[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 42 (Monday, April 18, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: April 18, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2333, STATE DEPARTMENT, USIA, AND
RELATED AGENCIES AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 1994 AND 1995
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2333) to authorize appropriations for
the Department of State, the U.S. Information Agency, and related
agencies, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto,
disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by
the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
motion to instruct offered by mr. gilman
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Gilman moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2333 be instructed
to insist upon the provision contained in section 132(f) of
the House bill relating to the continuation of the Office of
the Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the Department of
State.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Hamilton] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
My motion to instruct is very simple. It is my intent to have the
conferees instructed to insist on language in the House bill that
requires the State Department to retain the independent Office of the
Coordinator for Counterterrorism.
The language prevents the implementation of a proposed State
Department reorganization plan that would downgrade the Office of
Coordinator for Counterterrorism to the level of a Deputy Assistance
Secretary of State.
The Senate's language will permit this reorganization and thus the
elimination of this important office.
My bipartisan amendment to H.R. 2333, agreed to by the House last
June, creates a permanent statutory office maintaining this
counterterrorism function at the highly visible equivalency level of
Assistant Secretary of State.
I was especially pleased that my good friend and colleague from New
York, Mr. Nadler, who represents lower Manhattan, where the Trade
Center terrorist bombing occurred, joined in supporting the amendment
that passed the House last June.
Under the proposed reorganization plan, the current Office of the
Coordinator for Counterterrorism will be eliminated unless we act.
Unless this language is retained by the conference, the
counterterrorism function will be delegated down to that of a midlevel
Deputy Assistant Secretary. It will be part of a new multiple function
office whose responsibilities also will include narcotics and
international crime.
The international narcotics function alone, as we know, could easily
consume the entire time, focus and attention of the Assistant Secretary
of the proposed new multifunction bureau.
Since early last year, the United States has seen an increased level
of international terrorism directed at American political leaders,
citizens, their property, and their very safety.
For example, the New York World Trade Center bombing took the lives
of 6 Americans, including a constituent of mine, injured 1,000 people
and cost over $600 million in property damage and business disruption.
We have seen reports of the terrorist plot against commuter tunnels,
other Government facilities, and political leaders in New York.
Given these incidents here in the United States, the rise of new,
loosely knit terrorist groups, and other forces promoting terrorism
around the globe, this is not the time for America to lower its guard
against the horrors and threats of international terrorism.
We must make international terrorism a national priority in our
foreign policy plans, and structure as well.
The State Department proposal to diminish the counterterrorism
function sends the wrong signal at the wrong time, both to our friends
and foes alike, the world over.
Former career Ambassador at Large for Counterterrorism Paul Bremer,
an expert in this area, said it best when he told Congress:
* * * I am disappointed, indeed, dismayed by the
administration's decision to downgrade the bureaucratic level
of the State Department's office for combatting terrorism.
Further, he said, and I quote:
This will not only make interagency coordination more
difficult and problematic in our Government, but will make us
much less effective when we go to our allies or to State
sponsors and ask them for help. In my experience, other
governments are not often persuaded by importuning deputy
assistant secretaries.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct
our House conferees. The Nation and the victims of the Trade Center
bombing would expect nothing less from their elected representatives
here in the Congress than the maintenance of this critical office in
the battle against international terrorism.
Let us today go firmly on the record in favor of continuing the high
priority the United States places on combating international terrorism.
{time} 1650
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the gentleman from New York that
it is not my intention to oppose his motion. I want to commend him for
the work that he has done in the whole field of counterterrorism. He
has made that quite a specialty, and he has made constructive
suggestions to our policy on counterterrorism over a period of several
years.
I think he knows the Department of State does oppose his amendment,
so what I will say to him this evening is simply that we will not
oppose his motion to instruct. He understands the administration
opposes the content of his motion to instruct, and I will try to work
with him and the administration and the Department of State in the
conference to work out an acceptable solution for both parties.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HAMILTON. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, our
distinguished chairman.
