[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 64 (Friday, May 20, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: May 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I was unfortunately detained while chairing
a hearing in the Rayburn House Office Building and thus missed rollcall
vote No. 189, on the Penny amendment to terminate funding for the
Trident D-5 missile. Had I made it to the floor time, I would have
voted ``aye.''
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Rahall). Pursuant to the order of the
House of Wednesday, May 18, 1994, it is now in order to consider any
amendment printed in part 1 of the report not previously considered.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 printed in part 1 of
the House Report 103-509.
amendment offered by mr. kennedy
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy: At the end of title X
(page 277, after line 2), insert the following new section:
SEC. 1038. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO OPERATE ARMY SCHOOL
OF THE AMERICAS.
Funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the
Department of Defense pursuant to an authorization of
appropriations contained in this Act may not be used to
operate the Army School of the Americas, currently at Fort
Benning, Georgia.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
earlier today, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] will be
recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed, the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Skelton], will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the United States has a long history of involvement in
Latin American affairs. As a bastion of democracy with a vibrant
economy, the United States is looked to with great admiration and
respect by millions and millions of Latin Americans.
But our history in Latin America is checkered by our financial,
military, and moral support and association with people like Omar
Torrijos, the dictator of Panama; Manuel Noriega, the dictator and drug
runner; Leopoldo Galtieri, who led the military junta in Argentina;
Roberto d'Aubisson, organizer of the Salvadoran death squads that
killed Archbishop Romero; 19 of the 26 Salvadoran officers that planned
and carried out and covered up the murder of 6 Jesuit priests in 1989;
and more than 100 of the 246 Colombian officers cited for human rights
violations, including several instructors from the School of the
Americas, as well as 6 Peruvian officers linked to a military death
squad that killed 9 students in 1992, and the 3 most senior Guatemalan
officers who backed a coup attempt in May 1993.
What is the one thing that they all had in common?
They are all graduates of the U.S. Army School of the Americas.
The fact is that this is a school that has run more dictators than
any other school in the history of the world. They boast about the fact
that 10 separate heads of state throughout Latin America were graduates
of the School of the Americas. Not one of them was elected through a
democratic election, and in many cases they actually overthrew the
civilian governments that brought them into power.
They tell us now that the school changing, but we know and
understand, Mr. Chairman, that the school is continuing the kind of
modus operandi that left us with the legacy of being associated with
some of the worst human rights abusers on the face of this planet.
{time} 1220
We see just on the House steps, Father Ray Bourgeois, who has gone on
a hunger strike for 40 days, to demonstrate his personal commitment and
the commitment of millions of others that our association with the
school ought to end. Let us stop the days of the cold war, let us stop
our history with these associations, and let us get on to a new day
with the association of the United States and Latin America through
peaceful means, not military ones.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. It is illogical. There is
simply no cause-effect relationship between the problem and the
proposed solution to kill the School of the Americas. The School of the
Americas does teach the law of war and respect for human rights. The
fact that this instruction does not sink into every participant during
this span of course of several weeks' length should not surprise us.
There are Americans who have attended seminary courses and then become
murderers. You do not blame the seminaries for that.
I am hearing that some graduates of the school become dictators. It
is also true General Somoza, the late dictator of Guatemala, was a
graduate of West Point. Did we close West Point down at that point?
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. Bishop].
(Mr. BISHOP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to provide the House of
Representatives with factual information regarding the School of the
Americas at Fort Benning, GA.
The school was established in 1963 under President John F. Kennedy's
Alliance for Progress from the existing U.S. Army Caribbean Training
Center in Panama. In 1984, the school was moved from Panama to Fort
Benning, GA. Since 1963, more than 58,000 Latin American soldiers have
graduated from the School of the Americas.
The school was developed to train and teach Latin American militaries
how to defend against subversion techniques from the Soviet Union and
Cuba. However, as the cold war began to end, the School of the Americas
began to adopt a new curriculum. The new emphasis began to focus on the
role of military professionalism in a democratic government. The
guiding principle of the school now is to provide professional service
subordinate to civilian control by democratically elected governments.
Training at the school is focused on effective response to drug
trafficking, natural disasters, and respect for human rights.
Instruction is conducted in Spanish to allow for others outside the
English-speaking upper class to attend; however, approximately 122 out
of 160 instructors are from the United States. Claims that instruction
is extensively carried out by foreign trainers is absolutely false. The
fact that classes are taught in Spanish has substantially reduced the
cost of training and allowed a uniquely diverse population to attend
the school.
The curriculum at the School of the Americas undergoes constant
review not only by the Army's Training and Doctrine Command but also by
a new outside policy review board which has recently been established
to ensure that human rights awareness is an integral part of training.
Have there been bad apples at the school? Yes. However, many of the
so-called bad apples attended the school before it was located at Fort
Benning, GA. For example, Gen. Manual Noriega attended the school in
its early inception in Panama during the mid-1960's. He did not attend
the school of the Americas at Fort Benning, GA. Another thug routinely
recognized by critics of the school is Gen. Domingo Monterrosa of El
Salvador. General Monterrosa, now deceased, has been linked to the
death squads which plagued El Salvador in the early 1980's during the
country's bloody civil war. However, General Monterrosa also did not
attend the School of the Americas at Fort Benning. He spent 2 weeks at
the school when it was located in Panama in 1966. Was General
Monterrosa trained to be a human rights violator during this time? No.
He spent the entire 2 weeks learning to pack a parachute.
I submit to you that the school has improved dramatically over the
years and has responded to the changing world by taking a hard look at
itself and making a strong effort to address those areas in need of
improvement. In fact, President Ronald Reagan's decision to move the
school to Fort Benning has proven to be an excellent decision. Because
the press has spent hours upon hours detailing the few bad apples of
the past, I want to spend a few moments detailing the successes of the
present.
Jose Gallardo Roman, current Minister of Defense in Ecuador, is one
of the School of the Americas' true all-stars. General Gallardo
strongly supports democratic principles and the need to respect human
rights. In 1993, he signed an accord with the Latin American
Association on Human Rights to begin a sweeping human rights training
program throughout the Armed Forces.
Another all-star is Gen. Hernan Jose Guzman, Army Commander in
Columbia. General Guzman has initiated measures to prevent human rights
abuses such as assigning judges to brigades involved in
counterinsurgency operations. These judges accompany the brigades on
operations and ensure that insurgents' human rights are protected.
Minister Roman and General Guzman represent the school's all-stars in
the realm of human rights. The School of the Americas has also had true
success stories in the name of democracy and defeating anti-democratic
coups.
Brig. Gen. Fuget Borregales, the current director of operations of
the Venezuela Army and graduate of the school, was a major player in
defeating coup attempts in Caracas in November 1992. His unit
recaptured the La Carlota Air Base which had been overrun by coup
rebels.
