Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of the 60 years of service performed by the Murray, Kentucky Lions Club located in the First Congressional District of Kentucky. The Murray Lions Club was founded on September 14, 1939. On September 28, 1999 the Lions will celebrate their 60th Anniversary with a reception and banquet at Murray State University. The program will highlight the Club's six decades of service to the citizens of Murray and Calloway County, including but not limited to providing thousands of eye glasses to children, diabetic supplies, scholarships at Murray State University, and medical equipment to the Murray-Calloway County Hospital Blood Blank. Mr. Speaker, the Lions also will celebrate the charter night for the Murray State University Lions Club. This new organization sponsored by the Murray Lions Club will compliment the rich history and deep tradition of service to community above self by recruiting university faculty, staff and students as Lions Club members dedicated to the service of others. Mr. Speaker, the concept of people helping people has been one of the distinguishing characteristics of the American experience and of our nation's greatness. It is with appreciation and admiration that I submit this statement in recognition of 60 years of service to community performed by the Murray Lions Club.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of the efforts of the 4,279 women of the Kentucky Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution. The Kentucky organization was founded 104 years ago to serve as an instrument of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution and to further the DAR's dedication to the promotion of education among our nation's citizens, preservation of our historical treasures, and encouragement and recognition of patriotic endeavors among citizens of the United States. Mr. Speaker, the State Board of Management of the Kentucky Society will meet in my hometown of Hopkinsville, Kentucky on Saturday September 18, 1999. This meeting will honor in remembrance the life and the Bicentennial of the death of our nation's Founding Father and First President, George Washington. The Kentucky Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution provides innumerable patriotic services, including but not limited to caring for our veterans; providing citizenship manuals to prospective U.S. citizens; the creation of a DAR-supported school in Hindman, Kentucky to teach Dyslexic students to read and write; and the recognition of students in our Commonwealth's schools who have demonstrated good citizenship and service to country. Mr. Speaker, Constitution Week, September 13-17 marks the Two Hundred Twelfth Anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. The National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution and the Kentucky Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution promote vigilance among all U.S. citizens to understand and protect the freedoms guaranteed to them by the Constitution. They deserve our respect and our gratitude for their efforts and I offer this statement in recognition of their superb and continuing patriotism.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment, as modified, be considered as read and printed in the Record.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to point out there are 16 States that do not have any limits on the amount of money that can be given to candidates. The American people seem to be more concerned about the soft money issue than they do the hard money issue. The money that I am talking about today increasing from $1,000 to $3,000 is hard money. Anybody can go get an FEC report. They can read who gives us the money, the dates they give the money, their occupation, their address. All of that information is available. I would just say that the American people have a right to know the issues in these political campaigns. We have more money spent on America today advertising pizza, Coca-Cola, and toothpaste than we do issues in political campaigns. So I would urge everyone to vote for this amendment, because I do think that it will be a small step in removing the incumbent protection that the Shays-Meehan bill provides.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to make a technical correction to the amendment.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for their commitment to their cause on this important issue. They have worked hard on this bill last year, as well as this year. I would like to make it clear as I discuss this amendment that I do oppose the bill, but this amendment I do honestly believe will improve the bill. I would like to say briefly why I oppose this bill. I oppose it primarily because it changes the definition of ``express advocacy''. The Supreme Court has made it very clear repeatedly that there is a bright line test. If an ad does not expressly advocate the defeat of the election of a candidate, it is not express advocacy. They change it to say that any ad run within 60 days of an election is express advocacy, by definition. Now, when I ran in 1998, labor unions came into my district and they spent about $600,000 or $700,000 running issue advocacy ads about