I certainly look forward to working with him in the conference to see
if we can arrive at a practical solution to this problem.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], the distinguished chairman of
the Subcommittee on International Operations.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, as the chairman, the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Hamilton], indicated, I do not rise to oppose this amendment and
will not seek a rollcall vote on this amendment.
I think it is fair though to elaborate on this administration's
feelings about how this office should be organized.
The gentleman from Indiana, the chairman of the full committee, made
reference to the work that the gentleman from New York, the sponsor of
this motion, had done in the area of counterterrorism. I am happy to
have worked with him on a number of these causes. I would be terribly
concerned if I thought that this administration, through its
organizational changes, was in any way eroding its commitment to do
what it can at diplomatic levels, at technological levels, and at all
levels against terrorism. I would join him enthusiastically in a
second.
I do not think that is the case. The administration's plan is
designed to revitalize the counterterrorism office to make it more
active, to make it less reactive. The coordinator for counterterrorism
will be an Assistant Secretary of State, not a Deputy Assistant
Secretary. He will be in the mainstream chain of command within the
State Department, not an adjunct office lost in a big bureaucracy.
The coordinator will be the official in the Department responsible
for counterterrorism.
Under the amendment of the junior Senator from New York, which is in
the Senate's version of this bill and which the administration does not
oppose, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism, who will
have a day-to-day responsibility for counterrorism, would have the rank
of ambassador subject to Senate confirmation. The new bureau will
combine all of the State Department's counterrorism capabilities into a
single bureau. In a crisis or emergency, there will be wider resources
to draw upon to support counterterrorism efforts.
That, by the way, Assistant Secretary, the person who will take over
the responsibility for coordinator, who will have a Deputy Assistant
Secretary whose full responsibility will be in counterrorism, will be
reporting to the Under Secretary that is being created by the
administration's reorganization, our former colleague from Colorado,
Mr. Wirth, who under the processes now existing in the State Department
on a regular basis meets with the Secretary, avoiding the problem that
we saw too many times in the past where the issue of counterterrorism
is shunted off to the side, and the inputs from that office do not come
into play in the geographic bureaus and, therefore, are not given
sufficient credence in policy determinations.
Counterterrorism under the reorganization plan of the administration
will remain a separate function within the reorganized Bureau of
Narcotics, Terrorism, and Crime. It will not be folded into
counternarcotics operations. However, given the close ties between drug
trafficking and terrorism around the world, it makes sense to bring the
resources of the Department on these important issues into one bureau.
Moreover, the new bureau will mirror the organization of some of our
key allies who are focusing on terrorism, narcotics, and crime.
Furthermore, Ambassador Robert Gelbard, who was recently confirmed to
be Assistant Secretary for International Narcotics Matters, would
become, under the reorganization plan, the Assistant Secretary for
Narcotics, Terrorism, and Crime and the coordinator for
counterterrorism. Ambassador Gelbard has both a professional and a
personal interest in counterterrorism, professionally as a
distinguished career diplomat with 27 years in the Foreign Service, and
long experience in counterterrorism and narcotics issues. He is an
expert in this field. He will bring enormous experience and energy to
combating terrorism around the world.
It has been alleged and asserted by our former Ambassador at Large
for Counterterrorism, Paul Bremer, that the administration has somehow
by this reorganization gutted the current Office of Counterterrorism by
cutting 40 percent of the staff. This claim is simply not true.
According to the State Department, the number of personnel in the
Office of Counterterrorism at the working level is the same as it
always has been and will remain that way under the reorganization plan.