Another success story involves the current commander of the 4th
Infantry Division in Venezuela and School of the Americas graduate,
Brig. Gen. Pedro Valencia Vivas. General Vivas identified officers who
had participated in the February 4, 1992, coup attempt. When the
November 28, 1992, coup occurred, not a single platoon under his
command participated in the attempt to overthrow the democratic
government.
I have detailed these gentlemen because they represent the
overwhelming graduates of the School of the Americas who are currently
playing a constructive role in Latin America. The critics of the school
detail past graduates who did not receive training at Fort Benning and
are no longer players in Latin America.
I have received a number of letters from Veterans' service
organizations supporting the School of the Americas. At this time I
would like to read portions of those letters to you for the record.
Ret. Vice Adm. T.J. Kilcline, president of the Retired Officers
Association writes:
The impact of the school has truly been significant. Not
only has the education been most helpful for our Latin
American neighbors, but the contact with Americans and the
positive attitudes of the American military personnel they
met and got to know while at Benning was the basis for
friendship and understanding between individuals which
translates to better relationships among our countries.
Ret. Army Gen. Roger Sandler, executive director of the Reserve
Officers Association of the United States, writes ``I am well aware of
this outstanding school's very important contributions to democracy in
our hemisphere.''
Mr. Chairman, our veterans support the School of the Americas at Fort
Benning. At this time I would like to enter into the Record a
resolution by the American Ex-Prisoners of War specifically supporting
the school's continued operation and opposing the effort to eliminate
the school's funding.
Resolution Supporting the U.S. Army School of the Americas, Fort
Benning, GA
Whereas, the U.S. Army School of the Americas has
successfully trained over 54,000 troops from Latin America
and the United States;
Whereas, the School of the Americas has graduated 10
Presidents, 38 Ministers of Defense or State, 71 Commanders
of Armed Forces, and 25 Service Chiefs of Staff;
Whereas, the School of the Americas systematically
advocates human rights awareness and strives to graduate
students whose respect for such values is enlightened and
solidified;
Whereas, the School of the Americas has greatly improved
its human rights curriculum adding new instructors and course
requirements;
Whereas, the Department of Defense is using the School of
the Americas concept to design a new facility in Germany, the
George C. Marshall Institute, to educate and train former
Soviet Union military personnel to understand the social and
political benefits of a western democratic society;
Whereas, the School of the Americas has played a major role
in the dramatic change in Latin America from dictatorships
and military juntas to military supported Democratic
Societies;
Whereas, for the first time in 200 years, democracy in
Latin America is beginning to take hold and from Argentina to
Guatemala coups are being resisted due to the influence of
the School of the Americas;
Whereas, on September 30, 1993, there was an active attempt
in the U.S. House of Representatives to close the School of
the Americas which was rejected by a vote of 174-256;
Whereas, the School of the Americas is expected once again
to be under attack from various organizations and Members of
Congress during the 1994 session of the 103rd Congress;
Now therefore be it resolved, That the members of this
organization do hereby go on record in full support of the
U.S. Army School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia; do
advocate its continued operation; do oppose any attempts to
reduce or eliminate funding for this program which has been
instrumental in fostering democratic principles throughout
Latin America; and do hereby direct that a copy of this
resolution be transmitted to each member of the United States
House of Representatives and of the United States Senate.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to enter into the Record
a letter I received on May 18, 1994 from Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a true
patriot and commander in chief of our Southern Command.
Department of Defense,
U.S. Southern Command,
May 18, 1994.
Hon. Sanford Bishop,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Bishop: Am writing to express serious concern over
pending legislative action which could threaten the existence
of one of our most useful institutions--the U.S. Army's
School of the Americas [SOA]. For over forty years, the
school has been an effective tool for promoting foreign
policy objectives in Latin America. The school's reputation
for providing superior military training in Spanish while
instilling the principle of military subordination to
constitutional civilian rule is long-standing. My recent
visit to the school confirmed my belief that it is an
indispensable institution with no substitute.
As you are aware, SOA has played a key role in the
education of many Latin American military leaders. The vast
majority of these graduates are positive supporters of
democratization, human rights, and the rule of law.
Unfortunately, this gets little publicity. Just a few
examples--
Commander of the Colombian Army who initiated the
assignment of judges to units conducting counter-insurgency
operations to ensure the protection of human rights.
Ecuadoran Minister of Defense who signed an accord with the
Latin American Association on Human Rights to begin a
sweeping human rights training program throughout the Armed
Forced.
Current Venezuelan division commander who helped identify
members of a recent coup attempt against a democratically
elected government.
Every course at SOA offers a regional perspective, includes
human rights and democratization instruction, and ensures
exposure to U.S. military discipline and expertise. Latin
American students and instructors leave the school with an
enhanced understanding of the proper role of the military in
a civilian-led democracy. Provided the opportunity to
continue this vital mission, SOA can play a critical role in
the development of Latin America's leaders well into the
future, further consolidating the gains for democracy in our
hemisphere.
The growth of democracy throughout Latin America is a
direct reflection on this institution. Now is not the time to
abandon these efforts and the democratic momentum the school
helps provide. SOA plays an essential role in our strategy
for the region. I respectfully urge you to work to preserve
this important institution.
Very respectfully,
Barry R. McCaffrey,
General, USA,
Commander in Chief.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that the critics of the
School of the Americas continue to look into the past. We must maintain
a vision for the future in our foreign policy and the School of the
Americas is an excellent tool to further our foreign policy goals. The
Congress will continue to ensure that the school maintains its human
rights awareness training and adapts to the varying challenges that
will face us in the future. However, we must not ignore Latin America,
we must not forget our role as the only remaining superpower in the
world, we must not close the School of the Americas, and we must never
relinquish our grasp of the democratic ideals that the School of the
Amercias represents.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, today I am rising in strong support of the
Kennedy amendment to eliminate funding for the U.S. Army School of the
Americas. We have heard serious charges. We will hear more; that the
School of the Americas is nothing more than a school for assassins.
Others say that a handful of bad actors has tarnished the image of an
otherwise reputable training facility.
Whichever is more accurate, the real question remains, why are we
engaged in this activity in the first place? Students at the School of
the Americas are not integrated into regular U.S. military training
forces. They are taught the vast majority of their course work by other
Latin American officers. What is the justification for having foreign
nationals training other foreign nationals on U.S. soil at U.S.
taxpayers' expense? If there ever was one, which I seriously doubt,
there certainly is not now.
I have a special message for my Republican colleagues: We cannot have
it both ways. We cannot vote to eliminate funding for the ICC, for the
National Helium Reserve, the Rural Electrification Agency, the honey
bee subsidy, the Appalachian Regional Commission, every single one of
which deserves to be shut down, and shut down now and permanently.
Then, just because a program is in the defense budget, are we are going
to give it special kid glove status and stay away from it?
This program is pork. It happens to be defense pork, it happens to be
Georgia defense pork, but it is simply pork. It certainly is obsolete
today, if it ever was justified, and it should be eliminated.
