Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Farr amendment to prohibit the use of steel-jawed leghold traps or neck snares on National Wildlife Refuges for purposes of commerce or recreation. The National Wildlife Refuge System was established in 1903. The refuges were meant to be sanctuaries to combat the effects of commercial killing of wildlife and provide an environment where wildlife could be protected and conserved. Today, the refuge system encompasses 92 million acres in all 50 states, including the Stuart B. McKinney Wildlife Refuge in my district in Connecticut. According to a 1997 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey, of the 517 National Wildlife Refuge units in the United States, 280 allow trapping of animals and 140 of those allow the use of steel-jawed leghold traps. While some trapping may be necessary for activities such as predator control for threatened and endangered species protection, facilities protection, and disease control and population management, 15 percent of the trapping is used for recreation and commercial profit. Steel-jawed leghold traps do not discriminate against their victims. These devices capture protected wildlife species as well as family pets. Animals caught in leghold traps suffer crushed bones, and often resort to twisting off a limb to escape the horrible pain. Mr. Chairman, the banning of leghold traps has worldwide support. Leghold traps have been banned in over 80 countries and banned or severely restricted in six states. Groups such as the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, Humane Society of the United States, and the World Veterinary Association support the banning of leghold traps. It is important to note Mr. Farr's amendment does not prohibit other forms of trapping, or even the use of steel-jawed leghold traps and neck snares for purposes such as endangered species protection. Let's demonstrate our dedication to protecting animals on wildlife refuges by supporting this important amendment designed to end animal cruelty on our national wildlife refuges.

Mr. SHAYS. Reserving the right to object, there are a number of speakers who support this amendment who would like to speak, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) is basically saying there is only 15 minutes, and the gentleman also says he has one gentleman who wants to speak in opposition. So I am just having a little bit of trouble with that.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Consumer Health And Research Technology (CHART) Protection Act to ensure the confidentiality of medical records. There is currently no uniform standard to protect the privacy of a patients' medical records. There have been a number of startling examples of the potential effect of this void on the lives of Americans. For example, The National Law Journal reported in 1994 that a banker who also served on his county's health board cross referenced customer accounts with patient information and subsequently called due the mortgages of anyone suffering from cancer. Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Congress set a schedule for action on this issue. Should Congress fail to enact comprehensive legislation to protect the confidentiality of medical records by August of this year, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will be required to promulgate regulations. Congress must act before the Secretary steps in. We need to strike an effective balance between preventing the disclosure of sensitive information and ensuring health care providers have the information they need to treat individuals and make payments. The CHART Protection Act is an effort to achieve such an equilibrium. The CHART Protection Act safeguards the confidentiality of medical records while protecting legitimate uses. The legislation sets out the inappropriate uses of medical information. These prohibitions relate specifically to individually identifiable information. This is an important departure from the approach taken by other bills which seek to restrict the use of health information unless specifically authorized for disclosure. The CHART Protection Act creates a ``one-step'' authorization process for the use of individually identifiable information by providing for authorization up front, while allowing individuals to revoke their authorization at any time for health research purposes. Most other proposals create a ``two-step'' authorization process in which treatment, billing and health care operations are covered by one authorization, while all other uses are subject to a separate authorization, including use of information for research purposes. This approach has been the source of much controversy and is likely to damage our ability to enhance medical knowledge and improve patient care. In addition, the CHART Protection Act allows patients to inspect, copy and where appropriate, amend their medical records. Finally, the bill imposes stiff criminal and civil penalties for inappropriate disclosures of individually identifiable information and creates a powerful incentive to anonymize data. We need to achieve a balance between a person's legitimate expectation of privacy and the right of a business to know what it is paying for. It is my hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will recognize the necessity of passing a uniform and comprehensive confidentiality law which would serve to balance the interests of patients, health care providers, data processors, law enforcement agencies and researchers.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. We would do New York a tremendous favor by passing this legislation, because clearly New York got itself in a box. I cannot imagine any member of a State assembly or a mayor or a Governor who does not recognize the pitfalls of starting warfare from one State to another where they start to say, ``we can solve all our problems, just tax everyone who works in our State who does not happen to live here because they do not happen to vote here.'' I rise in support of the bill offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks), H.R. 2014, and thank him for introducing it. I thank him for all the communities in all the States around the country that need to make sure that if you tax someone from out of State, you must tax someone from within your State. If you do not tax someone within your State, you also must not tax someone out of the State. I also commend the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney) for his fine statement.