[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1769-H1776]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7, NATIONAL SECURITY REVITALIZATION 
                                  ACT

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 83 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 83

       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. 7) to revitalize the national security of the 
     United States. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill 
     and the amendment in the nature of substitute made in order 
     by this resolution and shall not exceed two hours equally 
     divided among and controlled by the chairmen and ranking 
     minority members of the Committee on International Relations 
     and the Committee on National Security. After general debate 
     the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule for a period not to exceed ten hours. In lieu of 
     the amendments recommended by the Committee on International 
     Relations, the Committee on National Security, and the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, it shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 872. 
     The amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. Points of order against the amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 
     (5)(a) of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the 
     bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
     Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. 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 amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute made in order as original text. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto final passage without intervening motion 
     except one motion to recommit with or without instruction.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] pending which I yield 
myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of the 
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding to me.
  My colleagues, this is a very, very busy period of time. We are 
producing a great deal of legislation. We are doing it always 
constantly under time constraints.
  Certainly, all the Members are to be appreciated for the efforts they 
make not only on the floor but in their committees. It is a rigorous 
time period.
  We have an opportunity to be out of here by 3 p.m. tomorrow and have 
a period of time for a rest and family and district work period, where 
we can perhaps all get a chance to sort of refresh ourselves before we 
come back to work.
  Let me just say, it is the resolve of the leadership that we will 
complete this bill before we leave here. We believe we have every 
opportunity to do so in such a manner that Members can make a 3 o'clock 
flight tomorrow afternoon and begin that rest period. We intend to make 
that flight period.
  We are prepared, on the other hand, if it is necessary, to work 
through the night. And should we, even under those circumstances, fail 
to complete the bill by our desired 3 o'clock departure time tomorrow, 
we are prepared to accept the necessity of keeping Members as late 
after 3 o'clock tomorrow as is necessary.
  The bottom line is that our resolve to pass this bill before we 
depart town is so great that we will do whatever it takes to do so.
  Now, we believe that it should be quite comfortably done by a fairly 
early rise this evening and a 3 o'clock departure tomorrow, if 
everything goes smoothly. And that is what we hope and expect. But the 
Members should be prepared to check their travel arrangements for the 
unlikely possibility that they may not make their planes tomorrow.
  In any event, we will complete this bill. The bottom line point is 
very clear, and we must not be mistaken. We will complete this bill 
before we depart town.
  I thank the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 83 is 
a modified open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 7, the 
National Security Revitalization Act of 1995. The rule provides for 2 
hours of general debate to be equally divided and controlled by the 
chairmen and ranking members of the Committee on International 
Relations and the Committee on National Security.
  The rule provides for 10 full hours of debate on the amendment 
process. It makes in order the text of H.R. 872, which is considered as 
read, as the original bill for amendment purposes.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule accords priority recognition to Members who 
have had their amendments preprinted in the Congressional Record, but 
does not prevent other amendments which were not printed from being 
considered.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions, a right we guarantee to the minority in our new rules, 
even though we never received the same guarantees from the Democrats 
when they were in the majority.
  Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Committee on Rules, I made a good-
faith effort, as did the majority leader, Mr. Armey, for 3 days running 
to reach accommodation with our minority colleagues on the amount of 
time that would be made available for consideration of amendments. We 
were willing to extend consideration of amendments by several hours, if 
we were then to be given unanimous consent to come in earlier on 
Wednesday, that is today, and on Thursday, tomorrow. That offer was not 
accepted by the Democrat leadership.
  I regret that the good intentions of Members on both sides of the 
aisle did not prove sufficient to overcome the obstacles put up by some 
other Members. Accordingly, there are 10 hours allocated for the 
amendment process. That is too bad, because we could have had 14, 15, 
16 hours in that process.
  [[Page H1770]] There will be other opportunities this session, 
particularly when the defense authorization bill comes to the floor 
this summer, to continue the important debate that is starting today 
with consideration of this bill. This bill is narrowly focused on just 
a few issues.
  Turning now, Mr. Speaker, to the substance of the legislation itself, 
I would like to begin by reading these words and Members might listen 
over there by reading words by a great American President. And he was a 
great American President.
  He said, ``We, in this country, in this generation, are by destiny 
rather than choice the watchmen on the walls of world freedom.''

                              {time}  1210

  He went on to say, this President: ``Words alone are not enough. The 
United States is a peaceful nation. And where our strength and 
determination are clear, our words need merely to convey conviction, 
not belligerence. If we are strong, our strength will speak for itself. 
If we are weak, our words will be of no help.''
  Mr. Speaker, the words I have just read are as true today as they 
were a generation ago, when President John F. Kennedy, a man I admire, 
intended to say them on what turned out to be a fateful day of tragedy 
in Dallas. He never had the opportunity. That was too bad. It was sad.
  Mr. Speaker, the National Security Revitalization Act is the first 
step toward the recovery of a military posture tht will permit our 
country to defend its vital interests around this world without 
qualification or reservation, no matter what.
  Our country did not seek this responsibility, as President Kennedy 
noted. The obligation to lead the free world was thrust upon us 50 
years ago in 1945, and it continues today. It is our obligation to 
America and the free world. We have been faithful to that call, and the 
perimeter of freedom has been expanded to include many more countries 
today than it did 50 years ago in the ruins of Europe and East Asia. 
