Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, I thank my friend from Minnesota and the chairman of the committee, and I rise in support of this bill and, in particular, section 573, which authorizes $7 million for the Corps of Engineers to work with USDA, Interior, EPA, NOAA and State and local agencies to develop strategies for dealing with toxic microorganisms and the damage they inflict on aquatic ecosystems. I want to congratulate my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wayne Gilchrest) on his support of this provision and his discussions just earlier about some of the studies he has undertaken and his support of making sure the Chesapeake Bay is what we want it to be. Toxic microorganisms, Madam Chairman, are a serious threat. The summer before last, Maryland was struck by the toxic microorganism pfiesteria. Linked to the flow of excess nutrients and the loss of aquatic habitat in our waterways, toxic blooms like pfiesteria seriously impact regional economies and threaten sensitive aquatic resources. Several Federal agencies, including the EPA, NOAA, and the Centers for Disease Control presently are assisting States impacted by these toxic algae blooms. I have worked diligently in the past, through the appropriations process, to ensure that these agencies have the proper resources to undertake this effort. Although they have responded quickly and made substantial progress, no single agency is tasked with taking a comprehensive look at the problem and developing a master plan. Given its expertise in water resources modeling, water quality monitoring, watershed management and restoration, and environmental planning, the Corps of Engineers has a vital role to play in this process. Section 573 simply authorizes $7 million for the Corps' participation in these efforts, and I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative and the bill itself.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I was elected to this House on May 19, 1981 in a special election. I had decided to get into politics when John Kennedy ran for President of the United States and he gave an inaugural address, what I think was probably the most famous in our history, perhaps. He said that this Nation would pay any price, bear any burden to defend freedom here and around the world. I love this institution. I am proud that I am a Member of the House of Representatives. But I have served no worse day than this one in the House of Representatives. The previous speaker talked about the cooperation of our Russian allies. I agree with that proposition. But more importantly is the cooperation of each of us in a nonpartisan, bipartisan way to say that when our Nation and when our leader makes a determination to confront tyranny, dictatorship and genocide, that we will stand together. Our young people are flying out of Aviano tonight, this day, this hour. I hope the message that we send to them is not as a divided House or Nation but as a Nation that sees its duty and responsibility as the leader of the free world and, when it comes to the water's edge, can unite to stand for principle and for our alliance and for freedom.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as kindly as I can, let me say that Neville Chamberlain rose up and said, let us mediate. I believe we are doing the right thing with our allies, for the right reason, in the right way to minimize risks to our people. I rise in strong opposition to the two resolutions sponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and to this bill sponsored by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). Unlike the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), I do not believe that this resolution or this bill has the limited effect that she argues that it does. That perhaps is a legitimate and honest difference of opinion. Mr. Speaker, we have seen an extraordinary event occur here in Washington last week. Not just 19 NATO nations, but 42 nations came to America and celebrated 50 years of commitment to keeping the peace. We are now confronting, in the midst of Europe, where NATO has pledged to keep the peace, the most egregious violation of human rights, the most egregious disruption of the security of the European region as we have seen since 1968. The bill that is presently before us says that we shall not use elements. I agree with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton); I am not sure of what that definition is. But I do know and believe that our enemies will interpret that as a constriction on our maneuverability and ability to act. That is a dangerous policy. We should not be engaged in this conflict with that constriction on our troops. It is dangerous, in my opinion, for them. It gives to our enemy a false sense that he may act to the detriment of our people. We ought to reject this bill as not only premature, but as unwise policy. Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues on the Republican side, let me say that we bombed in the Persian Gulf for 44 days. There was no vote on this floor. We deployed over half a million troops in harm's way. There was no vote on this floor. Why? Because President Bush and Secretary Baker talked to Speaker Foley and said, if you have such a vote, it will undermine our position. So Speaker Foley did not allow a vote until yes, President Bush, as he agreed, came to this floor for the authorization of troops to go in to Kuwait. Not to be deployed, to go into Kuwait. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has said, and as our President said as late as this morning to an assembled group of Members of the House, Republicans and Democrats, Senators and House Members, the Speaker of the House and the minority leader, that he would not, without consulting the House, take this action. Let us be united with our President and with our fighting men and women in this important endeavor. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1569. First, however, I am compelled to express my outrage that we are here today, in this House, engaging in debate about the most serious issues we are ever called upon to consider--the conduct of war and the making of peace--in such a desultory manner. The Gulf War Resolution was the subject of 16 hours of debate--16 hours, Mr. Speaker. Today we are faced with four separate, conflicting, and mutually exclusive resolutions and we have been limited to 1 hour on each of them. It is absolutely unconscionable and irresponsible to be considering legislation which requires the arbitrary withdrawal of our forces participating in the NATO action against Serbia, as does House Concurrent Resolution 82. Such a course would hand Milosevic victory, confirm the genocide he has perpetrated against the Kosovar Albanians, and destroy NATO. As I have said before, Mr. Speaker, intervention to stop the aggression against civilians in Kosovo is both morally compelling and clearly in our country's national interest. Let us be very clear about what is happening in Kosovo. This is not a civil war. It is a continuation of the conflict Milosevic instigated in Croatia in 1991 and in Bosnia-Herzegovina from 1991 to 1995. His aim all along has been the consolidation of his own political power within Serbia. Milosevic is a tyrant and a war criminal. Former President George Bush recognized this fact in 1992 when he warned Milosevic that aggression by his forces against the civilian population of Kosovo would be met by an immediate military response by the United States. President Clinton reiterated that warning in early 1993. Having made the commitment to our NATO allies, to the people of Kosovo and, indeed, to the world, that we will not stand by and watch ethnic cleansing and butchery in the heart of Europe, it is my firm belief that we must see this action through to the end. Last week, in a speech before the National Fire and Emergency Services Caucus dinner which I cochair with my good friend Curt Weldon, Senator John McCain called for such a commitment, including the use of ground troops. Senator McCain stated that he did not recommend this course lightly and was prepared to bear responsibility for the outcome. He said: I would rather face that sad burden than hide from my conscience because I sought an advantageous political position to seek shelter behind. Nor could I endure the dishonor of having known my country's interests demanded a course of action, but avoided taking it because the costs of defending them were substantial, as were its attendant political risks. America must lead, Mr. Speaker; we must not equivocate. Such a course would encourage the enemies of peace, the bullies of the world, and would surely endanger our men and women in uniform. As we enter the 21st century, America stands as the beacon of democracy, freedom, and human rights. People around the world look to our country's strength in their struggle for democracy and basic human rights. We must not, Mr. Speaker, stand now in the shadow of weakness and isolationism. Our cause is just. Let us act.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share information about Guillian-Barre Syndrome Day on Saturday, May 1, 1999. ``GBS Awareness Day'' is an effort to help educate the public and to focus attention on Guillian-Barre Syndrome. GBS is an inflammatory disorder of the peripheral nerves. It is characterized by the rapid onset of weakness and often, paralysis of the legs, arms, breathing muscles, and face. Although most people recover, this can take months, and some have long-term disabilities. It is important to note that GBS can develop in any person at any age, regardless of gender or ethnic background. Although a great number of cases developed from the 1976 swine flu vaccine, almost 50 percent occur shortly after a viral infection such as a sore throat or diarrhea. This should bring home how susceptible we all are to this baffling disorder which is unpredictable and as of yet, it's cause is unknown. In 1980, in response to the growing number of cases, Robert and Estelle Benson founded the Guillian-Barre Syndrome Foundation International. The foundation has developed 130 chapters to help serve the needs of patients, families, and friends while at the same time raise money to fund medical research. The foundation is proud to have on it's medical advisory board some of the world's leading experts on GBS, as well as physicians who themselves have the disorder. One of GBS Foundation cofounders, Mr. Ralph Neas, has played a vital role in bringing awareness to the community through his work at the local Montgomery County Chapter. It is the mission of those who have been affected by this sometimes devastating disease to assure that everyone is aware of the established support system and to better educate the community on the facts and symptoms of Guillian-Barre Syndrome. I congratulate the foundation on their efforts and wish them great success in their mission.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, April 24 marks the commemoration of the massacre of the Armenian people in Turkey during and after the First World War. More than 1.5 million people were expelled from their homes and marched to their deaths in what is recorded as the first of this century's state-ordered genocides against a minority group. Tragically, at the close of the century we again bear witness to the universality of human cruelty and fanaticism as the Kosovar Albanians are ethnically cleansed from their homeland. We must remember, we must reflect and we must learn. One of the great thinkers and advocates of our time--indeed, the conscience of this century--Elie Wiesel, has said that ``indifference makes humans inhuman; indifference is always the friend of the enemy; indifference is not only a sin, it is a punishment.'' We must not be indifferent, Mr. Speaker, we must also act. We remember the Armenians and their suffering, the incomprehensive magnitude of their loss. We honor those who perished. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we also remember the survivors and are inspired by their sacrifice, their strength and their creativity in building a future for the Armenian people. Today, independent Armenia guarantees the security and future of the nation and is a beacon of hope to Armenian people everywhere. Its people work tirelessly to strengthen democratic institutions and build a flourishing market economy to ensure peace and prosperity for generations to come. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that those to come will not have to sacrifice as their ancestors have. It is also my hope that the parties to the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh will renew and redouble their efforts to reach a negotiated settlement and to help bring peace and prosperity to the entire region. Mr. Speaker, the Armenian people did not ``disappear,'' as their persecutors intended. They survived and they flourished. Their strength of spirit, endurance and prosperity of the Armenian people give hope for the future to all of us--especially those who suffer now.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding me the time, and I rise in support, very strong support of this motion to instruct. I am not surprised that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is not objecting to this motion, and I congratulate the chairman on his leadership. I want to associate myself with the remarks both that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) made earlier and that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has just made. With respect to offsets and with respect to the necessity to move the supplemental as quickly as possible both for our farmers and for those victims of Mitch, we have, as the gentlewoman indicated, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) may have referenced as well, some 800,000-plus people. We see the pictures of refugees in Albania and in Macedonia being created by the violence and, from my perspective, war crimes being committed by the Milosevic army. But having said that, we also know that there are other reasons to support this motion to instruct. I want to specifically refer to the Y2K emergency fund that was put in, the supplemental that we proposed last year, or the omnibus bill we appropriated last year, some $2.25 billion for nondefense agencies to make sure their critical computer systems are Year 2000 compliant. The motion that the Senate adopted would cut that by 44 percent. Quite obviously, that would have a devastating effect on all the other programs, but as well on the Y2K, which all of us, all of us, admit is an emergency. There is not a day that goes by that we do not hear on our televisions or our radio or read in our newspapers about the issue of Y2K. Are we, on December 31 of 1999, going to have our computer systems, which are involved in almost everything we rely on on a daily basis, going to recognize the change and be able to ensure that the systems remain operative as they should? Obviously most critical, I suppose, with the FAA airplanes flying, but to so many other systems, large and small. On the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government of the Committee on Appropriations, we tried in a bipartisan manner to enact the critical appropriation as an emergency fiscal year 1998 supplemental. But we were continually told by the leadership to wait until the end of the year. Unfortunately, now the Senate has waited until well into the fiscal year and are proposing a 44 percent cut. Madam Speaker, I am hopeful that not only will this motion to instruct prevail, which I presume it is going to, but also that the Senate, in conference, will see the wisdom of this motion to instruct and will not only reconsider this amendment to cut by 44 percent those supplemental funds but will, in addition, also see the necessity, the emergency of reconsidering their requirement for offsets. And that on those matters that are truly emergency, which we believe the supplemental is, we will move ahead without political rancor, without debate about offsets, to see that our farmers, those ravaged by an act of God such as Mitch, and those as well ravaged by war and by genocide will all be given the help of this Nation and of our people as quickly as possible.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of Maryland's most informative and well respected newspapers, ``The Bowie Blade- News.'' The Blade-News was recently named Newspaper of the Year for its division, by the Maryland-Delaware-District of Columbia Press Association. In addition, Editor John Rouse and five other members of the editorial staff were recognized for their work in various categories for a total of 14 awards. Blade-News photographer Sharon Tazelaar received a first-place award for the division in the category of Spot News Photo, beating out photojournalists from daily newspapers such as the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun. Other Blade-News staff receiving awards were Sports Editor Christine Krapf, and staff writers Cheryl Allison, David Emanuel and Donna Reifsnider. Having been involved in public service in Maryland for much of my life, I have had the distinct honor of working with John Rouse and his staff of reporters and photographers. Rouse, who has held the title of Editor at the Blade-News for 27 years has worked hard to ensure that the Bowie Blade-News upholds the Capital-Gazette Newspapers philosophy which is, ``Every issue of every newspaper represents a battle for excellence.'' Under Rouse's leadership, the Bowie Blade-News has become a vital source of information for the community. Mr. Speaker, the Capital-Gazette Newspapers, which owns and publishes the Bowie Blade-News, has a long and rich history of informing the people of Maryland and is one of the oldest newspaper publishers in the country. The company's