Mr. Chairman, the graduates of the School of the Americas may be
soldiers of righteousness. They may be soldiers of fortune. They may
even be soldiers of evil. I suspect they have been all three. In any
event, there are much better ways to accomplish the legitimate military
existence and hemispheric cooperation goals of the United States. This
is an anachronism. Right or wrong, it continues to give the United
States a black eye with our Latin American colleagues.
I urge my colleagues, support the Kennedy amendment and close down
the School of the Americas once and for all.
announcement by the chairman pro tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Rahall). The chair will ask visitors in
the gallery to please refrain from expressions of support or
disapproval of debate.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
minority whip, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich].
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Gingrich].
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich]
is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very simple question to
address. If you think having Latin American officers come to America,
having them learn about soldiering in a democracy, having them learn
why America has been able to be militarily strong and free, having them
learn a tradition different than the Latin American tradition of
military dictatorship; if you think that the progress of the last 20
years, as country by country in Latin America has left dictatorship to
move towards democracy, if you think that process is useful, and you
think that America has something to teach Latin American officers, then
you should vote no on this amendment.
On the other hand, if you think being tainted by visiting America
weakens you, if you think being at Fort Benning makes you less likely
to be for freedom, if you think that somehow there is some conspiracy
in the School of the Americas that is showing up, then probably you
ought to vote yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GINGRICH. I yield to my friend from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe there is any kind of
conspiracy at the School of the Americas. None of us has suggested a
conspiracy. What we do believe is that if we look at the real record of
who has graduated, the army will cite the fact that 10 separate leaders
of Latin America all went to the school. The trouble is, not one of
them was duly elected. There have been changes in Latin America, but
none of them have been because of the graduates of this school.
Mr. GINGRICH. I would ask to gentleman, how many graduates were there
in the last 20 years of the school?
Mr. KENNEDY. There have been tens of thousands.
Mr. GINGRICH. My only point would be in the current democracies,
there are graduates of the School of the Americas currently serving
within a democratic framework doing exactly what we are trying to teach
the Russians, like how to soldier within a democracy.
Mr. KENNEDY. If the gentleman will yield further, I appreciate the
gentleman yielding. But the fact is we only have the record of those
individuals who are involved in these hundreds and hundreds and
hundreds of cases. We do not have the records of the ones who were not.
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, all I would say to my
good friend, and I appreciate so much your yielding, is that if you
looked at the total record of all the officers who are graduates, who
are currently, today, serving in democracies, you would be proud of the
contribution America has made to the democratization of Latin America,
just as today I am sure you are supportive of our efforts to teach the
Russians and Ukrainians and others to learn to serve in a democracy.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming the time I yielded, I would
conclude by saying we have a choice. Either the thousands that you say
have not or the thousands that did, I would say that the thousands that
did, ruin our reputation.
Mr. GINGRICH. Vote ``no''.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lantos], the chairman of the Subcommittee on
International Security, International Organizations and Human Rights.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding,
and at the outset I want to pay tribute to my good friend from
Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, who has stood with me on many, many human
rights issues during the course of his tenure in this body. There is no
doubt in my mind that the motivations of the distinguished gentleman
from Massachusetts are the finest, as indeed are the motivations of all
of my colleagues who will support his amendment.
{time} 1230
I rise in the strongest possible opposition to that amendment, and I
do so for two specific reasons.
As one who came to this country as a student from abroad, I can
testify that attending institutions in this country is the most
democratizing influence for people who come from totalitarian
societies.
The School of the Americas is no exception. There is no doubt in my
mind that some of the graduates of the School of the Americas have
indeed participated in human rights violations. I am convinced that
many more would have participated in human rights violations had they
not attended that school.
I am very proud of my own alma mater, the University of California.
But I would hate to see suggestions that the University of California
be closed down because some of the graduates of the University of
California are serving in prisons for all kinds of violations of law.
There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that attending the School
of the Americas has been a very positive force for human rights in
Latin America and in Latin American militaries. There is simply zero
logic, zero logic to arguing that since some of the graduates of the
School of the Americas have misbehaved, and they have, this positive
influence on democratizing the Latin American militaries should be
closed down.
Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Edwards].
(Mr. EDWARDS of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Chairman, the School of the Americas is a noble thought: Bring
Latin American soldiers to the United States to teach them respect for
human rights. However, this ideal couldn't be further from reality.
Others have listed the scores of notorious human rights abusers who
have graduated from our program. Let's look at the school itself. It is
not much more than a country club for dictators.
Rather than directly exposing them to the rule of law that the U.S.
military abides by, SOA students are isolated. All other international
military education and training programs integrate students into U.S.
forces so that they may experience first hand deference to civilian
authority.
SOA students are given the chance to tour the United States, to go to
an amusement park and a ball game. Supporters of the school claim this
reinforces American ideals. Although I would not begrudge any visitor
to the United States the chance to explore our great Nation, tourism,
and materialism should not be the sole extent of the curriculum.
A few hours of human rights training have been added to SOA courses.
What little time is devoted to this, to what ought to be the
fundamental thrust of the shool, is greeted with indifference or
outright hostility by both students and instructors.
Without the School of the Americas, Latin American soldiers will
still be able to participate in IMET programs. Abolishing the SOA will
end their segregation which has only fostered continued abuse of
authority and abuse of civilian populations.
I urge my colleagues to stand up for human rights, to support the
Kennedy amendment and to abolish the School of the Americas.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate my colleague and friend, the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for offering this
amendment. Approximately a year-and-a-half ago, I made a speech as a
freshman Member of Congress calling for a closing of the School of the
Americas. There were not many Members of Congress that knew that the
School of the Americas even existed at that time. But since that time,
we have seen more Members of Congress become aware of the atrocities
that have taken place at this school with very, very little being
accomplished that is in the interest of democracy.
I recently went to El Salvador, appointed by the President to observe
the elections there. We are making progress. But we face a house of
cards in El Salvador.
What we need is, we have a new President there, just elected, who
frankly, as one Member of Congress, I am not sure has a moral compass
and the people around him, I am not so sure about.
The last place we want these new leaders to go is the School of the
Americas. More than two-thirds of the Salvadoran soldiers named by the
Truth Commission report on human rights abuses in El Salvador were
graduates of the School of the Americas. By itself that should be
enough to cause some serious soul searching.
We need to close the school and close it today.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. Collins].
(Mr. COLLINS of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment
of the gentleman from Massachussetts and to support the U.S. Army
School of the Americas. The School is specialized in training select
Latin American military officers in military operations, teaching the
values of democracy, and, yes, the need for human rights.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachussetts has been wrong in his
past statements that Haitian Police Chief Michel Francois was a student
of the School. Since 1963, not one Haitian student has attended the
School of the Americas. It is simply wrong to suggest that any member
of the current Haitian regime has ever attended the School.
Similarly, there has been a noticeable absence of Cuban officers
enrolled at the School. In its history, the School has never graduated
a single Cuban officer. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that
the common characteristic of the Haitian and Cuban governments is that
they are the only two remaining countries in Latin America that are
nondemocratic.