All of this came at a cost, Mr. Speaker, but it has come at a cost 
which has declined in relative terms. We need to remember that.
  Even at the height of President Reagan's military buildup in the 
1980's, defense spending consumed a substantially smaller portion of 
this Federal budget and the gross national product than it did during 
the 1950's, the last time we had balanced budgets, by the way; that is 
a shame. That should tell us something about where the deficits have 
been coming from. They have not been coming because of a defense 
buildup, they have come because of increased, irresponsible 
discretionary spending by this body.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take note, before I conclude my remarks, 
that there are several portions of the National Security Revitalization 
Act that are of particular concern to me. I strongly support all of the 
requirements and the conditions in the bill concerning the 
participation of U.S. forces in the U.N. peacekeeping missions.
  Next week this House will have to consider a supplemental 
appropriation bill to restore adequate funding to the military 
readiness accounts that have become so depleted by the indiscriminate 
involvement of U.S. forces in so-called peacekeeping missions
  I also strongly support the withholding of certain U.S. funds to the 
regular budget of the United Nations, pending the implementation of 
reforms in that body, including the appointment of an independent 
inspector general. Ten years ago President Reagan appointed me and our 
former colleague on the other side of the aisle, Dan Mica, as delegates 
to the U.N. General Assembly. The two of us fought tenaciously to bring 
about administrative and budgetary reforms in the United Nations. We 
succeeded on some fronts, and we did not succeed on others.
  However, everything we did accomplish was made possible by the 
willingness of this Congress to pass my amendments to withhold portions 
of the U.S. assessment until the United Nations got the message, and 
they did get the message. They did put through reforms, thanks to Dan 
Mica and myself, who pursued it on the floor of the General Assembly.
  In this bill, we have taken the same approach again. It is the only 
thing that works. It is the only thing that makes those bureaucrats at 
the United Nations listen. This time, I hope we will get a truly 
independent inspector general appointed once and for all. It is absurd 
that an organization of that size, spending U.S. taxpayer dollars, has 
taken so long to get an inspector general to oversee them.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would just say that I wish the portions of 
this legislation dealing with the expansion of NATO would go a little 
farther than they do. Having served as a permanent representative to 
the political arm of NATO, the North Atlantic Assembly, for the past 15 
years, I strongly support the admission of Poland, Hungary, the Czech 
Republic, and Slovakia to full membership in NATO. I would like to see 
a date certain for the admission of these four nations. But I am 
pleased that this bill, thanks to the chairman of the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs, does make a statutory commitment to the expansion of 
NATO and for the eventual admission of these nations. In the not-too-
distant future, I hope NATO will consider taking in the three Baltic 
nations, as well as other nations formerly enslaved by the old Soviet 
Union.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule, and I urge 
support for the bill that will be coming up later today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House 
Resolution 83, the rule limiting debate on the National Security 
Revitalization Act. As my colleague on the other side of the aisle well 
knows, the bill before us today is the most far-reaching foreign policy 
legislation to come before the House of Representatives in several 
years. In addition to radically altering the way we conduct foreign 
policy, the bill requires the development of a national missile defense 
system, like star wars, at the earliest practical date. These changes, 
which are enormous in magnitude, costing taxpayers up to $30 billion, 
are being rushed to the floor under a rule which allows only 10 hours 
of debate for amendments.
  This time cap, Mr. Speaker, is particularly disappointing when we 
consider the scope and breadth of this bill. The last major defense 
bill took 31 hours on the floor of the House. The Desert Storm 
legislation alone--a single peacekeeping effort--took 30 hours. All our 
constituents deserve more from this Congress than ramming bills through 
to meet an arbitrary Contract-With-America deadline. The changes 
outlined in this bill will have an effect on every single one of our 
constituents' pocketbooks. It could also affect those Americans with 
children who could be sent overseas to fight wars. We should slow down 
the process on this bill and allow major amendments on the many area of 
concern.
  I understand my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to 
have this bill finished by Thursday afternoon. There is no reason on 
Earth why we could not have this bill carry over until next week and 
finish it on Tuesday. Our leadership was involved in negotiations which 
asked for an additional 12-13 hours. That is a single extra day. 
Unfortunately this request was denied.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not believe our Members are aware of the 
shortcomings of this piece of legislation. As Secretary of State Warran 
Christopher testified before the International Relations Committee, had 
this bill been law in 1990, President Bush would not have been able to 
deploy troops and ships to Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert 
Storm. This bill would have blocked President Clinton from deploying 
30,000 troops to Kuwait in 1994. It would have even blocked President 
Truman from deploying troops to Korea in 1950.
  I am particularly concerned with title IV and title V of the bill 
which have to do with U.S. participation in peacekeeping activities. 
These provisions could have the effect of eliminating U.S. funding for 
peacekeeping missions. We should be trying to improve 
[[Page H1771]] the U.N. activities, not eliminate a collective security 
tool and undermine the President's authority as Commander in Chief. As 
former Secretary of State James Baker said before the International 
Relations Committee, ``Attempts at congressional micromanagement were a 
bad idea when the Democrats were in control. And they remain a bad idea 
today.''