original newspaper, the Maryland Gazette, was first published in 1727 and many of the reports published in the Gazette were copied by Benjamin Franklin and other Colonial editors for their own newspapers. This newspaper also has the distinction of having had the first woman editor and publisher of a newspaper in the American Colonies. The Maryland Gazette also survived strong local sympathies for the Confederacy, all the while sharply criticizing the movement to dissolve the Union. In fact, the newspaper was saved by President Abraham Lincoln when he appointed the publisher as the federal paymaster for the state of Maryland, helping the publisher to subsidize his newspaper. Under the guidance of John Rouse, the Bowie Blade-News is upholding this tradition of seeking out the truth and providing the information to the surrounding community. It plays a vital role in the daily lives of the people who rely on it for news and information about their neighborhoods. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have such an honorable news organization in my Congressional District and I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Bowie Blade-News on being named the 1998 Newspaper of the Year by the Maryland-Delaware-District of Columbia Press Association.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the St. Mary's County Chamber of Commerce on their twenty-fifth anniversary. Their initial meeting was held in April, 1974 by combining the Leonardtown and Lexington Park Chambers. A board of directors was installed and George Sparling was elected president. Eddie Bailey, Rubye Beaman, Eddie Burroughs, Robert Dudley, Bert Fenwick, Jack Fletcher, Joe M. Gough, Stewart Hobbs, Jim Kenney, Richard Lubbers, Charles Mason, Bill Raley, Buzzy Ridgell, Mary Salisbury, Les Shaw, Harry Lee Smith, Leroy Thompson, Jr., Elliot Weisman, and Rocky Willis served as the board of directors. The chamber had 150 charter members. Office space was two rooms on the second floor of the First National Bank of St. Mary's in Leonardtown, courtesy of Joe M. Gough. They occupied those offices until 1988 when the chamber moved to Mechanicsville. Not only has the chamber grown in membership with 400 members today, but also in service to the community, with members serving on a number of county and state boards and local committees. Over the years, the chamber has supported county events such as the Oyster Festival and Maryland Day. The Trade Fair was started in 1983 to give local businesses the chance to show their wares and to promote county businesses. As a result of a good working relationship with county government, state government and the Southern Maryland Congressional delegation, major accomplishments of direct and indirect services to the business community have been achieved. The chamber lobbied for five years to have the commercial inventory tax reduced, which affected 80% of the county's wholesale and retail businesses. In 1976, the chamber operated the tourist information center at Charlotte Hall. In 1980, the Tourist Information Center found its permanent home at the chamber office in Mechanicsville. Over the years the chamber has evolved into a vital entity of St. Mary's County. Despite its growth, one thing has not changed; the original core values to promote local business and empower local citizens. Mr Speaker, I ask you and the remainder of my colleagues to join with me in applauding the service and sacrifice of the St. Mary's County Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member, my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), for his kind comments and for his leadership on this bill, and in particular for his leadership on ensuring the fact that we did not rob from Peter to pay Paul as it related to employee pay and benefits. I also want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, for his leadership in facilitating this bill to the floor. He is motioning that Mr. Nesterczuk made him do it, but for whatever reasons, he did it. We are pleased; I want him to know that. I also want to take the opportunity to congratulate my colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Connie Morella), who, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) said, is always in the forefront of advocating on behalf of our Federal employee work force. Mr. Speaker, I would simply add this. The bill has been explained by the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) herself, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), and many Members on this floor talking about the necessity to recruit and retain good people. This will be a major recruitment tool, in my opinion, for the Federal Government because it will give the ability to Federal employers to say that first of all its employees can transfer whatever savings they now have in a 401(k) or similarly situated program from a tax standpoint and switch that into the Thrift Savings Plan. The Thrift Savings Plan, which, by the way, was the creation of Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska and Congressman Bill Ford from Michigan, has been an extraordinarily good program for Federal employees. It was created in 1984 and took effect in 1987 as the integrated retirement system that we now have dealing with retirement and Social Security and the Thrift Savings Plan. Those three components now make up a Federal employees retirement benefit package. So not only will we allow them to put their money in from previous programs, but in addition to that, we will let them do so from the very beginning of their employment. I think that is a critical aspect of this legislation. I think it will be an incentive for employees to come on board; and I congratulate the committee for bringing this legislation to the floor and will certainly support it enthusiastically.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but under my reservation I would be pleased to allow the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the opportunity to explain the resolution.