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the Flag Desecration Constitutional Amendment. I find it abhorrent anyone would burn our flag. It's a symbol of all the values we cherish--freedom, democracy and tolerance for others. When I think of the flag I think about the men and women who died defending it. What they really were defending was the Constitution of the United States and the rights it guarantees. The Constitution has been amended only 17 times since the Bill of Rights was passed in 1791. This is the same Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and that eventually outlawed slavery and gave blacks and women the right to vote. These are monumental, historic issues--issues that directly affect people's lives. Amending the Constitution is a very serious matter. I don't think we should allow a few obnoxious attention-seekers to push us into a corner, especially since no one is burning the flag now, and there is no constitutional amendment. Madam Speaker, I love the flag for all that it represents, but I love the Constitution even more. The Constitution is not just a symbol. It's the very principles on which our nation was founded.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Conyers-Campbell substitute, the Senate bill, and I urge Members to vote against final passage if the Conyers-Campbell substitute does not pass. The bottom line is a 24-hour waiting period is a joke. It is an absolute joke. It makes a mockery of the law. We have a gun show on a Saturday, on a Sunday, the check means nothing. It is a joke. I hope in my lifetime the marriage between the NRA and my party ends in divorce. It is a bad marriage.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was in Connecticut participating in the commencement ceremony at Greenwich High School and, therefore, missed eight recorded votes. I take my voting responsibility very seriously, having missed only 4 votes in my almost 12 years in Congress. I would like to say for the Record that had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on recorded vote number 226, ``yes'' on recorded vote number 227, ``yes'' on recorded vote 228, ``yes'' on recorded vote 229, ``yes'' on recorded vote 230, ``yes'' on recorded vote 231, ``no'' on recorded vote 232, and ``yes'' on recorded vote 233.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, today Representative Jim Greenwood of Pennsylvania and I are introducing the Medical Malpractice Rx Act. The Medical Malpractice Rx Act will prevent the unreasonable and frivolous litigation that has caused many doctors to waste resources on ``defensive medicine.'' According to the Congressional Research Service, many analysts have observed that physicians' fears of malpractice suits have caused them to perform additional or unnecessary tests and procedures that serve to drive the cost of health insurance to unaffordable levels for many Americans. Malpractice insurance premiums for physicians total over $6 billion annually, and the rate of malpractice cases has doubled over the past ten years. The Act prevents plaintiffs from recovering 100 percent of damages from one party when multiple parties are at fault and sets a $250,000 cap on noneconomic (pain and suffering) damages. In addition, the Medical malpractice Rx Act allows juries to hear evidence of multiple recoveries paid to plaintiffs. The Medical Malpractice Rx Act allows trial lawyers a maximum of five years from the date of injury to bring a medical malpractice suit, replacing the often vague current law which permits lawsuits 7-10 years from the date of injury. Finally, the Act requires the losing party to pay attorney's fees. It is estimated that the Medical Malpractice Rx Act could save the Medicare program $1.5 billion over 10 years and billions more could be saved on private health premiums. These savings will translate into savings for all Americans. We must act to ensure Americans have access to affordable health insurance and prevent the cost of insurance from reaching even more exorbitant levels. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman. I strongly support two provisions in H.R. 1000, the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century-- requiring Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs) on aircraft and conducting a study on helicopter noise--to increase the safety of air travel and decrease helicopter noise pollution. My support for ELTs stems from a tragedy involving two Connecticut residents. On December 24, 1996 a Learjet with Pilot Johan Schwartz, 31, of Westport, Connecticut and Patrick Hayes, 30, of Clinton, Connecticut lost contact with the control tower at the Lebanon, New Hampshire Airport. Despite efforts by the federal government, New Hampshire state and local authorities, and Connecticut authorities, a number of extremely well organized ground searches failed to locate the two gentlemen or the airplane. Their airplane did not have an ELT, a device which could have made a difference in saving the lives of these two men and sparing their families the grief of not finding the plane. ELTs play a vital role in search efforts, where timing is so critical in any rescue mission. Section 510 of H.R. 1000 requires ELTs on fixed-wing aircraft by January 1, 2002. This provision provides limited exemptions, including planes used for agricultural purposes, manufacturing or testing, and air exhibition events. I am hopeful this provision will do much to increase the safety of air travel and no family will have to go through what the Schwartz and Hayes families underwent in the search for their loved ones. I also support the helicopter noise study contained in the manager's amendment to H.R. 1000. This provision directs the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a one-year study on the effects of nonmilitary helicopter noise on individuals and develop recommendations for noise reduction. The Secretary is required to consider the views of representatives from organizations with an interest in helicopter noise reduction and the helicopter industry. I have been working for many years with officials at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and local residents, to control noise from helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. I understand frustration with aircraft noise. It is loud and disruptive. Noise pollution can be overwhelming, and diminishes quality of life. Exposure to excessive noise can lead to psychological and physiological damage, including hypertension, cardiovasular problems, and sleeping disorders. To combat noise pollution from helicopters it is imperative we understand how it is affecting individuals and how best to reduce it. That is why I support this one-year study to examine this problem. I thank Transportation Chairman Bud Shuster and Aviation Subcommittees Chairman John Duncan for their attention to ELTs and helicopter noise--important safety and quality of life provisions--in the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, before using my time, I want to just point out there are many cosponsors, and I would like to yield half of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) to give out as he chooses. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), and the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers) are also cosponsors. Mr. Chairman, I yield half of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, to explain the amendment, first, this is a bipartisan amendment that is offered by Members from both the Republican and the Democrat side of the aisle and spans the ideological spectrum from liberal to moderate to most conservative member. It calls for a gradual decrease in the level of permanent stationed troops in Europe from 100,000 to 25,000, beginning with a troop reduction of 15,000 by September 30 next year, and then 30,000 troops the year after, September 2001, and 30,000 the year 2002, bringing us to a total of 25,000. This amendment does not pull the rug out from under the Europeans, it does not reduce the overall U.S. troop levels, and it does not affect operations such as the operations in Bosnia or Kosovo. It simply says that we will have 25,000 troops instead of 100,000 and ask for our allies to pay more. In the past, we have had burdensharing amendments. And we have had burdensharing amendments because the Japanese pay $3.4 billion for the 40,000 troops that we have in Japan. The Europeans now pay for 100,000, less than $70 million, a gigantic difference, and yet those European nations are quite wealthy. The spending on military is a percent of our budget; we spend 17.4 percent. The European NATO nations spend 5.6 percent, and it is interesting to note that the leaders of the 15 European countries decided last Thursday to make the European unit a military power for the first time in its 42-year history with command headquarters staff and force for its own peacekeeping and peacekeeping missions in future crisis like those in Kosovo and Bosnia. We are asking the Europeans to step up and pay more and do more, and we are asking that we be able to allocate our troops in a more efficient way and not spend so much of our money in Europe. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to just point out our amendment contains a conforming repeal of section 1002 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1995. There at C(1) it says the end strength level of members of the Armed Forces of the United States assigned to permanent duty ashore in Europe member nations in NATO may not exceed a permanent ceiling of approximately 100,000 in any fiscal year. The number exists and we are amending that. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to continue where the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) ended and to say that what he did and because of what the Members did supporting him, we now get $3.6 billion in cash from the Japanese. When we started these burdensharing amendments a few years ago, the Europeans were paying $300 million for over 100,000 troops. Now, they dropped down to $200 million, and now the latest number is $66 million. They are getting the message from us. We are fools. Yes, we are fools. They are just going to keep asking us to pay more. I am sure our troops in Europe are there for our convenience and because we want them there, but they are there because the law says that we have to be up to 100,000. We want to move it to up to 25,000 over 3 years. We want the European nations, which are as wealthy as we are, to defend themselves. We do not need 100,000 troops to defend from a Soviet attack. It is just not there. This has to someday be added, and the sooner we do it, the better. Our military is not as strong as it should be because we are oversubscribed in weapons systems. Our military is not as strong as it should be because our allies are not paying their fair share. Our military is not as strong as it should be because we have too many bases at home and abroad. We had better cut them in order to survive as the nation of power.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the rule, but just want to express tremendous reservation that this House that passed the congressional accountability bill to get Congress under all the laws we impose on the rest of the Nation would not shield the requirement that the House have mandatory recycling. I think it is a terrible mistake that this House, this Congress, is not setting the example for the rest of the country; and I hope that we resolve this issue quickly, given it will probably be declared out of order in the bill itself.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. I just want to say from the outset that I have serious reservations about this rule, and I have serious reservations about our military. I believe our military is in trouble and needs significant help and assistance from this Congress. Our military is not as strong as it should be because, in my judgment, we have too many bases at home and abroad. Our military is not as strong as it should be because we are oversubscribed in weapons systems. Our military is not as strong as it should be because we have not asked our allies to pay their fair share of the nonsalary costs of stationing our troops overseas. We have asked the Japanese to pay their fair share. They pay over 75 percent of the nonsalary costs. The Japanese give us more than $3 billion in actual cash payment for the 40,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan. The Europeans have more than 100,000 of our troops on their soil and they give us a grand total of $200 million. We offered an amendment, five Republicans and four Democrats, to initiate a U.S. troop reduction in Europe from 100,000 to 25,000 over 3 years. We thought this was a sensible proposal. We thought it should have been debated. I just want to express again my reservation that this amendment was not made in order. Europeans have the ability to do more for the defense of their part of this world. They have the ability to pay more, but if we do not ask them to, they will not do so. They will be more than grateful to get this welfare from these United States.