  Amendments to all the titles in this bill also deserve ample time for 
debate. Title II raises fundamental questions about whether we choose 
star wars over readiness for our national defense strategy. Title III 
creates a commission which undermines the duties of the Secretary of 
Defense. Title VI adds new countries to NATO which the United States 
could be obliged to defend. Who are these countries? What is their 
background? What is their leadership? We need time to debate this and 
understand what we are doing here.
  Mr. Speaker, these are not small issues. There are a myriad of 
unanswered questions on the provisions of this bill. This rules does 
allow us enough time to answer these questions and to sensibly deal 
with the complicated issues of national security that are radically 
changed under this bill.
  Therefore I oppose this rule and urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting ``no'' on this restrictive rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Miami, FL, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a very distinguished new member of 
this Committee on Rules.
                              {time}  1220

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I had a professor in school who would 
tell us that when you are going to argue a case in court, if you can, 
first argue the law. If you cannot argue the law, then argue the facts, 
if you can. And if you cannot do that either, then argue lack of 
fairness.
  And I remember that, because today my distinguished colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are arguing, and I think will be arguing, not 
so much the law or the facts, but we have already begun to hear them 
argue lack of fairness, lack of equity, and quite frankly, I would 
submit that that argument is unfair, that the argument that we are not 
being fair today is unfair when we analyze the facts with regard to 
this proposed law.
  We are calling for in this rule, Mr. Speaker, not only 1 hour, for 1 
hour of debate on this rule, which will guide the debate with regard to 
the remainder of this process, but we are calling for 2 additional 
hours of general debate on the proposal, and an additional 10 hours for 
the amendment process. That is for a total today on this one bill of 13 
hours, 13 hours in addition to the fact that we had almost 1 hour 
already of debate on this supposed lack of fairness when we debated 
just a few days ago on a motion made by the majority leader to permit 
committees in this House to sit while the House is meeting today on 
this particular rule.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I would like to ask the gentleman two questions. I 
would be happy to debate the gentleman.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Let me write them down. Your questions tend to be 
long.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman is going to run out of time. The gentleman 
should use his own time.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I would be happy to debate you on both substance and 
process.
  The gentleman was a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee for the 
previous 2 years. Can the gentleman cite an instance where during the 
debate on a major issue there was a motion to cut off debate and move 
with a vote in the 2 years the gentleman spent on the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs? We gave every member an opportunity to fully debate 
the issue, unlike when this bill was before the committees, where 
motion after motion was made to cut off debate.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Reclaiming my time, I have here a list that the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules will expand upon of numerous 
instances where on national security matters your party, sir, limited 
debate extraordinarily. If I may, sir, if I may, I yielded, and now I 
have the opportunity to reply, where your party limited debate in an 
extraordinary fashion, cutting off time, time and time again, on issues 
such as the strategic defense initiative and Somalia and Haiti and 
Bosnia, and with regard to this debate today, we have 13 hours.
  Let the debate begin.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I must say as this body rushes this bill through to get out for the 
Presidents' Day recess, my guess is every prior President will be 
horrified and ask us to cancel the recess, because this bill goes to 
the very core, the very core of what this Government is about and our 
very national security.
  I never, never recall a closed rule on any issue of national security 
or the gulf war or any of those issues. The most precious thing we have 
are our young people, and how we protect them, how we deploy them, and 
what we do with the world leadership that has been cast upon us is very 
critical, and to get out of here real fast and cut this off, I think, 
is really very tragic.
  This bill, when it first appeared in our committee, many of us 
started screaming, ``Author, author,'' because we could not believe it. 
We have not found out who the author is. We are beginning to think it 
was an intern project for the Heritage Foundation or something. They 
did change it in many ways, because in the two little micro-mini 
hearings we had, we pointed out all sorts of things that were wrong.
  And there are still many things wrong that make this bill rotten to 
the core. No. 1, do we want to politicize the Pentagon? Do we want to 
run the committee by a committee? Do you want a committee of political 
appointees that are not elected running the Pentagon? Well, if you do, 
vote ``yes'' on the bill.
  Do you want to absolutely end burden-sharing forever and ever? If you 
do, do this. This is saying we will be the 911 number, we will do 
whatever it takes.
  Do you want to deploy SDI even though no one thinks we should do this 
crash deployment? It will cost megabucks, gigabucks. Where are you 
going to get this money? That will only pull more money from readiness 
that everybody is talking about in the hollow force. If you do, you 
should vote for this bill.
  Do you want to dictate to the United Nations and to NATO as to who 
they let in, how they run it, like it is our party, and no one else has 
a role in this new world order? I do not think so.
  Do you want to tie the hands of future commanders like Schwarzkopf so 
they cannot do anything even in a foxhole without calling back to four 
congressional committees or the President or the committee running the 
Pentagon or whatever?
  I think these are serious issues. America has never dealt with its 
national security in this way. This is a radical, radical revolution.
  Let us be perfectly clear what we are doing here today. I think we 
ought to slow down and go with the deliberate debate that we had in the 
committee, that caused them to change many, many of the first areas, 
and because they did not like what they were hearing, they shut that 
off, and now they are trying to shut us off on the floor so they can 
hurry up and punch another hole in a piece of paper.
  I think it is wrong. I think we should vote ``no'' on this rule, and 
I think America deserves much better.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I say to the gentlewoman that I wish she had been around to get us 
some time when we debated Somalia, when the House had only 1 hour of 
general debate and only six amendments allowed. When we sent troops 
into Haiti, we were allowed a closed rule providing for 2 hours of 
general debate with only two amendments made in order. The list goes on 
and on and on.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Hunter], my good friend, a member of the Committee 
on National Security.
