[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1695-H1696]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                        CLARIFICATION OF H.R. 7

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] is recognized 
during morning business for 3 minutes.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to go over a couple of items that are 
in the National Security Revitalization Act. I say to my colleagues, 
``Before you get concerned about and get whipped up to a level of 
hysteria about this, let's take a look at some of the things that it 
does.''
  First of all, it states that it is our policy to prohibit the 
deployment of U.S. troops under the command of the United Nations. H.R. 
7 would prohibit the placement of U.S. forces under foreign command or 
control during U.N. peacekeeping operations unless Congress 
specifically authorizes it or if the President certifies that it is in 
our U.S. national security interest. It does not prohibit it 
completely. What it does is it requires that there be congressional 
intervention with respect to this.
  Second of all, it requires truth in U.N. accounting. Under H.R. 7, 
Mr. 
[[Page H1696]] Speaker, the United States is going to get credit for 
expenses which the military incurs supporting U.N. peacekeeping 
operations. Right now these costs are being double accounted for by the 
United Nations so that we are paying more than we ought to be paying.
  It also requires that there be a genuine analysis, there be a genuine 
complete analysis and review of our Armed Forces situation, and not 
that we are going to rule the Armed Forces by committee, but that we're 
going to actually do the kind of analysis that President Clinton wanted 
to have but did not get.
  Mr. Speaker, I had to address that because of the gentlewoman from 
Colorado's distortion of what is going on with this bill.
  The other thing that I wanted to point out is that we are going to be 
dealing with block grants on the floor today in the crime bill, and I 
wanted to bring to the Speaker's attention the fact that the Washington 
Post this morning, in a rare moment of clarity, wisdom, and 
intelligence, has editorialized on the fact that this program ought to 
be supported, that the 100,000 cops program of the President's was a 
fraud. They said, quote, almost immediately that program was challenged 
by law enforcement experts and some local officials. In fact, the law 
created a 5-year matching program during which the Federal Government's 
share diminished and disappeared, leaving localities with the full cost 
of maintaining the new officers, close quote.

                              {time}  1010

  I know that absolutely to be a fact, because I, like most Members in 
this body, were very much aware that they had mayors telling them, and 
police chiefs telling them, that they would not even apply for cops 
grants because they simply could not afford to pay for them.
  We will be voting on that today. I appreciate the Washington Post's 
support.


                          ____________________