[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 31 (Thursday, February 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1862-H1890]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  NATIONAL SECURITY REVITALIZATION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 83 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 7.

                              {time}  1033


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 7) to revitalize the national security of the United States, 
with Mr. Linder in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier 
today, pending was the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Leach].
  The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] has 3 minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  This amendment would cut a key provision of this bill. The reason we 
have a Contract With America is because we want to put Congress back 
into the loop in the decisionmaking process when it comes to 
peacekeeping. But this amendment would say that Congress is meaningless 
whenever the President claims that he is acting as Commander in Chief.
  The consequence is that the President can keep sending troops into 
Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, the Balkans without congressional approval. 
What we are saying in the Contract With America is that Congress must 
be involved. We cannot abdicate our power.
  Now, this is a key provision of this bill. The American people on 
November 8, when they voted for the Contract With America, one of the 
key provisions was that Congress was going to get more involved in our 
peacekeeping decisions. How the tax dollars are spent is important, 
also when young Americans are put into harm's way. This Congress has an 
obligation, speaking for the American people, to give either our 
approval or nonapproval, but under this amendment, Congress would be 
totally irrelevant.
  Do you remember the Somalia debacle where we lost some 44 young 
Americans? When the bodies were dragged through the streets of 
Mogadishu? Do you remember that? This House went wild, and the Senate 
went wild. Does the gentleman from California remember we all went over 
to HC-5, had a big confab, and Congress said, ``Why were we not 
involved?'' That is what the American people were asking. That is why 
we have a Contract With America. That is why we are putting the 
Congress back in.
  I remember the meeting at HC-5 that day. You know, we cannot just 
abdicate our power to the President and then, when things go bad, we 
all meet at HC-5 and we scream at the Secretary of Defense and we 
holler at the Secretary of State, and one of them has to lose his job. 
Then it is too late.
  If we are going to be there for the crash landing, we have got to be 
there for the takeoff, too, and that is all we are saying in the 
Contract With America.
  I want Congress to no longer abdicate its power. We made a 
commitment. We made a commitment on November 8. We said that Congress 
would be involved, but with this amendment, we would renege. We are 
stepping back. We cannot renege on our promises.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton].
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support of the Leach amendment. The Leach amendment, I 
think, simply restates the President's constitutional power as 
Commander in Chief.
  The language that he seeks to strike from this bill can certainly be 
construed as a limitation on the President's Commander in Chief powers. 
It says specifically, ``Nothing in this section may be construed as 
authority for the President to use any element of the armed forces in 
any operation.'' That is a limitation on the President's power.
  It also says nothing in the section may be construed as authority for 
the President to place any element of the Armed Forces under the 
command or operational control of a foreign national. A President has 
done that over and over and over again in our history. The implication 
of this language that the gentleman from Iowa seeks to strike is to 
limit the President's Commander in Chief powers. It 
micromanages and restricts the President's 
powers.
  The Pentagon says if this language had been in effect you would not 
have been able to have D-Day, because you would not have been able to 
put together a collective effort that was so successful there.
  The point here, my friends, is we have our job to do. The gentleman 
from Wisconsin stated that quite accurately. We have our constitutional 
responsibilities. But in exercising our responsibilities, we must not 
cut into the Commander in Chief powers. We need to allow the President 
to do his job as Commander in Chief.
  [[Page H1863]] I support the gentleman's amendment, and I commend him 
for offering it.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I am the last Member of the House or Senate 
to have been in Haiti. I am the last Member of the House or Senate to 
have been in Somalia.
  I did not bring out the flag in either case. I wish I had in Somalia.
  I went to Somalia within a few days following my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], to find out 
why 18 of America's best-trained soldiers had died in what they called 
the firefight from hell.
  Three days later, Sergeant Matthew Rierson was killed with an unlucky 
mortar shot at the headquarters of the Rangers, and a dud landed at the 
feet of a U.S. two-star general, or we would have lost one of our best 
Special Forces major generals.
  Now, I am standing here to tell you and to tell about 12 to 18 to 20 
Republicans, including 2 or 3 freshmen, that we are starting to lose 
some of you on the Contract With America.

                              {time}  1040

  Please pay attention to why this is one of the core items of our 
Contract With America. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] had 
this chart made up. This is as of about May 1994. I do not want to 
distract you from my remarks, but please come down and take a look at 
this utter madness, what happens when our troops are under foreign 
command. Here is what I discovered within an hour of landing in 
Somalia, that we had a two-track chain of command. Major General 
Montgomery, with whom I just had lunch in Bastogne just a couple of 
weeks back at the 50th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge, an 
excellent general, now one of the 3-star deputy commanders of our 
forces in Europe.
  But I asked him about where was the rescue column? I told him I had 
just come back with him from an overflight in a Black Hawk, taking 
pictures with my camera, of Russian-license, built-in-India T-72 main 
battle tanks, 14 of them, and I said where were these Indian tanks to 
blow through the road blocks? He said, ``You will have to talk to the 
other commander.''
  The whole thing is so complicated we simply must vote against the 
Leach amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, Article 1, section 8 of the 
Constitution includes this language: ``The Congress has the power to 
make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval 
forces.'' That is to say that what we are doing in the Contract is 
completely consistent with the Constitution and with our right to say 
as Representatives of those families who are visited by Navy and Marine 
Corps and Army teams when they have sons who are killed in combat, that 
that is to say to those families, ``We will have a direct chain of 
accountability, you can always count on that up to an American 
commander and down from that American commander right down through the 
platoon and squad level to your son when he is in combat.''
  Let me just say there has been a lot of confusion about this. The 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] talked about not being able to 
have D-day. D-day was not a United Nations operation. There has been 
confusion about Korea. The commander in Korea, General Luck, has a 
straight American chain of command. If we go into some type of a 
preemptive operation, should there be an invasion from the north then 
you move to a joint American-Korean command, but that is not under 
United Nations sanctions. So that section, that operation, is not 
applicable to this section with the Contract With America.
  This is constitutional, it is appropriate, in response to our people.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale].
  Mr. McHALE. I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Leach amendment.
  As stated by Mr. Bereuter a few minutes ago, the defect of this 
amendment is not contained in its actual text but rather in the 
deletion it makes to the underlying bill.
  I have no objection, Mr. Chairman, if American forces are integrated 
at the strategic level into an overall command structure. We have heard 
references made to D-Day. I participated in Operation Desert Storm, 
which was indeed an operation involving the integration of 
international cooperation.
  Mr. Chairman, at the battlefield level, where American forces are 
under fire, it requires a shared patriotism and peacetime training. 
That bond between American forces requires American leadership.
  I rise in opposition to the Leach amendment.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I conclude with two points: First, I think everybody in 
this room must understand there is an emotive aspect of this issue that 
we all share a common sympathy.
  But also at stake is the Constitution of the United States, which is 
very precise on who the commander in chief is and what the command 
function is.
  This is a constitutional issue.
  The second point I make is it is also a policy issue. Let there be no 
misunderstanding, this bill, as currently crafted, drives a stake into 
the United States leadership in multilateral diplomacy. If this kind of 
approach happened in all other countries in the world, peacekeeping 
comes to an end, burden sharing comes to an end. We do not have a 
prospect of expanding the rule of law in a reasoned way.
  So I would urge the Members of this body to understand that there is 
a symbolism as well as a constitutionalism with regard to this 
particular amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let us be clear about just what is at issue with regard 
to this amendment. The Leach amendment waters down the restrictions on 
foreign command of U.S. forces in this bill. While couched as an effort 
to protect the President's constitutional authority, it deletes other 
language in the bill and effectively creates loopholes in the foreign 
command restrictions.
  This bill includes language in section 401 protecting the President's 
constitutional authority. Accordingly, the new language added by the 
Leach amendment is unnecessary.
  The fact is that the foreign command restrictions in the bill have 
been carefully crafted so as not to unduly constrain the President's 
authority. Let us not upset this carefully crafted balance.
  I urge a vote against the Leach amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Leach].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158, 
noes 267, not voting 9, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 142]

                               AYES--158

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     [[Page H1864]] Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Porter
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--267

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Becerra
     Clay
     Collins (MI)
     Green
     Hastings (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Maloney
     Thornton
     Wilson

                              {time}  1105

  Mr. METCALF, Mrs. THURMAN, and Messrs. JOHNSON of South Dakota, 
BROWDER, de la GARZA, and LAUGHLIN changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mrs. ROUKEMA changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under a previous order of the House, it is now in order 
to consider the amendments of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Berman]: amendments Nos. 13, 21, 24, 30, 33, and a germane modified 
amendment No. 13.
  The Clerk will designate amendments Nos. 13, 21, 24, 30, and 33.


                modified amendment offered by mr. berman

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the previous order of the 
House, I offer amendment No. 13, as modified, which is at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modified amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modified Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Berman: Beginning 
     on page 37, strike line 7 and all that follows through page 
     39, line 24, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

     SEC. 501. CREDIT AGAINST ASSESSMENT FOR EXPENDITURES IN 
                   SUPPORT OF UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING 
                   OPERATIONS.

