[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: May 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 443 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 443
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4426) making appropriations for foreign
operations, export financing, and related programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1995. All points of order
against the bill and against its consideration are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Appropriations and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After
general debate the pending question shall be the adoption of
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Appropriations now printed in the bill. The
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
designated and shall be debatable for ten minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations. All points of
order against the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, and against provisions in the bill if so amended,
are waived. If the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute is adopted, then the bill as so amended shall be
considered as the original bill for the purpose of further
amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered
as read. No further amendment shall be in order except those
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the
report, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of
the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
All points of order against amendments printed in the report
are waived. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
postpone until a time during further consideration in the
Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any
amendment made in order by this resolution. The chairman of
the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less than five
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any
postponed question that immediately follows another vote by
electronic device without intervening business, provided that
the time for voting by electronic device on the first in any
series of questions shall be not less than fifteen minutes.
At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment
the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House
with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torres). The gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Hall] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dreier], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
(Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 443 will allow the
House to consider H.R. 4426, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill
for fiscal year 1995. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points
of order against the bill and its consideration.
The rule provides that after general debate, the pending question
shall be the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Appropriations and now printed in the
bill. The committee amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Appropriations. All points of order against the
committee amendment and against provisions in the bill, if amended, are
waived. If the committee amendment is adopted, then the bill as amended
shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further
amendment under the 5 minute rule and shall be considered as read.
Under the rule, no further amendment to the bill is in order except
for the amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the
order printed and by the named proponent or a designee. The amendments
shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for the time
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent.
The amendments shall not be subject to amendment except as specified
in the report and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of
the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points
of order are waived against the amendments. The rule further permits
the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone a recorded vote
on any amendment made in order by this rule, and to reduce to 5 minutes
the time for voting after the first of a series of votes.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4426, the foreign aid appropriations bill is a
carefully crafted piece of legislation. The committee appropriates
approximately $13.6 billion for U.S. foreign aid programs which results
in a reduction in spending of about $1 billion from last year. The bill
successfully balances the need to exercise fiscal constraint while
still meeting our moral obligation to assist those suffering from
hunger and poverty around the world.
I want to particularly commend the committee, under the leadership of
Chairman Dave Obey, for including $275 million for child survival
activities which save and sustain the lives of up to 15 million
children a year. The Agency for International Development [AID]
reported to Congress that its child survival, basic education, and
micronutrient programs have a far-reaching impact on the lives of
children and their families in more than 60 countries. In addition to
the $275 million for child survival activities, the committee also
included $135 million for basic education and $25 million for
micronutrients.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, while the committee included identical
amounts for these programs under last year's bill, AID did not spend
all the funds provided. I will later engage Chairman Obey in a colloquy
making it clear that the intent of this legislation is to spend the
amounts provided for these very successful preventive programs.
Overall this is an excellent piece of legislation that challenges our
ability to target funds in the most needed areas while operating under
tight budgetary constraints. The rule is designed to facilitate House
consideration of our important foreign aid related issues. I urge my
colleagues to adopt it, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. It
is unfair, undemocratic, and elitist, disenfranchising nearly every
Member of Congress and the voters whom they were elected to represent.
I will say up front that my visceral opposition to this rule is not
based on that it brings a foreign aid bill to the floor. Instead I
oppose this rule because it strikes at the very foundation that the
people's House was intended to play in our great constitutional system,
namely to control the power of the purse and set the spending
priorities for the funds collected from hardworking taxpayers.
I oppose closed rules, Mr. Speaker. I believe they are anathema to
the concept of deliberative democracy. Unfortunately, the Committee on
Rules often receives requests for restrictive rules. When this happens,
it is usually because legislation is highly technical or a bill could
become a Christmas tree of unnecessary special-interest projects or tax
breaks.
{time} 1410
No such claim is made for this appropriations bill. That is why I
believe that we have a solemn responsibility to the American taxpayers,
and to the institution, the House of Representatives, to reject this
rule. In short, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations came
before the Committee on Rules and said he opposed cutting amendments
being offered against his bill because many of them would be popular.
Members would vote for them. They would pass.
Mr. Speaker, in a deliberative democracy, where we have
representative government, would that be so bad? Are we at the point in
this House that serious and thoughtful amendments to spending bills are
going to be gagged because they might earn the votes of the elected
representatives? The Committee on Appropriations, at least on some
spending bills, appears to believe that they know so precisely how
taxpayer money should be spent that they will set all the figures, and
then no other Members will have even a chance to reduce the amounts.
