[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.
____________________