       (a) Peacekeeping Operations.--The United Nations 
     Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287 et seq) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new section:
       ``Sec. 10. (a) Credit Against Assessment for Expenditures 
     in Support of Peacekeeping Operations.--
       ``(1) Annual report.--The President shall, at the time of 
     submission of the budget to Congress for any fiscal year, 
     submit to the designated congressional committees a report on 
     the total amount of incremental costs incurred by the 
     Department of Defense during the preceding fiscal year to 
     support or participate in United Nations peacekeeping 
     operations. Such report shall include a separate listing by 
     United Nations peacekeeping operation of the amount of 
     incremental costs incurred to support or participate in each 
     such operation.
       ``(2) Quarterly reports.--(A) In addition to the annual 
     report required under paragraph (1), the President shall 
     submit quarterly reports to the designated congressional 
     committees on--
       ``(i) all assistance provided by the United States during 
     the preceding quarter to the United Nations to support 
     peacekeeping operations; and
       ``(ii) all assistance provided by the United States for any 
     operation conducted by the Department of Defense in support 
     of activities authorized by United Nations Security Council 
     resolutions, including the identification of the element 
     within the Department of Defense that provided such 
     assistance.
       ``(B) Each report submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) 
     shall describe--
       ``(i) the assistance provided for each such operation, 
     listed by category of assistance; and
       ``(ii) copies of all billings requesting payment by the 
     United States of any contribution for United Nations 
     peacekeeping activities.
       ``(C) The report for the fourth calendar quarter of each 
     year shall be submitted as part of the annual report required 
     by section 4(d) and shall include cumulative information for 
     the preceding calendar year.
       ``(3) Limitation.--Funds may be obligated for payment to 
     the United Nations of the United States assessed share of 
     United Nations peacekeeping operations for a fiscal year only 
     to the extent that the amount of such assessed share exceeds 
     the amount equal to--
       ``(A) the total amount identified in the report submitted 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) for the preceding fiscal year, 
     reduced by
       ``(B) the amount of any reimbursement or credit to the 
     United States of any contribution for United Nations 
     peacekeeping activities.
       ``(C) The report for the fourth calendar quarter of each 
     year shall be submitted as part of the annual report required 
     by section 4(d) and shall include cumulative information for 
     the preceding calendar year.
       ``(3) Limitation.--Funds may be obligated for payment to 
     the United Nations of the United States assessed share of 
     United Nations peacekeeping operations for a fiscal year only 
     to the extent that the amount of such assessed share exceeds 
     the amount equal to--
       ``(A) the total amount identified in the report submitted 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) for the preceding fiscal year, 
     reduced by
       ``(B) the amount of any reimbursement or credit to the 
     United States by the United Nations for the costs of United 
     States support for, or participation in, United Nations 
     peacekeeping operations for the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(4) Exemptions.--Paragraph (3) shall not apply to--
       ``(i) costs for which the Department of Defense has been 
     otherwise reimbursed;
       ``(ii) the costs of deployments under the auspices of the 
     United Nations Security Council which the United States has 
     undertaken to support its national security interests, in 
     which United States Armed Forces served under United States 
     command, and for which the United States has sought the 
     approval of the Security Council under the United Nations 
     Charter;
       ``(iii) the enforcement of United Nations sanctions and 
     enforcement of no-fly zones which are in the national 
     security interest of the United States;
       ``(iv) the provision of humanitarian assistance; or
       ``(v) the costs of deployments related to the provision of 
     emergency medical care rendered by United States Armed Forces 
     when United States Armed medical personnel or medical care 
     facilities are in the theater of operations in which a United 
     Nations peacekeeping mission is being conducted.
       ``(5) Waiver.--(A) The President may waive the application 
     of paragraph (3) for a United Nations peacekeeping operation 
     if the Secretary of Defense reports to the President that 
     support for such peacekeeping operation will not endanger the 
     readiness of the United 
     [[Page H1865]] States Armed Forces and if the President 
     consults with the Consultative Group 15 days in advance of 
     such waiver.
       ``(B) If the President determines that an emergency exists 
     which prevents compliance with the requirement of 
     subparagraph (A) and such waiver is in the national security 
     interests of the United States, such consultation shall occur 
     as soon as practicable but no later than 48 hours after such 
     obligation.
       ``(6) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `designated congressional committees' shall include the 
     Committee on National Security of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Armed Services of the 
     Senate.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The provisions of section 10(a) of the 
     United Nations Participation Act of 1945, as added by 
     subsection (a) shall apply only with respect to United 
     Nations assessments for peacekeeping operations after fiscal 
     year 1995.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of the amendments made by 
     this section--
       (1) the term ``incremental cost'' shall mean those 
     additional costs incurred directly as a result of a 
     peacekeeping operation, but shall not include personnel costs 
     or other costs that would have been incurred otherwise in the 
     regular course of peacetime operations, such as training 
     exercises, maintenance, and logistical support; and
       (2) the term ``Consultative Group'' means the Standing 
     Consultative Group established by section 501A of this Act.

     SEC. 501A. CONSULTATION.

       (a) Standing Consultative Group.--There is hereby 
     established a Standing Consultative Group (hereinafter in 
     this Act referred to as the ``Consultative Group'').
       (b) Purpose.--
       (1) In general.--(A) The purpose of the Consultative Group 
     shall be to facilitate improved consultation between the 
     executive branch and the Congress with respect to United 
     States participation in peacekeeping activities.
       (B) Consultations in accordance with this section shall 
     occur prior to the United States making commitments to the 
     United Nations, any regional organization in which the United 
     States participates, or any other countries, on United States 
     participation in peacekeeping operations, including in 
     particular any participation under Chapter VII of the United 
     Nations Charter.
       (C) Such consultations shall also include details of 
     operational command and control arrangements governing United 
     States participation in peacekeeping operations.
       (2) Regular consultations.--In carrying out paragraph (1), 
     the Consultative Group and the President or his designee 
     shall meet regularly for discussions and consultation, but in 
     no event less frequently than once a month.
       (c) Rule of Construction.--The conduct of consultation 
     pursuant to subsection (b)(2) with respect to possible or 
     ongoing United States participation in a peacekeeping 
     operation which may involve the use of United States Armed 
     Forces shall not be construed as a grant of authority to the 
     President under the War Powers Resolution (87 Stat. 555).

  Mr. GILMAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the modified amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from 
California will be recognized for 22 minutes, and a Member in 
opposition will be recognized for 22 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
up to 5 minutes.
  (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is addressed to section 501 
of the bill. I am not going to spend a lot of time talking about the 
amendment because I am not going to ask for a recorded vote on the 
amendment, but for the reasons I will state, I believe in and of itself 
section 501 as put forth in this bill is reason enough for every Member 
in this Chamber to oppose this legislation.
  Section 501, if it were ever signed into law, would totally wipe 
out--let me repeat that--totally wipe out every single regularly 
assessed peacekeeping operation now incurred or which may ever in the 
future be incurred by the United Nations.

                              {time}  1110

  Let me repeat that one more time: Not one single current U.N.-
assessed peacekeeping operation now in place would continue if section 
501 were to pass, because section 501, by requiring an automatic 
offset. For every dollar that is spent on U.S. voluntary contributions, 
incremental costs to U.N. peacekeeping activities would be deducted 
from our assessment. We would pay zip, zero, nothing to the United 
Nations for the regularly assessed peacekeeping operations. They would 
fall apart. They would end.
  I say this in the context of trying to explain the kinds of 
operations we are talking about. We are talking about U.N.-assessed 
peacekeeping operations which, as the chart next to me shows utilize, 
of all the operations and the forces utilized, only 1.4 percent are 
American Forces. We are talking about a U.N.-assessed contribution that 
we pay that was legislated by the bill that the majority last year 
passed and was signed into law by President Clinton, that unilaterally 
reduces our assessed contribution from the extraordinarily high 31 
percent to the 25 percent that we regularly pay for all other U.N. 
dues.
  We are talking about a series of operations, and I
   want to just tell you the kinds of operations we are involved in, 
that will be eliminated if this were to happen. We are talking about 
the peacekeepers on the Golan Heights that help preserve the peace 
between Israel and Syria. We are talking about the U.N. peacekeepers on 
the Kuwait border, not American, mind you, who continue to constrain 
Saddam's ability to threaten his neighbors. We fought Desert Storm, 
Saddam still survives. Are we going to walk away from that Kuwait 
border before he is in full compliance with the U.N. resolutions, 
before it is clear that we have an Iraq that no longer has any 
aggressive intentions on its neighbors?