That is fine if a colleague is one of the privileged 59 members of
that committee, but for the other 375, regardless of your view of
foreign aid, this is an unfair process. We cannot condone the selective
disenfranchisement of the 225 million Americans who do not have the
privilege of being represented by a member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Yesterday, a Republican candidate was elected to the House of
Representatives from the second District of Kentucky for the first time
in over 129 years. That is not just another watershed election for
Republicans in a rising tide against big unresponsive Government in
Washington. It is also worth noting that it was the election to replace
the highly respected chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Bill
Natcher. Chairman Natcher regularly stated that appropriations bills
should come to floor under the regular order, permitting all cutting
amendments. He believed in letting democracy work in practice. We all
know he considered casting votes the highest duty of a Member of
Congress.
This foreign aid appropriations bill has become a harbinger of an
increasingly insulated appropriations committee. To provide some
perspective of how things have changed, from 1979 to 1986, no
appropriations bills were protected from cutting amendments. Since
1987, the Foreign Operations bill has been protected from these
amendments six times, and in the last 2 years, the legislative branch
bill has also been so shielded. The House leadership has apparently
decided that democracy is not longer a suitable process for these
sacrosanct bills. The trend, Mr. Speaker, is certainly in a bad
direction.
As I said, amendments were gagged on this foreign aid bill because
they were popular, because they would pass. Three amendments to
increase funding for anti-narcotics initiatives, brought by esteemed
leaders on this issue such as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman],
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cunningham], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel]
and others were blocked from consideration. They would increase funding
for that critical antidrug program being cut by the administration,
cutting from less important initiatives. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am
going to call for the defeat of the previous question to make in order
the Rangel-Gilman-Oxley amendment to fully fund the antinarcotics
program.
Amendments by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] to cut $50
million from the International Development Association, or by the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] to cut $5 million from the Agency
for International Development, or by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Klug] to cut $9.6 million from the International Fund for Ireland,
amendments, which each should be in order under the regular
appropriations process, were denied. Those programs should face the
scrutiny of debate and the test of democracy, which is a vote. The
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] to
cut funds for foreign aid to countries that fail to vote with the
United States even 25 percent of the time in the United Nations is
blocked by this rule precisely because it would probably pass this
House. Finally, the proposal offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Mica] to reduce development aid and shift the resources to export
promotion programs is gagged to protect the committee's bill from
scrutiny.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to put in the Record at this
point the rollcall votes held in the Committee on Rules on amendments
blocked by the rule, including the ones I have mentioned. I would also
like to include a chart on the increasing number of restrictive rules
reported by the Committee on Rules, including their instances on
appropriations bills.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torres). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The information referred to is as follows:
Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on Motions to Proposed Rule for
Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for Fiscal 1995 (H.R. 4426)--
Wednesday, May 25, 1994
1. Open Rule.--Provides for two hours of general debate;
makes in order the Appropriations Committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute as original text for amendment
purposes; provides for an open amendment process under the
five-minute rule; waives clauses 2 and 6 of rule 21 against
provisions of the bill. Rejected: 4-5. AYES: Solomon,
Quillen, Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Hall,
Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Derrick, Bonior, Wheat, Gordon.
2. Strike 3-Day Layover Waivers.--Strike the provisions
from the rule that waive clause 2(l)(6) of rule 11, the
three-day layover requirement for committee reports, and
clause 7 of rule 21, the 3-day layover requirement for
appropriations reports and published hearings. Rejected: 4-4.
AYES: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley,
Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Derrick, Bonior,
Hall, Wheat, Gordon.
3. Permit Motions to Strike.--In addition to the amendments
made in order by the rule, insert the following language at
the appropriate place: ``Notwithstanding the forgoing
provisions of this resolution, it shall be in order to
consider amendments under the five-minute rule to strike any
paragraph, section, item or proviso from the Committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute.'' Rejected: 4-4.
AYES: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley,
Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Derrick, Bonior,
Hall, Wheat, Gordon.
4. Gekas Amendment No. 5.--Amends the provision withholding
25% of the funds for Greece pending a report by the Secretary
of State to the Appropriations Committees on alleged Greek
violations of the U.N. sanctions against Serbia by striking
the requirement that the funds not be obligated until at
least 15 days after a separate notification has been
submitted. Rejected: 4-5. AYES: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier,
Goss. NAYS: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter.
NOT VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon.
5. Cunningham Amendment No. 6.--Reduces funds for the
Development Assistance Fund and increases funds for
``International Narcotics Control'' by $55 million. Rejected:
4-5. AYES: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley,
Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Bonior,
Hall, Wheat, Gordon.
6. Burton Amendment No. 9.--Reduces operating expenses for
the Agency for International Development from $517.5 million
to $512.325 million. Rejected: 4-5. AYES: Solomon, Quillen,
Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost,
Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon.