Since the School was established in 1946 as the U.S. Army Caribbean
Training Center, over 58,000 Latin American officers have graduated,
and many have gone on to hold prominent positions in their country's
military and government.
In 1963, the focus of the School was sharpened by President John F.
Kennedy, and it was renamed the School of the Americas. The focus of
the School became the teaching of Latin American armies how to defend
against Soviet and Cuban inspired subversion. This was the goal, even
if it meant supporting a dictator or a military coup.
Well Mr. Chairman, the times and politics of Latin America changed,
and so, too, did the direction of the School. In 1983, President Reagan
moved the School to Fort Benning, GA, with the focus again redirected
to emphasize the role of a professional military force in a democratic
society. Today, this includes instruction in effective response to drug
trafficking, natural disasters, and respect for human rights.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, there was resistance to democracy in El Salvador,
Ecuador, Venezuela and other Latin American nations. And, yes, there
were lives lost in this transition. Sacrifices were made, but not in
vain. Democracy in each nation has prevailed. And due to those lives
sacrificed, Human rights is a major part of the curriculum at the
School.
Over 35 Latin American nations are now governed by such a democracy
with only 2 nations continuing to suffer under dictatorships. The
School has represented a significant investment in this success of
democracy throughout the region. Do not throw this investment in
democracy out the window.
I urge the Members to defeat the Kennedy amendment, and continue to
support the teachings of democracy in our hemisphere.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I want to clarify for the record the fact is that this school has, in
fact, suggested that they have begun to teach human rights at the
school. I had the individual who was hired by the school come to my
office and tell me that when he taught human rights at the school, he
was ridiculed. He was abused, and he says that the notion that this
school has reformed itself is a joke.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms.
McKinney].
(Ms. McKINNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I once again come before this House with
grave concern about the School of the Americas.
Rather than assisting to establish democracy in a part of the world
so important to us, the great tradition of School of the Americas
results in a who's-who of the hemisphere's dictators. In Honduras,
Panama, Bolivia, Argentina, Peru, and Ecuador the stain of the School
of the Americas remains.
The graduates of the School of the Americas include dictators and
soldiers implicated in human rights violations all over Latin America
thanks to the American taxpayer.
No more should our American soldiers be introduced to the position of
being sent into dangerous situations in order to clean up the mess made
by a few of the graduates of the School of the Americas.
At its best, the school is ineffective. And at its worst, it gives
future dictators the skills to overthrow civilian democratic
governments.
I ask the House to vote today to close the doors on the School of the
Americas--the School for Dictators.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Torricelli], chairman of the Subcommittee on Western
Hemisphere Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
I understand that the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts is well-intentioned, but it is flawed in its logic. That
members of the armed forces from throughout Latin America in countries
with a history of human rights abuses and interference in politics come
together with officers from the military of the United States with the
greatest history of respecting political rights and human rights and by
that association themselves become transgressors, it defies logic.
In fact, it defies the facts. Last year in Venezuela, there was an
attempted coup. It was officers trained by the United States who put it
down.
In El Salvador today, in implementing the peace accords, it is
officers trained by the United States. When there was an attempted coup
in Guatemala only 2 years ago, it was officers trained by the United
States.
Have there been transgressors? Of course, but something must explain
that Latin America is fundamentally changing. Democracy is the coin of
the realm. Rights are being respected again. Something is working, and
American policy in this school is a part of that success.
{time} 1240
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that three of the coup
leaders in Guatemala all were graduates of this school. The notion that
somehow our military are able to influence these people in these
foreign countries is simply not the case.
We have also brought in, since the Salvadoran soldiers killed the six
priests, seven or eight of those individuals who killed the priests
have come to America and went to this school after they killed the
priests. That is the record of this school, and that is the reputation
that rubs off on our country throughout Latin America.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr.
Kopetski].
(Mr. KOPETSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Chairman and Members, I rise in strong support of
the Kennedy amendment, and want to make three points. First, if we do
want to help develop leadership skills in Central America, then let us
close the school, put the $3 or $4 million we put into that university
in creative scholarship programs at the University of California or the
University of Georgia.
Second, if we do commit American troops to Haiti, remember that we
trained the opposition that is going to be trying to kill our soldiers.
Third, understand the purpose and the history and track record of
this university. It is a university of shame. This is a university
where students major in murder. This is a university where they minor
in mayhem. They receive a master's in the art of oppression,
repression, and reprehensible conduct by any human rights standard.
In the name of America's honor, let us dismantle this university
today.
announcement by the chairman pro tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will admonish visitors in the
gallery that they are here as guests of the House of Representatives.
Expression of approval or disapproval of remarks on the floor is not
allowed.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, when this school was founded in 1946, there
were five Latin American democracies, five. Today there are over 35
Latin American democracies. As a matter of fact, there are only two
that are dictatorships left in Latin America, Haiti and Cuba. Those are
the only two that have never participated in this School of the
Americas. If we want to talk statistics, look at that.
What this bill is is Castro's last gasp. He must really be enjoying
this, and hoping that they can close down this school. Jesus Christ had
12 Apostles, one of whom went wrong. You would not tell the other 11 to
disburse because one went wrong. John Wayne Gacey murdered 33 people. I
do not know where he went to high school, but I would not close it
down. I suspect some people from that school were pretty decent people.
This is a non sequitur. It does not follow. Yes, there are bad
people. Yes, some of them go to our schools. However, are the schools
bad? No. These are American schools, taught by American military. It is
a non sequitur. It does not follow that some people have done wrong.
They have done wrong despite what they were taught, not because of it.
This is an unwise, to put the most euphemistic tone on it, an unwise
amendment, and I hope it is resoundingly defeated.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire how much time I have
remaining.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Rahall). The time of the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Skelton] has expired. The gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Kennedy] has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the Kennedy amendment to prohibit the use of funds for the Army's
School of the Americas. This amendment is about where we have been in
the past and about where we want to go in the future. Are we going to
continue to uphold a tradition of human rights abuse, or are we going
to truly promote democracy and peace in this hemisphere and around the
world?
The evidence against the School of the Americas is overwhelming:
Manuel Noriega is a graduate; 124 of the 247 Colombian officers cited
for human rights violations attended the school; and two-thirds of the
Salvadoran soldiers cited by the truth commission for murder, torture,
and disappearances trained at the School of the Americas.
A ``yes'' vote today is not going to erase the human rights tragedies
that have occurred in Latin America, but a ``yes'' vote will say loud
and clear that the United States will no longer permit outrageous
abuses of human rights by U.S.-trained foreign militaries. We have
started to see positive changes taking place in some countries of this
hemisphere, and we need to further the progress that has been made. A
vote for this amendment will do just that.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I wish to advise the House of my absence for
part of the debate on H.R. 4301, the National Defense Authorization Act
for fiscal year 1995.
Consequently, I want to explain why I requested to be paired as a
``nay'' vote to the amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from
Massachusetts. I appreciate the honesty of his motives in offering this
amendment to eliminate operations and maintenance funding for the U.S.
