and the White House places on this is atrocious, in my opinion. Take a look, Madam Speaker, at what NATO is today. We no longer have Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher types. I ask my colleagues to look at the Germans. It is a green socialist government. Look at France. France has a socialist, communist coalition in their government. They threw out the conservatives. If we look at England with Tony Blair, labor left. Israel just yesterday, labor left. Germany, as I mentioned. Italy, Communist. So NATO is made up today of not Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, but people that are socialist and Communist and left. And it is difficult to make decisions using the military when those individuals historically have fought against the military itself. Another little-known fact, Madam Speaker, briefed again by a source, the same source as I quoted a minute ago, said 70 percent of the Russian military support the overthrow of the Yeltsin government. We have seen just this week and last week an attempt of an impeachment of President Yeltsin. Seventy percent of the Russian military who support their leadership are the hard-line communists that support Milosevic. They want us to go in with ground troops. It would give them the catalyst that they need to return the former Soviet Union back to communism. And it is a very difficult problem. Look at Greece. Greece has ties to the Serbs because when the Serbs kicked out the 1 million Nazis, look at Thessalonica in northern Greece, where millions of Greeks and Jews and Serbs were annihilated by the Nazis, and Greece with its orthodox church, along with the Serbian orthodox church and their tie-in with World War II, makes them an ally. And look at what we have done with China and Russia and Greece, people that we have been working with through trade with China, through trying to start a democracy going and light the fires of a young democracy in Russia, and even working with the Greeks has been disastrous foreign policy for the United States. All of this, and they say, Duke, you are a hawk. I am not a hawk, Madam Speaker. I am a dove, but I like to be a well-armed dove. And those that have fought in war and held, like in Private Ryan, held our friends and watched them die, maybe we are a little more reluctant to get our people involved in a conflict to where we know there is going to be a lot of loss of human life, and where we also know that diplomacy would work. The President talks about wanting to save social security with a surplus, to save Medicare with a surplus, education from the surplus. I would like to see medical research, because it is exciting, what NIH is doing today as far as the cure and the elimination of disease. We would like to double that. I was in a group yesterday that wants to increase prostate cancer research by $100 million total. Madam Speaker, we cannot do that by spending $50 billion in Kosovo. We spent $16 billion thus far in Bosnia and we are only supposed to be there 1 year, $16 billion. Do Members know that we still spend $25 million a year building roads in Haiti? And Haiti had no national security to the United States. The extension of Somalia, which most of us opposed, we got 22 Rangers killed and we got our butts kicked out of there. We had to run out of Somalia. Every time the President had a personal political tragedy, we went into Iraq four different times. Let us not forget the hasty decision to go into the Sudan and bomb an aspirin factory. They just asked for $45 million to pay back the Sudanese, and the President said, okay, $45 million. Who is responsible? Has anybody been held accountable? Absolutely not. Let me tell the Members, besides taking up the surplus, our military today, we are retaining only about 23 percent of our military, of our enlisted. We are retaining only about 33 percent of our aviators, our pilots. Why? When I talk to these young men and young women who are flying and the people who are servicing those aircraft and that equipment, they say, Duke, I am away from my family 8 months out of a year. I am worried about my family, because their benefits are eroding. Our equipment is 1970s technology. I had a briefing last Friday from a very classified source, which I will not go into, but there is an asset that Russia has in the air that if our pilots would engage it, we lose the dogfight and the intercept 90 percent of the time because we have shut down our research and development and we have not been able to compete. I am alive today, and the airplanes I shot down in Vietnam, because I had better equipment and better training. Today our troops are getting less training, and the equipment is 1970s technology. Fortunately, this asset has not been deployed to Kosovo, but it is to North Korea, it is to many of our other potential enemies in this world. That is scary. Our ships are going out with thousands of sailors short. We are $3 billion short in ship repair for our military ships. I could go on and on. Madam Speaker, they say, Duke, you have told us all the problems, but what would you do if you were president? And no, I am not running for the presidency, Madam Speaker. My daughter would like me to because then she could have two dogs, but I do not plan ever on running for the presidency. I have my hands full right here. Let me give some ideas. I stated from the day that we went in to Kosovo, and I would start it off first, Madam Speaker, by saying, some of the people can remember a movie called the Jazz Singer. I am old enough to remember Al Jolson playing in that part. Later on Neal Diamond played in the movie Al Jolson. The whole movie is based on a Jewish proverb. It is about a jazz singer, a gentleman that is the son of a cantor, and the father wants his son to be a Jewish cantor. The son, of course, wants to be a jazz singer. There is so much hurt by the father that he rips his jacket in the Jewish fashion and denies that he has a son, and there is great consternation between the two. The father, after a while, is so distraught at losing his son, not to death but from an argument, and the Jewish proverb goes like this. The father cries out, and I have two daughters, so I think you can do the same with a daughter, but he says, son, come home. We have argued too long. And the son replies, father, I cannot, because there is too much between us. And the father replies, son, come as far as you can, and I will come the rest of the way. Sometimes that bridge is too far. If you do not understand and put yourself in the shoes, like Jesse Jackson did, and understand, even though you may disagree with the perceptions of an individual group, you still have to understand that before you can ever come the rest of the way. The President of the United States has not recognized that. So I think that is the first step into any diplomacy. First of all, we have to halt the strikes, leave our force in place in case it does not work. Let us, instead of having the Russians as a problem and a threat, and maybe even going back to communism, let us help the Russians. Let us let them be part of the solution, not only in Kosovo but in their own political world back in Russia. Let us have Russian and Greek and Scandinavian and Italian troops go in and act as the peacekeepers. Again, we have to recognize, the Serbs fear the Germans, they fear the United States, and they fear Great Britain. We have become an enemy to a once ally. Let us let them be the solution. The Greeks the same way. They have supported the Serbs. Let us let them be part of the solution. Milosevic must withdraw his armor prior to Rambouillet, but we have to have a different kind of Rambouillet, one that is achievable and realistic, with options and realistic and achievable goals, unlike Rambouillet I. There is going to have to be an international body, Madam Speaker. There are nearly 1 million Albanians that have been thrust out of their homes. A large portion of those are illegal. They are not citizens of Kosovo. But the Serbs have caused part of their own problem by tearing up many of those papers that identify who is a citizen and who is not a citizen. It is going to take an international body to repatriate the Albanians. When I was 15 years old I worked on a farm in Shelbina, Missouri, population 2,113 folks. Rather than work for my dad, who was a store owner, I would go out in the hayfields and put up hay. Well, there was a lady named Ms. Featherall that always took care of the young boys and fed us probably 10 times the amount that we needed. And during the noon hour, we sat on a rocking chair up on her porch to get cool. She was afraid we would work too hard, and we loved that lady. A Siamese cat came around the corner and jumped up in my lap. I petted that cat, Madam Speaker. A few minutes later around the corner came a Persian cat, a barn cat. I picked up the Persian cat, and immediately the two cats tensed and they started hissing, as you can imagine. I petted them both and they calmed down, and I was going to make those cats friends. I moved them a little closer and I moved them a little closer. Each time they would tense up and I would pet them. I did not have a shirt on, Madam Speaker, and in a split-second, those two cats hit each other, and I was blood from head to toe from the claws. We cannot repatriate Albanians and Serbians together who want to kill each other. If you killed my children or my wife or my mother or my father or my in-laws, it would take a long time and a whole lot of psychologists to sit me down next to the people that I felt had done that. It is going to take a long time of work to make that happen. Then when you bring them back, are you going to have them stay in tents, for those that do not have homes? You have to establish some type of security. That is where the peacekeepers of the Russians, the Greeks, the Scandinavians, the Italians, are; not NATO. The President and Tony Blair are all bent, it has to be NATO, it has to be NATO or nothing, it has to be NATO. The ego and prestige of NATO is not the issue here, it is people that have been thrown out of their homes. It is people that feel that they have been persecuted. That is the issue, Madam Speaker; not NATO, not the prestige and ego of Tony Blair or the President of the United States. That inner body is going to have a difficult time and a long time to repatriate those citizens from Albania. The President has to look the Albanian president in the eyes and Izetbegovich, the head of the Muslims in Sarajevo, and demand that all Middle East fundamentalists be deported within 30 days. Why? Because if they do not, these mujahedeen and Hamas from Iran and Afghanistan and Syria are the ones that want a worldwide Jihad. They want to kill all Americans. They are going to stir the pot, they are going to cause problems over the next decades. If we allow and the President allows them to stay there, even a small number, it is going to be a problem. I have talked to the Orthodox Catholic Church both of the Serbs and the Greek Orthodox Church. I have talked to groups of about 200,000 Serbian Americans. They support Kosovo remaining a part of greater Yugoslavia. But at the same time, they realize there may have to be a cantonization of the area, much like the Scandinavian nations do, where you might have a separate area where the speech and schools are French or German or Swiss. They support that initiative. That may be the first start for a new Rambouillet. But in my opinion, if you try and take Kosovo away from greater Serbia, it is a no win policy. NATO in Europe has to rebuild Kosovo, France, Germany, England, Italy, not the United States. We have already spent $14 billion in 6 weeks. This is a European issue. The United States is part of NATO and should have leadership, but we should not pay more than the lion's share. The United States can use its intelligence services and the number of CIA that we have. George Tenet told me that our assets around the world that monitor terrorism are extremely limited; that because of Kosovo, we have had to pull those assets into Kosovo, which leaves us vulnerable in the United States. So I feel that our intelligence assets have to be increased greatly, and the support that this Congress gives them is necessary. The United Nations, who has become part of the problem in this, votes against the United States 90 percent of the time. We only have one vote in the United Nations. They vote against this 90 percent of the time, and we pay the lion's share of the United Nations again. Until those reforms are done, the President should say, ``No more money, United Nations.'' In my opinion, I would