7. Burton Amendment No. 10.--Includes India under those
Nations for which international military education and
training assistance shall be prohibited (the bill now bars
such assistance only to Indonesia and Zaire). Rejected: 3-5.
AYES: Solomon, Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley, Derrick,
Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat,
Gordon, Quillen.
8. Burton Amendment No. 11.--Strikes the provision
withholding 25% of the Foreign Military Financing funds to
Turkey subject to certain conditions. Rejected: 3-5. AYES:
Solomon, Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson,
Frost, Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon,
Quillen.
9. Solomon Amendment No. 17.--Reduces amount for Economic
Support Fund and increases amount for International Narcotics
Control by $52.4 million. [En bloc] Rejected: 4-5. AYES:
Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley, Derrick,
Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat,
Gordon.
10. Solomon Amendment No. 21.--Reduce amount for U.S.
contribution for the International Development Association by
$50 million. Rejected: 4-5. AYES: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier,
Goss. NAYS: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter.
NOT VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon.
11. Goodling Amendment No. 22.--Reduce funds for Economic
Support Fund by $27.75 million; for International Military
Education and Training by $6.5 million; and for Foreign
Military Financing Program by $7.3 million. Rejected: 4-5.
AYES: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley, Derrick,
Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat,
Gordon.
12. Klug Amendment No. 23.--Reduce funds for International
Fund for Ireland by $9.6 million. Rejected: 4-5. AYES:
Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley, Derrick,
Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat,
Gordon.
13. Mica Amendment No. 24.--Reduce funds for Agency for
International Development by $51 million; and Mica Amendment
No. 25.--Increase funds for Export-Import Bank by $51
million. [En bloc] Rejected: 4-5. AYES: Solomon, Quillen,
Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost,
Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon.
14. Gilman Amendment No. 26.--Reduce funds for independent
States of former Soviet Union by $85.3 million and increase
funds for International Narcotics Control by $52.4 million.
[En bloc] Rejected: 3-5. AYES: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier.
NAYS: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. NOT
VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon, Goss.
15. Crane Amendment No. 29.--Limits the percentage of U.S.
voluntary contributions to the U.N. after calendar year 1995
to no more than the ratio of U.S. population to total
population of U.N. member states. Rejected: 3-4. AYES:
Solomon, Quillen, Dreier. NAYS: Moakley, Beilenson, Frost,
Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon,
Goss.
16. Gilman Amendment No. 30.--Authorizes President to
establish a program to facilitate transition to full NATO
membership of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and
Slovakia, provide assistance under various security
assistance programs funded by bill, and permitting the
President to expand transition assistance to other emerging
Eastern European democracies. Rejected: 4-5. AYES: Solomon,
Quillen, Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson,
Frost, Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon.
18. Burton Amendment No. 31.--Prohibits assistance to South
Africa if the government is suppressing opposition parties,
is not respecting human rights and due process of law, or is
not following free market economic policies; and Burton
Amendment No. 33.--Prohibits assistance to South Africa is
communists are serving in the cabinet. Rejected: 4-5. AYES:
Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley, Derrick,
Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat,
Gordon.
19. Motion to Report Rule.--Modified closed rule, waiving
all points of order. Adopted: 5-4. AYES: Moakley, Derrick,
Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. NAYS: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier,
Goss. NOT VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon.
Amendments in motions 4-18 above shall not be subject to
amendment but shall be debatable for not to exceed 20-minutes
equally divided between the proponent or a designee and an
opponent; en bloc amendments are to be allowed where
indicated and not subject to a division of the question in
the House or Committee of the Whole; and appropriate points
of order are waived against those amendments which require
waivers.
____
H.R. 4426--Providing an Open Rule for the Foreign Operations
Appropriations Act
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
``That at any time after the adoption of this resolution
the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII,
declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill (H.R. 4426) making appropriations for foreign
operations, export financing, and related programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and the first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. After general debate
which shall be confined to the bill, and which shall not
exceed two hours to be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on the Appropriations now printed in the bill
as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the
five-minute rule, and said amendment shall be considered as
read. All points of order against provisions in the bill or
the amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to
comply with the provisions of clauses 2 or 6 or rule XXI are
waived. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill
for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to
the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and
any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill
or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit, with or without
instructions.''.
Explanation: This amendment to the proposed rule provides
for a 2-hour, open rule for the consideration of H.R. 4426,
the ``Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
1995,'' and makes the Appropriations Committee's amendment in
the nature of a substitute in order as an original bill for
the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule. Clauses
2 and 6 of rule 21 are waived against provisions of the bill
and substitute. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to
recommit, with or without instructions.
OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open rules Restrictive rules
Congress (years) Total rules ---------------------------------------
granted\1\ Number Percent\2\ Number Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78)............................................. 211 179 85 32 15
96th (1979-80)............................................. 214 161 75 53 25
97th (1981-82)............................................. 120 90 75 30 25
98th (1983-84)............................................. 155 105 68 50 32
99th (1985-86)............................................. 115 65 57 50 43
100th (1987-88)............................................ 123 66 54 57 46
101st (1989-90)............................................ 104 47 45 57 55
102d (1991-92)............................................. 109 37 34 72 66
103d (1993-94)............................................. 68 14 21 54 79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of
order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is
otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
of total rules granted.
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called
modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for
consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are
restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''
Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through May 25, 1994.
OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Amendments
Rule number date reported type Bill number and subject submitted Amendments allowed Disposition of rule and date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993...... MC H.R. 1: Family and medical 30 (D-5; R-25).. 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
leave. 1993).
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993...... MC H.R. 2: National Voter 19 (D-1; R-18).. 1 (D-0; R-1).............. PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
Registration Act. 1993).
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993.... C H.R. 920: Unemployment 7 (D-2; R-5).... 0 (D-0; R-0).............. PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.
compensation. 24, 1993).
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993..... MC H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments 9 (D-1; R-8).... 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
1993).
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization 13 (d-4; R-9)... 8 (D-3; R-5).............. PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.
Act of 1993. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 1335: Emergency 37 (D-8; R-29).. 1(not submitted) (D-1; R- A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).
supplemental Appropriations. 0).
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993.... MC H. Con. Res. 64: Budget 14 (D-2; R-12).. 4 (1-D not submitted) (D- PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.
resolution. 2; R-2). 18, 1993).
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993.... MC H.R. 670: Family planning 20 (D-8; R-12).. 9 (D-4; R-5).............. PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.
amendments. 24, 1993).
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993.... C H.R. 1430: Increase Public 6 (D-1; R-5).... 0 (D-0; R-0).............. PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
debt limit. 1993).
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993...... MC H.R. 1578: Expedited 8 (D-1; R-7).... 3 (D-1; R-2).............. A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).
Rescission Act of 1993.
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993...... O H.R. 820: Nate NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).
Competitiveness Act.
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993..... O H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).
of 1993.
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993..... O H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel NA.............. NA........................ A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).
Safety Act.
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993...... MC S.J. Res. 45: United States 6 (D-1; R-5).... 6 (D-1; R-5).............. A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)
forces in Somalia.
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993..... O H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental NA.............. NA........................ A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993..... MC H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget 51 (D-19; R-32). 8 (D-7; R-1).............. PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27,
reconciliation. 1993).
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 2348: Legislative branch 50 (D-6; R-44).. 6 (D-3; R-3).............. PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June
appropriations. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993.... O H.R. 2200: NASA authorization NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993.... MC H.R. 5: Striker replacement.. 7 (D-4; R-3).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993.... MO H.R. 2333: State Department. 53 (D-20; R-33). 27 (D-12; R-15)........... A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).
H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993.... C H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).
Track''.
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993.... MC H.R. 2295: Foreign operations 33 (D-11; R-22). 5 (D-1; R-4).............. A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993.... O H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993.... MO H.R. 2445: Energy and Water NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993.... O H.R. 2150: Coast Guard NA.............. NA........................ A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).
authorization.
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993.... MO H.R. 2010: National Service NA.............. NA........................ A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).
Trust Act.
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993.... MC H.R. 2667: Disaster 14 (D-8; R-6)... 2 (D-2; R-0).............. PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July
assistance supplemental. 22, 1993).
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993.... MC H.R. 2667: Disaster 15 (D-8; R-7)... 2 (D-2; R-0).............. A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).
assistance supplemental.
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993.... MO H.R. 2330: Intelligence NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).
Authority Act, fiscal year
1994.
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993.... O H.R. 1964: Maritime NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).
Administration authority.
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993..... MO H.R. 2401: National Defense 149 (D-109; R- .......................... A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).
authority. 40).
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993.... MO H.R. 2401: National defense ................ .......................... PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.
authorization. 13, 1993).
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993... MC H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act 12 (D-3; R-9)... 1 (D-1; R-0).............. A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993... MO H.R. 2401: National Defense ................ 91 (D-67; R-24)........... A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).
authorization.
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993... O H.R. 1845: National NA.............. NA........................ A: 238-188 (10/06/93).
Biological Survey Act.