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I would like to say that I have tremendous respect for the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) who just spoke. I would like to think that later she will regret some of the intensity that she feels, because this is the first day of a debate on the agriculture appropriations bill. We have a right, even in the majority, to amend majority bills, just as the minority has a right to offer amendments to these bills. That is what we are doing, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) in my judgment, is showing a lot of courage and integrity. I was sitting in my office and I was thinking, he is speaking the truth. We all need to have this dialogue, and if Members disagree with it, they disagree with it. The fact is, when we set the 302(b) allocations, we decided to give more to agriculture; we decided to give a lot more to defense; and, obviously, we decided to give less to Labor and Health and Human Services. These departments are going to receive a $10.7 billion cut. We also decided to give less to HUD. That department is also going to receive a significant cut. What we are saying is that when we increase agriculture spending, the only way we can do this is by cutting other departments. And we do not want that. What I am saying is that I will vote for appropriations bills that do not increase spending and that stay within the caps. I understand that the chairman can say we are staying within the cap, because we could triple the agriculture budget. It is the first budget, and we could spend all the 302(b) allocation on agriculture and still not be above the cap. But we have to recognize that this budget is going to affect all the other budgets that follow. That is why I am on the floor to say I will vote against this budget, not because I dislike farmers, but because I do not like the bureaucracy in the Agriculture Department. I have a hard time understanding why we need over 95,000 employees in the Agriculture Department and less than 10,000 in HUD. I have a hard time understanding why we have over 85,000 contract employees working in the Agriculture Department. I do not think they help farmers as much as some of the other things we do. We have a gigantic department that, in my judgment, makes HUD look efficient. As a Member of Congress, I think I have a right to come here, speak on the amendment that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has offered, and vote for it with pride. I would gladly take credit for the balanced budget agreement, but I cannot take credit because a lot of people share in that credit. That agreement is one of the reasons why I think our country is doing as well as it is today. Our challenge is we have a gigantic surplus, and we simply do not know how to deal with the surplus, so we want to spend it and make government bigger and bigger and bigger. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I support efforts to explore space and believe the benefits to high technology research and to the private sector are vast. But I have grave concerns about our space station program. Mr. Speaker, we are facing a time of tight budget caps, which I support. But these caps force us to make some tough spending choices. By making a decision now to cancel the space station, we can fund other priority areas within our discretionary budget. In 1993, the Space Station was projected to cost about $17.7 billion. The estimate has risen to exceed more than $26 billion. The price of this program continues to rise, while the target completion date gets pushed later and later. The fact is, the space station is stripping scarce funds from other valuable NASA programs. I am excited about our recent successes in exploring Mars through the Pathfinder and its rover, Sojourner. It seems to me, we get much more value for our dollar through ventures such as this one, than we do from the space station, given its excessive price tag.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I voted for both supplemental appropriation bills. I voted for the bill to assist Hurricane Mitch victims because this House made a good faith effort to offset the spending costs. I voted for the defense spending package because there is a war in Kosovo and we need to pay for it. But this Conference Report reflects the old, tired ways I thought we had put to an end when the Republican majority was elected in 1994. Mr. Speaker, last week, 381 Members voted for the Upton Motion to Instruct Conferees to pass a clean emergency spending resolution. When I spoke on the floor during debate, I said that if we are sent a conference report that does not abide by what we were saying there, that we vote against it and defeat it. Today, the consistent vote for those 381 Members is for the Motion to Recommit this Conference Report because it clearly does not abide by what we said. In fact, it includes three egregious anti-environmental riders. None of which was included in the House-passed legislation, and one of which was not in either the House or the Senate bill. The most harmful rider allows the Crown Jewel mine in Washington State to proceed with a mining proposal despite the rejection for a permit by the Department of the Interior. This rider would allow the Crown Jewel mine to blast off the top of Buckhorn mountain to extract only a pickup truck worth of gold. Another one prevents the Bureau of Land Management from issuing its final hardrock mining regulations until well in 2000. Thus tacitly sidelining environmental protections for more than a year, giving companies carte blanche mining privileges on public land. And the last one also delays environmental protection regulations designed to close the loophole allowing big oil companies to continuing evading their responsibilities in paying off their share of off-shore oil drilling. Oil companies have been undervaluing oil royalties for years, and this rider bars the Mineral Management Service from promulgating regulations prohibiting this practice. I urge the rank and file members of this House to stand up and oppose this conference report.