Army School of the Americas [SOA]. But I disagree with his assessment
of the school and its graduates. The closure of the SOA would be
detrimental to our relationship with Latin American countries, and
could hinder progress in human rights efforts in those countries.
The SOA was established under President John F. Kennedy's Alliance
for Progress from the existing U.S. Army Caribbean Training Center in
Panama. In 1984, the SOA was moved from Panama to Fort Benning, GA. It
has only been since the early 1980's that human rights instruction and
emphasis has been a part of the curriculum. Most of the individuals
labeled ``dictators'' in various reports and publications attended the
school long before the SOA emphasized human rights. And since the
inclusion of human rights training at the SOA, the curriculum is
structured so that each student receives, on average, 30 minutes of
human rights training and/or exposure every day.
The purpose of the SOA is to provide guidance to Latin American
military personnel to responde to drug trafficking, natural disasters,
and human rights. The SOA emphasizes the role of a professional
military force in a democratic society. I support these objectives, as
democratically elected civilian governments of Latin America support
them. They welcome the opportunity to have their soldiers educated at
the SOA because of its emphasis on civilian control of military forces.
Each year, soldier from Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa
Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela, and the United
States attend the SOA. No other school in the world with such a small
operations budget brings together future civilian and military leaders
of 16 countries in a purposeful effort to prepare for the future,
strengthen alliances within a hemispheric region, and increase mutual
understand, cooperation, and the reinforcement of the principles of
democracy among neighboring countries.
Last October, the United States strengthened the selection process
for candidates seeking to attend the SOA. This process includes
checking names by U.S. intelligence agencies and State Department
security officers. In narcotics-producing countries, the Drug
Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other law
enforcement agencies evaluate possible candidates for any record of
criminality, drug trafficking, or human rights abuses. The revised
process makes it far more likely that human rights abusers, criminals,
drug traffickers, and those associated with them, will not become
students at the SOA.
We should understand that the SOA takes on the very difficult task of
teaching students who often come from countries with long histories of
dictatorships and abuse, the value of promoting human rights. It is
difficult to quantify the number of abuses that the SOA's training has
prevented, so this debate often turns to a name-calling game that has
little practical value. Yes, some 100 of the 58,000 graduates have
documented human rights abuses. But, we must not forget about the other
57,900 graduates. Over 100 SOA graduates served or currently serve
their nation and its people from the highest levels of civilian and
military office--from chief executive to commander of major military
units. Furthermore, hundreds of SOA graduates currently occupy
positions of leadership and command at all levels in their military and
support democratically elected national leaders.
For example, SOA graduate Gen. Hernan Jose Guzman, Colombian Army
commander, led a determined effort to curtail human rights abuses by
initiating innovative programs such as the assignment of judges to
accompany brigades during counterinsurgency operations. Their presence
helped ensure that the civil rights of all personnel were protected.
Another graduate, Brig. Gen. Eumenes Fuguet Borregales, the current
Director of Operations of the Venezuelan Army Staff, helped put down
coup attempts in Caracas--February and November, 1992--while Commander
of the 31st Infantry Brigade. This list could go on.
In the early eighties, El Salvador was accused of about 2,000 human
rights violations per month; in the latter part of the decade, that
figure dropped to approximately 20 each month. Although SOA cannot take
all the credit, almost 50 percent of El Salvadoran officers have
graduated from the school since 1986.
Let me make one final observation. If Congress closes the SOA, it
will negatively affect our ability to have a meaningful and cost-
effective vehicle to promote democracy and human rights within the
ranks of the Latin American military. The State Department, Pentagon,
and participating Latin American governments all firmly believe the
existing SOA program is the best approach to achieving important
national security and foreign policy objectives. If SOA were abolished,
training for Latin American military personnel would become more
expensive and fewer officers and enlisted personnel would be afforded
exposure to U.S. training and values. Opportunities to develop joint
peacekeeping with Latin American nations and exposure to human rights
and democratization training would be reduced. And, the United States
would lose a valuable vehicle that exposes non-English-speaking
officers and noncommissed officers from Latin America to democratic
values.
When objectively reviewed, we cannot dispute the fact that the
overwhelming majority of SOA graduates honorably serve their countries
as professional men and women. Clearly, there is no correlation between
reported misconduct by individual SOA graduates and the professional
education and training they received at the school. All the evidence,
anecdotal or empirical, would lead you to the opposite conclusion.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
to end funding for the School of the Americas and urge my colleagues to
do the same.
Last year, I voted against this amendment because I believed that it
was important to try and impress upon the Latin American military
officers who trained at the school American values, especially respect
for human rights and democracy.
However, it is now clear to me that the school has failed to achieve
those objectives. Instead of providing foreign military officers with
respect for human rights, the school's graduates have become some of
the worst human rights abusers in the world. Many of the graduates
returned to their home countries to participate in the violent
overthrow of their governments and seize power themselves. The fact of
the matter is that the School of the Americas has been a failure.
We have heard many times during this debate that defense cuts are
hurting the American men and women who have signed up to serve our
country. Just today, when the Appropriations Committee marked up the
military construction bill, we heard how defense cuts were resulting in
the cancellation of many housing programs for military families. In my
own State, the National Guard's Camp Smith is desperately in need of
new housing. Camp Smith's officers, NCO's, and enlisted men and women
are all living in cramped, dilapidated quarters. But the resources were
not available to fund new housing at the camp.
If we cannot even afford to adequately house our own soldiers, how
can we continue to operate this school whose teaching is not achieving
its stated purpose. On this item, it is time that we get our priorities
in order.
I hope my colleagues will join me this year in voting in support of
this important amendment.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I consider it both a duty and a privilege
to join in opposition to funding for the School of the Americas.
This is not a school but a scandal. It is a training ground for
dictators and thugs like Noriega and D'Aubuisson--who get their
training in America with American taxpayers' dollars, and then go home
and use their training to oppress and murder their own people.
This school for atrocities costs American taxpayers some $40 million
a year, if we count in salaries and living expenses for the trainees or
perks like free trips to Disney World. What we get in return is that we
get to be identified with tyranny and oppression.
This is not just a boondoggle, but a shameful and murderous
boondoggle which discredits the United States at the same time that it
kills the people whose welfare we claim to support. End the killing and
the waste and stop this scandal.
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. Simply
stated, the School of the Americas remains the most effective way to
ensure that Latin America military personnel respect human rights and
the authority of the emerging democratic governments in that region.
As the only West Point graduate serving in this body, I am most
sensitive to the heinous deeds perpetrated by individuals trained by
the U.S. Army. However, I am also acutely aware of the great
contribution that military personnel can make to a democracy. It is for
both of these reasons that I support preserving funding for the School
of the Americas.
Unfortunately, the positive contributions made by the vast majority
of graduates of the School of the Americas are forgotten amidst the
talk of those few individuals who have attended the school and later
been implicated in human rights violations. In fact, of the 58,000
officers that have graduated from this institution over the past 31
years, over 99.3 percent have gone on to serve their countries in a
professional and admirable fashion.