  We are talking about U.N. peacekeepers who have been for 30 years in 
Cyprus to help prevent war between two NATO allies, Greece and Turkey. 
In former Yugoslavia, the United Nations is providing critical 
humanitarian assistance and helping prevent the conflict from spreading 
to other parts of Europe. In Mozambique, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and 
Namibia we have U.N. observers. Out of the total forces I have just 
talked about, 1.4 percent are American Forces. The rest are other 
countries' contributions through the assessed contribution scheme.
  Now, these issues were raised in the Committee on National Security, 
and I want to take one moment to just compliment the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], because one other part of title IV which was 
clearly unconstitutional on its face has been deleted by virtue of an 
amendment passed unanimously last night. But 501, while it does not 
raise constitutional problems, is the most foolish, self-defeating kind 
of provision we could want to adopt.
  When we raised these issues in the Committee on National Security, 
people scrambled around, they made an adjustment, they added a waiver. 
What kind of waiver did they add? They added a waiver that said that we 
will not deduct those voluntary contributions that the United States 
now pays, those incremental costs, if the President can certify, and 
only if the President can certify, that those chapter 7 operations, 
there is no waiver for chapter 6 operations, those chapter 7 operations 
he would have undertaken on his own.
  What foolishness that waiver is. That waiver, talk about enforcing a 
boycott against Iraq. By definition an economic boycott enforced by a 
blockade cannot be done unilaterally. One has to get Turkey to stop 
letting Iraq use its pipeline for oil. One has to bring in the 
multilateral nations.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I seek to control the time in opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], the senior member of the Committee on 
International Affairs.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, Liddell Hart, in writing about strategy and 
how you win wars, said, ``Never do directly what you can do 
indirectly.'' So I want to compliment the gentleman from California, 
because what he is doing is gutting this bill; but he is not doing it 
directly, he is doing it indirectly.
  You know, in this Contract With America we say we will reduce our 
peacekeeping spending to a fair share. Last year, according to the 
General Accounting Office, the investigative arm 
[[Page H1866]] of Congress, the American taxpayer paid 80 percent of 
the expense for peacekeeping. We are projected now to pay about 31.7 
percent. What we are saying in the Contract With America is we are 
reducing it to 25 percent. Out of the 182 countries in the world, we 
will still be paying one-fourth of all the peacekeeping.
  Now, what this amendment does is put in exceptions. By the time you 
get done with all the exceptions, you have gutted the bill. So it is an 
indirect way of gutting it. Let me say that the issue here is: Do you 
believe that we are paying our fair share, or do you think that we are 
paying more than our fair share? Let me repeat again. One hundred and 
eighty-two countries in the world; one Nation, ours, pays 31.7 percent. 
What we are saying is we want to reduce it to 25 percent.
  We are still paying 2\1/2\ times more than any other nation. Last 
year, again, we paid 80 percent, and that is according to the General 
Accounting Office. I want to underscore that.
  There are those who believe that the U.S. taxpayer should go on 
paying more and more for all of these peacekeeping missions. In the 
Contract With America we pledged fairness. For one Nation to pay 80 
percent and for its soldiers to do most of the heavy lifting, to do the 
fighting, I do not think is fair, and the American people do not think 
it is fair. Eighty percent of the money, our soldiers. That is why on 
November 8 the American people did affirmatively vote for the Contract 
With America.
  Now, I want to say that you win wars not with op-ed pieces; you win 
wars with treasury and with soldiers. And that is why it is very 
important for us to look at this particular bill.
  The issue here is whether you want to put the American taxpayer ahead 
of the United Nations. Do you? Or do you believe that the American 
taxpayer must automatically keep on paying more and more and more for 
whatever operations are dreamed up at the UN.
  If we vote for this amendment, we will be reneging on our Contract 
With America. Keep that in mind. We will be retreating from our 
Contract With America.
  Did you read the headlines this morning in the Washington Times? You 
do not read the Washington Times? Let me tell you, there it is. 
``George Stephanopoulos, senior adviser to President Clinton, said 
yesterday that the Republicans in this House are retreating from their 
promises.'' And my dear friends, do not think for 1 minute, not on the 
110th day or the 105th day, but on the 101st day, and in fact it is 
already started and we are only in the 43rd day.
  My friends, we are not even at the 50th day. Can you imagine what is 
going to happen on the 101st day?
  Do not be hornswoggled by these amendments. I have been telling you 
these guys are very deceptive over here. What does he go on to say? He 
says, ``The Republicans are retreating from their promises they made in 
their Contract With America,'' and it says ``He accused them of 
tackling easy elements of the pact and ducking the tougher votes.''
  Mr. Chairman, this is only the 43d day. The President's senior 
adviser went on to say that he is predicting that the voters will enact 
punishment on the Republicans for being reticent and not enacting their 
provisions of the Contract With America
  Mr. Chairman, let us stick with the Contract With America That is 
what the people voted for. Let us not jump up and vote for these 
amendments that would indirectly gut the Contract With America. Believe 
me, you will be shown no mercy on the campaign trail or in the 1-
minutes or at any other time, any time we step away from the Contract 
With America. We do not want to end up with the contract just 
enumerating 10 issues and having it gutted, do we? No. Do not vote for 
the Berman amendment. Stick with the contract.

                              {time}  1120

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, in the 8 years that I chaired the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Committee on Appropriations, 
I received three letters from Presidents Reagan and Bush, threatening 
to veto the foreign aid bills which we reported out of our subcommittee 
because they said we did not spend enough money. So I think my record 
in trying to save dollars in foreign aid is clear.
  Section 501, just defended by my colleague from Wisconsin, is 
intended to reduce cost. That is obvious. But the fact is, it will have 
just the opposite effect. In fact, it will raise costs, because section 
501 applies unless, unless the President certifies that a peacekeeping 
operation is so important that we would do it alone.
  That is an open invitation to other countries to simply step back and 
say: ``OK, let Uncle Sam go it alone, let Uncle Sam be uncle sucker.'' 
Just brilliant.
  I tell you what confuses me about this proposal. I cannot figure out 
whether this bill was designed to be so dumb or whether it just 
happened that way by accident.
  What when I see it coming from the party of Vandenberg, I do not know 
whether to cry or laugh.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], a member of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the criticisms that have been 
leveled against section 501, I believe, are misplaced. The Committee on 
International Relations carefully considered the objection and amended 
the reimbursement formula in an effort to ensure that funds would be 
available for true peacekeeping operations even after the offsets. We 
have received preliminary estimates from GAO of the amount of 
unreimbursed incremental chapter 6 peacekeeping expenses from fiscal 
year 1994. These are the only true peacekeeping expenses and the only 
ones for which legislation, as amended, would strictly require and 
offset. The total amount of these expenses is about $227 million. This 
is some $300 million less than the administration's budget request for 
peacekeeping in fiscal year 1996, and about $800 million less than the 
peacekeeping budget for fiscal year 1995, including the supplemental 
appropriation.
  The remaining $1.5 billion in unreimbursed chapter 7 expenses for 
operations such as Desert Storm, Operation Deny Flight, and Uphold 
Democracy, which are more aptly described as peacemaking, would not 
require an offset provided that the President provided the necessary 
certification to Congress. In essence, this is a certification that the 
U.S. role in these operations was in its own strategic interest and not 
solely at the behest of the United Nations. As long as the United 
States remains prepared to contribute between $300 and $800 million per 
year to true international peacekeeping operations, it is inaccurate, 
and I would submit it is unfair, to say that we have removed 
peacekeeping as an option.
  The second way in which the administration's criticism misses the 
mark is that it incorrectly assumes that the President would be 
required to certify in advance that we would unilaterally undertake the 
action in order to exempt it from the offset requirements. The 
administration then argues that if other nations knew the United States 
would undertake an operation of its own, there would be no need for 
them to cooperate in such inaction. This argument simply misreads the 
bill. There is no requirement that we act unilaterally, or even that we 
certify after the fact that we did act unilaterally, in order to avoid 
the offset requirement.
  Rather, the President need only certify after the operation that it 
was the sort of operation that we would have undertaken in the 
strategic interest of the United States, even if we had been able to 
secure U.N. cooperation.
  This formula, Mr. Chairman, leaves the President the flexibility he 
needs to protect the U.S. interests wherever he can certify in good 
conscience that such interests are at stake. Provided only that he can 
make such a certification, he need not fear that the cost of an 
operation will be offset against next year's peacekeeping budget.
  Some of the proposed amendments would even go further, exempting 
practically everything from the offset, but that is something we did 
not have to deal with today.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for Members to vote against this amendment. I 
believe 
[[Page H1867]] that the underlying language is sufficient and will 
positively serve peacekeeping for the United States and our allies.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Under the theory that inaccurate statements should be refuted as 
quickly as possible, I ask everyone to read the waiver section of 
section 501. There is an automatic deduction unless the President 
certifies as to chapter 7 only, not chapter 6, operations, that the 
activity is of such importance to the national security the United 
States will undertake the activity unilaterally, unilaterally. Not in 
our strategic interest. Not in our national interest. Unilaterally.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Leach].
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just stress I think the big question is not 
whether there is a modification--it is probably too harsh to call it a 
retreat--from a quasi-party platform, the contract.
  The big question is whether there is going to be a retreat from 
international leadership, from the traditions of at least half a 
century of American involvement in world affairs.
  I would only ask, as we look at this particular amendment that has 
been offered by the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. 
Berman], two questions:
  Is it cheaper and more effective to advance the interests of the 
United States through international burden sharing, or is it cheaper 
and more effective to go it alone?
  The second question is, How can we, in times of trauma, ask others to 
serve with us if we refuse to serve with them?
  It is in this context that I think this particular amendment would 
add modestly to the bill and make it something that would be more 
acceptable to more Members of this body.
  But I would stress to everyone, this has become a flawed bill in the 
final measure. With great regret, I am going to have to vote against 
it.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Western Hemisphere.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, one of the things I think that 
needs to be stressed is how much money the United States is paying for 
U.N. operations, peacekeeping and otherwise.
  According to the General Accounting Office, the United States paid 80 
percent, 80 percent of the worldwide peacekeeping operations for the 
United Nations last year. Out of $3.4 billion, we paid, the American 
taxpayers ponied up $2.7 billion.
  And on the regular administrative cost of the United Nations, we pay 
between 25 and 33 percent. Of all the countries in the world, we are 
picking up almost a third of all the costs. I do not think it is 
unreasonable to want a complete accounting for the President to tell us 
about all these costs. And if we feel it is extremely high, we should 
be able to do something about it. This is a very, very good amendment.
  The American people want us to participate and do what we can to make 
sure there is peace and harmony in this world, but they do not want to 
pay the whole enchilada. And 80 percent of the cost last year was paid 
for by the U.S. taxpayer.
  In addition to that, the year before that, we paid 44 percent of the 
peacekeeping cost. Think about that. Forty-four percent is a lot when 
we consider all the countries in the world that are in the U.N. But it 
was almost doubled last year. This is a move that should be taken.
  I think it is a good amendment. I hope my colleagues will support it.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the ranking member of the committee.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I certainly commend him for his amendment, which I strongly 
support.
  Section 501, as it is drafted in H.R. 7, limits the U.S.-assessed 
contributions to U.N. peacekeeping to only the amount that exceeds 
DOD's costs in support of U.N.-authorized operations.
  Mr. Chairman, the provision says in effect that DOD costs include not 
only DOD support to regular U.N. peacekeeping operations, such as 
Cyprus, but to any U.N. peacekeeping activity. By that definition, Mr. 
Chairman, we would include a lot of things that the United States today 
is doing under the rule; for example, 15,000 United States personnel 
enforcing no-fly zones in Iraq, very much in the interests of the 
United States; troops in Operation Provide Comfort, helping the Kurds 
in Iraq; troops in South Korea, and many other areas.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the impact of all of that would be that, as 
drafted, it would prohibit the United States from making its assessed 
U.N. peackeeping contribution, and will, in effect, kill U.N. 
peacekeeping. That is the judgment, I think, of all of the experts in 
the administration that have
 looked at it carefully. One of the problems here is that the language 
is so broadly drawn that it includes all kinds of DOD costs.