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993... MC H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities, 7 (D-0; R-7).... 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.
museums. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993... MC H.R. 3167: Unemployment 3 (D-1; R-2).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).
compensation amendments.
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993..... MO H.R. 2739: Aviation N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).
infrastructure investment.
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993.... MC H.R. 3167: Unemployment 3 (D-1; R-2).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.
compensation amendments. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993.... MC H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate 15 (D-7; R-7; I- 10 (D-7; R-3)............. A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).
America Act. 1).
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993.... C H.J. Res. 281: Continuing N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).
appropriations through Oct.
28, 1993.
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993.... O H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).
Act.
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993.... C H.J. Res. 283: Continuing 1 (D-0; R-0).... 0......................... A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).
appropriations resolution.
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993.... O H.R. 2151: Maritime Security N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).
Act of 1993.
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993..... MC H. Con. Res. 170: Troop N/A............. N/A....................... A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).
withdrawal Somalia.
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993..... MO H.R. 1036: Employee 2 (D-1; R-1).... N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).
Retirement Act-1993.
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill 17 (D-6; R-11).. 4 (D-1; R-3).............. A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993..... O H.R. 322: Mineral exploration N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993..... C H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY N/A............. N/A....................... .................................
1994.
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status 27 (D-8; R-19).. 9 (D-1; R-8).............. F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 796: Freedom Access to 15 (D-9; R-6)... 4 (D-1; R-3).............. A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).
Clinics.
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young 21 (D-7; R-14).. 6 (D-3; R-3).............. A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).
Offenders.
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993.... C H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill. 1 (D-1; R-0).... N/A....................... A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993.... MC H.R. 3: Campaign Finance 35 (D-6; R-29).. 1 (D-0; R-1).............. A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).
Reform.
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993.... MC H.R. 3400: Reinventing 34 (D-15; R-19). 3 (D-3; R-0).............. A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).
Government.
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994..... MC H.R. 3759: Emergency 14 (D-8; R-5; I- 5 (D-3; R-2).............. PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3,
Supplemental Appropriations. 1). 1994).
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994..... MC H.R. 811: Independent Counsel 27 (D-8; R-19).. 10 (D-4; R-6)............. PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
Act. 1994).
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994..... MC H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce 3 (D-2; R-1).... 2 (D-2; R-0).............. A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).
Restructuring.
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994.... MO H.R. 6: Improving America's NA.............. NA........................ A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).
Schools.
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994..... MC H. Con. Res. 218: Budget 14 (D-5; R-9)... 5 (D-3; R-2).............. A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).
Resolution FY 1995-99.
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994.... MO H.R. 4092: Violent Crime 180 (D-98; R-82) 68 (D-47; R-21)........... A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).
Control.
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994.... MO H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act.. N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994.... O H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act..... N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994...... C H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons 7 (D-5; R-2).... 0 (D-0; R-0).............. A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).
Ban Act.
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994...... O H.R. 2442: EDA N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (May 10, 1994).
Reauthorization.
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994..... MO H.R. 518: California Desert N/A............. N/A....................... PQ: 245-172 A: 248-165 (May 17,
Protection. 1994).
H. Res. 423, May 11, 1994..... O H.R. 2473: Montana Wilderness N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (May 12, 1994).
Act.
H. Res. 428, May 17, 1994..... MO H.R. 2108: Black Lung 4 (D-1; R-3).... N/A....................... A: VV (May 19, 1994).
Benefits Act.
H. Res. 429, May 17, 1994..... MO H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY 173 (D-115; R- .......................... A: 369-49 (May 18, 1994).
1995. 58).
H. Res. 431, May 20, 1994..... MO H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY ................ 100 (D-80; R-20).......... A: Voice Vote (May 23, 1994).
1995.
H. Res. 440, May 24, 1994..... MC H.R. 4385: Natl Hiway System 16 (D-10; R-6).. 5 (D-5; R-0).............. A: Voice Vote (May 25, 1994).
Designation.
H. Res. ------, May 25, 1994.. MC H.R. 4426: For. Ops. Approps, 39 (D-11; R-28). 8 (D-3; R-5).............. .................................
FY 1995.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule is not about foreign aid. It is
about democracy here in Congress. If our country's foreign aid programs
are designed to promote democracy and freedom abroad, it is a pitiful
shame that the legislation funding those programs is now regularly
considered under the most antidemocratic unfair procedure we have. The
American people want a Congress that is involved in spending decisions,
and is accountable for their decisions. This rule goes against those
desires.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous
question, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson].
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Hall] very much for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule on the foreign operations
appropriations for fiscal year 1995.