Typically, though, the U.S. Army is not satisified with a failure
rate of seven-tenths of 1 percent. In addition to incorporating
mandatory human rights training into the school's curriculum creating
an external review board, the Army has also thoroughly revised the
selection process by which candidates gain admission to the school.
This new standardized screening process requires all potential students
to earn admission based on a demonstrated history of their respect for
the law and human rights.
Admittedly, there is no guarantee that these changes will prevent
future graduates from betraying the democratic ideals drilled into them
at Fort Benning. However, it would be even more disingenuous to claim
that closing the School of the Americas would prevent future human
rights abuses from occurring.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear that we must do all we can to nurture the
growth of democracy in Latin America. Keeping the School of the
Americas open is critical to that effort because it is there that the
men and women of the U.S. military interact and communicate most
effectively with their Latin American counterparts.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this well intentioned but
misguided amendment.
Mr. HAMBURG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kennedy
amendment to terminate funding for the School of the Americas.
This amendment will cut $2.5 million for the school, a small fraction
of the amount we spend on defense in this country. But this amendment
is not just about dollar savings; its about what those dollars fund.
There can be no mistake that the School of the Americas has trained
some of the most despised and corrupt military officers in Latin
America. A list of their graduates reads like a rogue's gallery of
individuals that have wreaked havoc and destruction on the people of
Latin America.
Roberto D'Aubisson, Leopoldo Galtieri, Manuel Noriega. Respect and
promotion of human rights do not spring to mind when these names are
read. Graduates of the School of the Americas have planned and carried
out some of the most heinous crimes in this hemisphere, including the
murder of six Jesuit priests in El Salvador.
The United States, in the course of the past decade, has spent
roughly $6 billion to wage war in El Salvador. That war is over. The
Nation as a whole is reconciling its past and moving towards a future
based on democratic ideals and respect for human rights.
Our foreign policy should reflect this. We have spent billions of
dollars to wage war, and we should now be working to ensure that a new
mutual relationship with El Salvador based on democracy and human
rights is established. Continued funding for the School of the Americas
is an impediment to that process.
People across this Nation are tired of their tax dollars being used
in this way. Bill Thompson from my district has joined with people from
across the country on the steps of the Capitol for the past month,
fasting against continued funding of the School.
I urge you to support this amendment and in doing so support the
people of this Nation, the people of Latin America, and the future of
U.S.-Latin American relations.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dellums] has that right, and is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I have tried to listen to both sides of
the aisle on this debate. I have a few remarks to make before we vote.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy]. I support this amendment, not, Mr. Chairman, because there
are not good and honorable U.S. personnel currently employed at the
school; not because there are not any School of the Americas graduates
who moved on without becoming heinous human rights abusers; and,
finally, not because I wish to deny Latin American military the
opportunity to obtain training in our country.
Rather, Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment because during the cold
war ordinary people in Latin America came to see the school as the U.S.
military institution at which their most brutal and vicious oppressors
honed their military skills. Several of the previous speakers have
outlined specifically who those persons were. I choose not to speak to
it further.
Let me say there have been, on numerous occasions, Members who have
arisen in the well of the House to talk about sending signals to other
parts of the world about our commitment to democracy, our commitment to
human rights, sending signals from this Congress. We have an
opportunity from these Chambers to send a signal.
The people of the region, Mr. Chairman, fought long and hard to free
themselves of oppressive regimes. In some cases like Haiti, Mr.
Chairman, the struggle continues. However, in the many years that it
has been in existence, the School of the Americas has not exactly
established an outstanding reputation as promoting democracy,
protecting human rights, or condemning or isolating brutal militaries.
The cold war, Mr. Chairman, and all of its anxieties are behind us.
The cold war is over. We must now, through the adoption of this
amendment, in this gentleman's humble opinion, signal to our neighbors
that we are at last free to pursue regional relationships that are
healthy, dignified, and respectful.
Mr. Chairman, these are the cornerstones of which the promotion of
true democracy rests, and the establishment of mutual beneficial ties
in a multiplicity of spheres, at a multiplicity of levels. That is the
signal here.
We often know that we do many things that speak to symbolism. What
better form of symbolism, Mr. Chairman, to say that we walk away from
the tyranny of training oppressors.
If our Latin American neighbors perceive us as operating a school
that has done that, what better way to do it in a post-cold-war
environment than to get rid of that?
Mr. Chairman, with the passage of this amendment, Latin American
military personnel, and this speaks to the issue that our distinguished
minority whip raised, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], they
would be free and welcome to continue receiving military training in
the United States. However, instead of being isolated in a so-called
Latin American school environment, why not train them in the same
places that we train every other leader throughout the world?
It sends an incredibly bad message, given the history of oppression
and violence that has taken place in this hemisphere from the School of
the Americas.
So for those who say we need training, there is no problem about
training. There is no lack of capacity. However, why train in the
School of the Americas and train other world leaders someplace else?
Let them all train together. They can benefit from the military-to-
military contact that speaks to civilian rule and democratic
principles.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Kennedy amendment gives the United States
an important opportunity to signal a new beginning, symbolically as
well as substantively, in our dealings with the region. It presents and
represents an opportunity to break, both symbolically and
substantially, with all of the errors and all of the pain of the past.
I would argue that we step forward boldly into a new reality, into a
new future, into a new set of relationships. I urge my colleagues to
vote for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy].
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I have said on other occasions that I have been amazed
at the fact that our maker has endowed us with minds that allow us to
look at the same facts and arrive at conclusions 180 degrees apart from
one another.
{time} 1250
Having said that, I never cease to be amazed at the agility of the
minds of our liberal friends. They can stand reason on its head.
Someone said not long ago that liberals cause arthritis. I do not
know if that is true or not. But they cause all kinds of other
mischief. Today is a good example.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Darden].
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the distinguished ranking
minority member of the Committee on Armed Services yielding to me, and
I join with my colleagues from Georgia and my former colleagues from
the Committee on Armed Services in opposing in the most strong as
possible terms this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, The purpose of the School of the Americas is to develop
and conduct doctrinally sound, relevant, and cost-effective military
training. It is designed to foster cooperation among Latin American
armies, to promote military professionalism, and to expand knowledge of
United States customs and democratic traditions to the armed forces of
Latin America.
The question then arises, is the School of the Americans meeting
these objectives? In my opinion, there is no doubt that this
institution is an overall success story.
The School of the Americas has laid a strong democratic base for the
more than 58,000 Latin American and Caribbean military officers,
cadets, and noncommissioned officers who have successfully completed
the professional military education and training courses. Without this
school there is no way to tell how many Latin Americans would have
faired at the hands of their leaders. There is no way to tell how many
might have been treated inhumanely and denied the basic fairness
associated with democratic principles. But the presence of this school
has been an important reason that democracy now flourishes in Latin
America.