  Mr. HUNTER. Let me just say to my friend from Colorado, yes, a number 
of former Presidents would be appalled at what has happened this year, 
because we have cut defense to the lowest level 
[[Page H1772]] in terms of percentage of gross national product since 
Pearl Harbor. That would have upset John Kennedy, that would have upset 
Harry Truman, and the fact that 17,000 young military families are on 
food stamps today would have certainly upset those gentlemen and Dwight 
Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan, and the fact that we have cut $127 
billion below the budget that former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, and former President Bush said was 
prudent is also a cause for concern.
  Let me just say this administration is in disarray in defense. Our 
own GAO says that the President has underfunded his own plan by $150 
billion. There is a sense of urgency, and if we are going to respond to 
that sense of urgency, we need to put this bill up. We need to debate 
it. We need to pass it.
  We need to protect our troops.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham], another distinguished member of the 
Committee on National Security and another California. Boy, they are 
all over the place.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The gentlewoman says no one wants to do this. In our 
committee, she is well aware, it was 43 to 13. It was a bipartisan bill 
that came out of the committee. Those that are upset are those that 
have tried to defund defense for the great failed society programs, 
including the gentlewoman from California.
  Take a look at the speakers that are opposed to this; they are the 
same ones that have attempted to dismantle national security.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman], one of the most distinguished Members of this House, 
the new chairman of the Committee on International Relations who has 
brought this bill on the floor.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and I rise in support of the rule providing for the consideration 
of H.R. 7. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, my colleague from New York, Mr. Solomon, for his cooperation in 
providing a fair rule so that we can bring this bill to the floor. And 
I thank my colleagues in our committees and in the House leadership for 
their assistance, and participation in brining this important measure 
to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule. It does not limit the consideration 
of amendments to this bill in terms of what amendments can be offered, 
when they can be offered, or by whom they can be offered. The issue 
before us is a matter of degree: How long will the Committee of the 
Whole be required to sit? I submit that the balance struck in this bill 
of 10 hours is reasonable.
  For our part, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the aisle, we will attempt 
to limit the time our side takes up in debate. We want to give those 
who seek to amend the bill the maximum time possible to present their 
arguments. And if Members want to explore with me, and with Chairman 
Spence, the possibility of our accepting amendments with minimal 
debate, amendments that can be cleared on both sides, we will certainly 
be amendable to proceeding in that manner.
  The provisions of H.R. 7 have been subject to wide attention, 
including NATO expansion, restricting command of U.S. Forces, and 
limiting funding of U.N. peacekeeping.
  Before we began our markup, our International Relations Committee 
held several days of hearings during which witnesses were invited to 
address the bill.
  Our committee considered this bill at length during a 3-day markup.
  Mr. Speaker, permit me to address the substance of this bill.
  First, it is meant to strengthen American security and to protect its 
financial interests with respect to U.N. peacekeeping activities. 
Allegations that this bill undermines U.N. peacekeeping are simply 
unfounded.
  All that this bill does is to establish a truth in budgeting 
standard. Essentially, if Congress has enacted a law, and the President 
has signed that law, and that law says ``we are going to spend some 
amount on U.N. peacekeeping then we would not permit any administration 
to circumvent that decision by providing the United Nations with 
unlimited in kind services. It is just that fundamental.
  Second, this bill limits the subordination of American Armed Forces 
to the command or operational control of foreign nationals acting on 
behalf of the United Nations in peacekeeping operations.
  Finally, we provide for the adaption of NATO to the modern age by 
providing a dynamic process for its expansion eastward.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this is a reasonable rule and a good 
bill.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
                              {time}  1230

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I support my colleagues on the Democratic side in their 
efforts here, but not because I am sure that 12 hours is not enough. 
All of that is relative. It just seems to me there is a larger issue at 
stake in the Democrats' effort here; that is, to be sure that the 
Republican effort to market their accomplishments in November 1996 does 
not drive policy considerations here. And it seems to me that their 
political marketing is driving their necessity of passing a certain 
number of bills in 100 days and that that is what they are about. And 
that is not the way United States gets good policy.
  But is 12 hours enough? Well, I do not know. It is relative. Time 
here is relative. Twelve hours compared to what?
  After all, the Constitution says we will promote the national 
defense, but also it says something about promoting the general welfare 
of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I have done a little research. Let me share these bills 
with my colleagues: Starting back in 1991, the Drop-Out Prevention Act, 
the National Literacy Act. In 1992, the Children Nutrition Improvements 
Act; Abandoned Infants Act; Head Start. In 1993, the disability 
amendments; the School-to-Work Opportunity Act. In 1994, the Nutrition 
and Health for Children's Act, and the critical Safe Schools Act.
  All of those combined did not take up 9 hours of debate from 1991 
until today on this House floor. My point, my colleagues, is this: I 
believe that national defense is absolutely critical and should have 
the attention of this Congress.