  Another problem here, Mr. Chairman, is we simply do not know what the 
costs are, so we have very vague language, and the result is that U.N. 
peacekeeping, our assessment, we would be owed money by the United 
Nations.
  We would not pay our assessment, other countries would note that, 
they would not pay their assessment, and we would effectively destroy 
U.N. peacekeeping.
  Mr. Chairman, what the Berman amendment does is to define those DOD 
costs much more narrowly. We have two purposes that are sought here, it 
seems to me. The first is that the Defense Department be fully 
reimbursed for these reasonable expenses. That is the concern that the 
majority is emphasizing, and it is a perfectly legitimate concern, but 
they have overdrawn their amendment much, much too broadly.
  The second concern, I think, is that we maintain U.N. peacekeeping 
capabilities. The advantage of the Berman amendment is that it 
accomplishes both purposes, DOD reimbursement on a reasonable basis, a 
limited basis, but at the same time not destroying American national 
interest.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge support of the Berman amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, we are not anti-United Nations, we are not anti-
reasonable peacekeeping operations. There are some good peacekeeping 
operations, we have to say. There have been some bungled ones, 
obviously. Those are the ones we need to focus on.
  However, let me say this, Mr. Chairman, three points. There must be 
some fairness in the sharing of the burden of peacekeeping in the 
world. The Untied States is being overburdened in this process. The 
direct contribution that we make is, as has been noted, almost a third 
of the total cost, not to mention the extra costs of the Department of 
Defense and the others in support of those missions.
  It is reasonable to say we are paying upwards of 60 to 70 percent of 
the total cost of peacekeeping missions. That is unfair. That must be 
addressed by the United Nations. The only way to get them to address 
those kinds of questions is for this Congress to be obstinate on 
funding. That is what we will be doing.
  Two, the ineptitude of the United Nations operations, both its 
regular operations and peacekeeping. There are some 40,000 employees of 
the United Nations in New York alone. Until recently, only 40 of those 
people were trying to oversee 17 peacekeeping military operations with 
70,000 soldiers around the globe, 5 days a week, 8 hours a day. It 
absolutely was inept; there is some improvement, but not nearly enough.
  Fairness to the Congress, fairness from the administration to the 
Congress. The administration votes for these peacekeeping missions in 
the United Nations. We do not know in the Congress how much it is going 
to cost, 
[[Page H1868]] when it is going to cost it, when we are going to get 
out, how we are going to get out, how we are going to pay for it.
  They simply--the United Nations--simply sends the U.S. Congress the 
bill, after the fact. In former years it was a fairly small amount, $40 
million a year 5 years ago. Now it is $1.2 billion for 1995 plus 
another $672 million supplemental they have just sent up here, so that 
is $1.8 or $1.9 billion, not counting DOD expenses. That is a 
significant figure.
  We have to regularize this process. We simply cannot run the 
Government in that fashion. The Congress has to be in on the operation 
from the outset, so we can plan, at least financially, how to deal with 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, the $672 million supplemental they have just set up for 
what the United Nations says are 1995 cost overruns is not offset. The 
administration says ``We are not going to ask you to cut other 
spending, just give us out of the clear blue sky this money.''
  I say, ``This must be offset. You have to pay for it. Then we will 
think about it.''
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I think again we have to understand the 
fundamental principle. What the U.N. does in the post-cold-war era is 
carry out American foreign policy interests. If it is not in America's 
foreign policy interests, we use our veto to stop it.
  Therefore, the choice here is we continue to operate within the 
United Nations or we will end up having to do these things 
unilaterally; or even worse, we will wait until a crisis in a region 
explodes to a far greater crisis, to far greater costs in both human 
life and dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, the principal impact of this piece of legislation and 
this section would be that Saudi Arabia would not pay its U.N. dues for 
the next 50 years. Japan, France, and the Soviet Union, along with the 
United States, would ask for additional payment from Bangladesh and 
other impoverished countries.
  Think about what we are saying here. These are our national policy 
interests. The President of the United States, President Bush, 
mobilizes the world through the United Nations to stop Saddham 
Hussein's cut off of oil. Because it is a United Nations operation, 
rather than an American unilateral operation, we are able to get the 
Saudis and the Japanese and others to pay for the major portion of this 
activity.
  Now we would all go back to the United Nations and ask the most 
impoverished countries of the world to pay for our military action, to 
protect the West's oil supplies.
  Mr. Chairman, it would not just stop with the French and the British 
and the Americans and the Japanese and the Saudis. The Russians would 
be at the U.N. immediately as well, because they would say ``Look what 
the Americans have done. We are in Tajikistan and we are in Georgia 
under U.N. authorization. We want to be paid for that.''
  Now we would have the Saudis, the Japanese, the French, the British, 
the Russians, and the Americans coming to the United Nations telling 
Bangladesh that they owe more dues to pay us for our involvement in the 
gulf war.
  Mr. Chairman, let us be straight about it. If Members are where 
Congress was at the end of World War I and they believe we should not 
have been in the League of Nations and they believe we should not be in 
the United Nations, then get up and tell us to get out of the United 
Nations, but do not continue to try to either hamstring the President's 
ability to operate within multilateral organizations, or bankrupt the 
organization through this budget maneuver.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

                              {time}  1140

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. All of it or half of it or three-fourths of 
it, how much?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I think that the present law that we passed in the 
previous year is adequate, 25 percent. I think we are heading in the 
right direction on our payments. But clearly it should not be 
Bangladesh subsidizing the Saudis.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Research and Development of the Committee on National Security.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, let us be straight with the 
American people our colleagues. This amendment is not about getting out 
of the United Nations nor is it against peacekeeping. It is about 
fairness, to our taxpayers and military.
  We heard debate earlier today about saving $1.5 million for a 
commission. Two hundred two Members, largely of the minority party, 
voted ``yes'' for that huge savings in defense spending for the 
readiness of our troops. We had a big vote on missile defense. The key 
issue was savings. This year we are spending almost $2 billion of 
American taxpayer money on the United Nations and its operations around 
the world, $2 billion. We simply want to have some accounting and we 
want to have some credit for what we put in.
  Let me use Haiti as an example. We had no debate before our troops 
were committed to Haiti, I might add, not 1 minute of debate on this 
floor before the troops went in. Yet we have in fact spent $1.5 billion 
of American taxpayers' money. Even more outrageous and the purpose of 
the three flags in my lapel, Bangladesh, Guatemala, and Nepal. Here we 
are right now paying the full salaries, benefits, and housing costs of 
the troops of these three countries. Yes, my colleagues we are paying 
with DOD dollars the benefits, the salaries, and the expenses of the 
troops from these nations in Haiti. At the same time that 600 troops 
from the Second Armored Division of Fort Hood, TX, had to conduct 10 
training exercises in the range walking together pretending they were 
in tanks because we do not have enough money for fuel and maintenance.
  The new slogan of that battalion of 600 troops that used tanks in 
training is to march together and say, ``Clank, clank, I'm a tank.'' 
While we are paying the full benefits of troops from Bangladesh, Nepal, 
and Guatemala.
  This has got to stop, Mr. Chairman, We want fairness. That is all we 
want. We are not saying pull out of the United Nations. We are not 
saying isolate ourselves. We are saying what our colleagues said. Let 
us have some concern about the taxpayers' money. It is not a bottomless 
pit. Two billion dollars is what we are spending. Is that enough? I 
think it is too much.
  I think the provision in the bill allows us to get a hold of the 
money that we are spending and better use those dollars for American 
troops so that from time to time we can go together with out allies. 
But I really have a problem using American DOD dollars to pay the 
salaries and benefits of foreign troops when we cannot even take care 
of our own readiness needs as so many of our National Security 
colleagues mentioned today.
  I might add for the Record, I just have to insert this letter from 
one of my constituents serving in Haiti who is absolutely outraged at 
what role he is paying there now.
  Mr. Chairman, the letter referred to is as follows:

       Honorable Curt Weldon: I am stationed here in Port-au-
     Prince Haiti, with the U.S. Army. As a local constituent I am 
     writing you concerning several issues about the armed forces 
     and our involvement here in Haiti.
       First I would like to mention about our military mission 
     here in Haiti. Several of my fellow service members and I 
     find no purpose in Clinton's administration policy to 
     reinstall Aristide, a communist leader, back into this 
     country. Since when do the U.S. forces work for a communist 
     leader who has always denounced the United States as evil. A 
     leader who has stolen tens-of-millions of dollars from his 
     citizens, which the U.S. tax payers may have to pay back to 
     the people of Haiti. This also does not include the enormous 
     expenses of this entire military operation, to the American 
     tax payers to which there will be no benefits. Now, since 
     this military operation is done and over with, and our 
     mission of restoring Aristide finished, we all should be 
     getting back home. But, now due to the effort of the United 
     Nations and the Joint Staff Commanders, several thousand U.S. 
     service members are staying and we shouldn't be. Staying 
     because the United Nations and the Joint Task Force 
     commanders say they need us. This country is now safer to 
     walk the streets than most 
     [[Page H1869]] cities back in the states. The Joint Task 
     Forces, under the United Nations are fully capable of keeping 
     the peace here. What my fellow service members and I want to 
     know from you, is what are you doing to end Clinton's U.S. 
     involvement here in Haiti. And to keep future U.S. forces out 
     of the control of the United Nations.