I will not deny that several students of the School of the Americas
have been abusive to the citizens of their nation. However, I would
suggest that these abuses are not a product of the School of the
Americas. These abuses would have occurred regardless of participation
in the school's courses. I do not believe that anyone here really
believes that this school is teaching Latin Americans to return to
their country and deny the principles of democracy and violate human
rights. That is inconceivable and it simply is not happening.
What has happened is that a small percentage of graduates of the
school have returned to their country and been abusive. But I submit,
this is the responsibility of the individual, not the School of the
Americas. We simply cannot close an institution because a small
percentage of participants are bad. If we closed every institution that
had a few bad participants, none of us would come to work Monday
because we would have to close Congress.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, the School of the Americas is critical if
the democratic gains we have made in Latin America are to continue. I
urge opposition to this amendment.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California
[Mr. Hunter].
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the School of the Americas is taught by your military
officers. Those military officers are your neighbors, your friends in
some cases, your children, your grandchildren, and who can say that
associating with American officers the caliber of Colin Powell is not
going to make those particular Latin American officers most honest,
more supportive of democracy and more in keeping with our traditions
and values?
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Laughlin].
Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I
would say that my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts is right in
the facts he cited but the gentleman did not cite all the facts and,
that is, there have been over 58,000 Latin American officers being
exposed to democracy in America and where better should we expose those
people that come from regions of the world to democracy than in our own
country where our military has a history of being subservient to
civilian control?
Mr. Chairman, we have heard all the horrible examples that have been
cited. Let me give two success stories of the graduates:
First, none of the Haiti rulers today in power went to that school.
Second, General Guzman, Colombian army commander, has instituted human
rights reform by assigning judges to the brigades as they go out in the
field. Third, Brig. Gen. Borregales has helped put down coup attempts
in Venezuela.
Mr. Chairman, this is what democracy training at the School of the
Americas is about.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon].
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kennedy amendment.
This is an extremely ill-advised idea, based on sensationalism and
hyped-up charges against a key part of our strategy to spread democracy
in Latin America. And the School of the Americas is that key part of
our strategy.
Over 58,000 graduates, the overwhelming majority of whom have never
ever been implicated in human rights abuses, have returned home to
serve their countries honorably. And who today would claim that our
Latin American strategy has not been working, Mr. Speaker? That is, who
except Fidel Castro and the thug who runs Haiti, the only two remaining
dictators in Latin America?
In the early 1980's, Latin America was almost completely run by
dictators. It was awash in civil war and violent repression. Today, as
I said it is just these two pathetic thugs in Havana and Port-au-
Prince.
Our military training of these people works. To those who say that we
encourage and even teach repression to Latin American officers, I would
offer the example of El Salvador. Would the supporters of this
amendment really claim that repression in El Salvador increased in
proportion with our military involvement? The facts say otherwise.
In 1981, death squad killings exceeded 800 per month. By 1987, after
several years of U.S. involvement, including training at the School of
the Americas, total political killings were under 100.
Mr. Chairman, today Latin America is making great strides toward
democracy. Political violence is way down. Free-market economics has
conquered Marxism. The unbearably stupid and stultifying doctrines of
Third World ideology and liberation theology are on the ash heap of
history.
But let's face it. The military is deeply entrenched in Latin
American history and culture. Rather than pretend this isn't so, as
this amendment does, we need to recognize reality and continue to work
to make that reality better.
Mr. Chairman let's kill this very bad amendment.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Gilman].
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, this is not an easy issue. Both sides have
made valid arguments about whether the School of the Americas should be
maintained or terminated.
I strongly support continued funding for the School of the Americas.
However, my support is with an important qualification--that the
changes the administration has told us are underway be implemented
promptly and unconditionally.
This includes changes in the courses of instruction, the amount of
human rights training, the candidate vetting process, the creation and
implementation of an outside civilian advisory board, and opening the
school to a larger number of civilian instructors and students.
The United States Army has a positive contribution to make in the
evolution of Latin American militaries. Our values as a society can
be--and have been--transmitted to a large number of Latin officers
through the School of the Americas.
This is not to ignore the number of Latin officers who have committed
abuses after being trained at the school. I do not believe, however,
that their subsequent conduct resulted from the training they received
at the school. They were bad apples, pure and simple.
Based on a recent joint State Department-U.S. Army briefing for
Foreign Affairs Committee staff, the School of the Americas recognizes
that the cold war is over and that the school must reflect new
missions, including counternarcotics, peacekeeping, and demining.
We need an effective mechanism to develop and conduct doctrinally
sound, relevant, and cost-effective military training; to foster
cooperation with Latin American armies; to promote military
professionalism; and to expand knowledge of United States democratic
traditions to Latin armed forces.
Rather than arbitrarily discontinuing the School of the Americas, we
would be better served by requiring that we support it and make it live
up to the legislative mandates that attended its establishment.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California
[Mr. Dornan].
(Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, a former Member who left here in disgrace
graduated from my college. I do not want to shut it down.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Rahall). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was recorded.
The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--ayes 175,
noes 217, not voting 46, as follows:
[Roll No. 190]
AYES--175
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews (ME)
Applegate
Baesler
Barca
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Berman
Blackwell
Blute
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Byrne
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Clay
Clayton
Coble
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Coyne
de Lugo (VI)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dooley
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Fish
Foglietta
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Gejdenson
Glickman
Gonzalez
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamburg
Harman
Hastings
Hefner
Hinchey
Hochbrueckner
Hoke
Holden
Inslee
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kopetski
Kreidler
Lambert
LaRocco
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCloskey
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meyers
Mfume
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Norton (DC)
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Ravenel
Richardson
Roemer
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Schenk
Schiff
Schroeder
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sharp
Shays
Shepherd
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Swift
Synar
Taylor (NC)
Thompson
Thurman
Torkildsen
Unsoeld
Upton
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Walsh
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Williams
Woolsey
Wyden
Yates
NOES--217
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Archer
Armey
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chapman
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Coppersmith
Cox
Cramer
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Derrick
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Everett
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Frost
Gallegly
Gallo
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Green
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Hilliard
Hoagland
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Huffington
Hughes
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klein
Knollenberg
Kyl
Lancaster
Lantos
Laughlin
Lazio
Levy
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Lloyd
Lucas
Machtley
Mann
Manzullo
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Ridge
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Rowland
Royce
Rush
Santorum
Sarpalius
Saxton
Schaefer
Schumer
Scott
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Torricelli
Traficant
Tucker
Underwood (GU)
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Walker
Weldon
Whitten
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--46
Barlow
Becerra
Brooks
Brown (CA)
Calvert
Clement
Crane
Dingell
Dixon
Emerson
Faleomavaega (AS)
Farr
Flake
Ford (MI)
Gephardt
Gordon
Grams
Grandy
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lehman
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Livingston
McCollum
Michel
Miller (CA)
Murphy
Neal (NC)
Pickle
Roberts
Rose
Rostenkowski
Sawyer
Slattery
Smith (IA)
Smith (TX)
Stenholm
Sundquist
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thornton
Torres
Towns
Washington
Wilson
{time} 1314
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Slattery for, with Mr. Dingell against.