Mr. Speaker, I think in the end the best argument I can make as to
why we should not build too much hopes on how we particularly decide to
reorganize this office within the executive branch is to recall that at
the time when the Assistant Secretary ambassadorial rank Office of
Counterterrorism existed in earlier years during the 1980's, there was
a complete failure of that bureau to be able to impact on the policies
of the geographic bureau, so you saw, for instance, the Bureau of Near
East Affairs, and the gentleman from New York pointed out this problem
many times during that time, the Bureau of Near East Affairs,
notwithstanding Iraq and Saddam Hussein's continuous support for
terrorism, having tremendous influence on the Secretary of State and on
the whole executive branch in urging that Iraq be taken off the list of
countries supporting terrorism, and resisting all efforts to put Iraq
back on that list and not effectively denying Iraq the kind of
materials and exports that a country on the terrorism list would
otherwise have been eligible for even though we had a freestanding
office headed by an Assistant Secretary, a distinguished ambassador; he
could not infiltrate, he could not make his voice heard. He knew. He
briefed us on the problems in Iraq, but he could not get his own Bureau
of Near East Affairs to do anything about it.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BERMAN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. GILMAN. Just on that point with regard to Iraq being allowed to
be taken off the terrorist list, I have been informed that removal was
in 1982 before the office was created in 1985. So it was before there
was an independent office.
Mr. BERMAN. The gentleman is correct. Iraq was taken off the list of
countries supporting terrorism in 1982. The gentleman may remember the
bill he cosponsored that I introduced to place Iraq back on the list of
countries supporting terrorism. The gentleman, I know, had many of the
same briefings I had from that terrorism office in 1985 and afterwards
about the work of Abu Nidal, who had been based in Baghdad, about the
fact that the Achille Lauro hijacking, that the individual who
perpetrated that terrorism act was given safe haven in Baghdad, about
the support of Ibu Abrahim, the suitcase bomber in Baghdad during that
time. That terrorism office was telling us these problems with Iraq,
and notwithstanding that, the Secretary of State and the administration
were opposing our mutual efforts to put Iraq back on the list of
countries supporting terrorism.
{time} 1700
My point is it does not matter how you organize it; it is how much
weight you give to it and how you organize so that policies that focus
on counterterrorism can permeate the Department.
I would suggest that the structure that this administration has
proposed, which would have the Undersecretary who meets with the
Secretary on a daily basis, on a regular basis, bringing the concerns
of the terrorism unit to the Secretary of State, can have more impact
in the fight on terrorism than we did the old way, where you had a
freestanding official who was floating around without the kind of
access that allowed him to do that.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, is it not true that under the existing
structure, the Office of Counterterrorism is a separate entity; is that
not true?
Mr. BERMAN. It is.
Mr. GILMAN. It is not folded into any other organization. And the
present person who coordinates that office is known as a coordinator
with Assistant Secretary responsibilities.
Mr. BERMAN. That is right.
Mr. GILMAN. And what we are doing now under the reorganization plan
is taking that coordinator in a separate office with ambassadorial
title and Assistant Secretary status and folding him in with an office
where we have crime responsibilities and narcotics responsibilities; is
that accurate?
Mr. BERMAN. It is correct. The coordinator for counterterrorism will
also have responsibilities, overall responsibilities, for narcotics and
for crime.
Mr. GILMAN. That is why I am concerned that this is hardly the time
to essentially downgrade our Government's attention to terrorism. There
is no efficiency and no symbiosis to be gained for either policy by
lumping these two disparate functions together.
And finally, the administration's proposal, I think, is a blueprint
for bureaucratic incompetence. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Counterterrorism will not have the bureaucratic muscle to pursue
aggressive counterterrorism policies, at home or abroad. And so it will
not be able to get its work done.
Since 1986, the agency, in developing and implementing our
Government's counterterrorism policy, has been a separate entity. This
it can do only when the Department's Office on Counterterrorism has
sufficient bureaucratic clout within the Department of State and with
other agencies.
It is for that reason that I have this letter before me signed by
Ambassador Paul Bremer III, former Ambassador-at-Large for
Counterterrorism; Peter C.W. Flory, former Associate Coordinator for
Counterterrorism in the State Department; John P. Walters, former
Deputy Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy; and William J.
Olson, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Narcotics
Matters, Department of State--all saying that their concern is not
partisan. In fact, the reorganization plan, they state, was first
prepared in the previous administration; rather, they are united in
their professional concern that the Department of State not make a
mistake certain to be costly to American security and Americans lives
in the years to come.