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  When the gentleman talks about Haiti, he talks about a United States 
decision that we went to the United Nations and obtained authorization 
for under chapter 7. It is an incremental cost. There is nothing in 501 
that would do anything about who pays for that. What would happen is 
every dollar of that would deduct and wipe out the peacekeeping costs 
for every regularly assessed operation which we supported in the United 
Nations.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Wynn].
  Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time we accept the reality. We are a world power. 
We are a world power. We defeated communism, and no, we cannot expect 
Nepal and Bangladesh to pay the same amount of money that we do. Yes, 
we are going to have to take the leadership, and part of that burden 
means we are going to have to pay more.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that this is a very wise 
investment, which is why I believe this bill is mistaken when it 
attempts to undermine funding for U.N. peacekeeping activities. The 
point I am trying to make is that we have very legitimate and vital 
national interests which are protected by U.N. peacekeeping.
  What are our interests? We have an interest in the global 
marketplace, that markets are allowed to thrive and not be disrupted by 
localized aggression and by petty dictators. We do not want to set the 
precedent that might makes right. We do not want to see our markets 
disrupted by petty dictators. We want to have the ability to work 
collectively within the world community to thwart these kinds of 
efforts.
  We have an interest in oil. Our recent efforts in Desert Storm 
magnify the fact that we need to work collectively and we need to have 
the resources of other countries join with ours to fight to help 
protect our specific interests.
  We have a very important interest, Mr. Chairman, in fighting 
terrorism internationally. With the exception of the very unfortunate 
bombing in New York, we have had the good fortune of not having very 
much terrorism on our shores. It is better, I submit, to fight 
terrorism on other shores in a preemptive manner rather than have it 
come to this country.
  What does this have to do with U.N. burdensharing? The gentleman was 
saying that we are paying for Napalese soldiers. I would submit that is 
probably a wise investment. Better to have other soldiers involved in 
the fight than to have all U.S. soldiers, because this bill provides us 
with an unfortunate option. We either go it alone or do not go at all. 
We have got interests that mean we have to go. I submit we are better 
off if we go with others.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], the chairman of our Subcommittee on Asia and 
the Pacific.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, a lot has been said about this subject 
and I think there may be some confusion, but I hope some Members 
focused on the remarks of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] a few 
minutes ago when he said that recently the United States, when you 
consider all costs, was paying over 80 percent of the peacekeeping 
operations of the United Nations. It is incredible.
  What I am suggesting and what I was able to do in the committee is to 
assure that at least incremental costs are to be offset. We have a 
tremendous expenditure of funds.
  We have an important role to play in peacekeeping. But as I suggested 
to the Secretary of State when he appeared before us, the status quo is 
not acceptable. We have to have some changes in the way our assessments 
are calculated.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be absolutely convinced that even though our 
peacekeeping assessment is 30.7 percent, and even though the last 
Congress said by resolution that we are going to reduce it to 25 
percent, supporters of the United Nations, perhaps even the Clinton 
administration, will come to us later this year and say again next 
year, and perhaps next year, ``You are in arrearage,'' even though we 
had expressed our clear intent to pay no more than 25 percent.
  That is a very generous share, because when we consider all of our 
other calculated costs, incremental costs and others, we are paying 
far, far beyond 25 percent. We are paying more than 50 percent. 
Recently we paid 80 percent. I think it should be clear to our 
colleagues that we can ask for some different procedures to be 
established when it comes to our contributions to peacekeeping.
  I urge opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer].
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
his allowance of time.
  Make no mistake about it. Title V is a gilt-edged, hand-engraved 
invitation to adventurism. It would effectively end U.N. peacekeeping 
with catastrophic consequences. It would be an open invitation to 
would-be aggressors and rogue states all around the world. Wars and 
conflicts with all their suffering and chaos would multiply. Gorazde 
and Sarajevo would be just a hint of things to come. We would be left 
with a stark choice, intervene unilaterally or do nothing at all.
  Mr. Chairman, the fundamental problem with the measure as it is 
written is that it presents a false tradeoff, fulfilling our collective 
security obligations versus maintaining the readiness of our Armed 
Forces. In reality, as a practical matter, they are two sides of the 
same coin.
  By leveraging our forces through the United Nations, we ease the 
demands on our Armed Forces in the same way a high state of readiness 
bolsters the credibility of a collective security system. But trying to 
maintain a high state of readiness when we are constrained to 
unilateral action is simply untenable.
  In the period between the wars, we had neither an adequate state of 
readiness nor credible collective security. The result was 
unprecedented global disaster.
                              {time}  1150

  It was in that period that arch-isolationist, Arthur Vandenberg, was 
transformed into one of the most formidable advocates of collective 
security through the United Nations. Today we discard the lessons we 
learned at our great peril. The conflicts, no matter where they are, no 
matter how distant, left unattended can affect us all.
  John Dunne was absolutely right. The bill's greatest flaw is that it 
fails to recognize that U.N. peacekeeping promotes our national 
interests.
  Arthur Vandenberg said it best. Let me just share this observation 
from him.

       Much as we might crave the easier way of lesser 
     responsibility, we are denied this privilege. We cannot turn 
     back the clock. We cannot fail by the old and easier charts. 
     That has been determined for us by the march of events. We 
     have no choice as to whether we shall play a great part in 
     the world. We have to play that part. We have to play it in 
     sheer defense of our own self-interest. All that we can 
     decide is whether we shall play it well or ill.

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Berman amendment. It fails 
the minimal truth-in-labeling standard required for any provision that 
calls itself a credit against our peacekeeping assessment.
  After all the exemptions in this amendment are added up, the U.S. 
taxpayer will still be paying roughly the same amount for U.N. 
peacekeeping.
  Our legislation merely seeks to get a handle on our spiraling direct 
and indirect costs for peacekeeping which amounted to some $2.8 billion 
last year. Our bill provides that a portion or our unreimbursed Defense 
Department expenditures in support of peacekeeping will be deducted 
from our U.N. assessment.
  What we are now considering in this amendment is a so-called credit 
that has so many loopholes that virtually every peacekeeping mission we 
support 
[[Page H1870]] in the world today would be exempted. It guts the 
provisions now in the bin.
  Adopting this amendment would move us further from our goal of 
getting credit for the rapidly escalating indirect costs--$1.7 billion 
at last count--of DOD support for U.N. peacekeeping. Accordingly, I 
urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  This amendment does not in any manner end our support for U.N. 
peacekeeping. It does undertake a modest first step in ensuring that we 
get credit for all of our direct and indirect support for any U.N. 
peacekeeping operations.
  I urge my colleagues to delay the Berman amendment.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of our time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, to try to put the debate in perspective of 
the language in section 501, if 501 had been in place in 1990, $60 
billion that we spent in incremental costs on Desert Storm, $60 billion 
that was authorized by the United Nations because we went to the United 
Nations and got them to authorize it, would have been deducted and 
wiped out every peacekeeping cost for the next 50 years, even though 
the vast majority of that money was reimbursed by other countries.
  This inflexible, silly language makes no provision for costs that are 
reimbursed for other countries that have to be reimbursed for the 
United States.
  Second, yes, we can construe U.N.-authorized operations and attribute 
percent of the costs. It does not cover what is wiped out. You have 
wiped out U.N.-assessed costs where after this fiscal year we will only 
pay 25 percent. The other costs are operations we want to help 
ourselves diplomatically, politically, and militarily in terms of 
enforcing embargoes we got the United Nations to authorize so other 
countries would help us, help us. Penny-wise, pound-foolish, this 
amendment.
  Finally, to remind Members, nothing is undertaken by the United 
Nations unless the United States decides it. If we do not like a 
specific U.N. operation, whether it is Somalia or Haiti, fight on that 
issue. Do no wipe out all of the good because of one thing you do not 
like.
  It is the end of the cold war. We are at a point where America's 
security environment is more complicated than ever, and we are asked 
with this language in 501 to choose isolationism.
  This so-called National Security Revitalization Act is billed as a 
cost-saving move to limit foreign adventurism, but its effect would be 
to undermine our national security by gutting our ability to use the 
United Nations as a tool to pursue U.S. interests.
  Vote for the amendment. Defeat the bill. H.R. 501 is wrong.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of our 
time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], the distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Procurement of the Committee on 
National Security.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for 
yielding me the time and for his great work.
  My colleagues, let us look at this part of the Contract With America 
for what it is. This is a taxpayers' credit, and here is what it says: 
It says if you have U.N. operation going on, and we are paying almost 
30 percent of that, or almost a third of that, we are helping the U.N. 
operation. We may be undertaking at the same time an American airlift 
that we are paying entirely out of U.S. taxpayer funds. We have 
undertaken this airlift in Bosnia now longer than the Berlin airlift, 
and all we are saying is that we would like to get a little credit for 
this in-kind contribution.
  We spent about $1.4 billion in DOD airlifts and incremental costs, 
and at worst case, if the President exercises his exemptions, the U.S. 
taxpayers are only going to the credited for about $240 million out of 
the fiscal year 1994 incremental costs for peacekeeping requirements, 
we are only getting a credit of 240 million. The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman] wants to cut the $240 million credit down 
lower.
  The U.S. taxpayers have a right to get this tax credit. They are 
paying two ways. They are paying through the United Nations and they 
are also paying for U.S. unilateral actions.
  Please reject the Berman amendment or we are going to water this 
doggone thing down to the point where U.S. taxpayers do not get any 
credit at all for American unilateral actions carried out by DOD.
  Please vote ``no'' on the Berman amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the modified amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Berman].
  The modified amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under a previous order of the House, it is now in order 
to consider an amendment by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson].
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and others 
have talked about the costs of the United Nations, but what has not 
been talked about is we are talking about percentages, 25 percent of an 
already bloated budget. They are not cutting back on their costs, they 
are not addressing budget reductions.
  I had planned to offer an amendment which would have placed a 
monetary cap of $250 million for the U.S. contribution to the United 
Nations. Here at home we are making painful budget cuts, we are 
eliminating wasteful spending and abolishing unnecessary bureaucracies. 
The taxpayers have insisted that we change the way we do business here 
in Washington, and I think that we can accept no less from the United 
Nations.
  I believe we have the right and indeed the obligation to require the 
United Nations to do this, because the American taxpayer provides it 
with a quarter of its $1 billion plus budget. When we add in 
peacekeeping, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] has already 
said, $2.8 billion, we are already at $3 billion plus. That is too much 
money, and as the largest donor we are the only country capable of 
effecting positive change at the United Nations.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson] 
certainly raises a pertinent point on the issue of the U.S. 
contribution to the U.N. regular budget, and I share the gentleman's 
concerns about the level of our contributions, particularly in light of 
the poor management practices and inefficiencies that have been 
characterizing the U.N. organization. And I can assure the gentleman 
from Texas that our International Relations Committee will continue to 
press for reforms and hold the United Nations to no real growth in 
their budgets.
  If the gentleman is willing, I would be pleased to work with him on 
this issue as part of the State Department authorization process. Our 
Committee on International Relations will be considering the 
authorization for the State Department for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 
in the next few months, and this is a bill that authorizes the funding 
for the United Nations and the international organizations.
                              {time}  1200