like to do away with them permanently. There needs to be an international body. If my colleagues expect Milosevic to negotiate, knowing that he is going to go before a war tribunal for war crimes, do my colleagues think he is going to ever stop? No. But I think an independent body should be established to look at Tudjman, the head of the Croatians, that murdered 10,000 Serbs in 1995 and forced ethnic cleansing out of Croatia of 750,000 Serbs. When we talk about Holocaust, that comes much closer to a Holocaust than Kosovo. The gentlewoman just before and the gentleman was talking about, look at the Kurds. Look at 25 different areas around the world that are far worse than this. Are they despicable? Yes. Are they Holocaust? No. The spin will not gain the President the Nobel Peace Prize. Our United States military, we have got to rebuild it. I believe that peace does come through strength. Our 300-ship Navy that was established by the QDR, which is a report that says this is what we need to fight two wars. The bottoms up review for the services, our service chief said we cannot fight two wars. Is that why we have left the no-fly zone in Iraq? I do not guess Saddam Hussein is a problem anymore, because he is left unattended to do his will. We need to build up our military, to replace the benefits of our military, and give them the strength so that we can walk softly and carry a big stick, instead of the President walking softly and carrying a big stick of candy for everybody. I read this week where the President plans on paying the Albanians who house Albanian refugees, paying for that. Are we establishing a welfare system in Albania while we cannot support Social Security and Medicare and education and medical research in our own country? I think that is wrong. The President has got to look at the President of Albania and demand that, since in 1850 the Albanians have wanted to take over through expansionism, Macedonia, Montenegro, parts of Greece and Kosovo, and he has got to say no more. We have got to recognize the borders that have been formed and stay within them. I think that we also need to take a look, and the President, to get very tough on the foreign policy of Russia and China. We know that Russia today still, even though they say they are not, ships chemical and biological weapons and nuclear components to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and we let it happen, and to North Korea. The President in 1996 was briefed that there was espionage at our laboratories here in the United States and did nothing until 1999, where the Secretary of Energy has just started to do some things with Mike Richardson. He is doing what should have been done back in 1996. The President was briefed in 1996 that the Chinese had stole our W-88 nuclear warhead, which is a small nuclear warhead, which took us billions of dollars, billions of dollars to develop and years. We have an asset, but I cannot tell my colleagues what it is, where we reverse-engineered, that we were going to use that asset. We were building a system to combat the asset. Our system would not have worked, but we had that asset, so it saved us billions of dollars by having that asset and seeing how it worked so that we did not go the wrong direction. Now the Chinese have got not only the W-88 warhead, but they have got secondary and tertiary missile boosts, which they did not have the capability to do. George Tennet told us that Korea was 10 years away from being able to hit the United States with a missile, a nuclear missile. Guess what. They have it today with a Taepo Dong 1 and Taepo Dong 2 that China gave to them that we gave to the Chinese and they are exporting. If that is not bad enough, the capability to MIRV, to put several of those W-88, and the President knew that China had these, the White House gave them the capability to use the MIRVing techniques that, again, took us billions of dollars to engineer. If that is not bad, the targeting methods to use those missiles to make them accurate within a meter, a nuclear weapon. That was done after $1 million was donated by Loral and $1 million from Hughes and $300,000 from Liu Cheng Ying, who is the daughter of General Ying, head of technology in the PLA, to the Clinton-Gore campaign. So, Madam Speaker, we have a monumental foreign policy problem. It is not just Kosovo. It is Russia. It is Greece. It is Libya. It is Kosovo. I feel that we need to chase the Turks out of Northern Cyprus, which they have held illegally for 25 years, and we have done nothing, because we need the Turk's support. But, yet, we let them stay in Northern Cyprus against international law. Madam Speaker, it grieves me to see our Nation at war, especially when I think that we do not have to be there. From all of my military experience, to see a war run ad hoc and so desperately misused, it has cost human life, it has cost human suffering, and it is going to prevent many of us on both sides of the aisle from doing some of the things that we want with our domestic issues here in the United States such as Social Security, Medicare, education, medical research and defense. It is not a pretty time, Madam Speaker. The President has got to get off his pulpit, whatever his agenda is, and he has got to recognize and put himself, as Jesse Jackson recommended to the President, to see both sides of this issue, to come, whether he has to admit defeat or have a small victory and declare a victory, I do not care, but we cannot put ground troops in, because even if we put ground troops into Kosovo, we are going to lose people. The Chetnik type individuals, the guerillas will kill our people. I feel that the KLA, Mujahedin and Hamas will kill our people and blame it on somebody just to keep the pot going. Then if we do, we have just bought Kosovo for $3 billion to $5 billion a year, when we are already in Bosnia at $16 billion and Haiti. We are still in Korea for 25 years. It is time to get out, Madam Speaker. It is time to build up the United States, to pay down our debt, and to take care of some of our domestic problems here.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to recognize that three schools in my 51st Congressional District of California are now being honored as National Blue Ribbon Schools for 1999. In alphabetical order, these schools are: La Costa Heights Elementary School, Carlsbad, California. The principal is Deborah Blow, and the superintendent of the Encinitas Union School District is Douglas DeVore. Magnolia Elementary School, Carlsbad, California. The principal is James Boone, and the superintendent of the Carlsbad School District is Cheryl Ernst. Solana Vista School, Solana Beach, California. The principal is Stephen Ludwiczak, and the superintendent of the Solana Beach School District is Ellie Topolovac. Just this morning, I was honored to call each of these superintendents myself, to give them the good news and send my warmest congratulations. The National Blue Ribbon Schools program evaluates schools based upon their effectiveness in meeting local, state and national educational goals. In 1999, 266 elementary schools are recognized as National Blue Ribbon Schools, including the three above in California's 51st District, five in San Diego County, and 41 in the State of California. Blue Ribbon status is awarded to schools that have strong leadership, clear vision and mission, excellent teaching and curriculum, policies and practices that keep the schools safe for learning, expanded involvement of families, evidence that the school helps all students achieve high standards, and a commitment to share best practices with other schools. I am immensely proud of the men and women whose outstanding and tireless work in the interest of better education has now been recognized through the National Blue Ribbon Schools program. This is particularly close to my heart, because, as a former teacher and coach, and as a father, one of my passions is improving education so that every American can have a fighting chance to achieve the American Dream. And while these three schools in my district have now been recognized as National Blue Ribbon Schools, the real winners are all of the children, parents, teachers and citizens who have all been challenged through this recognition to successfully improve education in all of their local communities. As part of the National Blue Ribbon Schools honor, representatives from each of these schools will be invited to awards events in Washington, D.C., this October. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the permanent Record of the Congress of the United States note the excellence of these three Blue Ribbon Schools in California's 51st District, by including summaries of these three schools' superior work for my colleagues and all of America to read and review. La Costa Heights Elementary School La Costa Heights Elementary School located in Carlsbad, California, is a school community committed to our motto, ``La Costa Heights Where Learning Reaches New Heights.'' Our mission is to foster confident students who celebrate learning as a lifelong experience. Through the collaborative efforts of our many parents, community members, and teachers we prepare successful decision makers for a diverse, every- changing world. The students at La Costa Heights are educated in a positive and caring environment that promotes the achievement of their personal best, both academically and socially. Our primary goal for the students of La Coast Heights is to prepare them to be life-long learners and productive members of society. They are provided a curriculum, which encourages collaboration, problem solving, and responsibility for individual learning. The entire staff and parent community are involved and committed to providing a learning environment that will allow each student to achieve these goals. It is the vision of our school community that we be a school the puts children first. As a school community of teacher leaders, we are well on our way to achieving this vision. All staff members take responsibility for meeting the needs to every child. We focus on enhancing each student's learning and giving them the skills to problem solve and make choices. Our students learn to appreciate diversity in people through the instruction of life skills incorporating honesty, teamwork, perservance, and self-reliance. Our school staff is composed of teachers with expertise in a variety of areas. These professional willingly share their knowledge and experiences with all members of our staff creating a challenging, yet nurturing environment for our students. As leaders, the staff has worked together over the past several years as strong grade level teams, drawing upon each other's strengths to create programs that challenge yet nurture all students. Teachers at La Costa Heights are very helping and welcoming. They are eager to share ideas, materials, and endearing moments, because they believe that our strength comes from our collaboration. Located in Carlsbad, California, La Costa Heights School is pat of the Encinitas Union School District which serves students kindergarten through 6th grade. Opened in April 1987, it currently supports approximately 720 students. The school's strong reputation for providing a nurturing yet challenging learning environment draws new families into the community. Due to this reputation, the school draws several families from outside our immediate attendance area on inter and intra district transfers. The school serves a commuter community of middle to upper class families in the northern coastal region of San Diego County. Families from several ethnic backgrounds make up a portion of our community although only 2% of our population represents English Language Learners. La Costa Heights is also home to a regional special day class for severely handicapped students. Due to the stability of the community and school enrollment, the majority of our students attend our school from kindergarten through sixth grade. Since the school's opening in 1987, we have experienced slow, but steady growth. In the past year, this growth has accelerated due to new housing developments in the area. As a school that was prepared for this growth, we have been able to provide a very welcoming atmosphere for our new families, allowing them to quickly assimilate into our school family. Boasting a strong tradition of volunteerism, one cannot enter the school without finding several parent and community volunteers working in some capacity to assist in student learning. A spirit of collaboration and innovation pervades the school as teachers and parents work