Don't Gut Our Counter-Terrorism Capability
Dear Senator: As the Senate prepares to debate the State
Department authorization bill (S. 1281), we respectfully urge
you to support the House position retaining a strong U.S.
counter-terrorism capability. The House bill would maintain
an independent office of the Coordinator for Counter-
Terrorism (S/CT), and underline the importance our country
continues to place on fighting the scourge of terrorism.
Today the State Department is implementing a reorganization
plan that would downgrade the Coordinator for Counter-
Terrorism from an independent Assistant Secretary-level
position to one among several Deputy Assistant Secretaries,
under a new Assistant Secretary responsible for narcotics and
international crime as well as terrorism.
This plan is deeply flawed.
1. This is hardly the time to downgrade our government's
attention to terrorism.
The Administration's plan seems to assume that terrorism is
no longer a serious threat. It is. Just in the past year,
terrorism has arrived at America's shores in the World Trade
Center bombing and the subsequent plots to assassinate a U.S.
Senator and bomb other targets in New York City. President
Saddam Hussein planned to assassinate former President Bush.
Meanwhile, radical Shiite terrorism sponsored by Iran
continues and is ominously joined by growing Sunni terror.
Ethnic conflicts are expanding across the world, spawning
more terror from which the U.S. will not be immune.
Hijackings, which had been brought largely under control,
have staged a dramatic return in Russia and China.
2. There is no efficiency and no symbiosis to be gained for
either policy by lumping these two disparate functions
together.
The plan's concept of linking counter-terrorism to counter-
narcotics is superficial and flawed. While much has been
written about the overlap of terrorism and narcotics
trafficking, in fact these connections are limited and
unimportant. True, some Latin American narcotics traffickers
have used terrorism. Some terrorists, like Peru's Shining
Path, have sold drugs. But the overwhelming majority of
terrorist attacks against American targets has always been
and remains rooted in political issues. Lumping these two
unrelated functions together as proposed will eviscerate our
counter-terrorism policy and needlessly undermine our
counter-narcotics efforts. Proposing to friendly governments
joint meetings of counter-terrorism and counter-narcotics
agencies, as the Administration has done, will only confuse
both the issues and our foreign interlocutors.
3. Finally, the Administration's proposal is a blueprint
for bureaucratic impotence. The Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Counter-Terrorism will not have the bureaucratic muscle
to pursue aggressive counter-terrorism policies, at home or
abroad. And so it will not get done.
The measures required to fight terrorism are never popular
with vested interests, whether in the American or other
countries' bureaucracies. It can only be done well with a
relentless, high-level push, at home and overseas. Since
1986, the State Department has served as the lead agency in
developing and implementing our government's counter-
terrorism policies. This it could do only when the
Department's Office of Counter-Terrorism had sufficient
bureaucratic clout, within the State Department, with other
agencies in Washington, and abroad. Until now, the head of
the State Department Counter-Terrorism office reported
directly to the Secretary of State and had the appropriate
rank to insist on seeing responsible foreign government
officials.
Instead, the Administration proposes to bury the job in a
new bureau, lowering its level to Deputy Assistant Secretary.
The incumbent will report to the new Assistant Secretary, who
will report to an Undersecretary--whose other global
responsibilities include international population control,
environmental matters, refugees, human rights,
democratization, labor, oceans policy, and crime--who in turn
will report to the Secretary of State. This long, cumbersome
chain will fool no one, not least terrorists and foreign
governments. It can only undermine our ability to pursue an
effective counter-terrorism policy, and signal that the
United States has decided terrorism is no longer a priority
issue.
This mistake has been made before, for it was into
precisely this bureaucratic morass that America's counter-
terrorism policy had fallen in the early 1980s. Recognizing
the need for better high-level coordination of counter-
terrorism policy, in 1985 the President directed the State
Department to upgrade the terrorism position to Ambassador-
at-Large, with direct access to the Secretary of State. It
worked. The policy was taken seriously by other agencies and
governments.