Mr. Speaker, one of the amendments made in order by this rule is an
amendment I shall be offering to increase funding for voluntary family
planning assistance by $100 million. This increase would be paid for by
cutting programs in the bill, across the board, by three-quarters of 1
percent.
Increasing population assistance by $100 million will bring total
funding for population assistance to $669 million. That amount is
significantly closer to the amount the United States would need to
spend next year to fulfill our commitment to the 1989 Amsterdam
Declaration, the multinational plan for making voluntary family
planning assistance available universally by the year 2000. (Meeting
our commitment fully would require that we spend $800 million next
year.)
I want to note that this amendment provides a smaller increase in the
population account than I thought I would be proposing when I sent a
letter to my colleagues on this matter last night. and I want to draw
to my colleagues' attention also that the amendment does not cut
exclusively from the World Bank and other financial institutions, as
that letter stated but, rather, from all accounts in the bill. The
proposed amendment was changed after discussion of the amendment with
the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey] when the Committee on Rules was considering amendments to H.R.
4426.
This amendment will enable us to devote more of our limited foreign
aid dollars to a purpose that will help a greater number of people in
the developing world than anything else we can do--and, in fact, is
essential for the wellbeing of every person on Earth, now and in the
future.
There is nothing more important we can do to improve the lives of
people in developing nations than to ensure that they have the means to
choose the number and spacing of their children.
And there is nothing more urgent that we must do to keep the Earth
habitable, than to slow the rapid growth of the human population.
The world's population now exceeds 5.6 billion, and is growing by
almost 100 million people every year--260,000 everyday--with nearly 95
percent of the increase occurring in developing nations. If effective
action is not taken in the five remaining years of this decade, as
today's 3 billion children in the developing world reach their
childbearing years, the Earth's population could quadruple to over 19
billion by the end of the next century.
The rapid growth of the human population underlies virtually every
environmental, development, and national security problem facing the
world today. In much of the developing world, high birth rates are
outstripping the capacity of nations to make even modest gains in
economic development, leaving growing numbers of their people living in
a state of intractable poverty.
This year, it is particularly important that we show our strong
commitment to providing our fair share of the cost of making family
planning services available worldwide. Leaders from over 190 nations
will be convening at the International Conference on Population and
Development in Cairo in September, and the U.S. will be in a stronger
position to exercise leadership on the issue if we are providing an
amount that is closer to the full amount needed to do our share to
achieve universal access to family planning.
{time} 1420
All the other types of foreign aid we can possibly make available
will be of little benefit to nations which continue to be overwhelmed
by their rapidly growing populations. Our limited foreign assistance
dollars will be a far greater help to greater numbers of people if we
spend more of them on family planning assistance.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding 4 minutes to me, and
again I want to express my support for the rule. I look forward to the
consideration of the amendment later in the day and the opportunity to
discuss the need for it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of
the subcommittee on the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from
Metarie, LA [Mr. Livingston].
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
California, for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I will comment on the substance of this bill later on,
but I rise now in opposition to the rule.
I support the bill. It is a fundamentally sound bill, maintaining the
trend of ever-lower yearly foreign aid appropriations.
The chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, and the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has dealt fairly with me throughout the process,
and I appreciate his cooperation.
But many of the remaining Members of the House are not getting
adequately heard on this bill. Their amendments proposed to the
Committee on Rules have not been permitted under this rule, and
accordingly I must oppose it.
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Rangel], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], and the gentleman
from California [Mr. Cunningham], had amendments to restore cuts in the
international narcotics program, none of which were allowed but which
could be addressed if we defeat the previous questions.
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] had an amendment to provide
an across-the-board cut. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling]
had a very thoughtful amendment to strike funding to countries that
vote overwhelmingly against us in the United Nations. The gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Mica] had an amendment to cut AID operating expenses,
and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] had several amendments on
South Africa. There were various other germane amendments that could
have been made in order.
The House leadership has put the House under the gun, and if we do
not complete debate on this bill today, we may not for several weeks.
But that is little excuse for pushing the bill through without adequate
consideration of legitimate, constructive amendments. Therefore, I must
oppose this rule and urge defeat of the previous question.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon]. I thank the gentleman from California, and
I rise to join my good friend from California in opposing this rule and
denouncing everything it represents.
Mr. Speaker, this is yet another gag rule--a rule that takes from
every Member of this House, the right to offer amendments to cut or
strike spending on foreign aid.
Mr. Speaker, the growing reliance by the Democrat leadership on
restrictive rules for appropriation bills is further evidence that this
institution--as it is presently being run--cannot conduct its
legislative activities in a responsible manner that is either
explainable to the members, or accountable to the public.