my voting record. They did not expressly advocate my defeat or my election, but it was clear that they did not support my position. I did not like that, and it was done within 60 days of the election, but I do believe that they have the right to do that. That is what this debate really is all about. That is their first amendment right. The courts who have considered this amendment on 18 separate occasions have ruled that they do have that right every single time. Just yesterday in my hometown paper of Paducah, a group ran an ad about my position on campaign finance reform. Had they run that ad 60 days, within 60 days of an election, they would not have had the right to do it under Shays-Meehan unless they met all of the hard money requirements and went to the FEC and so forth. That is why the courts have said you cannot create these kinds of obstructions to participating in political speech. That is the reason I primarily object to this legislation. I am convinced that if it goes to the courts, that it will be overruled. The amendment that I offer today is simply this. It increases from $1,000 to $3,000 the amount of money that an individual can contribute to a candidate under the hard money requirements. We could make an argument that this legislation, instead of being campaign finance reform, is really incumbent protection, because it reduces the rights of other people to speak but not candidates themselves. All of us know that as an incumbent, we can better obtain political action committee money than our challengers can. There is not anything in this bill, the Shays-Meehan bill, that would affect political action committee money. So this amendment would simply increase from $1,000 to $3,000 the amount that an individual can contribute to a candidate. It has not been changed since 1974. Although I am not excited about helping challengers raise money, my amendment will help them at least be more competitive in raising money. Therefore, I do not really understand how anybody could object to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to give my thanks to the gentleman from Arizona, who is a member of the committee. I rise to oppose this amendment on behalf of farmers of all income levels in Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina and throughout the southeastern United States. This agency, under the leadership of President John McKay, has abused its legislative mandate and has misled the U.S. Congress, as many people have talked about, on its caseload. We could spend a lot of time talking about the caseload, but I want to talk about an aspect of the Legal Services Corporation that continues to create problems, particularly in the Southeast, as well as other parts of the country. Section 504 of the law states that none of the funds appropriated in this act to Legal Services may be used to provide legal services for or on behalf of any alien, unless the alien is present in the United States. Now, that should be clear to anyone, and we want aliens who are working in the U.S. under some agricultural program to have access to the courts. And they do have access to the courts. But when they leave and they go back to Mexico or wherever they may go, the law states that they cannot be bringing lawsuits while they are not present in the U.S. But, despite that, the President of the Legal Services Corporation, John McKay, has said that he will not penalize any Legal Services Corporation if they misinterpret the phrase, ``is present in the United States.'' He wants it to say, ``was present in the United States.'' Mr. McKay goes on to say that he has absolute discretion to determine what laws to enforce and how. Now, the Legal Services Corporation, as a result of that, has ignored the statutory authority that is even in the bill this year. It was there last year and he ignored it, and it was there the year before and he ignored it, and the legal services lawyers from North Carolina were videotaped on an illegal trip to Mexico to recruit clients to sue farmers in North Carolina, in Kentucky, and other States. Paralegals were sent passing out brochures saying that you have these rights that need to be pursued in court. And not only that, but when they find these clients, they send threatening letters to farmers throughout my district in which they are saying, if you will pay $4,763 to one farmer, $14,289 that another farmer receives, $26,000, $65,000, $73,000, if you will pay this money, then we will not proceed in court. Now, a lot of these farmers do not believe that there is any legal basis to file the suit, so they defend themselves in suits filed in Kentucky, in Tennessee, in North Carolina, and in many cases, the local judges grant a summary judgment for the farmer. And then what happens? Well, then the legal aid lawyers go to Texas Federal court and they file lawsuits there. So when the farmers try to get it transferred to a Federal court in Kentucky or North Carolina, then the judges say, no, I am not going to transfer it. So then the farmers have to hire lawyers in Texas, they have to go to Texas for depositions, they have to go to Texas for lawsuits for the case to be tried, and it costs large sums of money, and many of them end up settling