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I of course agree with the characterization of this resolution and would add, under my reservation, my own remarks that it is certainly appropriate that this House recognize and allow the recognition of NATO in the Rotunda. NATO is one of the, perhaps, if not the most successful alliance in the history of the world in terms of maintaining and keeping peace. There is certainly none that excel it. And I am pleased to join with the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) in the support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time. I want to join the mayor who spoke in saying that this is not about local involvement, it is about the timing of local involvement. Why is it about the timing of local involvement? Because I suggest to my colleagues, if they involve the local governments late in the process, they deny the opportunity for sampling to be used. Speaker Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House, in 1991 said that sampling ought to be used, because if it was not used minorities in Georgia would be undercounted. That was Speaker Gingrich in a letter of 1991. The fact of the matter is, if we delay, as H.R. 472 will inevitably require, the involvement as opposed to having it early, as the mayor and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) suggest, then we will preclude what I suggest the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) said in a statement would be, not only allowed, but the sense that I took from his statement was might be preferable. Furthermore, Dr. Bryant, George Bush's census director, says that we ought to utilize sampling. If that is the case, we ought not to adopt legislation which will delay it. In a report of the panel on census requirements in the year 2000, the National Academy of Sciences said we ought to use sampling because it more accurately counts. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), former mayor, said that we counted some 124,000 people in a post-census review. Yes, we did. But guess what, we did not count 8 million people. In other words, while we got 124,000, we left out 7,896,000 people. That does not seem to me to be a good trade-off if we really care about counting every person for the purposes of making an accurate census. I refer to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), my friend who serves with me on the Committee on Appropriations. In quoting him, he says ``I have chosen these words carefully. The issue of sampling is an issue of apportionment of representatives, not, I repeat, the distribution of Federal aid.'' Now, if it is all right to use sampling for the purposes of distributing over $187 billion of taxpayers' money, presumably because we think that is more accurate and will more accurately target where the funds are supposed to be, then I would suggest to the gentleman it is equally applicable to making sure that people who are getting money are represented accurately as well.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, this is a very serious debate. We are involved overseas in a very serious effort, and we need to be serious. I came here in June of 1981, and I was presented with a budget on this floor which I voted against, and I voted against it because I thought it would cause high deficits and high interest rates. I, frankly, was right. The 1981 budget that we adopted, which was sold to us as a budget that would do all sorts of good things for America, created $3 trillion in new debt, and tax cuts were enacted long before any Republican, as Dave Stockman said, was prepared to vote for the cuts to sustain the spending cuts to sustain those tax cuts, and as a result, and I heard the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) last night on the floor lamenting the fact that our grandchildren were put deeply in debt, they were by that 1981 program. Mr. Chairman, I suggest to my colleagues that this budget is very much like that. It is very much like that in that it retreats from investments in the future, it promises tax cuts that will be unsustainable, and notwithstanding how many times our colleagues repeat they are saving Social Security commitment, it does not do what both the Blue Dogs' budget does, which I will vote for, which the Democratic alternative does, which I will vote for, and frankly offering the President's budget is simply a political charade in which we have participated in the past ourselves. And I understand that; we both have done that to one another. Ronald Reagan's budgets were presented 3 years during his presidency. Zero Republicans voted for it the first time, one Republican the second and 12 the third. This is a serious debate, and we ought to commit ourselves to the American public to do real things. I suggest to my colleagues they ought to vote for the Democratic alternative and, as well, they ought to vote for the Blue Dogs' alternative because they do real things. They do not pretend; they do real things.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to say, and I hope all my colleagues share this view, the gentleman from Wisconsin, who is the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations and has to deal most pointedly with the reality as opposed to the rhetoric, invariably in my opinion speaks the truth not only to us but to the American public. I voted for the Blue Dog and I am going to vote for the Spratt budget, but those of us who serve on the Committee on Appropriations know that, in the final analysis, Members are not going to pass bills within their constraints that we now have on the floor, and that is what the gentleman from Wisconsin is talking about. I want to congratulate him for his leadership, for his honesty and for his service in this institution. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. Our young men and women in the Armed Forces are carrying out their duties with courage and professionalism, and they deserve our praise and our complete support. In my view, however, it is not enough to support our military in carrying out the mission given to them. I rise, as well, Mr. Speaker, to support the very mission itself. The mission is to save lives, to stabilize a region, to save lives that certainly would be lost if we again delayed taking this decisive action. The reports about what Serbian forces were doing in Kosovo in the last few days are clearly horrendous, the separation of men from women and children, the reported mass execution of the former and desperate flight of the latter. The mission is also asserting U.S. leadership when Europe needs that leadership. Our allies are with us and they need us. Like it or not, Europe cannot and does not do it alone. It is in our national interest to avoid even the perception of a vacuum in our leadership capabilities. That could lead to challenges which we cannot foresee now, which we cannot predict, but clearly which would likely put our military men and women at even greater risk if allowed to happen. Mr. Speaker, everyone says that we cannot be the world's policeman and I agree. But when there is a need for action and when that action can so clearly be effective and when the military can use its resources to minimize the risks involved, then we should act. Tyrants around the world cannot and must not have the false impression of knowing that we will not go after them because we cannot go after everyone. The fact that we could respond should give them pause. Mr. Speaker, I have been one on this floor who in years past have said in Bosnia that we should have acted. In my opinion had we in Europe acted sooner, thousands, yes, tens of thousands of lives may have been saved. I support the troops. I support the mission.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Now I understand what the gentleman from Florida is saying, Mr. Chairman, but I respectfully disagree with him, not in the sense that he wants to shove something down his throat perhaps this time, but there are things in this bill that the President said, ``I view them so seriously that I will veto this bill.'' Now, he has not said that personally, but the Secretary of Treasury said it, and we know he is one of the President's closest advisers. I want to say, as the ranking member said, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), Both of us, of course, have absolutely unrestrained affection and respect for the chairman of our committee. We are pleased to have him as our chairman, and like his predecessor, Mr. Livingston, he did not want to do this. He stands here because the leadership has told him to stand here and defend this policy, which is bad policy, which is policy inconsistent with our rules, which is policy hoisted on the petard of their CATs.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida who I know did not want to do this.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, can I amend my request to an additional 5 minutes?

Mr. HOYER. My point is this, and I will ask that the balance of my prepared comments be included in the Record. My point is this: My colleagues, our neighbors sent us here to represent them and to represent America. They know we are going to play politics from time to time; that is the nature of this collegial body. But I was struck, as I said, when my friend from Alabama, who I also have great affection for and unlimited respect for, said that the President cannot veto this bill. Why do they take this risk with peoples' lives and peoples' welfare? Why do they delay when they know that the President will veto this bill? He has shown us he will do it. He has done it before when the Mississippi floods came, and they said unless we take it their way, we are not going to give the folks in Mississippi and all up the Mississippi Delta the relief they need. We saw on television people floating around in their cities and towns. Why do they do this? Why do they force the Committee on Appropriations to do it when their leadership on the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and others, and Mr. Livingston before him, said this is emergency spending, we ought to pass it, pass it now and give the relief where it is needed. I thank the gentleman from Florida for not objecting to that extra time, and I want to say to my friend that this is an important piece of legislation, but it is also an important principle, and I would say to my chairman it is an important principle for the Committee on Appropriations itself and frankly we ought to stand as a committee and say to our friends who are not on this committee, when we have an emergency, when we need to act quickly, when we need to act without political controversy, this is the way to do it, the way the gentleman originally proposed, Mr. Chairman. That is my point, and that is my hope for the future. These provisions would jeopardize both this country's strong economic security and our Nation's efforts to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. The provision to offset $648 million from money that was appropriated for the capitalization of multilateral development banks, alone will invite a veto from the White House. Treasury Secretary Rubin warned this committee of the negative impacts of this provision--significant pressure on MDB interest rates and destabilized currencies and markets in developing countries around the world. Just last Congress, we appropriated $525 million for the safe disposition of fissionable material from Russia. Now, less than a year later, the Republican leadership has proposed to rescind a critical portion of those funds. This will severely impede efforts to continue the dismantlement of Russian nuclear warheads and the safe disposition of plutonium extracted from their nuclear weapons. This, to say the least, is a devastating possibility. What perception do we leave the Russian negotiators with if this money is refused? Just last week, this House passed H.R. 4 which calls for U.S. policy to deploy a national missile defense system. How can we turn around and take away funding that will assist in the deactivation of Russian warheads and keep fissionable materials out of the hands of rogue states and terrorists. Mr. Chairman, to conclude, I cannot support the offsets included in this bill. I, therefore, must oppose it.