  But after 17 years here, I have learned something: The Congress of 
the United States has more than an interest in national defense, we 
have a fetish with the Pentagon. And it is diverting our attention from 
other essential matters such as those I have raised.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, today I come to the well of this Chamber in strong 
opposition of to H.R. 7, the National Security Act. In pursuit of 
catchy campaign promises, the Republicans will risk our national 
security by forcing us to spend billions of dollars on an unproven and 
unnecessary star wars--and all in a mere 10 hours of debate.
  Every day in Washington we confront a budgetary climate that demands 
fiscal restraint. Nevertheless, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle propose to spend billions of dollars to revive a corpse of the 
cold war that was better left in its grave. They would place a higher 
priority on building a budget-busting fantasy in the sky than on 
funding school lunches for our children, and home delivered meals for 
our elderly.
  Mr. Speaker, today the choice is clear: pork in the sky, or food on 
kids' plates down here on Earth. Let us do the right thing. Let us let 
a bad idea rest in peace.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a very valuable member 
of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of our 
Committee on Rules for yielding this time.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans have not forgotten the last time we allowed 
our 
[[Page H1773]] Armed Forces to go unfunded or our foreign policy to 
become muddled.
  Terms from the Carter years, like hollow force and foreign policy 
quagmire, are terms that we still see and still strike a chord with us 
and, unfortunately, they are resurfacing in our national dialog.
  H.R. 7 attempts to address some of the immediate concerns Americans 
have about our national security and foreign policy. It does not solve 
all of the problems, but it starts.
  I am pleased that the Committee on Rules gave us a rule for 
consideration of this bill that allows for 2 hours of general debate 
and 10 hours of an open amendment process, 10 hours.
  Make no mistake, this rule allows for the consideration of any 
germane amendment by any Member. Unlike consideration of national 
security in previous years, the Committee on Rules has not excluded 
specific amendments nor have we singled out certain amendments for 
special status, placing them above others. Yes, there is an option to 
prefile, and, yes, there is an overall time limit to help us move 
reasonably expeditiously on this legislation.
  But I am confident that we can have a well-managed and disciplined 
debate--and the word here is disciplined--that covers all the major 
issues in the time allotted. H.R. 7 does raise some substantive issues, 
issues on which it is clear Members have legitimate philosophical 
differences and deserve debate. One area that I happen to take a strong 
interest in is Haiti. Right now, upstairs in the Rules Committee, we 
are determining ways to pay the bills that are now coming due for that 
misadventure and a result of what I would call muddled foreign policy, 
characterized by flipflops, suffering, a brutal embargo on a friendly 
country, an armed invasion in a friendly country, and costing millions 
and millions and millions of dollars, that we are going to see as we 
get into the emergency supplemental bill from Department of Defense, 
and look at that and some other issues.
  The lack of coordination, the lack of consistency, and the lack of 
clarity in foreign policy has a price, and unfortunately we are going 
to have to pay it. H.R. 7 addresses some of that, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this rule. I think it is the right rule for the 
process, and I support H.R. 7.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Connecticut, [Mr. Gejdenson].
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, again this legislation is bad in substance and in 
process. In committee, oftentimes with barely a few minutes of debate 
on an issue, motions were made to cut off debate and vote the issue, 
and virtually always on a party line.
  But, in substance, this legislation is worse than it is in process. 
And I hope in my heart that some of the Members on the other side will 
take the time to read what this legislation does.
  There is a question of whether or not our troops can remain as they 
are today in Korea. They are not under an American command. The 
gentleman, the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The 
Committee on International Relations, could explain to me--and I would 
be happy to yield to him--how it is we retain our activities in Korea 
under this legislation?

                              {time}  1240

  There is a special exemption for Macedonia. There is no exemption for 
Korea. It is not a unilateral American action where they are under the 
United Nations. How does the President operate there?
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. 
Gejdenson] for yielding. All we are saying, that our divisions, our 
troops, our personnel will be under direct U.S. command----
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Reclaiming my time----
  Mr. GILMAN. I am trying to respond to the gentleman's inquiry.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Reclaiming my time, our troops in Korea are not under 
American command at the moment.
  Mr. GILMAN. I am saying that our troops, under American command, can 
work in coordination with any commander in that theater.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. It is not what the--reclaiming my time, that is not 
what the legislation says. What the legislation says is that almost 
every stage, from the top of the military operation to the bottom 
there, has to be American commanders. That is not occurring in the 
Korean theater at the moment, and under this legislation it leaves in 
real question whether we can continue to operate in Korea.
  Mr. GILMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I say to the gentleman, ``I will not yield, and, if 
you look at what we do here, we take the President--you take the 
President of the United States, and you give him one option, and that 
option is unilateral action with American forces, without any support 
from any of our allies.''
  That means every crisis around the globe is an American crisis, and 
like when the Congress prevented the President from joining the League 
of Nations at the end of World War II, we will sow the seeds of 
additional disharmony in the world.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], a very valuable member of the Committee on 
National Security.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROTH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is mistaken. I was in 
charge with fleet core group of all the troops in Korea. There is a 
four-star Air Force General that is in charge with a brick over all 
forces, and any Navy force that goes into that gulf is in charge under 
that four-star except for the direction of the carrier. They are not 
under U.N. control. The U.S. military is in control, and what we are 
trying to do is take the control of Boutros Boutros-Ghali and the rest 
of it away from our troops.
  I say to the gentleman, ``I was there for 4 years and conducted it, 
Gejdenson. Don't you tell me who has control.''