Some have suggested resolving this bureaucratic flaw by
designating the Assistant Secretary ``Coordinator for
Counter-Terrorism.'' But fighting terrorism and fighting
narcotics is each a full time job. The new Assistant
Secretary will necessarily devote most of the time to the
demanding day-to-day budgetary, administrative, inter-
agency, diplomatic and Congressional demands of the
counter-narcotics portfolio. So the reality is that the
Deputy Assistant Secretary will be the most senior person
with time to focus on terrorism. Denying this person the
title ``Coordinator'' will only compound the mistake of
downgrading the job.
The solution to this deeply flawed plan is to leave things
as they were a year ago, which is the specific intent of the
House version of the State authorization bill.
Our concern is not partisan. In fact, the reorganization
plan was first prepared in the previous administration.
Rather we are united in a professional concern that the
Department of State not make a mistake certain to be costly
to American security and American lives, in the years to
come.
Sincerely,
Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, III,
Former Ambassador-at-Large for Counter-Terrorism,
Department of State.
Peter C.W. Flory,
Former Associate Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism,
Department of State.
John P. Walters,
Former Deputy Director, Office of National Drug Control
Policy.
William J. Olson,
Former Deputy Assistant, Secretary for Int'l Narcotics
Matters, Department of State.
Mr. BERMAN. If I may reclaim my time, I want to make it very clear
that I do not think that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] is
motivated by partisan concerns; I know that he passionately believes in
an effective counterterrorism operation and that he also believes his
suggested way of achieving it makes the most sense organizationally.
The only thing sillier for me to do than to get worked up on a motion
that I do not intend to vote against is to keep the body here much
longer getting worked up about a motion that I do not intend to oppose
or vote against.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee
on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding this
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, you know, as the World Trade Center bombing last year so
clearly displayed, terrorism remains a major threat to America and to
her citizens. That is why I joined last year with our colleagues, the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Nadler], a Democrat, and the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari],
a Republican, in offering an amendment to H.R. 2333, which would have
preserved the Office of the Coordinator of Counterterrorism at the
State Department.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, at the time of the World Trade Center bombing, we had an
assistant secretary solely responsible, and the head of, the Office of
Counterterrorism.
Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman is absolutely right.
Let me just say that this Office has been in the forefront of our
fight against this menace, and it must be preserved at all costs. The
cost is not that great; as a matter of fact, it is a minus.
Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the
terrorist threat is so diminished that we can afford to do away with
that Office. Without question, without question, this is precisely the
wrong time to send a signal to the world that we are downgrading our
counterterrorist effort.
The language of the Senate in this bill would do just that. I
therefore urge support of the Gilman motion to instruct conferees to
maintain this vital Office that will save the Federal Government money.
It will actually save the Federal Government money in the long run; but
more importantly, Mr. Speaker, it will save American lives.
I do not know how many Members have taken the time to be briefed by
the various intelligence agencies, whether it is the CIA or the Defense
Intelligence Agency, or any of the agencies about the potential threat
which is there. You know, you hate to even mention this on the floor
for public consumption, but one simple little act in the water supply
of a metropolis like the city of New York, with 8 million people, could
kill 2 million people in a matter of minutes. Yet here we are going to
deemphasize this terribly, terribly important Office. I do not like to
play politics either, but the same thing came up this year when we
talked about trying to preserve the drug czar's office and to zero in
on the deadly drugs being brought into this country and being sold in
schools right next door in Baltimore, where we have one individual
bringing in a ton of cocaine and then using fifth graders to distribute
it for them.
The Drug Czar's Office, in order to cut back like we did on our own
staffs here, they laid of three-fourths of the Drug Czar's Office and
hardly anybody else. Now that whole issue is being deemphasized.
I say to my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman],
I know he is sincere and not politically motivated in any way, but I am
afraid that is what is going to happen to this office. We cannot afford
to let that happen.
So, please vote for the motion to instruct.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his poignant
remarks.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York [Mr. Saxton].
Mr. SAXTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the colloquy taking place here between
Mr. Berman, Mr. Gilman, and Mr. Solomon. I guess all of us have to
decide for ourselves whether the language in the Senate bill represents
a downgrading of the effort carried out by the Office of
Counterterrorism.