and some of them have even gone into bankruptcy because of this abuse. The sad thing about this is, many of the plaintiffs are not present in the U.S., even though the law specifically says, you must be present when the lawsuit is filed. And John McKay has repeatedly ignored that, has repeatedly disavowed that and has said, I will interpret the law the way I want to interpret it. Mr. Chairman, there is something wrong when we have a system that is taking tax dollars from hard-working, law-abiding taxpayers to have suits filed against them in violation of the law that is there. I realize we live in a particularly permissive society, but I hope we have not reached the point where we not only condone a Federal agency misleading Congress about its caseload, but we reward them when we discovered that they provided false testimony, and then we turn our head when we know that the agency is violating Federal law. Now, the President says he is going to veto this, and I would urge him if he does, I want to take him to Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, and he can talk to the farmers about why he is vetoing it.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to the Thomas and Bridges families, who will come together for their 28th reunion in Cadiz, Trigg County, KY, this weekend. Drury Bridges brought his family to Kentucky from North Carolina in 1804. James Thomas, Sr., also a North Carolina, came 2 years later. Both patriarchs had taken part in the struggle for independence during the Revolutionary War, but they had never met until they acquired land grants near each other in a portion of Christian County that in 1820 would become Trigg County. With the passing of time, three of the Bridges children married three of the Thomas children, the beginning of family connections that remain strong today. During the almost 200 years since these two families chose Trigg County as their home, they and their descendants have made invaluable contributions to the cultural, religious, educational, and political life of the count It is my honor to represent these distinguished families in the Congress of the United States and I am proud to introduce them to my colleagues in the House of Representatives and recognize their patriotism and civic leadership.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to the Thomas and Bridges families, who will come together for their 28th reunion in Cadiz, Trig County, Kentucky this August. Drury Bridges brought his family to Kentucky from North Carolina in 1804. James Thomas, Sr., also a North Carolinian, came two years later. Both patriarchs had taken part in the struggle for independence during the Revolutionary War, but they had never met until they acquired land grants near each other in a portion of Christian County that in 1820 would become Trigg County. With the passing of time, three of the Bridges children married three of the Thomas children, the beginning of family connections that remain strong today. During the almost 200 years since these families chose Trigg County as their home, they and their descendants have made invaluable contributions to the cultural, religious, educational and political life of the county. It is my honor to represent these distinguished families in the Congress of the United States and I am proud to introduce them to my colleagues in the House of Representatives and recognize their patriotism and civic leadership.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I would like to commend the gentleman from California for offering this important amendment. As the gentleman has already very clearly stated, this amendment simply says that if someone is within the boundaries of a national wildlife refuge they cannot use steel-jawed traps or neck snares for the purpose of catching animals. Wildlife refuges were created for the express purpose of benefiting and protecting animals, and it seems quite to the contrary that we allow in our national wildlife refuges this type of activity that is so inhumane. As the gentleman stated, we have 517 national wildlife refuges, and already the decision has been made that they would allow steel traps and neck snares in only 71 of those, and 88 countries around the world have already outlawed steel-jawed traps and neck snares. Hunters, with their rifles and their shotguns and with their clever stalking and with their intellect and with their thinking ability, already have an advantage over animals, so why do they need to use these kinds of devices and particularly within a wildlife refuge? They can be used elsewhere. But remembering that the purpose of the refuge was to protect animals, to benefit animals, and now to allow these devices to be used for commercial and recreational purposes seems to be not the right policy. As the gentleman from California aptly stated, we can still use these devices for research, for subsistence, for conservation, or for a facility's protection. But I think it is a great amendment, and I would urge everyone in this body to support this amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to recognize 15 talented and patriotic young scholars from my district who competed in the national finals of the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' competition earlier this month. I am pleased to recognize the class from Ohio County High School in Hartford, Kentucky who represented our Commonwealth in this national competition including teams from every state and the District of Columbia. These outstanding young Kentuckians are: Kyle Autry, Josh Benton, Hollie Bratcher, Jacqueline Bryant, Keara Daughtery, Jarrod Frizzell, Hillary Grant, Ashley Hale, Emily Harris, Erika Hawley, Michelle Jarvis, Nakayah Myers, Meredith Shrewsbury and Alex Taylor. They are coached by John Stofer, a teacher at Ohio County High School. ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' is the nation's most extensive program dedicated to educating young people about our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The three-day national competition simulates a Congressional hearing in which students defend positions on historical and contemporary constitutional issues. This format provides students an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles while providing teachers with an excellent means of assessing performance. This year's competition involved 1,500 schools and provided literature and course-related materials on the history and principles of constitutional democracy in the United States to more than 75,000 teachers and 24 million students. High school competition begins at the congressional district level with teams from each school vying for the district championship. District winners go on to compete at a statewide hearing and state champions travel to Washington, D.C. in the spring to represent their state in the national finals. I am proud of this Ohio County team because this is the first time a school from my district has represented Kentucky in the national event. In a time when public cynicism and apathy are high, it is reassuring to know that this program is instilling a sense of civic duty and understanding in our future leaders.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to congratulate Laurie A. Gomer, the Kentucky winner of the National 1999 Voice of Democracy Broadcast Scriptwriting Contest. Each year the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its Ladies Auxiliary conduct the contest. The theme this year was ``My Service to America.'' Ms. Gomer's winning essay creatively depicts a flight attendant describing different aspect of American patriotism to passengers during a flight into America's future. Ms. Gomer succinctly describes four different citizen forums dealing with education, community activism, participation in elections and the exhibition of national pride. Ms. Gomer is the daughter of Larry and Mary Ann Gomer of Franklin, Kentucky. She is a senior at Franklin-Simpson High School, who has been highly involved within numerous student organizations. This well- rounded young lady will be attending either Center College, Emory University, Vanderbilt University or Georgetown University in the fall with hopes of pursuing a career in Pediatrics. The VFW's Voice of Democracy Program is a National Audio/Essay Competition designed to give high school students the opportunity to voice their opinion on their responsibility to our country. The VFW and its Ladies Auxiliary became involved in assisting the National Association of Broadcasters in the 1950's and took over primary sponsorship in 1961. The National Finals take place in Washington, D.C. when the finals judges listen to the fifty-four tapes representing winners from each of our fifty states, the District of Columbia, Pacific Areas, Latin America/Caribbean and Europe. This year's program involved more than 6,700 schools and 80,000 students participated while over 4,200 VFW Posts and over 3,400 Auxiliaries sponsored the program. The VFW provides fifty-six fully-funded scholarships totaling $132,000. The overall first-place winner receives a $20,000 scholarship and all national finalists receive at least a $1,000 scholarship. The total monetary value of scholarships, bonds, and awards provided by VFW Posts, Auxiliaries, Districts, County Councils, Departments and National amount to over $2.6 million this past year. Ms. Gomer is a recipient of the $1,000 scholarship. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Ms. Gomer for her impressive achievement and wish her the best of luck in the future.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) for taking this important amendment forward. This is not a mandate. It is discretionary with local school boards. There is not any issue in education today that is more controversial than the IDEA program. Every time I go to the district, school teachers, principals, board of education members are complaining about this program and the fact that individual students are treated differently. I think that this amendment will be a vital step in trying to restore some order into our schools. I would like to read a statement from one of the principals. I could bring forth many statements like this, but it simply says that students under the IDEA umbrella cannot be disciplined like other students. Students who have discipline problems in school know their limits and generally push until they have gone beyond the limits. This is where the