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham], for clarifying that point.
  This is a good rule, and I compliment the Committee on Rules for this 
fair and honest rule. I know that they deliberated long and diligently 
on this rule, and I applaud them. I appeared before the Committee on 
Rules, and, while this is not the rule that I would have drafted, it is 
a fair and prudent rule.
  What this rule does provide for basically is two things. Amendments 
printed in the Record will get preferential consideration; that is only 
fair; and it provides for a definite time period to complete debate; 
again only fair. I myself asked for a section-by-section consideration, 
but the majority, and they are Republicans on the Committee on Rules, 
thought otherwise is to be more fair to our friends on the other side 
of the aisle. They felt that, if we would have had a section-by-section 
debate of the bill, it would have more of a logical progression to the 
debate, but I know our side of the aisle wanted to be fair to the other 
side, and so also I say this is a fair rule.
  Every Member in this Congress at one point or another has been 
discussing and debating the issues in this bill for years, some for 
decades. In our committee hearing we had countless hours of amendments 
in debate, 21 amendments. Twenty-one amendments were offered and 
debated and considered in our committee.
  In the Contract With America we pledged that in the first 100 days we 
would vote on 10 specific major issues. Strengthening our national 
defense is one of these issues; more specifically, on how we interact 
with the United Nations and the amount of dollars that we, the American 
taxpayer, put into the U.N. fund, peacekeeping, and other U.N. 
activities.
  I have a premonition that some in this body would consciously or 
subconsciously use this rule as a way, as a pretext, to attack the 
Contract With America, to divert attention from the Contract With 
America, but we have made a commitment with the American people. We 
have made a pact, a 
[[Page H1774]] covenant, and when we conservatives give our word, we 
aim to keep it. Where we made a covenant, it is not campaign rhetoric, 
it is not grist for the media. We mean it. Therefore we will debate and 
vote on this bill and move on to the other elements of the Contract 
With America, but we will do it in fairness, and we will do it 
judiciously.
  This bill is in line with what the American people want. They voted 
for this Contract With America last November 8. The American people do 
not want American soldiers being used as pawns in the United Nations 
designs. They do not want American soldiers to be under other than U.S. 
command in peacekeeping operations. American taxpayers want and will 
contribute their fair share to the U.N. operations. But American 
taxpayers no longer want to be milked by the United Nations.
  The United Nations all too often looks at America as a dairy cow to 
be milked. Well, we conservatives will do our fair share, but we will 
not allow America to be milked as a dairy cow is milked. We will do our 
fair share, but we look upon America as a strong horse pulling a heavy 
load, and then some, but we are no one's dairy cow to be milked, and 
that includes the United Nations.
  If this bill were coming up under the old majority, this bill would 
be considered under a closed rule. Most of the amendments we will be 
debating on and voting on in the next 13 hours. Thirteen hours would 
never have been allowed under the old majority. The tally that the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules has been keeping over the last 
several years proves that point. Virtually every major bill in the last 
few years has been up under a closed rule with limited debate. We, the 
Republicans, have a greater confidence in this House and the 
legislative process. We want a full and complete debate, 1 hour on the 
rule, 2 hours for general debate, 10 hours on the amendments, 13 hours 
of total work on this legislation, on a bill that all of us have 
debated.
  There is not a Member in this House that does not know both sides of 
debate on any one of these issues to come up. We also have confidence 
that the bill will withstand the scrutiny of this House and the 
American people who voted for the Contract With America.
  Yes, this is a fair bill, and I congratulate the Committee on Rules 
because I know they worked hard. I know they had to make some tough 
decisions. This is a good rule, and this is an excellent bill. The 
American people voted for this bill on November 8, and I ask this House 
to vote for this bill today.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, I find it amazing and unfortunate that the 
real vestige of the cold war thinking is right here in the U.S. 
Congress. Now that democracy is at the doorstep of nations formerly a 
part of the Communist block, this bill takes $30 billion steps 
backward.
  The American taxpayers want every nation to play a role in the global 
march toward democracy. The tragedy of this bill, however, is that it 
will force the United States to go it alone when the world finds itself 
in crisis. This bill hamstrings the President and undermines his 
constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.
  This is just another buzz bill filled with buzz words, cooked up by a 
Republican pollster to try and make Republicans appear to be 
responsible in the area of foreign policy. The Devil, however, is 
always in the details, and this bill is short on details and long on 
the Devil. If this bill passes, we cannot say, ``The Devil made us do 
it,'' but ``A Republican-led Congress made us do it.''
  Vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on the bill.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, this bill could be dubbed the ``Terminator'' 
since it will wipe out all supranational options for the United States 
when peace and democracy are in danger. Just like the Terminator, if 
this bill passes, we, too, can say ``Hasta la vista, baby.'' And in the 
process, we'll be saying so long to future contributions to operations 
like Cyprus, the Sinai, Haiti, and Kashmir. And in the process, this 
Terminator bill hamstrings the President and undermines his 
constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.
  This bill also has an unfunded mandate for NATO expansion, but 
sidesteps the fact that it is also committing the United States to 
defend every country that becomes part of the new NATO.
  And let me say a word about this buzz word of foreign command and 
control. The forces of the United States are never under foreign 
command. This is just another buzz word cooked up by a Republican 
pollster to make them appear to be responsible in the area of foreign 
policy.