It appears to me, and the people who have been advising me, that it
does constitute at least a potential downgrading of the Office of
Counterterrorism, and I think everybody who has participated in the
discussion and debate here to date this afternoon has agreed on that
point. If it is a downgrading, certainly the State Department proposal
would reduce the Office of Counterterrorism, which now focuses strictly
on terrorism, to a lower level, Deputy Assistant Secretary, who would
be responsible for 3 areas, as was pointed out by the gentlemen from
New York, Mr. Solomon and Mr. Gilman, and of course they are crime,
narcotics, and terrorism.
{time} 1710
So, Mr. Speaker, there are two reasons, I think two very distinct
reasons, why I believe this is ill-conceived and that the Gilman motion
should be supported.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for one
clarification?
Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BERMAN. The Deputy Assistant Secretary under the administration's
proposal would be responsible only for counterterrorism. It is the
Assistant Secretary that would have the responsibilities for terrorism,
narcotics, and----
Mr. SAXTON. That is correct; I am sorry if I misspoke. The gentleman
is correct. But in effect we would have three departments rolled into
one under one leader, and of course that is what those of us who think
that this is ill-advised object to, and there are two reasons for this.
Mr. Speaker, the first and very distinct one is that the downgrading
of this office would bury counter- terrorism in the battle against
drugs. It would all be rolled into the same department.
The second distinct reason is that by downgrading this office, Mr.
Speaker, the Clinton administration would send a signal that we have
forgotten, to some degree at least, the bombings of the Marines in
Lebanon and that we are not concerned, as much at least, with the
future acts of Hamas, the Hezbollah, and Fatah, and others in our
country and around the world.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear that those are two very
distinct concerns that we need to address in conference. The threat of
terrorism in the United States today is greater than it has ever been
before.
The State Department, I believe, is wrong to focus on the number of
terrorist incidents in this country and say that this move is OK
because that number has not been great. As a matter of fact, one of the
reasons that that number has been kept low is because we have been
able, through our efforts, to uncover potential acts of terrorism,
planned acts of terrorism, before they have taken place.
So, Mr. Speaker, by downgrading this office we send a message to the
families of the victims of Pan Am 103, a bombing, that we are not
interested in pursuing the perpetuators of these brutal murders as we
perhaps at one time were. This is not a time to be scaling back on our
efforts against terrorism, and so I believe we must bolster our efforts
to prevent terrorist acts against Americans both here and abroad as in
the Gilman language, and the Gilman motion, I believe, moves in that
direction.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Saxton] for his supporting remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to note in response to the remarks of the
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] that an equivalent assistant
secretary for counterterrorism was extremely helpful in being able to
bring back to our country one of the defendants from Egypt to stand
trial in New York for the World Trade Center bombing, and I would like
to submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first recorded vote on our
Government's position and posture toward international terrorism since
the New York World Trade Center bombing occurred last February.
Mr. Speaker, this motion will help us maintain the independent, high
level office of the coordinator for counterterrorism in the State
Department, and without this amendment the State Department will reduce
the counterterrorism office to a low-level deputy assistant secretary
in an office handling both international narcotics and crime, and
without it the State Department would downgrade the counterterrorism
function at the very time the terrorism has come to American soil.
Do not let the State Department send a wrong signal to friends and
foes alike around the globe that the threat of international terrorism
is not a top priority of our own Government and our State Department.
Please support the Gilman-Nadler-Solomon-Molinari amendment to H.R.
2333.
Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for another speaker who is supposed to be
on his way.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I cannot oblige the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], but I have no more speakers.
Mr. GILMAN. Then, Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to insert in
the Record a letter from the Anti-Defamation League that was dated
January 25, 1994. It is from the Klinghoffers, and we may recall that
they were victims of terrorism, and they state on behalf of the Leon
and Marilyn Klinghoffer Memorial Foundation of the Anti-Defamation
League:
* * * we are writing to express our concern over the
proposed State Department reorganization that would eliminate
the independent office of the Coordinator for
Counterterrorism.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I gather the gentleman is waiting for
someone to come to the floor. I just want to say with all due respect,
I think it is a little tortured to use the Klinghoffers' letter or the
World Trade Center bombing, both of which occurred while there was a
``high level coordinator of counterterrorism,'' the halcyon days which
you are seeking to go back to, as an argument for why we should go back
to them when these horrible incidents happened during that time. I
think that buttresses the point that how you organize it is less
important than what we do.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr.