together to create solutions to challenges and to create programs and instruction that have been replicated at other schools in the district. La Costa Heights Elementary School serves as the hub of the community in which it resides. It is a school truly dedicated to its community and its students. Having formed several business partnerships, we work together to both provide for our students, and in turn teach our students to give back to their community. Service learning is a major focus of our curriculum. Teaching an integrated curriculum that also provides a service to the community has become a strength at our school. We work as a community to use our existing resources and respond quickly to new challenges in support of the families and residents of our community. The most powerful example of this occurred when a fire struck the La Costa community in October 1996. The school became the gathering place for the community as a luncheon was served by staff members. From this tragedy grew a tremendous service learning project which was begun just one month after the fire. Utilizing our business partners and working closely with the city of Carlsbad, a local park was restored and an educational native plant trail created. From this beginning, several other service learning projects have evolved as students experience their curriculum in a ``hands on''environment which is relevant to their lives. In preparing our students for the future, La Costa Heights has placed a strong emphasis on bringing technology into our classrooms. The staff is aggressive about utilizing existing technologies while finding ways to acquire new hardware and software applications. We have tapped a variety of resources to update our existing computers and acquire new ones. Students can be found using technology applications in meaningful ways on a daily basis at our school. The students at La Costa Heights are our stars. Through the many experiential learning activities in which they have participated, they have learned to give back to their community. Our students have also developed a strong sense of compassion due to their work with the special needs students. This is a unique opportunity which we have embraced. La Costa Heights' staff and parents believe that our collaborative spirit is our greatest strength. We all work together to create an environment for each child where his/ her learning can reach new heights.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, last week I took to the well and said that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I were friends and a reporter asked me off the floor, ``Are you and the gentleman from Wisconsin really friends?'' I said, ``Yes. We just disagree on some issues.'' But I would like to enlighten my friend on national security spending. I know he is aware of it. We may just disagree. Mr. Speaker, we have a national security budget. When we had an extension of Somalia, many of us opposed to it said that those that want to go into Somalia, you have to be ready to pay for it. The same thing with Haiti. We were opposed. We did not think there was any national security issue of going into Haiti. We got kicked out of Somalia. In Haiti we are still spending $20 million a year building roads and schools in Haiti, much money we would like to spend on section 8 housing and the rest of it. But if you take a look at Bosnia, Bosnia has cost us $16 billion. That does not even account for next year. Four times hitting Iraq. Now we have got Kosovo. And the Sudan. The President just agreed to a settlement of some $45 million to give the Sudanese because we bombed an aspirin plant. All of this money comes out of the national security account. We have emergency supplementals but it only covers about one in four dollars that we expend. Our national security, to give Members an idea, the Navy fighter weapons school had 12 of 23 airplanes down, 137 parts missing. Eight of those were for engines. The Air Force 414th was very similar. We are in a hollow force right now. The money that we want to expend for national security in this bill, I am very proud of what we did, like the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) said that what we passed in the House. I am not so proud of what is in this bill. But I look at the glass like the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) said, I think it is nine-tenths full. But we do need the national security dollars and there is a reason. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring attention to one provision in this conference report regarding education. Chapter Five of the Conference Report contains an appropriation of $56.377 million for the Department of Education, providing a sort of ``hold-harmless'' to certain schools in the Title I Concentration Grants program. I want to state my objection to this legislative rider which was in neither the House nor the Senate bills. I understand that my own Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman, John Porter, shares my opposition to this type of legislation which prevents Congress for targeting scarce funds to those with greatest need. I oppose this provision for three reasons. First, the appropriation is unjustified. Since 1994, local school districts have known that in the current fiscal year, FY 1999, the Title I Concentration Grants would be distributed to local school districts whose eligibility would be determined using census update estimates of school-age population and poverty. The provision was clearly written in the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. In defense of the 1,400-some schools scheduled to lose Title I Concentration Grants eligibility except for this rider, the Department of Education has been tardy in assembling this important data. Some schools are asserting that they were caught off-guard, or by surprise. But the Department's lateness does not justify such funding or the rider itself; in fact, schools have had notice of this change for five years. Second ``hold-harmless'' legislative riders on appropriations bills have unintended consequences. They hurt other states and districts. They affect states unequally and unfairly. In this case, this particular hold-harmless counters Congress' clearly stated principle in the Title I authorization that the dollars should generally follow the children. Given scarce resources, money should be targeted to areas of greatest need. By contrast, this rider provides additional funding to schools that are otherwise not eligible for the Title I Concentration Grant money. That is wrong. The fact that ``100 percent special hold- harmless'' legislative riders have been attached to omnibus and other appropriations conference reports in the past--riders that disadvantage children who are immigrants, minorities or poor based on their state of residence--does not make this rider right. And third, this is a midnight legislative rider. It was not in the House or Senate bills. It was not the subject of hearings. It was not raised in House debate on the supplemental appropriations bill. It was not raised in the hearings of the House Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee for the FY2000 budget, and as a Member of that Subcommittee I assure Members that plenty of opportunity for this was available. It was not raised in the authorizing committee, to my knowledge, where this type of issue truly belongs. I am assured, however, that this is the one and only time that this particular legislative rider will be sought. Mr. Speaker, this legislative rider, in the whole scheme of things, is relatively minor. But it sets a precedent that is problematic and unfair to all of those Members who work in good faith to authorize these programs. Members simply need to know that this is the case. I fully expect that when the FY2000 Labor-HHS-Education bill is written and then sent to conference with the Senate, there will be yet another attempt to apply a ``100 percent special hold-harmless'' to the Title I Basic State Grants program, which I understand is different from this Concentration Grants program issue. This other hold-harmless impacts every growing state, and every state with a growing number of disadvantaged children--often including immigrant and minority children. The House has, in the past, resisted such legislative riders on appropriations bills, and we should continue to do so. The legislative language of the H. Rept. 106-143 reads as follows: Department of Education; Education for the Disadvantaged For additional amounts to carry out subpart 2 of part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, $56,377,000, which shall be allocated, notwithstanding any other provision of law, only to those local educational agencies that received a Concentration Grant under the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 1998, but are not eligible to receive such a grant for fiscal year 1999: Provided, That the Secretary of Education shall use the funds appropriated under this paragraph to provide each such local educational agency an amount equal to the Concentration Grant the agency received in fiscal year 1998, ratably reduced, if necessary, to ensure that local educational agencies receiving funds under this supplemental appropriation receive no greater share of their hold-harmless amounts than is received by other local educational agencies: Provided further, That the funds appropriated under this paragraph shall become available on October 1, 1999 and shall remain available through September 30, 2000, for the academic year 1999-2000: Provided further, That the Secretary shall not take into account the funds appropriated under this paragraph in determining State allocations under any other program administered by the Secretary in any fiscal year. And the provision from the report reads as follows: The conference agreement includes $56,377,000 for Concentration grants under the Title I program as a fiscal year 2000 advance appropriation to become available on October 1, 1999 for academic year 1999-2000. The conferences understand that the Department of Education has interpreted a `hold harmless' provision included in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill to apply only to school districts that first qualify for Concentration grants on the basis of the percentage or number of poor children within the school district. Only after a school district meets the eligibility criteria would the Department apply the hold harmless and award the Concentration grant. Under the Department's interpretation, over 1500 school districts would lose their Title I Concentration grant in academic year 1999- 2000. The conference agreement includes language that clarifies the fiscal year 1999 appropriations law to direct the Department of Education to hold harmless all school districts that received Title I Concentration grants in fiscal year 1998. The conference agreement further clarifies that the allocations made through applying this hold harmless will not be taken into account in determining allocations under other education programs that use the Title I formula as a basis for funding distribution. Neither the House nor the Senate bills contained these provisions.