  This bill paves the way for early NATO entry for a few, but isolates 
the majority of burgeoning democracies committed to the partnership for 
peace. Many of those left out are more viable than some of those put 
in. This is recklessness to say the least.
  We must demand that those entering a new NATO must not only uphold 
our shared values upon entry, but that they continue to uphold human 
rights, avoid acts of armed aggression, and cease providing lethal 
weaponry to third parties--in order to remain part of NATO.
  The Devil is always in the details. This bill is short on details, 
but long on the Devil. If this bill passes, we cannot say that the 
Devil made us do it, but we can lay this reckless piece of foreign 
policy legislation squarely at the doorstep of a Republican-led 
Congress. We ought to say ``Hasta la vista, baby'' to this bill.
                              {time}  1250

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I would make an inquiry of the Chair 
with regard to the time remaining on each side for this rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hall] has 16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the former chairman and now ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hall], for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about this rule, it is a closed rule and 
it keeps Members of Congress from voting on amendments. Just yesterday 
an identical rule shut out at least a half a dozen Democratic 
amendments because they just did not have time. The time ran out. There 
is no reason to think that this rule would be any different.
  We are not talking about some inconsequential bill; we are talking 
about the national security of the United States. This bill limits the 
commander in chief's ability to direct American troops in conflict.
  It redefines the U.S. relationship with our allies, it threatens the 
future of the United States, and it completely redirects American 
defense priorities.
  Mr. Speaker, the issues it deals with is no small potatoes, and this 
should be nonpartisan. But Republicans have refused to work with 
Democrats. They want to hurry up and start the long weekend. They want 
to get on with the contract.
  Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, it is impossible to spend too 
much time discussing the security of the American people. The chairman 
of the Committee on Rules said that Members ought to know enough about 
this bill to vote on it. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree with him, we do know 
enough about this bill. We know enough to realize that it is a rash, 
irresponsible, extremist mess that needs to be fixed.
  But, Mr. Speaker, Members will not get the chance to amend this bill 
because Republicans just do not have the time. Democrats are willing to 
work late, to stay in town this weekend, and do whatever it takes to 
protect our citizens, but instead we are being forced to address this 
dangerous mix of isolationism and star wars and being told to hurry up 
or shut up.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, would my good friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, yield? And he is my good friend.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I will yield, absolutely, yes, as soon as I finish my 
statement.
  Mr. Speaker, this is no way to treat the defense of this country, and 
it is no way to govern.
  I would also add that this bill revives an incredibly expensive 
military program that was doomed from the start. To put it simply, star 
wars will not work. It costs too much money. Furthermore, spending 
money on star wars 
[[Page H1775]] will take funds away from protecting our troops in the 
field.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question 
so we can get rid of this time cap that will gag Members of Congress 
and do a straight, open rule on the bill. The safety of American troops 
is a lot more important than some pie-in-the-sky fantasy, and I think 
Members ought to be able to offer amendments to that effect.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members to vote no on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield to my friend, the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my very good friend 
that he seems to infer that I personally have not been cooperative and 
have not been a gentleman.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. No, let me just assure the gentleman.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman has hurt my feelings because----
  Mr. MOAKLEY. No, no. I say this because I look upon the gentleman as 
the leader of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I will not belabor the point.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Moakley] has expired.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, his bill is the most far-reaching 
foreign policy bill to come before the House in several years, and we 
are debating it for 10 hours to meet a political deadline and to make 
the congressional recess.
  This is what this bill does: It would force the United States to take 
on the world by itself in every instance; it would put excessive 
conditions and restrictions on the President's conduct of national 
security affairs; it would cripple U.N. peacekeeping; and it would move 
the United States toward new security commitments in Eastern and 
Central Europe at a time of declining resources.
  The bill raises significant issues that go to the heart of national 
security. Title II raises questions about whether we choose star wars 
over readiness in our national defense strategy; title II creates a 
National Security Commission that would usurp the role of Congress and 
the executive branch; and titles IV and V seriously threaten U.S. 
national security by eliminating an important collective security tool 
and completely undermines the President's authority as Commander in 
Chief.
  Let us talk about what this means in practical terms. The Democratic 
Caucus has tried hard to focus on the key issues of this bill. We plan 
to offer only eight or nine amendments. We have less than an hour per 
amendment, less than an hour to debate star wars versus readiness, less 
than an hour to debate whether the United States cuts off participation 
in U.N. peacekeeping activities, and less than an hour to debate 
whether the United States dramatically expands its defense commitments 
in Eastern Europe, as called for in title VI.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of issues in this bill that deserve much 
more time. This bill would cripple American national security policy. 
It is the wrong signal to send to our NATO allies. If I were a NATO 
ally and I woke up tomorrow and saw that this bill had passed, I would 
think it was a bad dream or a joke.
  Mr. Speaker, this is wrong. Let us not move ahead with this 
legislation.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on International Relations.
  (Mr. HAMILTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7 is the most far-reaching foreign-policy bill to 
come before this House in a number of years. I suspect that Members 
will not have an opportunity to vote on a more important foreign policy 
bill than this one, and I do not know of any authorization bill that 
will follow that will, within the confines of one bill, raise more key 
national security issues than this bill.