problem starts. What do schools do with the ever-increasing number of students who have exceeded their disciplinary limits and know that the school can do nothing about it? We can only wait until the school is totally overwhelmed and then the lawmakers will be forced to act. So I support the Norwood amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to the life and legacy of Mr. Oscar Cross of Paducah, Kentucky, whose passing on April 20, 1999 at the age of 92 ended his long and productive investment in great causes, high ideals and humanitarian service. Mr. Cross was not a man of material wealth. Undeterred, he built a legacy of leadership built on the wisdom of one of his favorite adages: ``If you don't have money, you have time.'' He gave unstintingly of his time, his energy and his vision of a better community in which none were left behind. Mr. Cross was a founder of the Paducah Boys & Girls Club that now bears his name. He was a tireless advocate of young people and helped provide a sheltering hand for generations of boys and girls who found protection, love, guidance and inspiration as the result of his efforts. In a front-page account of his funeral service, The Paducah Sun observed, ``On the day that had been declared Oscar Cross Day by the city of Paducah to commemorate his legacy, hundreds of mourners turned out to pay their last respects to one of the city's greatest humanitarians. Nearly 500 people gathered at First Baptist Church Sunday afternoon for the funeral of the legendary humanitarian. Both blacks and whites filled the church to celebrate, not mourn the life and contributions Cross made.'' Dhomynic Lightfoot, president of the Boys and Girls Club, was quoted as saying, ``Having people of different colors, cultures and backgrounds here to celebrate (his life) is a contribution to Mr. Cross. The perceptions that he broke were astronomical.'' In a fitting eulogy, Reverend Raynaldo Henderson, pastor of the Washington Street Missionary Baptist Church, used a parable to illustrate Mr. Cross's faith in young people and in God. ``Whoever gets the Son, gets it All! Do you want peace? Get the Son! Do you want joy? Get the Son! Whoever gets the Son, gets it all!'' he said. Mr. Speaker, in further tribute to his remarkable life, I place before the House of Representatives and the Nation for inclusion in the Congressional Record a poem favored by Mr. Cross and a letter written to me by Mr. Clarence E. Nunn, Sr., executive director of the Boys and Girls Club.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, how long must the bombing of Yugoslavia continue? I have asked that question repeatedly on this floor over the last week, and no one seems to have an answer. Where is the President leading us? Today, the New York Times, which is generally supportive of the President, contained an article written by Michael Gordon entitled, NATO's Battle Within: Is Leadership Missing? In the article, Mr. Gordon wrote that NATO strategy for bringing the war to a successful close is starting to unravel. Without clear direction from Washington, Britain, Germany and Italy have begun to promote publicly their separate and conflicting plans. Britain wants ground troops in Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Germany is opposed to ground troops. Italy wants to stop the bombing. In the article, they quoted the former Director of European Affairs at the National Security Council who was quoted as saying, there is a lack of direction because no one is leading the way. Mr. President, why do you not lead the way and stop the bombing? Mr. President, Italy today has urged NATO to impose a 48-hour bombing pause to pursue a diplomatic settlement. I urge you to stop the bombing. Just last night, NATO launched its strongest air attack in 2 weeks against the Belgrade area. Our bombs hit a hospital and at least three civilians were killed. Furthermore, an operating room was demolished, an intensive care unit was leveled, and rescuers were evacuating women and children from the maternity ward, just last night in Belgrade, because of our bombings. In addition, the Swedish ambassador's residence was damaged when an exploding bomb blew out windows and a door. Mr. President, your policy is not working. Not only are we losing the support of our allies but bombing has exacerbated the refugee problem among the Kosovar Albanians and now, because of the bombings, the Serbian people themselves. From a policy point, it is difficult to imagine how the situation could be much worse. Our bombs have killed innocent people, destroyed hospitals, leveled the embassy of China, damaged the infrastructure, and now even damaged the residence of the Swedish ambassador to Yugoslavia. The incessant bombing has transformed what was a Balkan crisis into a worldwide crisis. In fact, the New York Times Sunday reported how demonstrations are erupting all over the world against the bombing. So I would say to the President, what do you want? The Yugoslavian government is beginning to remove forces from Kosovo. They have expressed a willingness to negotiate. How many more bombs must be dropped? How many more deaths must occur before you stop this failed policy and give diplomacy an opportunity to work?