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I also thank him for offering this motion. I also thank my colleague on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) for his support of this motion. It is unusual but extraordinarily satisfying to be part of a bipartisan House effort that involves not just Democrats and Republicans, but liberal, moderate, and conservative Members, who I am glad to say are repulsed by what they are seeing take place in a conference that is spending money that we have not in any way authorized in either bill that has passed in the House or the Senate. This is a bipartisan resolution that should be a matter of law and House rules: that no authorization or appropriation can become part of a conference report that is not part of either the House or Senate bill that caused the conference report. It boggles my mind that we are inventing things that neither passed the House nor the Senate and tying them into two bills that are absolutely essential, the Hurricane Mitch supplemental and the Kosovo supplemental. So, again, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I thank particularly the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for coming forward with this resolution. And I hope that it not only passes unanimously, but that if we are sent a conference report that does not abide by what we are saying here, that we vote against it and defeat it.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 775, the Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act. This bill is a balanced approach to prevent a slew of frivolous lawsuits from being visited upon businesses who made a good faith effort to fix their Y2K problems, while at the same time holding truly negligent businesses responsible for not correcting theirs. The extent of the Y2K problem won't be known until January 1, 2000. But there's one thing we can already be certain of: lawyers are lining up to sue everyone whose operations are even slightly hampered by the computer bug. Today, companies in my district, and all over this country, are working overtime to fix their Y2K problems. Let's face it: they're doing so because it is in their economic self-interest. No company wants to lose business because of an inability to fix a computer bug. And no company wants computer systems that cannot operate in the next millennium. But even while companies take proper steps to fix their computer glitches, problems may still arise, and that is why this legislation is necessary. H.R. 775 takes a number of common sense steps to reduce the number of law suits that stem from computer problems. The bill limits punitive damages to the higher of $250,000 or three times the amount awarded for compensatory damages, in addition to allowing for the recovery of 100 percent of economic damages. The bill also mandates a 90-day waiting period before potential plaintiffs may file a Y2K claim to allow businesses time to correct the problem, makes defendants liable only for the proportion of the judgment for which they are at fault, and creates a ``loser-pays'' mechanism when a plaintiff rejects a settlement offer higher than the amount eventually awarded by the court. Today's economy is growing rapidly. But we mustn't lose sight that the quality of life of all Americans would be negatively affected if we allow the Year 2000 bug to impose excessive financial costs on American businesses. On May 6, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan stated that our nation's ``phenomenal'' economic performance can be credited in large part to leaps in technology, which have made our economy more efficient. The lawsuits that would result if we don't pass this bill will substantially hamper our nation's economic progress. Fear of litigation and its excessive costs will prevent U.S. companies from realizing their economic potential, and that means less jobs for all Americans. H.R. 775 is vital to American businesses, which pay taxes and create jobs. It will allow them to use their resources to fix their Y2K problems--not fend off frivolous law suits. We need solutions--not lawsuits. We need to pass this bill.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, we have a world crisis and an acute national emergency. I support this $12.9 billion spending package. I have opposed past defense spending bills because we have failed, in my judgment, to take four difficult but necessary steps to realize savings and modernize our military. We failed to: cancel procurement of expensive, unnecessary weapon systems; close unnecessary military bases and depots at home and abroad; and require our allies, particularly Europeans, to pay their fair share of stationing U.S. troops in their countries. And we are still funding a military designed to fight the Cold War, but the Cold War has ended. The world today is different, and it is a more dangerous place. The war in Kosovo costs money, and lots of money. As a fiscal conservative during my 11 years in Congress with consistently high marks from the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, and other fiscal watch dog organizations, I am on the floor to say we need to appropriate this money. The fact is that we have already spent it. Over the past 40 years, the United States has deployed troops around the world 41 times, but 33 of these 41 missions have come in just the past 8 years. We need to realize the tremendous costs we accrue when we deploy our military to troubled spots all over the world. These missions cost money and resources which we have taken from other parts of the defense budget. Today, our military has a number of acute needs that must be addressed. We need to do a better job attracting new enlistees and maintaining the necessary level of reenlistment. Our soldiers, sailors, pilots and Marines are overworked and underpaid. Our training has suffered. We do not have the necessary munitions for potential new encounters. And we are cannibalizing existing planes, tanks, and other equipment for their parts in order to make other equipment operational. Mr. Chairman, many of us have not supported the President's decision to use military force in Yugoslavia and did not vote for last week's resolution endorsing air strikes. But the fact is, there is a war in Kosovo and we need to pay for it.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Pete Hoekstra).