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to pay tribute to the students, teachers, parents and supporters of the Mt. Carmel High School National Ocean Sciences Bowl team that recently visited Washington, DC, for the competition's finals and won second place for the entire United States. This is the second consecutive year that the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education has hosted the National Ocean Science Bowl for high school students from across the country, the second time that Mt. Carmel High has won its regional competition and come to Washington for the semifinals, and the first time the team has made the finals. In doing so, these students demonstrated their immense dedication of months of after-school study and investigation of oceanographic sciences and the world around us. I would like to recognize each of the student team members by name, to honor their work and their extraordinary national achievement. Daniel Warren Heise is a sophomore (among seniors) on Mt. Carmel High School's competing NOSB team in San Diego. However, he also participates in the Speech and Debate program and in Mt. Carmel's Key Club. He has assisted at nursing homes and orphanages in recent years. He also plays soccer, football, baseball, and basketball in the community. Danny loves to bodyboard at the beach, go camping, sketch, and kickbox. While taking frequent odd jobs on the side, he also has a 4.06 GPA. He aspires to attend a university and eventually travel much of the world. Jennifer (J.J.) Nielsen is Captain of the Mt. Carmel High School NOSB team. She has been working with the team since January 1998. she is very proud and excited to be a part of the competing team, and looks forward to representing Southern California at the National Competition in Washington, DC. Besides working with the Oceanography team, Jennifer is also a part of the Mt. Carmel's Yearbook staff, CSF, and Link Crew. Outside of school, Jennifer enjoys snowboarding, SCUBA diving, hiking and listening to music. She has also been a Girl Scout since she was six years old. After she graduates in June 1999, Jennifer will attend San Diego State University and will work towards a degree in astronomy and geology. Newton Quoc Quan is a senior at Mt. Carmel High School. This is his first year on NOSB team. He is also one of the senior captains at his high school's Varsity Lacrosse Team. He is currently involved in CSF, Link Crew, and Math Club. Newton currently has a 4.03 GPA and hopes to attend UCSD. He would like to thank all of his friends and family for all the support they have shown him. Newton would also like to especially thank Atish Baidya and Kevin Splittgeber for their involvement in getting him to join the team. Bradley Wilson Reddell is a senior at Mt. Carmel High School. He currently lives in San Diego California with his parents and his thirteen-year-old brother. He is a current member of the ceramics club and NOSB. His hobbies include reading Robert Jordan and Tolkien novels, creative writing and archery. He also enjoys playing computer games. Brad has found that studying for NOSB has been well worth the time and has come to enjoy the challenge. He plans to attend Community College for two years then plans to transfer into a university and pursue a major in biology. Lynn Sun is a senior at Mt. Carmel High School and is concurrently enrolled in the University of California, San Diego. She maintains a 4.2 GPA and is a National Merit Scholarship Semifinalist. She is also a member of the California Scholarship Federation and competes in Science Olympiad. She hopes to become a physician someday. In her free time she enjoys playing the piano, sketching, and skiing. Lynn would like to thank her parents, Huai and Jie Lin Sun, her coach, Harold Dorr, and all of her teachers and friends for their support. I also want to specifically mention a number of teachers, parents and others who have been instrumental in the success of Mt. Carmel High's National Ocean Sciences Bowl team. Harold W. Dorr is the coach of the Mt. Carmel High School National Science Bowl team. He is a science teacher at Mt. Carmel High School in the San Diego area where he teaches Oceanography and Zoology to 11 and 12 grade students. He is also an adjunct professor at Palomar College where he has taught in both the Life Science and Earth Science departments and is presently teaching Physical Oceanography. Mr. Dorr has a Bachelor of Science in biological sciences from San Diego State University and a Masters of Science in marine sciences from the University of San Diego. Prior to becoming a teacher, he enjoyed five years working as a biological technician (fisheries) for the National Marine Fisheries Service and five additional years conducting various activities including teaching SCUBA, working as a diver at an oceanarium, and collecting marine biological data on various research projects. In Mr. Dorr's rare free moments he enjoys SCUBA diving, underwater photography, fishing, camping and motorcycling. He never gets his fill of sharing the ocean, mountains and deserts with his wife and three children. Keith Gretlein is a student at Palomar College and a member of last year's NOSB team from Mt. Carmel High School who competed in the national finals last year. Keith spent many hours working as assistant coach and assisting the students as they mastered difficult topics and learned the game strategy. Keith brought the expertise of a former competitor and shared his insights regarding both academic material and how to have the most positive experience with the members of other teams. Keith emphasized that this is an opportunity to gain new and interesting friends! Sean Nesbitt, a student at University of San Diego, was also a member of the previous year team with Keith. Sean also worked as assistant coach and spent many afternoons and evenings teaching and helping students on their game strategy. Sean was instrumental in helping Mr. Dorr select the most competent and compatible team. His experience in this competition last year was invaluable to the team. Kara Lavender, a doctoral candidate at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography of the University of California San Diego, assisted this team by bringing the students up to date information about physical oceanography and assisting them as they grappled with topics that might be encountered as team challenge questions. Ms. Lavender demonstrated a gift for teaching as she brought complex concepts from her graduate courses and shared them in a very understandable way with the students. Scott Fisher, the principal of Mt. Carmel High School, consistently supported this NOSB team and allowed them to take trips, try new activities, take a few risks, and grow. Mr. Fisher recognized the hours of hard work and the sacrifices these students have made throughout the year and awarded the team a school varsity letter for their efforts and successes. And, of course, I want to recognize the hard work and sacrifice put forth by the parents of all of these Mt. Carmel High School NOSB team members, supporters and friends. Excellence in learning begins in the home. These parents deserve to be honored. Last, I want to pay a special thanks to my good friend, Admiral James D. Watkins. Admiral Watkins is the president of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education, CORE, that is the sponsor of this annual National Ocean Sciences Bowl. Having tirelessly given his life and his energy to America through service in the U.S. Navy and in several Executive Branch appointments, Admiral Watkins continues to aggressively advocate for excellence in scientific education and research as the means to build a better tomorrow. By his will and considerable persuasive abilities, the National Ocean Sciences Bowl is bigger and better every year for all of the student competitors and supporting and sponsoring institutions. I am proud to have Admiral Watkins as a friend. Let the permanent Record of the Congress of the United States show that the National Ocean Sciences Bowl team of Mt. Carmel High School, in San Diego, California, has demonstrated the best of young America through vigorous study, teamwork, and good sportsmanship. They are champions of our community, and they exemplify what makes our country great.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I like the analogy of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch). It does take chutzpah to have something that is truly an emergency and to pile riders and special interest just so that we have to vote for it to get it through is absolutely wrong. I support and I thank the gentleman. None of us mind paying our tax dollars when we have farmers in trouble, we have an earthquake, we have floods. We support that. But this is wrong. I think most of us that watched television last night were appalled. It made the term ``good government'' an oxymoron. It is bad government when this comes to pass. But what we are trying to do is fund our men and women and the needs. When the White House does have our people go into war, then we need to provide the equipment, the training, so that they can not only do their job, but win and come back safely. That is what the initial bill was for, not to pile on this stuff. But I would also like to say, why are we paying so high? General Clark told me we are fighting 86 percent of all the missions. Ninety percent of the ordnance dropped is from the United States at a million and 2 million and half a million apiece. There are 18 other Nations. Our supplemental should be a check from NATO to have them pay their fair share in the first place, not our taxpayers, and not cut money out of Social Security. The President, when he gets us into this thing, every penny of this comes out of the supplemental. Both sides said for different reasons that they want to support Social Security and Medicare and education. I want to double medical research, and I want a tax relief for working families. But by having us in Kosovo and extended, we paid $16 billion in Bosnia. We are still spending $25 million a year in Haiti building roads and schools. Enough is enough. I support the gentleman's motion, and I will vote against the bill if it ends up with this pork, and I am one of the biggest supporters of the military.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think probably both. I would say to the gentleman from Vermont, when we have people that are spread so thin, it is like many of us in our offices where they give us more to do and we cannot keep up with all that we have got to do, there are things that slip through the crack. When we have limited assets and we are trying to do things in an ad hoc way which, in my opinion, and I agree with the gentleman, it has not been planned well, and when we are doing these ad hoc and we are making these decisions and we have got people picking these targets to do that and the oversight was disastrous. So, yes, it is because of a lack of personnel, which was also caused by a lack of budget to hire people. That would be my answer to the gentleman. And I feel strongly. I am not being partisan with this. I believe it with all my heart. And please, look at what our military is going through right now, I mean we are running them into the ground, and the assets of the intelligence agency, both the service intelligence, the CIA, and the FBI. Although, I believe that in many cases it is defunct in certain areas. But please do not cut those assets, because it is a lifeline for us here in the United States and our military, as well.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, not only the United States, but I truly believe this is a very, very dangerous world. I believe, from my experience, that it is even more so than during the Cold War. Sandy Berger, with the CIA, told me that their assets around the world are spread very, very thin. I think one of our biggest threats is terrorist threats, not only in the United States but abroad. And he said their assets are not adequate to do that. Whether it is gaining information to protect our embassies, whether it is terrorist movements, whether it is just gathering intelligence on China or Russia, or whatever, those assets are spread very thin. Sandy Berger also told us that, with Kosovo, with those assets so thin, that they are having to draw those intelligence assets to Kosovo, which leaves us very, very vulnerable. And, in his words he said, an attack from Osama bin Laden was imminent. To me, that means fairly quick. It grieves me that we are in the situation that we are in right now in Kosovo. But the last thing we need to do is cut our intelligence. It means life and death, not only for the people here in the United States. Let me give my colleagues a good example. In Vietnam, we had intelligence in a place just south of Hanoi that said there were no surface-to-air missiles there. We lost four airplanes because of faulty intelligence. And when my colleague talked about the maps, I agree with him. But I went and looked at the map that they are using. Do my colleagues know what is in the map where the Chinese Embassy was? A vacant lot. And we cannot lie to the American people. We cannot spin things to make ourselves look good, either. That is wrong. I would ask my colleagues to go over and look at the maps that they were using where the Chinese Embassy was. It was a vacant lot. So this is the kind of information we need, not to destroy. We have a military force and we have a foreign policy and we have the protection of the United States, the national security of this country. They are all tied together. The intelligence we get enables us to direct our foreign policy, our foreign policy, using the vehicle of the military and enables us to stay safe and it enables our military to stay safe. And I feel from the bottom of my heart, with my experience, that to cut the intelligence budget is cutting the lifeline of the American people in our military. That is why I would oppose the amendment of the gentleman.