Mr. Speaker, in the 97th, 98th, and 99th Congresses, from 1981
through 1986, only one general appropriations bill was subject to a
restrictive rule, and that restriction applied only to one narrow
section of the bill--and even it did not deny Members the right to
offer germane amendments.
It was during the 100th Congress that the Democrat leadership began
to restrict the standard amendment process itself.
In the 100th, 101st, and 102d Congresses, from 1987 through 1992,
five such restrictive rules were imposed.
Today, we are confronted with the fourth such restrictive rule in
this 103d Congress alone. And No. 5 is just around the corner: On the
legislative branch appropriations bill.
Mr. Speaker, if all this were not disgusting enough, we have to add
to it the doubletalk that comes daily from the Democrat leadership.
On the one hand, the Democrat leadership will say that A to Z
spending-cut debate is unnecessary.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I will yield in just 1 minute.
They say it is unnecessary because Members already have the right to
offer cutting and striking amendments on appropriation bills.
And then, on the other hand, that same leadership will turn around
and deny Members their right to offer those amendments.
Mr. Speaker, which is it?
I hope every Republican, and all Democrats who care about due
process, will vote to defeat this previous question; that will allow at
least one major amendment cutting ill-conceived Russian aid by $52
million and using those funds to stop illegal drugs coming into this
country.
Vote no on the previous question.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. Certainly, I will yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin,
one of the most respected Members of this House.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the gentleman this
question: Would the gentleman tell me at whose request I first made the
request to provide for a structured rule on the foreign aid bill?
Does the gentleman remember at whose request that was done?
It was done at the request of the Reagan administration. Mr. Reagan
was President. He understood that this bill was occasionally demagogued
and he asked for assistance by providing for a rule that would enable
him to get his foreign aid bill through, and we cooperated.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the gentleman----
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torres). The time of the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Solomon] has expired.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 5 minutes to the
ranking Republican on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the gentleman
from Middleton, NY [Mr. Gilman].
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule,
which regrettably precludes Republicans from having any real say with
regard to the foreign assistance policies contained in this
appropriations bill. More specifically, it denies many of us the
opportunity to offer any of the three amendments--proposed by
Republicans and Democrats alike--to restore the more than 35 percent
cut from the President's international narcotics control budget for the
State Department for fiscal year 1995.
The last foreign assistance authorization bill was enacted in 1985.
Republicans have been promised for more than a year that we would have
an opportunity to join in a bipartisan reform of the foreign assistance
program. Regrettably, this bill will likely be the only foreign
assistance bill this Congress will enact.
As a result of the proposed cuts in the international narcotics funds
in this bill, domestic consequences will be severe, allowing more and
cheaper drugs on our streets, and in our schools. Inevitably, there
will be increased crime, health care costs and a significant loss of
worker productivity. Our costly efforts for community policing provided
for in the crime bill, will be adversely affected as well.
These new local community police efforts will be swamped by the
increased drugs from abroad that surely will follow the second year of
severe cuts in this vital front line program against cocaine and heroin
headed for our shores. Witness the recent 44 percent increase in heroin
hospital admissions here in our Nation.
If the Colombian Cali drug cartel was listed on the stock exchange
today the phones on Wall Street would be ringing off the hook with buy
orders.
More importantly what we really have before us is an abdication by
the President of any leadership in the battle against drugs, having
made no substantial effort to restore his full budget request.
Nor, did we learn of any real personal, critically necessary efforts
by the White House to restore these cuts.
In November 1993, the White House announced with great fanfare the
President's new international narcotics control strategy stating:
The President stressed the need for American leadership in
the fight against international drug trafficking. He pledged
to work with the Congress to ensure adequate funding for
international counterdrug programs.
Regrettably, these were hollow words. There is really no beef to this
administration's so called drug strategy. This is not the time to throw
in the towel on our international antidrug efforts.
These are foreign policy concerns that have domestic consequences. We
are hopeful, that this trend does not continue, but we are skeptical
based on this latest performance.
Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to oppose the rule to defeat the
previous question, and to report back this rule with the Gilman-Rangel-
Oxley amendment that would do what the President wanted us to do.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILMAN. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from New York.
{time} 1430
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, am I correct in understanding that the
motion to defeat the previous question is only for the purpose of
allowing one amendment to the rule?
Mr. GILMAN. Reclaiming my time, that is my understanding. I would
like to yield to the ranking minority member, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier] with regard to that.
Mr. DREIER. The gentleman from New York is absolutely correct. I said
in my opening statement that what I plan to do is if we defeat the
previous question, having control of the opposition, I have one
amendment, which at this moment is sitting at the desk, which I plan to
offer. That happens to be the Rangel-Gilman-Oxley-Solomon-et al.
amendment to do what we think is absolutely necessary here.