Mr. Miller of California for, with Mr. LaFalce against.
Mr. Sawyer for, with Mr. Calvert against.
Mr. Becerra for, with Mr. Kolbe against.
Mr. Washington for, with Mr. Thomas of California, against.
Mr. Grams for, with Mr. Emerson against.
Mr. RICHARDSON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I do
so in order to explain to my colleagues that it would be the intention
of this chairman to move that the Committee do now rise.
The reason that we do so is because there still remains important
debate on two significant amendments, one offered by the distinguished
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and one offered by this
gentleman, regarding the selective service draft registration. These
are important issues. They need to be discussed and debated and voted
upon. The problem we have is one of time constraint.
Mr. Chairman, I have been asked either to have the debate and roll
votes over until Monday, which seems to me to be a rather bizarre
process because I think the votes ought to occur at the time we debate,
otherwise by Monday Members are not even sure what they are voting on.
So it is the judgment of his person, if everyone concurs, that the
Committee would now rise and come back on Monday, have the debate on
these issues, vote on Monday rather than rolling the votes, which seems
to me to be a much more rational way to proceed.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELLUMS. I certainly yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I think that is certainly a reasonable request. The
Committee on Rules is about to come to an agreement on a rule for the
remainder of this most important bill that will come before this body
this year or any other year. We need to meet this afternoon, and we
cannot meet if we are on this floor during the next hours on these two
amendments. I think it is a reasonable request, and certainly we on
this side would agree to it.
Mr. DELLUMS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
Montgomery].
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to have an idea, maybe the gentleman has
stated it, does he have any idea when these last two amendments would
come up? I am interested in the suspensions.
Mr. DELLUMS. Reclaiming my time, these two amendments, the regular
order would be to finish the amendments that were laid out in the first
rule that we adopted. So it would mean that the Solomon amendment and
the Dellums amendment would be the first two items to be debated and
voted upon. That is the regular order under the proceedings of the
first rule.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, we have suspension bills. I would
assume that we would go back on this bill after the suspensions.
Mr. DELLUMS. That is a call of the leadership. I am simply saying
that at the time that the DOD authorization bill, H.R. 4301, comes to
the floor, these two amendments would be debated first.
{time} 1320
Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the leadership will make a
scheduling announcement later, but these two items will be debated
first when we come back on this bill.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, what I am concerned about is most of the
Members will not be back in this body to participate in that debate. If
we just come back, and we take up both of these bills, most of the
Members are going to be on airplanes across America coming back and
will not have the opportunity to participate.
Mr. DELLUMS. Not if they do the suspensions first; and, No. 2, this
gentleman has to fly all the way to California. But my job is also to
be back here Monday, and I plan to do that, as I am sure the gentleman
has planned to do.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, there are 17 suspension on Monday. There
is no chance any debate will take place on this before 5 o'clock. I am
sure every Member will be back in time for that.
Mr. DELLUMS. So, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is going to be
protected; no problem.
Mr. SYNAR. Mr.Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4301, the
Department of Defense authorization for fiscal year 1995. This
legislation makes great strides to balance our national security needs
with Federal deficit concerns. H.R. 4301 accomplishes this goal and
bolsters our ability to conduct national security given the end of the
cold war and the domestic economic situation.
One such stride is a provision in the committee report which deals
with an issue that I have had an interest in since the early 1980's. At
issue is the possible use of the B-1B in maritime support roles for the
Navy. During these time of tighter budgets, like many of my colleagues,
I have concerns for protecting our military's state of readiness.
Specifically, with an aging carrier fleet and a reduction in the number
of new carrier battle groups, the time is right to revisit the issue of
assigning the B-1B to maritime roles.
In its' report, the committee has asked the Department of Defense to
give serious consideration to the feasibility of the B-1B being used in
maritime roles. The committee directs Secretary Perry to review this
option and report back to the relevant committees no later than April
15, 1995. Mr. Chairman, because the committee has taken this action I
chose not to ask for an amendment to H.R. 4301 asking for such a study.
However, I wait with great interest for the results of this study and
stand prepared to take the necessary actions to ensure that Secretary
Perry and the Department give this option every consideration.
Currently, the Navy plans to retire its' A-6E force by 1998. This
will leave the Navy without an aircraft having all weather strike
capabilities until the proposed Joint Advanced Strike Technology [JAST]
Program produces an operational aircraft. Such an aircraft is not
estimated to be operational until 2007. The ability of the carrier
battle group to remain on station as a demonstration of U.S. interest,
concern, and resolve cannot be duplicated by any Air Force. Given the
essential role of the carrier battle group in U.S. diplomacy, it is
important that they are in a constant state of readiness.
Simultaneously, Russia is maintaining a strong Navy, strongly
oriented to the anticarrier mission. It is making efforts to develop
new highly capable antiship missiles, for use by their navy and for
sale to others. Many of the Republics in the former Soviet Union are
obtaining Naval and other forces which pose potential threats to U.S.
carrier battle groups and maintain a presence in areas of concern to
the United States. This will without question place our ships and
sailors at risk. Unfortunately the tactical protection through an all
weather strike capability can only be achieved through tactical control
of the assets by the battle group commander which cannot be based in
the United States.
Recently, Gen. Merrill McPeak of the Air Force recently called for
the 30 to 36 B-1B's be placed in ``attrition reserve'' as called for in
the Clinton administration's Bottom-Up Review [BUR]. Under this plan,
these aircraft will not undergo the modification program projected for
the B-1B fleet to fit it for conventional missions as called for in
H.R. 4301. The Congress has spent $20 billion--$30 billion in today's
dollars--on the B-1B and less than 10 years after the first delivery
the Air Force is planning to scrap about one-third of its fleet. This
is the sort of waste which breeds popular cynicism about the Pentagon,
the Congress, and Government.
I suggest that the Air Force be forced to modify the entire B-1B
fleet. If the Air Force finds a surplus of the aircraft, I believe this
surplus could be put to good use by the Navy, pending the
reintroduction of a carrier based aircraft with all weather strike
capabilities. There are several reasons why the B-1B's should be
considered for helping to project naval capabilities throughout the
world. The two most important being readiness and taxpayer savings.
Using the B-1B in this role is an opportunity for the American taxpayer
to get the most value out of a ready strategic investment. Therefore,
Mr. Speaker the B-1B's must be used to defend our sea lanes and
compensate for bomber shortages created by our aging bomber and carrier
fleets.
There is consensus among the American people and this Congress that
we commit considerable amounts of taxpayer dollars to our national
defense. This Congress must do everything in its' power to ensure that
our investment in national defense is maximized. Therefore, we must
guarantee that this government make the fullest use of the weapons
systems it procures. It is in this spirit that I urge my colleagues to
support H.R. 4301.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Kildee) having assumed the chair, Mr. Rahall, Chairman pro tempore of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
4301) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for military
activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for fiscal year 1995, and for other purposes, had
come to no resolution thereon.
____________________