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, once again this country finds itself at war. Many of my colleagues expressed the problems that we go through, and I would like to offer in my opinion what are some of the options, some of the solutions. I met with the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and I gained a new insight on Reverend Jesse Jackson. He has the ability not only to express his views but to listen as well. I laud Reverend Jackson, not only for bringing our POWs back, but for looking for a peaceful solution, which I think is much more possible than just bombing a nation into the stone age to get what we want. First of all, it is easy to kill. I flew in Vietnam, and I flew in Israel. But it is difficult to work to live. That is where the rubber meets the road, and it is very difficult to work out those solutions. But I think some of these solutions, which I have discussed with foreign policy experts, like Mr. Eagleburger and others, and I think that they are an option outside of just bombing in an air war in which the Pentagon told the President would not work, they told the President that it would not achieve our goals, it would only make them worse; that we would kill innocent men and women and that we would cause the forced evacuation of many of the Albanian people, like you have in most wars. This one has become more extreme. But Mr. Jackson also has the ability to put himself in the shoes of both parties, to understand what is in their mind. What are they afraid of? What are the Serbs afraid of? What are the Albanians afraid of? What is the KLA afraid of? What are their goals? Before one ever starts in a diplomatic mission, history shows that one has to understand both sides, not just one side. I think that is the fault of this White House. First of all, halt the bombing. Halt the bombing. Over 70 percent of Russian military supports the overthrow of the current administration, the Yeltsin administration. The leaders are the group of Communists, adverse Communists that support Milosovic. They want the former Soviet Union to go back to a Communist style of government, and this is giving them that excuse. That is one of the reasons why Russia has been a problem, not part of the solution in this. Then let us have Russian troops. Let us let them become part of the solution. Let us stabilize the Russian government itself. We saw today where Chernomyrdin was fired and other shake-ups by Yeltsin. It is potential disaster. Let the Russians, the Greeks who also support the Serbs, Scandinavians, and Italians and, yes, maybe even some from the Ukraine serve as peacekeepers. But Rambouillet said that you are going to have German troops in there. The Yugoslavians absolutely loath and hate Germans. They put 700,000 of them on April 5, 1941, and one in every third Serb died to German Nazis and fought on the side of the allies. One cannot put Britain, United States, and German troops in there. Put the people in there that can separate the forces. Have Milosovic remove his equipment prior to Rambouillet and establish some kind of at least stability. It is going to be years before we can bring Albanian people back into Kosovo. Do my colleagues know that there is over 200,000 Albanians that live in Belgrade peacefully? Our emissary with Jesse Jackson went to a service with the Albanians in the Muslim Temple and had worship. They have not left. They work in harmony. Has there been killing on both sides in Kosovo? Absolutely. The total number of people killed in Kosovo prior to our bombing was a little over 2,000. One-third of those were Serbs killed by the KLA. So is there fighting? Are there atrocities on both sides? Yes. But one has got to get into the minds of both sides. The issue of the KLA having Mujahedin and Hamas, we got a brief and said, yes, there are. There are not significant numbers. But the President has got to demand that those people leave. There is about 20 other events.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I know people on both sides of the aisle have got good motives, but I would like to just once have a bill that comes to the House floor that does not benefit the trial lawyers. If we look at some health care bills, they are a boon to trial lawyers. And they will raise the cost of health care because there are no caps on punitive damages, and lawsuits will drive health care costs up. Tobacco makes the trial lawyers rich. And now we look at this amendment, and it is always the trial lawyers that benefit in these things. Why? In my opinion, it is because they give 90 percent of their campaign funds to Democrats. This substitute would mean a boon for trial lawyers. Let us set the trial lawyers apart and let us work for the betterment of people, not the trial lawyers but for the people. Oppose this substitute, and support this important bill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I know Members are anxious for the debate to quit, but in the 8 years I have been here I do not think there is very many things as important as what we are discussing here today regardless of what side colleagues come down on the issue, and I think there is a strange dichotomy for people that basically do not support the military, understand it or even, in some cases, loathe the military. They find themselves in a strange dichotomy. They try to use the vehicle of the military, which they have not supported, for a humanitarian issue, and I understand that. But I think in many cases those decisions have been faulty and inept. I agree that it is an absolute mistake to tell an enemy that we are not going to use ground troops if we are trying to change his heart and mind, that we are only going to conduct an air war. I mean it is absolutely ludicrous. I spent 20 years planning the invasions of Southeast Asia in European countries. One would never do that. I am against putting in ground troops for other reasons, but to tell one's enemy that they are not going to do that is foolhardy. It limits actions and allows him to prepare for other things and put that aside. And I have heard that we ought to leave it up to the military. The military, the Pentagon, recommended that we not conduct air strikes in the first place. They said unless we are willing to commit ground troops that we will not stop any of the problems on the ground, that we will actually exacerbate the problems, we will not achieve our goals and we will cause the forced evacuation which people call ethnic cleansing of millions of Albanians. I would like to tell my friends, first of all, if I was an Albanian and I lived in Kosovo, I would be a member of the KLA. But I also want my colleagues to know if I was of Yugoslavian decent I would be part of that force, and that is the whole problem is understanding both sides of the issue. People to their guts, to the blood of their families, feel that they are right, and unless we understand that, we are never going to arrive at a peaceful settlement in this issue. And to go against the military when they said that we are going to cause ethnic cleansing? And that is exactly what happens. I do not care what kind of spin we try to do it to try and justify a position, the bombings accelerated any ethnic cleansing that was in Kosovo. There are millions of people. Look at the interviews. Ninety-nine percent of them when they are interviewed say, ``What happened to you?'' I was told to leave my home. I had 10 minutes or I had 5 minutes. Or I was told now. They were not refugees, they were in their homes. The bombing accelerated it, and there are millions of people today suffering. Look into the eyes of those children. They do not know what is going on. They are not KLA, they are not mujaheddin or Hamas. All they know is that they are being brutalized. But we are responsible in part for forcing many of those refugees to be refugees; I mean it goes beyond logic to disagree with that because it is a fact. The gentleman said that Osama bin Laden from the highest source. There are mujaheddin and there are Hamas working with the KLA. Now that same source said, ``Is it a major force?'' We asked, ``Is it a major force?'' He said no, but there are mujaheddin and Hamas working with KLA, and the drug traffic that goes through there, they said it is logical that the drug traffickers are using that to supply arms and weapons because they are sympathetic like they have been in Bosnia and other parts. The whole point is, unless we draw a termination of this, and I disagree with Jessie Jackson most of the time but I want to publicly thank Jessie Jackson. I think he has had more vision, more insight, not for just bringing the POWs back but for looking for directions for peace instead of everything I hear directions for war. It is easy to kill. It is very difficult to work to live. That is what I would ask my colleagues, instead of saying, let us bomb, let us put in troops, damning the Serbs or damning the Albanians or whatever it is, there are peaceful solutions to this. Let the Russians be a part of the solution and the Greeks and the Scandinavians by putting them in instead of the United States and Italian and German troops that neither side trusts, and having withdrawal.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is a very close friend of mine, and I know he has the right heart, but I want to answer the gentleman when he said: ``Identify those Members that have not supported defense.'' Mr. Chairman, I want, and let me finish, I want him to read, Mr. Chairman. Look on the web page, look at www.dsausa.org. That stands for: Democrat Socialists of America. They want government health control, they want government control of private property, government control of education, the highest progressive tax ever, and they want to cut defense by 50 percent. There is 58 of them on that side, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on the health care issues. I am on the Labor-HHS appropriations committee. I think it is absolutely exciting seeing the revolutionary research that is being done all the way from cancer to Alzheimer's to Parkinson's, diabetes. Many of us want to double that research budget over the next 5 years. We are going to have trouble doing that by some of the things that I am going to talk about here today. But I thank the gentleman for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I am Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham. I represent the 51st Congressional District in north county, San Diego. I come here tonight, as someone once said, with a very heavy heart. I would say, Mr. Speaker, unlike many of my colleagues in this body and the other body, I spent the majority of my adult life in the military. I come with a lot of experience. I have flown in three fighter squadrons. I was both a student and an instructor at the Navy fighter weapons school, which most people call Top Gun, where we devised the tactics and invasions of countries of our potential enemies. I served on Seven Fleet Staff, where we planned and my preliminary job was planning the invasion and the defense of Southeast Asia countries. I flew 300 combat missions in Vietnam. I was shot down on the 10th of May, 1972, and I was very fortunate, unlike my colleague Sam Johnson in this body, was not taken prisoner of war but had a helicopter rescue me before the enemy got to me. I was commanding officer of an adversary squadron that flew Russian and Chinese tactics, forces against our fighters and allied fighters. And I am a student of history, not only of the capabilities but the planning, the strengths and weaknesses in the deployment of air, land and sea forces. That was my job in the military. I come tonight first of all to speak on Kosovo. Many people will tell you about the problems. They will tell you about the travesties that are taking place, on both sides in my opinion, but they will not give you any solutions. Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do tonight is first give in my opinion what some of those solutions are instead of committing ground troops or continuing the air war, because as I give the solutions, Mr. Speaker, I think my colleagues will see that the causes and the problems come in fold. I would like to start first of all by starting at what I consider the beginning of the end. The first was Rambouillet. Rambouillet was an agreement. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, would you take this agreement in hand? First of all, if you were going to allow a foreign power to occupy what you considered your country. Secondly, that that foreign power would hold that country, yours, in its hand for 3 years and then turn it over to a country like Albania that since 1880 has not only tried to take Kosovo in expansionism but also Macedonia, Montenegro and even parts of Greece. That is why the Greeks are so petrified. The ad hoc air campaign is no strategy. It is a disaster in my opinion. The strategy of bombing until they capitulate is poor foreign policy and is not a strategy. For us that have fought in wars, unlike many of my colleagues in this body, it is easy to kill but it is very, very difficult to work to live. What would you do, then, Mr. Congressman, if you had the power? First of all, halt the bombing. Jesse Jackson, who I disagree with most of the time, has shown more leadership than the President or many of the leaders in this body and the other body in my opinion. Jesse Jackson has said that a diplomacy with no diplomacy is no diplomacy; that bombing and forcing an enemy to capitulate with no other dialogue is wrong. I agree. First of all, Russian military, 70 percent of the Russian military, according to our CIA. I would say, Mr. Speaker, nothing I am going to say here tonight is secondhand. It is firsthand, face to face, either with our intelligence agencies, our military or sources directly related to Kosovo. But 70 percent of the Russian military support the overthrow of the Yeltsin government. These are the hard-line Communists, the hard-line Communists that want to see Yeltsin leave and communism returned to the former Soviet Union. These are the same Communists that strongly support Milosevic, and it is part of the problem. So how do you resolve that? Let us solve Russia's problem, and the United States and Kosovo and the Albanians at the same time. The Serbians, the Yugoslavians have said that they would allow Russian troops to act as peacekeepers because they trust them. The Greeks, the Scandinavians, the Italians and maybe even the Ukrainians, but let us keep out the United States, Britain and Germany, who is Yugoslavia's bitter enemy since Hitler's days. They do not trust them, and they are not about to let them on what they consider their homeland. Kosovo, as per Rambouillet, you have got to start over. The President had a total disregard for the gut feeling of what Kosovo means to the Yugoslavian people and to the Albanians as well. It was a no-win situation, and let us start over. You may have a vote on Kosovo, but it will have to remain, if you want peace in that part of the world, it will have to remain part of the greater Serbia. You can have a cantonization program, much like they have in the Scandinavian countries to where they have an area for the French, where they have French speakers in French schools, and for the Germans, and for the Swiss, and on and on. That is accepted by the Orthodox Catholic Church of both Greece and greater Serbia and over 200,000 Serbian Americans. Milosevic, once there is stability with the peacekeeping troops that he trusts and that the Albanians trust, then Milosevic has got to withdraw his troops and his armor prior to Rambouillet. It does not mean they have to give up full power or autonomy, but they have got to remove the threat to the Albanians and to themselves in the long run. The KLA who is supported, and this is not secondhand, not just in the newspapers, but looking George Tenet, head of the CIA, eye to eye, face to face, and George Tenet told me. He says: Duke, the KLA is supported by Osama Bin Laden, the terrorist that blew up our embassies. Izetbegovic, a Muslim leader in Sarajevo, has over 12,000 Mujahideen and Hamas that surround him, Mr. Speaker, 12,000. They have emigrated from Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan and Syria, the fundamentalist Muslims. These are the Jihad, the real bad people in this world. They know that some day that NATO and the United States will pull out of both Bosnia and Kosovo, and they have surrounded themselves with people they think will give them the strength. Unfortunately, the strength is a threat to world peace and a threat to the United States and the free world, in my opinion. So, the President has got to look the President of Albania in the eye and say: We want every single one of those Mideast Mujahideen and Hamas out of the country within a short time. He has got to look Izetbegovic in the eye and say: I want every single one of the Mujahideen and Hamas and other fundamentalist terrorists out of Bosnia, out of Kosovo and out of Europe. Besides that, the President has got to look the President of Albania in the eye and say: You have got to stop your expansionism toward Kosovo, toward Macedonia, toward Montenegro and toward Greece. When there is stability and not before there is stability can you even start considering bringing back in the refugees. There will have to be some kind of outside source to determine which refugees should come back to Kosovo. One of the problems the Serbs created themselves is tearing up the papers of the Albanians. Why? Because over 60 percent of the Albanians in Kosovo are there illegally. They have crossed the border, they are not citizens, and to separate now the citizens from the noncitizens, I think the Serbs have made it even more difficult. But yet that has got to be accomplished, in my opinion; and it is going to have to be done thoughtfully. In the meantime, we are going to have to take a look at the millions of people, in my opinion, that the United States, NATO and Milosevic himself have caused through forced evacuation, that those people starving, they are hungry. If you look into the eyes of the children, they do not have the slightest clue of what is going on. These are not the Albanians that I am talking about, the terrorists. These are people like you and me with families that just want to live and survive. But I would also say there is the Yugoslavians the same way, that to identify an entire race as evil is wrong. We have gone down that road in history too often, and each time it has been disastrous. So we have to aid the citizens on both sides at least with minimal conditions because what are you going to do? You going to bring them back into Kosovo in tents, with no food, and there has got to be a general plan and a central clearinghouse. The United States should provide leadership, technology and intelligence in its part of the cost. Europe countries, Russia, Greece, Ukraine, Italy, France, Britain and the others, need to pick up the slack and to put the pieces of the puzzle back together; and NATO needs to pay its fair share. The United States is paying for 90 percent of this war. That is wrong. There are 18 other nations in this war, and they should have burden sharing equal to ours. One of the other problems, Mr. Speaker, is that the President talks about wanting to save Social Security and Medicare and education. Every penny of that surplus that he is talking about comes out of Kosovo. We have already spent $16 billion in Bosnia. We still spend $25 million a year in Haiti building roads and bridges. That all comes out of the military budget, and that has got to change. We are in over 150 countries. Our military is so spread out and so distraught that we are only saving about 23 percent of our enlisted and 30 percent of our pilots. That means your experience, not only your troops working on your maintenance, but your aviators and your personnel are without leadership in many cases and/or expenses. We have been in Korea over 50 years. Bosnia, we were supposed to be there 1 year, and it is $16 billion. We are still in Saudi Arabia. It has got to stop, and this all needs to be part of the solution as well as strength through peace. Mr. Speaker, let me go back and tell you in my opinion what some of the causes, and there is a saying: If you smell the roses, look for the coffins. In Vietnam it is: Where have all the flowers gone? As I mentioned, Rambouillet was a disaster, a shortsighted attempt at foreign policy, and I quote Henry Kissinger and Larry Eagleburger: Was an offer that the President either knew or could not accept, that the Yugoslavians could not accept to give up Kosovo even if Milosevic had said I will give up Kosovo. The Serbian people with their nationalism have been fighting in Kosovo since 1385, that one in three Serbs during World War II gave up their lives against 700,000 Germans on April 5, 1941. The Germans bombed Belgrade and along with a half a million Croatians and a quarter million Muslims have fought with Nazi Germany. One in three Serbs died defending Kosovo, and they either kicked out or killed every single one of the Muslims, of the Croatians and the Nazis, and in doing that they paid for that country in their blood in their opinion. And I think before you ever have a solution, before you ever have a foreign policy, you have got to look in the eyes of all the sides affected, not just one side, or that diplomacy will fail. It will be a no-win situation. The President basically tried to put a horse's head in bed with the Serbian people, Milosevic. Milosevic sent him the rest of the horse back because the President had not a clue on the gut feeling of the Yugoslavian people as far as Kosovo. This is the home of the Orthodox Catholic Church. It is their Jerusalem, and they will not give it up. So Kosovo has got to go off the table and remain part of greater Serbia, but yet it can be cantonized. The military, the Pentagon, told the President. I can name the guys that I flew with in these wars that are now in the Pentagon. They looked me eye to eye and said: Duke, we told the President not to get into this air war, not to do it, because, A, the goals could not be achieved with air strikes alone, and the unwillingness to conduct ground troops and to insert them into the war, that we would make things worse, that we would kill a lot of innocent people, we would stretch our military beyond belief, we would make ourselves vulnerable in North Korea and Iraq and other places in the world and that we would accelerate an increased forced evacuation of refugees. And that is exactly, Mr. Speaker, what we have done. When you ask the people where were you when the Serbs came: We were in our homes; they told us to get out. They were not evacuating, they were not refugees, but our bombing forced acceleration of that, and there are millions of people that in my opinion this President and Milosevic are responsible for that would not be there today, and this is a sad thing to say about your own country, Mr. Speaker, and the lack of planning and understanding and leadership. You think in the planning to just conduct air strikes, something I did for 20 years, that the President would have looked at the weather to commence air strikes when the weather is predicted to be overcast and bad weather, which you cannot conduct your air strikes safely for 2 weeks. Do you think they might have checked the weather? When Chernomyrdin was on his way to the United States knowing how Russia supports the Serbs, do you think they might have notified Russia? Instead Chernomyrdin had to turn around his airplane and go back to Russia. To me, that is ludicrous. It is not something that you would plan. And this ad hoc air circus warfare that is stepped up little by little with very little planning is not the way to win a war, and I would ask you, Mr. President, to think about what we have done. Mr. Speaker, do you know the total number of people killed in Kosovo prior to our bombing? It is amazing. People will say 10,000, 20,000. It is 2,012. Prior to us bombing, this great massive killing, 2,012. Tudjman, the head of the Croatians, slaughtered 10,000 Serbs in 1995 and ethnically cleansed out of Croatia 750,000 Yugoslavians. Where were we then? And on a scale 2,012, and one-third of those were Serbs killed by the KLA. Was there an apartheid? Yes. Ninety percent, not all Albanians, made up of other nations. As my colleagues know, there was over 100,000 Serbs that left Kosovo because of the harassment by the KLA. There was fighting on both sides. And before you can have diplomacy, you have got to understand the only problem is not Milosevic. The KLA is a problem. Tudjman is a problem. Our lack of understanding of European problems is the problem. And again what I tell you is not secondhand; it is firsthand. General Clark, face-to-face, when I was in Brussels, said, Duke, NATO only wanted to bomb one day and quit; to me, face-to-face, not in a newspaper, not from an Intel source, that NATO only wanted to bomb one day and quit. Secretary Cohen said, well, Duke, our biggest problem is the media. If we have the media coming down on us, we are lost. In other words, the spin has got to come. Because I asked, why did they