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey amendment, and if the Obey amendment fails, in opposition to the supplemental. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this emergency supplemental bill in its current form. I emphatically disagree with the offsets proposed by the committee. Before I address the troubling offsets included in this bill, let me comment on the nature of emergency supplemental appropriations, quote, unquote. Emergency supplemental appropriations are by definition, and again, Mr. Chairman, I quote: discretionary appropriations that the President designates as emergency requirements and which are similarly designated by Congress in legislation subsequently enacted into law. We anticipated the situation in which we now find ourselves and made provisions for it. Any spending designated as an emergency bill will result in discretionary spending caps being increased to accommodate the additional spending. That is in our rules. We now are facing a serious situation which requires immediate action for American farmers who are encountering dire financial straits, and victims of natural disasters in Central America. These circumstances clearly fall in the category of needs that are urgent and immediate, unanticipated and essential; in other words, emergency requirements that deserve prompt action, without offsets. American farmers, Mr. Chairman, are dealing with serious challenges that threaten their very existence. Not since the Dust Bowl days of the 1930's have farmers faced such severe economic difficulties. Forecasts for continuing low commodity prices in 1999 have significantly increased the demand for Department of Agriculture farm loans, as many farmers are being turned away from their normal sources of financing. The funding requested by the President is essential to finance the roughly $1.1 billion needed for spring planting. Of equal importance, Mr. Chairman, is providing the necessary assistance to the victims of hurricanes Mitch and Georges. Mitch has already been described as the worst natural disaster in the history of the Western Hemisphere, causing over 9,000 deaths. Even before Mitch hit Central America, nearly one half of all Nicaraguans and Hondurans existed on a dollar a day or less. In the wake of Mitch's devastation it will be years before they can regain that level of poverty. This Congress needs to act expediently, quickly, decisively to provide relief for these victims. Now I want to say my very good friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, stood up here just a little while ago when I was on the floor and he said the President cannot veto this bill. The President went to South America, the First Lady went to South America, some of us have gone to South America and said we are going to help, it is an emergency. We told our farmers the same thing. My friends on the Republican side of the aisle, they make this mistake almost every year, that they have the President in a box from which he cannot extricate himself, that they are going to intimidate him, they are going to buffalo him, they are going to push him around. They wanted to push him around when the Mississippi overran its banks and thousands and thousands of Americans were displaced, and they said, ``Well, we know you want the emergency aid. Yes, we know it's necessary. We know it's needed now. But we're going to put some things in the bill that we know you don't like and try to shove it down your throat.'' It did not work.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember a horrifying event in our world's recent history. Eleven years ago, Saddam Hussein bombed the Kurdish town of Halabja with chemical weapons. Clouds of poison gas including mustard gas and sarin were rained down on Saddam's own people, merely because they were Kurds. This heinous act resulted in the death of over 5,000 innocent civilians and injury to approximately 10,000 others. However, Halabja was neither the first nor the last of the chemical warfare attacks Saddam Hussein unleashed against the Iraqi Kurds. Throughout 1988, Saddam's brutal regime continued to use chemical weapons against its own people. In only 6 months, over 200 Kurdish villages were attacked and 25,000 people were killed by chemical weapons during the vicious Anfal Campaign. This campaign ultimately led to the destruction of 4,500 Kurdish villages and the death of 500,000 Kurdish people. More than 200,000 Kurds remain missing and 500,000 have been internally displaced. Although the people of Halabja undoubtedly suffered beyond words when this horrifying event occurred 11 years ago, their children and their children's children will feel the effects of this one action of Saddam Hussein for generations to come. For, 11 years hence, the Halabja attack has not really ended. Many people in the region continue to suffer from respiratory problems, eye conditions, neurological disorders, skin problems, and cancers. All of these effects are attributable to long-term damage to DNA caused by the chemicals used by Saddam in the attack. The Iraqi regime has never expressed remorse for Halabja, nor have Saddam Hussein and his thugs ever been called to account for these crimes they have committed against their own citizens. We do know that whether in attacks on Iraqis or neighboring states, inhumanity is precisely the common element of Saddam Hussein's policies. We must never forget the innocent people who died and those who continue to suffer from Saddam's ruthlessness.