  I think the bill does not revitalize our national security; indeed, I 
think it weakens it. I think the bill overall strikes at the heart of 
the President's authority and ability and capability to protect the 
national security and to conduct foreign policy. It ends U.N. 
peacekeeping, despite the statements that have been made to the 
contrary. That is the opinion of the Defense Department, it is the 
opinion of the State Department, and it is the opinion of the Deputy 
Under Secretary under President Reagan, who said that this bill would 
hinder and bankrupt U.N. peacekeeping.
    
    
  I think there is no doubt about the importance of the bill on U.N. 
peacekeeping. U.N. peacekeeping has been used by every President in 
recent times to promote American national interests. I think the bill 
prematurely and unilaterally, designates certain countries for NATO 
membership, picking winners and losers in a way that could actually 
slow down the process of NATO expansion.
                              {time}  1300

  H.R. 7 micromanages American foreign policy. It undercuts the 
President's authority. It limits the President's authority to respond 
to crises and to our national security interests.
  Now, all of that is simply to suggest that this is a very, very 
important bill. Each title raises significant national security 
concerns, and we are doing it with extremely limited debate, on the 
most momentous national security issues that we will debate in this 
Congress.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Yates was allowed to speak out of order).


                          personal explanation

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 129 last night I meant to vote 
``no'' and I left the voting station believing I have voted ``no.'' I 
learned a few minutes ago the voting machine recorded a ``yes'' vote 
for me, which was obviously a mistake. I ask that the Record show that 
on rollcall 129 I intended my vote to be a ``no'' vote, not ``aye.''
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Johnston].
  Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I come before you mainly on the 
proposition of peacekeeping. I have been intimately involved in Africa 
the last 2 years. If this bill is passed, you would not have any such 
thing as Rwanda, where we went in under the U.N. umbrella immediately 
and solved the cholera situation. We put 4,000 troops in there and 
saved probably 200,000 Rwandans and pulled them out without one 
casualty of American troops there.
  You are now tying the hands of the President of the United States. 
You are setting a precedent here that is unprecedented in the history 
of the United States, requiring the Chief Executive Officer to come to 
Congress before they can put in a peacekeeping group.
  Let me propose to the Republicans the hypothetical proposed by Jim 
Leach, Congressman Jim Leach, a republican from Iowa, in the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs.
  Let us assume in August of this year there is a peace agreement 
between Syria and Israel, and the Syrians and the Israelis ask the 
United States to put in 100 troops into the Golan Heights to protect 
each side. We are on leave at that time. The President literally could 
not move if this bill becomes law.
  I think it is irresponsible for us to consider this and go forward 
with what we are doing to the United States, what we are doing to the 
United Nations, and what we are doing to peacekeeping in the world.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from the 
other side of the aisle and from Youngstown, OH, the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I support the rule and support the bill. The bill 
makes sense. The American people are fed up. They are fed up with the 
United Nations that dials 911, and they are fed up with a Congress that 
not only pays for the 911 call, but then sends an American Express card 
to pay for all this business.
  I think, Congress, it is about time we start facing the facts. The 
American 
[[Page H1776]] people are tired of hearing all the debate about Russia. 
They want to learn what happened about Rhode Island. They are sick and 
tired about all of this talk about Mexico and saving Mexico. They are 
concerned about Mississippi and Massachusetts. We are not listening. I 
think it is time to take a look at that, ladies and gentleman, and we 
are not.
  All this bill is totally acceptable for me. I am going to vote for 
it. I have some concerns about star wars, but I have an amendment. We 
cap our participation and cost contribution to peacekeeping to 25 
percent in this bill. The Traficant amendment would reduce it to 20 
percent, but would allow the President for need to expand that increase 
to 25 percent. But the President must notify the Congress of such 
increase and, second of all, justify the reasons for it.
  I think it is time we get some bureaucrat in some dark room of the 
Capitol with a calculator that keeps track on what we are spending, and 
that is exactly what my amendment will do.
  By the way, I think it is time we start worrying about the people in 
America. Instead of worrying about patrolling and controlling other 
countries' borders, I think it is time we start looking at our own 
borders in our own country and start using our resources to invest in 
America.
  That is only my position. I think it is a good commonsense bill. I am 
going to support it. And I think we should look at it on the merit. 
There are amendments that when you disagree with something, you could 
voice your will.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what the Republicans 
are trying to do here today. In about the same time it would take to 
watch the movie ``Dumb and Dumber'' five times, the Republicans are 
asking us to totally redefine America's national security interests. In 
the past 5 weeks alone, this House has spent 14 hours debating the 
rules of the House, 2 days debating the line-item veto, 2 weeks 
debating the unfunded mandates bill, and yet in less than 1 day's time 
the Republicans are asking us to totally rewrite American foreign 
policy, restructure the Nation's defense policy, and spend tens of 
billions of dollars more on star wars.
  Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, this has got to be 
extremism's finest hour.
  Last year we spent over 2 weeks debating the defense appropriations 
bill, over 200 amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules and 
over 100 amendments were made in order on the House floor. Yet today we 
are going to be allowed to offer just a handful of amendments to a bill 
that redefines America's national interests.
  The Republicans are in such a hurry to punch another hole in their 
contract that they are willing to blindly rush through a bill that will 
punch a gaping hole into our national defense. I urge my colleagues, 
say no to extremism, say no to this rule, and say no to star wars.


                          ____________________