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, how long must the bombings in Yugoslavia continue? NATO has been bombing now for over 54 days. For what purpose? Why? The President, Vice President, and Secretary of State's stated policy was to stop the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Albanians. They said they must act to forestall a new round of ethnic cleansing by Mr. Milosevic. That was the reason the bombings started. But the policy has failed. The bombings have not worked. Today there are nearly 800,000 refugees in Macedonia, another 500,000 internally displaced within Kosovo, thousands have been murdered, Macedonia has been destabilized, and our foreign relations with Russia and China are severely strained. Furthermore, in today's Washington Post it was written that in Latin America, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and other regions with little direct interest in the conflict, opposition to the bombings is surfacing in statements by elected officials, in newspaper editorials of the opinion polls, and by public protest. From a policy point, it is difficult to imagine how the situation could be much worse than it is today. Clinton administration spokesmen and women have criticized Milosevic forces for killing innocent civilians, and rightfully so, because Serb forces have killed innocent civilians. However, our bombings have killed and may be killing innocent civilians in Yugoslavia today. Mr. Milosevic's forces have destroyed much of the infrastructure in Kosovo. That is true. However, our bombings are destroying the infrastructure in Yugoslavia today. So today we have death, refugees, displaced persons, pain and suffering among the Kosovo Albanians, but we also have death, refugees, displaced persons, and pain and suffering among the Serbs of Yugoslavia today. As Mr. Michael Dobbs wrote in Sunday's Washington Post, this administration's oversimplistic comparison between Kosovo and Bosnia and Mr. Milosevic and Hitler has helped transform what would otherwise have been a Balkan crisis into a global crisis, the ramifications of which are being felt not only in Yugoslavia, not only in Kosovo, but throughout the entire world. I would say to the President, what does he want? The Yugoslav Government said today it is open to peace proposals by the G-8 foreign ministers for ending the crisis over Kosovo. How many more bombs must be dropped and how many more deaths must be brought before we admit this policy has not worked? I would say to the President, stop the bombings, give negotiations an opportunity to work. How long must the bombings in Yugoslavia continue?

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, how long must the bombing of Yugoslavia continue? Fifty-four days of continuous bombing in Yugoslavia. For what purpose? The President, Vice President and Secretary Albright adopted a policy saying that we must stop the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Albanians. They said that they must act to forestall a new round of ethnic cleansing by Mr. Milosevic, and that was the reason the bombing started. The bombings have not worked. Today, there are nearly 800,000 refugees in Macedonia, another 500,000 internally displaced within Kosovo. Thousands have been murdered. Macedonia has been destabilized, and our foreign relations with Russia and China severely strained. It is difficult to imagine how the situation could be much worse than what it is today. This administration, as part of its policy, and rightfully so, criticizes Milosevic for killing innocent civilians, and he has killed innocent civilians. However, our bombings are killing innocent civilians in Yugoslavia today. Mr. Milosevic has destroyed the infrastructure of Kosovo, and that is a valid criticism. Our bombings are destroying the infrastructure in Yugoslavia today. As Mr. Michael Dobbs wrote in yesterday's Washington Post, this administration's oversimplistic comparison between Kosovo and Bosnia or Milosevic and Hitler has helped transform what would otherwise have been a Balkan crisis into a global crisis, the ramifications of which are being felt not only in America, not only in Yugoslavia but also in Moscow and in Beijing. NATO's senior military officer, General Klaus Naumann said this weekend, we are nibbling away night by night and day by day at Milosevic's military capabilities. Paul Watson of the Los Angeles Times reported from Yugoslavia on some of NATO's nibblings. Bomblets from cluster bombs have been aimed in the middle of the night at military forces and a park and playground in the village of Stare Garko. At least three of the unexploded bomblets lay in the playground, where three empty bunkers suggested that soldiers may have been based. There were no signs of damage to any military vehicles. Instead, four-year-old Dragan Dimic was dead, along with his neighbors Bosko Jankovic and Mr. Jankovic's wife Jenverosima. Their bodies lay smeared with dried blood where they fell at the edge of their small front patio. Mr. President, stop the bombings. Give negotiations an opportunity to work. Are we willing to continue bombing whatever the cost in human life, in pain and in suffering until Mr. Milosevic removes all of his forces from Kosovo? There must be some other way. Bombing is not the answer. How long must the bombing in Yugoslavia continue?

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, how long must the bombings of Yugoslavia continue? NATO has dropped over 15,000 bombs on the country of Yugoslavia and is causing the same pain and suffering as caused by Mr. Milosovic. Hundreds of innocent civilians, men, women, and children have been killed. The infrastructure of the country is being destroyed. People are losing jobs, homes, and educational opportunities. In order to strengthen the chance for a diplomatic peace, the bombings of Yugoslavia should be halted.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday, May 17, 1999, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 18, 1999, for morning hour debates.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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