continue? Because the President got ahold of Blair from Britain, and the German Chancellor, and pushed the bombs to what we are doing now, and that is why I think it really is a Clinton-Gore war. For us to disregard the Pentagon, to not have the knowledge of what Kosovo meant, to push NATO into this, and now they are into it, and then to say NATO speaks with one voice after last week in their meeting, if they are speaking with one voice, why is Hungary still shipping oil to Serbia, a NATO country? Why is France still shipping oil? Why is France trading nuclear weapons to Iran? These are part of NATO nations and they are speaking with one voice? I think that is wrong. The policy to bomb into submission is a lack of policy. Again, I would like to thank Jesse Jackson, who I disagree with most of the time, and his son serves here on the other side of the aisle, but I want to say Mr. Jackson gave more leadership and more thought toward this problem than the President of the United States, and I want to personally thank him for that. It is easy to fight, we have the power, but it is difficult to work and live, and I quote Jesse Jackson: There is fear on both sides. The understanding, the diplomacy. When I was a youngster, I worked in a hay field and I sat on a bench and I had a Persian cat jump up in my lap, and I was petting the cat. Just a few minutes later a Siamese cat came on the other side. Of course, the two cats tensed up but I was going to make them friends. I was smarter than those cats, and I knew their attitudes could be changed. I moved those cats closer and closer and they would tighten, and I would pet them. They would tighten and I would pet them, and I would move them closer. I sat there out of the hay fields with no shirt on and those cats hit each other and I was a shredded mess. If one tries to bring refugees into a country where they want to kill each other and put the United States in the middle, it is going to be a disaster. The Serbs fear the KLA. The Albanian people fear the Serbs. The Serbs feel that the country is theirs. The Albanians feel that portions of the country is theirs. Again, before we can have any diplomacy, the President has to understand, when the liberal level attempts to use a vehicle like the military that they neither understand nor have supported in the past, they are bound to fail. They have a strange dichotomy, Mr. Speaker. They have a vehicle which they loath at times, and at the same time they use this vehicle to serve foreign policy. They are inept, and I would say that the Strobe Talbotts, the Jane Fondas, the Tom Haydens, the Ramsey Clarks are bound to fail because they do not have the gut inclinations on what the use of the military is, and especially when they deny what their warfighters say and go on. Let us look at NATO today. It is not Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Let us look at the makeup. France is a socialist communist coalition. Italy, a former, and I say ``former'', communist; they say he is a quick study for democracy. Germany, a Greenpeace socialist. Tony Blair, a liberal left labor party. And then the President with his military record. I contend that this is not leadership in foreign policy with the use of that vehicle that will be successful, especially if they turn their heads away from their advisors, the people that know what they are doing in conflict. They are out of their element and disaster is inevitable. I asked General Clark, face-to-face, I said, how many sorties, how many flights, is the United States making? We have got 19 nations in this. With his eyes he looked at me and he said, Duke, to the sortie we are flying 75 percent of the air strikes. That does not include the B- 2s, the C-17 logistics, the tanking and the other missions. That puts us up over 86 percent. Ninety percent of the weapons dropped are from the United States. There are 18 other nations, Mr. Speaker, in this. Our supplemental coming up tomorrow should be a check from NATO. Billions of dollars for a European war and we are paying for it, and we are taking the money out of the things that we are trying to support like medical research and Social Security and Medicare and education to fight this war. There are many of us who think that we should not be there, and that there is a better way. Eighteen other nations. I think that is wrong. I talked to Stavros Dimas, he is number two in the Greek parliament on the minority side. They are absolutely petrified of Albanian expansionism because, like I said, in the early 1800s they wanted even parts of Greece. History, in 1389 when Kosovo was one, and I mentioned that on April 5, 1941, 700,000 German troops invaded Kosovo and Belgrade was bombed. The Chetniks, who were mostly the guerilla fighters, the partisans and the loyalists, were led by a general named Miholevic, not Milosevic but Miholevic, and they killed or kicked out every single German out of Kosovo. The CIA, George Tenet, again, told me that the KLA is supported by Osama bin Laden, the Mujahideen and Hamas from Middle East countries. And these are the people that some of my colleagues want to arm? They say, oh, no, no, no, that is not true. That is not true. There cannot be any KLA sympathizers to Mujahideen and Hamas. Well, I would tell my friends that they are wrong and it is backed up eyeball-to-eyeball with George Tenet. Mr. Speaker, I have a tape here. I cannot play it on the floor because it is illegal to use electronics on the floor of the House, and I will not play it, but what is in this tape is some 36 surface-to-air missiles fired at a strike in January of 1972. My flight had over 36 SAMS fired at it. I lost two good friends this day. I lost two other good friends and pilots in a strike up by Quang Tri City. Part of the supplemental that we are going to fight for tomorrow has these stand-off weapons, the stand-off weapons that have kept many of our pilots safe but yet because of Iraq, because of other places the President has gotten us into, four times in Iraq, the Sudan, Somalia, Haiti, that we are running out of these stand-off weapons like the Tomahawk. We call it a TLAM. The conventional air launch cruise missile we call a CALCM, these run at about $2 million apiece. The Tomahawk runs at about a million. The Joint STARS, which is a joint surveillance large aircraft that gives us the intelligence and the information we need on the ground, we are short of those. We have lost two F-16s. We have lost two Apaches. We lost an F-117 fighter. I would say, Mr. Speaker, we are going to lose more aircraft, and if we commit ground forces into Kosovo, even if we force Milosevic to capitulate, we then buy Kosovo. If you look at the history, General Shelton said this is absolutely the most difficult land and area environment to attack in the world. It is one of the easiest to defend. A single rocket launcher can knock out a tank and these narrow roads can tie up a whole column of tanks. Guerilla warfare, which they are used to fighting, they have been fighting there for 800 years. Yes, I think we can overcome the Serbian forces but if we do, A, at what cost? B, we have just bought Kosovo. And then what? I think it is a disaster. So, Mr. Speaker, I think with the history of the area, that with the lack of understanding by the White House, the lack of diplomacy with Russia and the threat of Russia becoming involved, it is very evident that we are in a very dangerous situation. I have here, Mr. Speaker, an article that I would like to submit. It says, Head of U.S. Air Command Warns of Strained Forces. They warned of strained forces long before Kosovo ever took place. We had 14 of 24 jets at Top Gun down for parts; 137 parts were missing. Eight of them were down for engines. The 414th, which is the Air Force aggressor squadron in fighter weapons school, was about the same way. Oceana, a training base, had 4 of 35 jets up, only 4, which trained our new pilots, because they are sending the parts forward. I do not guess Iraq is important anymore because the no-fly zone, we are letting that skid. Or the threat to North Korea is not there. There is another article here that I would like to submit, Mr. Speaker, that says if we were forced to go into North Korea or these other areas, that we could no longer fight a two-conflict battle, which is what our national security policy has been. This is a very difficult time for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We will find a mix of people on both sides of this issue from both sides of the aisle. I like to bring to it an understanding, not only of the diplomacy that is needed but the understanding that is needed before we can ever have a peace. The President's position of just bomb until Milosevic quits will not work, in my opinion. Even if there is a short halt in the peace, it will escalate again, and I think that is wrong. I look at other problems not only in Kosovo but around the world with foreign policy. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, read the New York Times about the lab secrets that were stolen for China in our nuclear labs. It was found out. The gentleman pleaded guilty. He actually took secrets on our missile technology and submarine technology to China. He gave it to the PLA, the communist People's Liberation army, showed it to them and then burned it and came back. He has confessed. But is he up for treason? No. The judge would not handle it. He got a 1-year sentence and he is out this year from a prison in California. Treason? Colonel Liu, who is General Liu's daughter, the head of technology transfer for the People's Liberation Army in China, Colonel Liu met with John Huang. John Huang introduced Colonel Liu to the President, gave the President, the Clinton and Gore campaign, $300,000. Loral gave the Clinton-Gore campaign a million dollars. Hughes gave the Clinton-Gore campaign a million dollars. The following week the President waived, against the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the National Security Agency, waived and let the Chinese have, and what did he let them have, Mr. Speaker? Secondary and tertiary missile boost capability, which we were briefed by the CIA that Korea was 10 years away from striking the United States. Guess what? They magically have that now after we gave it to China. The laboratories, what was stolen? The President was briefed in 1996 that we had a spy at our laboratories, at our nuclear labs, and they did nothing. What did they steal? They stole the W-88 warhead, which is a small nuclear warhead. And what did the President waive, against the Department of Defense and national security advisors? The MIRVing capability, which now allows China to put eight nuclear warheads on a single missile. If that is not bad enough, the targeting devices, before, yes, they could hit the United States, or if they were targeting Chicago, they may hit Peoria. But now they could hit the fourth window on the third apartment on 32nd Street, with that accuracy. When we have that kind of foreign policy mixed with Kosovo, mixed with the threat to this country with Iraq and Iran, then I think this country needs to take a sidestep and readjust not only its foreign policy but its trade policy as well. Mr. Speaker, it brings me a lot of sadness to come to the well tonight to speak in this manner. But this is not an easy situation for any of us. Let us get out of Kosovo. There is a much better way, a peaceful way, to achieve this and to work. I do not think there will be peace in the Middle East in my lifetime, there may not be peace in Northern Ireland in my lifetime, but we have to keep working in that direction. But it does not mean that we have to put troops in Northern Ireland or the Middle East, or keep them in Korea or in Saudi Arabia, because we have a lot of things in our country that we need to do like social security, like Medicare, like education, like medical research. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following articles: [From the Washington Post, Apr. 27, 1999] Analysis: Warnings of Air War Drawbacks (By Bradley Graham) With NATO leaders still wedded to a strategy of pounding Yugoslavia only from the air, a top alliance commander warned yesterday that the relentless bombing could end up setting the country's economy back several decades and still not produce the desired results. General Klaus Naumann, outgoing head of NATO's military committee, told reporters that alliance leaders came out of their summit conference here this weekend determined to pursue and intensify the month-old bombing campaign. U.S. military commanders differ, however, over when to start using two dozen AH-64A Apache attack helicopters now on station in Albania, he said. Some officers fear the low-level aircraft are still to vulnerable to Yugoslav anti-aircraft missiles. With consideration of ground forces put off for the time being, Naumann said he and Gen. Wesley K. Clark, the alliance's top military officer, still look to the air campaign to force President Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw Yugoslav forces from the embattled Serbian province of Kosovo, largely because of a sense that no responsible head of government would allow his country to be reduced to rubble. ``Of course, we may have one flaw in our thinking,'' he added. ``Our flaw may be that we think he may have at least a little bit of responsibility for his country and may act accordingly, since otherwise he may end up being the ruler of rubble.'' Naumann indicated he favors using the Apache gunships against Yugoslav artillery emplacements along Kosovo's border with Albania, saying the Apaches stand a better chance of finding and destroying these targets with less harm to ethnic Albanian refugees in the area that higher-flying NATO warplanes now in use. But yesterday's crash of an Apache in Albania, during what defense officials described as a training accident, only heightened concerns among some Pentagon officers about putting the Apaches into action in a risky environment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I do not feel that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the answer in their Patients' Bill of Rights was to have unlimited lawsuits, which in my opinion would drive up the cost of health care and destroy our HMOs, versus what you are planning to do is to make changes, to make sure that people have access and adequate care. Is that correct?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. John Shadegg) who has, I think, a good health care proposal and is one of our leaders in Congress on health care issues. Patients' Health Care Choice Act

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If the gentleman would answer one question.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to look. If NATO and OSCE are unanimous, then why are Hungary and France still shipping oil to Serbs? Why do we have Hungary and Poland and the Czechs who say that if we go to war they will not support us, and we had to fight for airspace. Please look at other solutions to this problem besides ground troops and bombing, and realize that there are many, many nationalists lined up behind Milosevic to take his place. It is not just Milosevic. We have caused the nationalism in many cases. But look at the Mujahedin and Hamas who, in my opinion, will cause problems for the next 100 years unless the President looks at the Albanian President and Izetbegovic and says, deport them within 30 days. Have we looked into the children's eyes that are the refugees? They do not have a clue as to why they are being uprooted from their homes. And in my opinion, we have caused a lot of it. It is not just a single focus. We have to reach out and look at all of the different factors that are affecting Kosovo and Bosnia.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, probably in 8 years this is the first time I have agreed with the gentleman from Oregon, or second time. If not, what? I am trying to do everything I can to keep us out of war. Then what? First of all, the Pentagon said not to bomb. Rambouillet, according to Kissinger and Larry Eagleburger, said it was to fail. NATO and General Clark told me, face to face, that NATO only wanted to bomb 1 day and quit. The President called Mr. Blair and the German Chancellor and forced this. So what? Halt the bombing, get our POWs back. Seventy percent of the Russians support the overthrow of Yeltsin. That is why they are so squirrelly on us. Let us use Russian, let us Greek troops that are petrified about the Albanian expansion. Instead of having Russia be the problem, let us make them part of the solution. The President has got to look the President of Albania in the face and say we want the Mujaheddin and Hamas out of the KLA and deported within 30 days. He has got to do the same thing with Izetbegovic. Kosovo can be cantonized, but it has got to go off the table, that resolve. The gentleman from Oregon is right. There is not enough time to talk about a very important issue.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, there is a strange dichotomy at play in this event. Those from the left attempt to use a vehicle they neither support, understand or even loathe at times. They attempt to spin the White House language that we attempt to stop ethnic cleansing, when the issue has actually exacerbated the problem that the Pentagon predicted, and warned and told the President not to get involved in. The actual killing and removal of over 1 million refugees would not have happened, not to the degree if NATO had not intervened. The Jane Fondas, the Ramsey Clarks, the Strobe Talbotts of this world find themselves inept in attempting to conduct military operations or even foreign policy. Take a look at NATO today: France, Socialist/Communist coalition; Italy, former Communist. It is not somebody that we trust.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this is the most inept foreign policy in the history of the United States. The Pentagon told the President not to bomb, that it would only exacerbate the problems. We have forced over 1 million refugees. 2,012 were killed in Kosovo prior to the bombing. NATO has killed more Albanians than the Serbs did in an entire year, and yet we have exacerbated those problems. ``So, what do you do, Duke?'' First you halt the bombing, then you have your POW's returned and you have Milosevic take his forces out of there. Use Russian troops. Right now they are the antagonists. Make them part of the solution. Use the Russians, use the Greeks, use the Scandinavians, use the Italians, to come in there as peacekeepers and separate these people. The President has to look Izetbegovic in the face, he has got to look the President of Albania in the face, and say we want 100 percent of the Iranians, the Iraqis and the Afghanistanis, with the KLA and Mujahedeen and Hamas, out of there, because Albania has been in expansionism since the 1850's, tried to take Montenegro, Macedonia and Greece. You have got to get them out of there or they are going to be a problem. The Albanians have got to stop their expansionism. Cantonization possibly of Kosovo, but you have got to take Kosovo off the table. One of the President's big faults, he did not recognize what Kosovo means to the Serbs. It is their Jerusalem. Yes, maybe you can Cantonize it, like you do in the Scandinavian countries, but it will have to be part of Serbia. It is not just Milosevic. The Serbia people and their nationalism will not give up Kosovo. Until they realize that, there is going to be a problem. You need to take a look at 95 percent of the aid goes to the federation. You have got Croatians, about 70 percent are out of work; the Serbs, the same, and you have got to stabilize that part of the country.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult time for most of us. And I heard my colleague a minute ago say we want to stop ethnic cleansing. The Pentagon told the President, and I know every one of them by their first names and I have fought in combat with most of them, told the President not to do this, that it would only cause more problems. And that is what we have done. There was only a little over 2,000 people killed in Kosovo prior to the bombing. NATO and the United States have killed more Albanians than the Serbs had in the year prior. We would not have a million refuges in the outlying countries. We have forced that. The Pentagon told the President that Milosevic would increase the ethnic cleansing. And when my colleague says that no more will we stand up, Tudjman murdered 10,000 Serbs in 1995, 750,000 refugees, where was he then? There are other ways. Maybe some of us who have fought in combat and have held our friends in our arms do not want to get in and see this again. Do not let us put ground troops into this thing. And there is a peaceful way to resolve this and we can do that. I went through it just a minute ago. Russia: Seventy percent of the Russians support the overthrow of Yeltsin. Let them be part of the solution. Let them come in with their peacekeepers and divide this. Serbs will agree to this. The Orthodox Catholic Church agrees with this. The 200,000 Serbian Americans agree with this. We can get Milosevic's troops out of there and restore some sanity into Kosovo without killing a bunch more and having another Vietnam.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I want to give some perspective on an issue that is, I think, very near and dear to every American's heart, as it is in Kosovo today also. I would like to give the Speaker a little perspective. First of all, according to Henry Kissinger, and I agree, Rambouillet was a very poor foreign policy. It was an agreement only between Albania and the United States in which the United States knew, in no uncertain terms, that Serbia would never give up Kosovo itself. Any history student would know that. We have spent $16 billion in Bosnia to date; Somalia cost us billions of dollars; Haiti cost us billions; $4 billion times the four strikes in Iraq, the Sudan, Afghanistan. Our troops are deploying 300 percent above the highest level in Vietnam but yet we are doing it with about half the force. Enlisted retention in our own military is below 23 percent; pilots, 30 percent. The Joint Chiefs of Staff said we are $150 billion short. We cannot buy spare parts. We do not even have basic bullets. Top gun, 14 of 23 aircraft are down; 18 for engines; 137, parts. Kosovo, and this is according to General Clark, I was with General Clark just days ago and I said I want to know how many sorties the United States is flying. Mr. Speaker, General Clark said, and this is accurate to the sortie, 75 percent of all strikes in Kosovo are being flown by the United States. That does not include the B-2s, the tankers, the support aircraft like C-17s and C-130s. That brings it up to 82 percent. We are dropping 90 percent of all the weapons, so we are paying for over 90 percent. That does not even include our ships. That does not include our manpower over there. My point is that it should be the other way around. The reason given by General Clark is that other nations do not have the stand-off capability that we do so we are having to fly 90 percent of this stuff, 82 percent of it and 90 percent of the ordnance. My point is that the supplemental that we are going to ask for, if NATO is a fair share organization, then NATO ought to pay the United States between $10 and $20 billion for our supplemental and not come out of our taxpayers' dollars. Let me give you another perspective. Before the bombing in Kosovo, there were only 2,000 deaths. Each death is important, but in perspective there were only 2,000 deaths attributed in Kosovo that whole year. One-third were Serbs and other nationalities besides the Albanians, but after the bombing look at the number of deaths. We have just killed 70 Albanians in a convoy trying to get out of Kosovo. NATO has killed 70 Albanians in an air strike. Look at the million refugees that these air strikes have caused that would not be there unless we had bombed Kosovo. The Croatians executed 10,000 Serbs in 1995 in Croatia. They deported and fled over 250,000 Serbs as refugees. Indonesia has killed millions; Turkey, thousands; India with the Sikhs; China, thousands with Tibet. Yet, we are in a mass war where there is less than 2,000 deaths, and over a third of those by the people we are claiming to bomb. The Pentagon, confirmed by Secretary Cohen, that the Pentagon did not want to execute just air strikes. The Pentagon told the President that they would not work alone, that they would exacerbate the problems, cause refugees, kill a lot of people. The United States would have to pay for a lot of it and unless we put ground troops in there the goals were not attainable. Yet, the President says no ground troops, which I am opposed to also. Why is he opposed to it? Because the Germans balked, the Italians balked. In World War II, Germany had 700,000 troops in Kosovo. The Chechens, with one half the force that Milosevic has, killed those Germans. General Shelton just 2 days ago said that this is the easiest place to defend and the most difficult to attack in the world. We do not belong there, Mr. Speaker. This is Clinton's war. Clinton ought to get out of it.