  I am certain our Members would welcome the views of the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson] on the U.S. contribution to the U.N. 
budget, so we would look forward to being of assistance to you in 
addressing your concerns and interest in the U.N. regular budget 
consideration.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the Chairman. I appreciate him 
yielding time to me to discuss this, and I will take the chairman's 
suggestion and not offer the amendment today but will, instead, bring 
it up at the appropriate time, which will be during the State 
Department authorization process.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under a previous order of the House, it is now in order 
to consider the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       [[Page H1871]] Page 53, beginning on line 15, strike out 
     ``25 percent'' and insert ``20 percent''.
       Page 53, line 18, strike out ``25 percent'' and insert ``20 
     percent''.
       Page 53, line 21, after ``the United States.'' insert the 
     following new sentences:
       For any United Nations peacekeeping operation that is 
     initially authorized by the United Nations Security Council 
     before the date of the enactment of this section, the 
     applicable percentages under the preceding sentence shall be 
     25 percent. For United Nations peacekeeping operations that 
     are initially authorized by the United Nations Security 
     Council on or after the date of the enactment of this 
     section, the President may increase the percentage 
     limitations under the first sentence of this subsection to a 
     percentage not greater than 25 percent. The President may 
     exercise the authority under the preceding sentence only 
     after transmitting to Congress a report providing notice of 
     the percentage increase under the preceding sentence and a 
     statement of the reasons for the increase.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] will be 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized 
for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I listened very carefully during this debate.
  I would just like to offer my little assessment. I think the American 
people are fed up, fed up knowing that Uncle Sam has become the 
policeman for the entire world. But what they are really galled about 
is Uncle Sam then sticks around and organizes a neighborhood crime 
watch everywhere around the planet.
  We happen to have 25,000 murders a year in America. Now, I know that 
is not germane to this debate. There are 25,000 murders, it is 
approaching, a year in America and everybody is talking about the 
borders overseas, controlling borders and patrolling and helping 
foreign nations.
  Somebody better take a look at our borders.
  The bill sets a cap of 25 percent for U.N. peacekeeping operations, 
our share. The Traficant amendment says that it shall be a 20-percent 
cap as a target, and the President can go to the 25 percent, but he 
must notify the Congress that they have reached 20 percent expenditure, 
and he is going to increase it and give us the reasons why the 
President wants those additional moneys.
  Now, I have heard everybody saying we are a world power. Ladies and 
gentleman, we are an almost bankrupt world power, and a bankrupt 
America does not have much world power in the future. So I do not want 
the Contract With America to accept the Traficant amendment, go to 
conference, and throw it out.
  I want to take another second to explain it. The Traficant amendment 
says that somebody in the White House or the Pentagon has to get out an 
adding machine or a calculator and figure out what they are spending 
and say, ``Mr. President, we are approaching 20 percent. Now, we have 
got to send it to the Congress, notify them we are going to use the 
full 5.''
   Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman] for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
  Mr. ROTH. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant], ``You are right on target.'' I support this amendment.
  This amendment further reduces the cap of the U.S. share of U.N. 
peacekeeping from 25 to 20 percent, and when you see what is taking 
place in our country, you are right on target. It permits two 
exceptions, I think, that the Members should know. It grandfathers 
existing operations and it permits the President the flexibility of 
increasing it to 25 percent where he believes it is necessary.
  This is a very well thought out amendment, and the value of this 
amendment is that it makes it clear a congressional policy is in order 
that the U.S. taxpayer should not be paying more than 20 percent of the 
tab. It is time to ensure that the U.S. taxpayer is no longer fleeced.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for pointing that out. Eighty 
percent of the tab, like the Clinton administration paid last year, is 
grossly unfair to the American taxpayer, and this is a fair amendment. 
It is a just amendment, and it deserves the support of this House.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  Mr. DUNCAN. I rise in support of this amendment. A few months ago the 
front page of the Washington Post said we had our troops in Haiti 
picking up garbage and settling domestic disputes. Those should not be 
the mission of the American military, yet those are the kinds of things 
we are doing in these peacekeeping operations.
  I support the amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which I believe is 
in keeping with the other provisions of this title providing greater 
scrutiny and congressional oversight of the funding of U.N. 
peacekeeping operations. This amendment would establish a 20-percent 
assessment for new peacekeeping operations which the administration 
could raise up to the prevailing level of 25 percent to the extent it 
reports to Congress on the reasons for our increased financial support.
  I would like to commend the gentleman for offering this amendment and 
the majority accepts the Congressman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under a previous order of the House, it is now in order 
to consider the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].


                    amendment offered by mr. durbin

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Durbin: Page 63, line 4, strike 
     ``In particular,'' and insert ``Numerous Central and East 
     European countries, particularly''
       Page 63, line 5, insert a comma after ``Slovakia''
       Page 66, after line 12, insert the following few paragraphs 
     (and redesignate the succeeding paragraphs accordingly):
       (7) that, when any other European country emerging from 
     communist domination is in a position to further the 
     principles of the North Atlantic Treaty and to contribute to 
     the security of the North Atlantic area, it should, in 
     accordance with Article 10 of such Treaty, be invited to 
     become a full NATO member, provided it--
       (A) meets appropriate standards, including each of the 
     standards specified in clauses (i) through (vii) of paragraph 
     (5)(A); and
       (B) remains committed to protecting the rights of all its 
     citizens and respecting the territorial integrity of its 
     neighbors;
       (8) that the United States, other NATO member nations, and 
     NATO itself should furnish appropriate assistance to 
     facilitate the transition of other European countries 
     emerging from communist domination to full NATO membership at 
     the appropriate time.
       Page 67, line 8, strike the semicolon and insert 
     ``including Russia, and''
       Page 67, strike line 10, beginning on line 11, strike 
     ``cooperation'' and beginning on line 12, strike ``including 
     the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and'' 
     and insert a period.
       Page 67, strike line 14 and all that follows through line 
     21
       (8) that the United States, other NATO member nations, and 
     NATO itself should furnish appropriate assistance to 
     facilitate the transition of other European countries 
     emerging from communist domination to full NATO membership at 
     the appropriate time;
       Page 67, line 8, strike the semicolon and insert ``, 
     including Russia, and''
       Page 67, strike line 10, beginning on line 11, strike 
     ``cooperation'', and beginning on line 12, strike ``including 
     the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and'' 
     and insert a period.
       Page 67, strike line 14 and all that follows through line 
     21.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member 
opposed will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  [[Page H1872]] The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to say at the outset I want to express my appreciation 
to the chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], as well as 
the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], who have 
cooperated in the reparation of this amendment.
  Let me try to describe this amendment in very express and succinct 
terms. This bill envisions the possibility that NATO will be expanded 
in the future. The North American Treaty Organization, which has been 
the bedrock of democracy in Europe since World War II, has been a major 
factor in American foreign policy.
  Many countries which were not members of NATO after World War II were 
under Communist domination and were thereby precluded from 
participation. Now that we have seen the elimination of the Soviet 
Union per se and the emergence of new countries in the region, many of 
them new democracies, we are envisioning the possibility that NATO in 
the future will embrace these same democracies.
  The bill is express in its terms and suggests that we should consider 
enlarging NATO to include Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and 
Slovakia. I have absolutely no objection to that, and feel they are 
appropriate candidates to be considered for NATO.
  Unfortunately, the bill does not list many other nations which were 
formerly under Communist domination, and I think immediately, but not 
exclusively, about the Baltic States, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and 
Ukraine.
  What my amendment does is to open the possibility, the potentiality, 
that other formerly Communist-dominated nations will also be considered 
for NATO membership.
  This a great boost to these countries to know that they, too, are 
considered potential allies of the United States and all freedom-loving 
nations.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the other 5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman] for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by 
Mr. Durbin which amends title VI regarding NATO.
  This amendment makes clear that there are a number of Central 
European countries beyond the Visegrad Four which should, at some 
point, be in a position to become full NATO members. I believe this is 
a very useful addition to the bill.
  As I understand it, this is a consensus amendment worked out by the 
gentleman from Illinois in cooperation with the Central and East 
European Coalition which consists of those prominent organizations that 
represent Americans of East European lineage.
  That coalition has reportedly obtained the approval of Baltic-
Americans, Ukrainian-Americans, Armenian-Americans, Hungarian-
Americans, Czech-Americans, Polish-Americans, and others for this 
amendment as introduced.
  I would also like to note the amendment includes language urging 
other NATO nations to furnish appropriate assistance to facilitate the 
transition of these countries to NATO membership. This is a key point. 
The U.S. cannot be the sole source of assistance for these countries.
  This amendment also deletes language in the bill that has been 
interpreted--I am certain, inadvertently--as giving Russia a veto over 
NATO expansion in Central and Eastern Europe.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take further time. I understand there 
are other amendments and other debates that need to be considered.
  I certainly thank my colleague, the gentleman from New York, He has 
been a pleasure to work with, on a very important issue. I also want to 
salute the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg] and the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Hoke], who share our feelings on this important issue, 
as well as my colleague from Chicago, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Lipinski], who is a cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I rise to express my strong support for the 
amendment offered by Mr. Durbin to include other European countries 
along with Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia, for NATO 
membership in the future.
  In particular I support restoring the eligibility of the Baltic 
states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, as well as Ukraine to join 
NATO when they are able to meet the necessary requirements.
  Since their independence from the Soviet Union, these nations have 
been working diligently to rebuild internally and establish democratic 
and free governments. By reaching out to the West, the Baltic states 
have been striving to develop peaceful relations throughout the global 
community.
  Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Ukraine cannot ignore their neighbor 
to the east, the Russian Federation. We too cannot help but realize 
that Russia continues to present a potential threat to these countries. 
Certainly we all can see that the instability and actions of Russia 
have heightened tensions within its neighbors who remember all too 
clearly the history of the past 70 years.
  In its current form H.R. 7 sends a message to these nations of 
Central and Eastern Europe that they are on their own in security 
matters. This is a message we surely do not mean and one we cannot risk 
sending. It threatens to destabilize this region through the 
implication that NATO expansion would be limited to the four named 
countries, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. Certainly 
we should not imply that consideration of NATO membership will be 
limited to just these four countries. When the Baltic states or Ukraine 
meet the appropriate requirements they should be permitted to, at the 
least, be considered for NATO membership.
  The Durbin amendment resolves this problem in a fair and suitable 
manner. This language making numerous Central and Eastern European 
countries eligible for consideration in future NATO expansion extends 
the same criteria for NATO integration to all the nations of Central 
and Eastern Europe. I support this amendment and urge my colleagues to 
do so as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1410

  The CHAIRMAN. Under a previous order of the House, it is now in order 
to consider the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman].