Berman] for his remarks. there is no question that organization within
the agency is the most effective way to approach it, but we do not want
to bury it in with the massive problems that an office on crime and an
office on narcotics would have which would detract from the time that
would be taken from an administrator on counterterrorism.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the letter to which I
referred from the Klinghoffer Foundation be made part of the Record.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
The letter in its entirety is as follows:
Anti-Defamation League
of B'nai B'rith,
New York, NY, January 25, 1994.
Dear Senator, on behalf of the Leon and Marilyn Klinghoffer
Memorial Foundation of the Anti-Defamation League, we are
writing to express our concern over the proposed State
Department reorganization that would eliminate the
independent office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism.
We welcome the President's demonstrated commitment to the
fight against terrorism and respect to changing budgetary and
political realities that pose new challenges to the State
Department operations. However, we are concerned that the
country's counterterrorism mission may be weakened when one
Assistant Secretary is also responsible for such critical
national priorities as narcotics and international crime--two
areas that, individually, demand very substantial resources
and attention.
At a time when the threat of international and domestic
terrorism is growing, and at a time when terrorists have
carried out attacks against the United States on our soil,
the proposed delegation of responsibility for the Coordinator
for Counterterrorism to a Deputy Assistant Secretary sends
the wrong signal. We must avoid any suggestion that
combatting terrorism is a diminishing national priority. We
must do all we can to maintain U.S. credibility and
effectiveness in dealing with foreign officials on this
issue.
We urge the Senate to vote to maintain the integrity of a
separate Office of Counterterrorism, headed by an Assistant
Secretary-level official, to ensure the most effective
implementation of the administration's counterterrorism
policies and initiatives.
Sincerely,
Lisa Klinghoffer and
Ilsa Klinghoffer,
Leon and Marilyn Klinghoffer Memorial Foundation of the Anti-
Defamation League.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, they concluded that they urge a vote to
maintain the integrity of a separate office of counterterrorism headed
by an assistant-secretary level official to make certain that there
would be most effective implementation of the administration's
counterterrorism policies and initiatives.
Mr. Speaker, having no further requests for time, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I, too, yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion
to instruct.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the nays appeared to have it.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 357,
nays 2, not voting 73, as follows:
[Roll No. 113]
YEAS--357
Abercrombie
Allard
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Archer
Armey
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barca
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentley
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Buyer
Byrne
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Castle
Clayton
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Coppersmith
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Ford (MI)
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Glickman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Grams
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Huffington
Hughes
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Inslee
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Kasich
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klein
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kopetski
Kreidler
Kyl
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lloyd
Long
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCloskey
McCrery
McCurdy
McDermott
McHale
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McMillan
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Myers
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pickle
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Ravenel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schenk
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sharp
Shaw
Shays
Shepherd
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaugther
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thompson
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weldon
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--2
Kanjorski
Penny
NOT VOTING--73
Ackerman
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Blackwell
Burton
Chapman
Clay
Clement
Coleman
Cooper
DeLay
Doolittle
Engel
English
Fields (TX)
Fish
Foglietta
Ford (TN)
Gallegly
Gallo
Goodling
Grandy
Gunderson
Hastings
Hefner
Houghton
Jefferson
Kaptur
Kleczka
Klug
Lehman
Lewis (FL)
Lipinski
Livingston
Lowey
Margolies-Mezvinsky
McCollum
McDade
McHugh
Mfume
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Owens
Payne (NJ)
Peterson (FL)
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Ridge
Rose
Rostenkowski
Sanders
Sangmeister
Santorum
Slattery
Stark
Stokes
Sundquist
Swett
Talent
Tauzin
Thornton
Torricelli
Towns
Valentine
Walsh
Washington
Wheat
Whitten
Young (FL)
{time} 1738
Mr. PENNY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. SKEEN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________