That is my intent. That is what I said in my statement, and I plan to
stand by that. That is why I am going to urge defeat of the previous
question, so we can make the gentleman's amendment in order.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from New
York City [Mr. Rangel].
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, my friends and colleagues, it is more
difficult to get more partisan than I am as a Democrat. But there comes
a time when our Nation is facing a serious problem that it just
shatters the walls of party labels.
I do not know when it happened or where I was when it happened, but
somehow the crisis as it relates to drug addiction and the problems
that occur when we ignore it, it seems as though somewhere the war has
been won or it has gone away, or that certainly no part of the Congress
is prepared to deal with it.
Oh, we talk about violence, we talk about crime, we talk about our
health bill. But if you talk about all of those things, why do you not
stop and think why are we having so much crime?
Seventy percent of the people in those jails are there because of
drug addiction. Why are we having so much hemorrhage in our health
bills? Because most of the people that are in these hospitals are in
there with gunshot wounds, addiction, children being born addicted to
drugs, paying $5,000 to $7,000 a day for each and every one of these
cases.
Yet when someone comes and says can we help do something about it,
and they come to the Congress, you see what we have done. Some of us,
Republicans and Democrats, have worked around the clock, working with
this administration. And not just this one, whether it was Nixon or
whether it was Carter or whether it was Ford or whether it was Reagan,
we tried to work together, not as Democrats and not as Republicans.
But if we are having a war against crime, why are we cutting back on
the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration? Why is it every time
we turn around to fight the war, we cannot get the bullets and the
ammunition?
Now, all of a sudden we are asking for $152 million. We are asking
for it because if there is anyone that has been involved in the war
against drugs, it has been our friends in Colombia. The days are over
now when they used to point their fingers at us and say the reason why
the cocaine is thriving, the reason why the opium crops are thriving,
the reason why marijuana is thriving, is because of American demand.
No, it is more serious than that now. As an effort of the
partnerships that the United States has made with the Organization of
American States, they have seen that drug addiction and drug
trafficking have threatened the fragile democracies that we have in
this hemisphere, and at a time when things are beginning to work, at a
time when they are asking us to continue to assist them so that we
cannot just depend on the elimination of the crops. That will never,
never happen unless we reduce consumption, but we have to fight it in
education, and you cannot name one program that is designed in
education to prevent our kids from going on drugs.
We have to do something about rehabilitation, and not one of you know
of a Federal program that supports it that can effectively say they
rehabilitate our kids.
We have to do something about crime, and what do we do? Three strikes
and you are out. Mandatory sentences. Executions. Is that stopping
crime? Is that stopping drug addiction? There is no border between
Burma and Thailand as we see the heroin pouring into these United
States, and what are they doing in districts throughout this country?
They are giving away the heroin on the street so our children will
become addicted to it.
And what are they asking for? $152 million. What do we lose every
year as a result of doing nothing with drugs? $500 billion, when you
take into consideration how many people we lock up, how many people we
keep in the hospitals, how much we lose in productivity.
I am not saying that we can win this war. But if you ask for $152
million for the International Narcotic Force in the State Department?
It was not Republicans who asked for it, it was not Democrats who asked
for it, it was the President of these United States asking that our
credibility abroad be kept intact. And where do we ask to take it away
from? We ask to take it away from the Soviet Union.
Now, I do not know how any of you feel about Communists, and maybe
you forget quickly, but I fought against the Communists. And I have to
say if they can redeem themselves for $52 million, why not give the $52
million to the communities that never were Communist in the first
place? They are asking for the same hopes, the same aspirations as the
former Soviet Union. They are out of work. They are out of hope. They
are relying on drugs. Why can we not say America first? It is a simple
thing to me.
Now, I know that as a Democrat I am going against the rules. We are
not supposed to ever defeat the previous question. But then I have to
decide, what is more important, the previous question, the Democratic
tradition, or the millions of kids that can honestly say that this
country and this Congress has not done a darn thing to allow them to
believe that we ever can do it right?
I ask my Democratic friends to look at this. When the previous
question is defeated, we are not turning the bill over to the
Republicans. We are just asking for one amendment. This is not breaking
any budget.
If some of your constituents are supporting the Soviet Union and it
is going to defeat you at the polls, then believe me, you are excused.
But if, on the other hand, you believe that the money is better spent
keeping these drugs out of your districts, I ask you to defeat the
previous question, let the rule come back with this one sole amendment,
and let us get on with the people's business.
____________________