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Bateman

  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bateman: Page 74, after line 16, 
     strike all through line 20; Redesignate current paragraph (B) 
     as the (A); Add after (A) the following new paragraph (B):
       (B) certain countries that were a part of the former Union 
     of Soviet Socialist Republics or that were part of the former 
     Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which the President 
     may designate pursuant to Section 203(d)(2) of the NATO 
     Participation Act of 1994.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bateman] will be recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes, and a 
Member opposed will be recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Mr. Chairman, in the bill as it comes to the floor, there are terms 
within the bill, or a phrase, ``certain other European countries 
emerging from communist domination.'' In a section of the bill 
thereafter this phrase is defined legislatively. The legislative 
definition now in the bill is written so as to make eligible for 
participation in programs that bring additional countries into NATO, 
territories of the former Soviet Union and territories of the former 
Federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia.
  My amendment changes that definition of that phrase, ``certain 
European countries which have emerged from 
[[Page H1873]] communist domination.'' But the nature of the amendment 
makes no substantive difference in the bill. What it does do, however, 
is to remove that blanket invitation to have someone possibly construe 
this that we are thinking in terms of countries as remote from NATO as 
Kazakhstan or Azerbaijan or Armenia or Turkistan, which I do not think 
anyone really contemplates is what we have in mind.
  Similarly, if you say all of the former territories of the Federal 
Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] 
has expired.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional 
minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee is under a unanimous-consent agreement of 
the House where it is not in order to ask for additional minutes.
  If the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] would like to control the 
time, he can yield.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BATEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's 
amendment.
  I believe it helps to clarify the fact that the President has the 
discretion to identify certain countries in the former Soviet Union and 
in the former Yugoslavia which may be eligible for assistance.
  Some countries may be designated in those regions. Others may not. 
It's the President's decision.
  I urge my colleague to support Mr. Bateman's amendment.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding it is also 
acceptable by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the ranking 
member of the full committee.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BATEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make sure this language does not 
preclude the possibility of a country like Slovenia, which is 
independent, has a privatized economy, had had successful free 
democratic elections, from joining, having the same status as the 
already named countries in the legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the positive response of the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman], as well as the concurrence and 
affirmation by the chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations, Mr. Gilman, that the amendment of the gentleman from 
Virginia and the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], 
clearly open the door for admission of Slovenia to NATO membership 
without specifically mentioning that country by name.
  Slovenia clearly deserves equal standing with the other countries 
already named in the pending bill and merits membership on a full 
equality basis in NATO, because Slovenia obviously has taken its place 
in the family of nations as a democratic, free market-based, privatized 
economy. In a December 1990 plebiscite, Slovenes voted 96 percent for 
independence from what was then Yugoslavia. That plebiscite directed 
the Slovene Parliament to craft a constitution, based on democratic, 
representative, government principles and set June 26, 1991, as the 
date on which independence from Yugoslavia should be formally declared.
  Those directives were carried out by the Slovene Parliament, 
independence was declared; the Yugoslav army invade Slovenia to stifle 
independence, but, after a 9-day military confrontation with minimal 
loss of life, the Yugoslav army retreated and the Slovene people 
prevailed. The United States formally recognized the Republic of 
Slovenia on April 7, 1992.
  Immediately upon the successful establishment of its independence, 
the Slovene Government began a very intensive privatization of its 
national economy, much of which already was operating on a market 
basis.
  In January 1993, an international trade journal, International Trade 
Reporter, said this about Slovenia: ``Of all the countries of eastern 
Europe, Slovenia has the best preconditions for the transition to a 
market economy and a fast start toward dynamic economic development.''
  Now, a fully privatized economy, Slovenia is the 20th largest 
exporter in the world, exporting over $7 billion in goods each year, 
which accounts for 60 percent of Slovenia's GNP. Slovenia now enjoys a 
lively trade with the United States, shipping $229 million worth of 
goods to the United States each year and importing some $180 in United 
States goods annually.
  However, for Slovenes, these are not surprising numbers. Prior to 
separation from the former Yugoslavia, Slovenia, with a population of 
2.4 million, just over 8 percent of the total population of the former 
Yugoslavia, represented 40 percent of former Yugoslavia's overall GNP 
and 36 percent of its total tax base. Slovenes are industrious, hard 
working, committed to democratic principles and a vigorous market 
economy. They deserve to have their rightful place in the family of 
nations and, should they choose to do so, a seat in NATO and in the 
Western European Alliance.
  Not only would such status be emphatically embraced by the Slovene 
Government and its people, but it would also fill with pride the three-
quarter million or so of Americans of Slovene descent, including me, 
who are scattered throughout nearly every one of these United States.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman he is 
correct. It is written so as not to exclude the possibility of 
Slovenia.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BATEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I commend him 
on his work. It has indeed taken care of some clarification both with 
respect to the Soviet Union and the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia. I 
thank the gentleman for his work, it is very fine work.
  I hope we can support it.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under a previous order of the House of today, it is now 
in order to consider the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Torricelli].


                  amendment offered by mr. torricelli

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Torricelli: Page 68, line 4, 
     strike out ``shall'' and insert ``may.''

  The CHAIRMAN. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] will be recognized for 22 minutes, and an 
opponent will be recognized for 22 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli].
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, never in my memory has a more simple amendment been 
brought before this institution. It hangs largely on one word, ``may'' 
the United States establish the new military aid program and expansion 
of foreign aid in eastern Europe, or ``shall'' it do so? Is it 
mandatory?
  In my memory of this institution, I have never known this Congress in 
its enthusiasm for foreign aid to mandate an expansion of that program 
to other countries. But indeed, unless my amendment is accepted, that 
is exactly what we will do today: Add 4 countries in eastern Europe on 
a mandatory basis, requiring military aid.
  Now, I know this is a large institution and we represent very 
different districts with different electoral experiences. But I cannot 
believe that anyone in this institution feels that it is a mandate from 
their constituents in the second month of this new Congress as a matter 
of the highest priority to come here to this floor to expand foreign 
aid. I do not think anybody knew it was in the contract. I do not think 
anyone would have been for it if they did.
  But you have got one opportunity to take it out today; change the 
word ``shall'' expand foreign aid to ``may,'' based on the judgment of 
the administration.
  Now, I know that the intentions of the authors of the legislation are 
sound, to bring into the western alliance for security purposes the 
nations of eastern Europe.
  [[Page H1874]] And indeed under the Partnership for Peace, $100 
million has already been authorized to work with eastern Europe nations 
so that one day they might coordinate their defense policies and 
perhaps eventually enter NATO.
  But this is beyond coordinating defense programs. This is providing 
direct assistance.
  Now, the authors may claim that the $100 million of the Partnership 
for Peace can be used to fund this new foreign aid program. But indeed 
there is no reason to believe that this money would be sufficient. It 
is already being used with other nations. It may already be entirely 
consumed.
  The simple truth is that if we vote to expand this foreign aid 
program, that money either has to come from withdrawing other eastern 
European nations from the Partnership for Peace, coming back to expand 
overall foreign aid money, or taking it from current recipients, most 
notably the biggest recipients, the Russian program, the Israeli 
program, or the Egyptian program.
  Indeed, those countries could not possibly be unaffected if we are to 
mandate this foreign aid program because there are no other sources.
  I find myself, Mr. Chairman, in a peculiar position. Having served on 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs all these years, I have come to this 
floor previously to argue for foreign aid, for poor nations, for 
nations with security problems, for nations working with the United 
States on a bilateral basis for our own defense, but considering our 
other budgetary problems and the other needs before this Congress, our 
domestic priorities, I cannot argue that we should add any nation on a 
mandatory basis for American foreign aid.
  My amendment would simply allow the administration to look at each of 
these countries, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland, gauge 
the strengths of their democracies, the liberalization of their 
economies, what they are doing for their own security needs, and then 
make a determination whether or not we want to expand our military 
assistance.
  It is a discretion that makes sense. Indeed, in the underlying 
legislation, on page 68 and page 69, this is exactly the formula that 
the authors use for expanding this to other countries beyond the four I 
just mentioned. They would gauge the progress of democracy in those 
countries, Ukraine, Baltics. That is what we should do for these.
                              {time}  1220

  Indeed, frankly I think of no better evidence than of the four 
countries mandated for an expansion of military aid, two of them are 
now led by former communists. One has an authoritative government. All 
have declining defense budgets.
  So the majority would have us have a mandated foreign aid program for 
countries led by two former communists? Where they themselves are 
decreasing their defense spending? With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, 
who is doing the thinking here? This cannot make any sense.
  Let us work together with the administration to determine whether or 
not they are making progress, and they should be brought into the 
program.
  There are times, Mr. Chairman, when this Congress feels so strongly 
and the merits are so overwhelming for foreign assistance programs in 
our security needs that this Congress should mandate, and we do, for 
Israel, for Egypt. But if I might paraphrase the words of former 
Senator Bentsen, Slovakia is no Israel. There is no need at this point 
to write into the law this which in my judgment is the largest 
expansion in terms of naming the countries involved with American 
foreign aid in my memory.
  I cannot believe that any Member of this institution wants to go home 
this evening, meet their constituents on the streets and say to them, 
``You can be proud. I recognized our needs. I just voted to on a 
mandatory basis add four countries to the American foreign aid 
program.''
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] is recognized 
for 22 minutes.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], a senior member of the Committee 
on International Relations and chairman of the Subcommittee on 
International Operations.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my 
strong support for the underlying provisions of the legislation, namely 
title 6, which squarely addresses the issue of NATO expansion. At the 
outset, let me dispel the notion that this section would somehow 
hamstring the administration's foreign policy, assuming it has one. 
Nothing in the National Security Revitalization Act mandates NATO 
membership for any country or group of countries. Changes in the 
membership of NATO are determined on the basis of consensus among the 
alliance's member states as stipulated under article 10 of the North 
Atlantic Treaty, a point reaffirmed in the pending legislation and 
known to Members on both sides of the aisle.
  The crux of the matter is how best to consolidate and build upon the 
fundamental political changes which have occurred in many of the 
countries of Central Europe, the Baltics, and some of the New 
Independent States of the Former Soviet Union. On the security front, a 
veritable ``no-man's-land'' has emerged between Germany and Russia 
following the demise of the Warsaw Pact, and the ensuing moves toward 
democracy and market economy by many in the region.
  The Clinton administration, like the administration before it, the 
Bush administration, has been slow to move to fill this vacuum. Mr. 
Chairman, this has been a source of great consternation to the emerging 
democracies in the region who rightly view it as a source of potential 
instability.
  I think my colleagues would agree that the Partnership for Peace 
initiative launched a year ago has failed to fill this void. By making 
the program mandatory, as we do in title 6, we are ensuring that the 
job gets done. I would urge my colleagues to read the legislation. The 
legislation clearly states that the program is to assist in the 
transition to full NATO membership of Poland, Hungary, the Czech 
Republic, Slovakia, and any other European country emerging from 
Communist domination that is designated by the President, and so on and 
so forth.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Torricelli], making the transition optional would make this entire 
section a sense-of-the-Congress resolution. Mr. Chairman, title 7 of 
the National Security Revitalization Act I believe provides a 
reasonable framework for addressing the concerns consistent with U.S. 
interests in ensuring stability in Europe. Very clearly delineated in 
the bill is a list of criteria, such as respect for democratic 
principles and human rights enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act, 
against which to evaluate the suitability of prospective candidates for 
NATO membership. In addition, it establishes a program to provide the 
emerging democracies with the necessary tools to facilitate their 
transition to full NATO membership, which, as I pointed out earlier, 
will ultimately be up to the members of NATO to decide.
  Given the broad range of our political, economic, and security 
interests in Europe, strengthening new free markets and democracies in 
that region benefits the United States. Interestingly two of the most 
prominent members of the foreign policy establishment, Henry Kissinger 
and Zbigniew Brzezinski, are ardent supporters of the timely expansion 
of NATO.
  Dr. Kissinger sees the existing vacuum as a threat, not only to NATO 
cohesion, but the very existence of NATO as a meaningful institution, 
and he writes, ``NATO expansion represents a balancing of two 
conflicting considerations the fear of alienating Russia against the 
danger of creating a vacuum in central Europe. A wise policy,'' he 
counsels, ``would proceed with the membership for Poland, Hungary, the 
Czech Republic and Slovakia, and to reject a Russian veto.'' Dr. 
Kissinger concludes, ``NATO cannot long survive if the borders it 
protects are not threatened while it refuses to protect the borders of 
adjoining countries that do feel threatened.''
  [[Page H1875]] Zbigniew Brzezinski recently urged NATO to formally 
declare its ``criteria for expansion and indicate which countries 
appear to meet them. This would end the counterproductive debates with 
Russia over whether NATO should expand. The longer this step is 
delayed, the more vociferous Moscow's objections are likely to be.''
  Mr. Chairman, this is precisely the purpose of title 6 of the 
National Security Revitalization Act.
  Rather than dodging the issue of NATO expansion, as it has largely 
done to date, the Clinton administration, should move on the membership 
issue before more time is lost. But that requires leadership. We must 
seize upon today's opportunities which could be gone tomorrow. A steady 
and deliberate course of action is one thing, obfuscation, which has 
characterized the Clinton administration's approach to date is another.
  Russia, perhaps sensing a certain timidity within the administration, 
has sought to block NATO expansion. It is instructive to recall that 
the Soviet Union vehemently opposed German membership in NATO in 1955 
and attempted to deny unified Germany continued participation in the 
Alliance. A democratic Russia has nothing to fear from a defensive 
alliance founded on democratic principles. It would be foolhardy and 
dangerous, as Henry Kissinger rightly pointed out, to give Russia a 
veto over NATO expansion, and, as Dr. Brzezinski observed, failure to 
act now will only make matters worse.
  Let's look at the earlier inclusion of new countries. As my 
colleagues know, when we look at countries that were included into 
NATO, Greece and Turkey were hardly stellar democracies when they 
joined in 1952. I remind Members that Portugal, one of the founding 
members of NATO, was under a dictatorship in 1949. In this bill we lay 
out clear markers which we think have to be achieved before this 
program goes forward. We are trying to promote and push these countries 
in the direction of democracy, free markets, respect for human rights. 
I believe title 6, as a mandatory program, goes much further to ensure 
those objectives, and, hopefully, a safer world, rather than making 
this title a sense-of-the-Congress resolution by amending it to an 
optional program.
                              {time}  1230

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman who coauthored this amendment with me, the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  I want to remind the body, however, that this amendment does not 
impact NATO expansion, only the question of whether there should be a 
mandatory foreign aid program.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage especially the new 
freshmen of this body to read this title, pages 61 through 75. All the 
amendment that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] and I 
have offered would do is say that the President may establish this 
program, not that he has to establish this program as a mandate.
  As we read through the next 14 pages, as Members are on the floor or 
in their offices and they decide whether or not to vote for this 
amendment, let me say that in title IV what we have been debating is 
whether or not there should be some accountability and limits to U.S. 
participation in Somalia, in Haiti, in Bosnia, and other places around 
the world.
  Title VI then says it completely unties that, completely undoes it, 
and says we are going to possibly send troops and foreign aid to 
Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Albania, or Romania.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROEMER. I will not yield until I have finished.
  It opens up all these possibilities by mandating to the President 
that he has to expand NATO and he has to look at providing foreign aid 
and disarmament aid to these qualifying countries.
  I would also argue to my colleagues that in reading through what this 
legislation says, we read through this and find that on page 71 of 
title VI, at the top of the page, these countries would be eligible for 
economic support assistance, they would be eligible for security 
assistance, and they would be eligible for nonproliferation and 
disarmament funds.
  Where in the Contract for America does it say that we are going to 
mandate that we expand NATO, that we list to the President of the 
United States all these countries that have to join, according to this 
legislation, in title VI, and that the American taxpayer is then going 
to fund this new expanded NATO? I do not think that that is what the 
elections in November were about.
  I would further argue that whether or not we intended this, the 
gentleman from New Jersey and I are in complete adherence to what the 
contract says. The Contract With America at page 108 says, and I quote, 
``With respect to this program, the President is given authority to 
establish a program to assist Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic,'' et 
cetera, not mandate it to the President.
  That is exactly what the Torricelli-Roemer amendment does. It does 
not mandate. It says the President may. It gives the President 
authority. It is in complete agreement with what the contract says. It 
gives the President authority.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROEMER. I will not yield yet.
  I will just conclude by saying that I am delighted that somebody did 
not stick Chechnya in this. What would that mean? Where would we be 
then? What would that commit us to? What about Albania and Romania? 
Will the gentleman answer that question? They do not even have an 
organized military. Yet Title 5 of the NATO treaty requires mutual 
cooperation between the countries.
  How much does this cost? What would be the financial burden to the 
United States to start funding this under these three or four different 
accounts, and would the United States be required to send troops to 
Albania and Slovakia?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The time of the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer] has expired.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, first of all, perhaps we have 
had too many discussions on the floor about mandates because mandates 
seem to be on the brain.
  There is nothing in this bill that mandates that any country join 
NATO. That has to be made very clear. What we are doing is saying that 
the program that would assist nations like Poland, Hungary, the Czech 
Republic, and Slovakia and other European nations means that these 
nations would be designated for transitional help. There is $100 
million being requested for the President by the President for this 
kind of thing. We want to encourage expansion--that is what we are 
talking about.
  As I have said, we have had a lack of leadership with regard to this, 
and we are saying that Congress should speak up and say these countries 
are worth it. A window of opportunity exists and we do not want to see 
that window closed.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If I have the time, I will yield to the 
gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Again I ask, what is the cost of this? Have we had 
hearings on this?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. As the gentleman knows, there is no cost 
figure stated in the legislation.
  Mr. ROEMER. There certainly is not.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. At a later date we will talk about it, but 
already we have $100 million for the fiscal year requested by the 
President in the Partnership For Peace.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for another 
question?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith] has expired.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], the distinguished chairman of 
our Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Torricelli amendment.
  There is a lot of confusion around here. Nowhere is there a 
requirement that the President enlarge NATO. Nowhere is there a 
requirement that the United States support an enlargement 
[[Page H1876]] of NATO under all conditions. Section 604 tries to 
provide some leadership. It is assisting, and it would encourage NATO 
expansion.
  This has been unfairly characterized as mandatory foreign aid, even 
mandatory military aid. There is nothing about it that is mandatory. If 
the President decides to create an office but uses no funds, he has 
that authority.
  But what has the President done? He has offered the Warsaw Initiative 
last July, and in the budget document we submitted, we have $100 
million for the Warsaw Initiative. We would expect that under section 
604 as written the Warsaw Initiative funds would be channeled through 
this source.
  Nowhere is it restricted to military assistance. If in fact we talk 
to the State Department, they will talk to us about transportation 
improvements and other kinds of ESF related expenditures. There may in 
fact not be a single penny spent on military aid as a result of this.
  What I think we are doing is trying to provide some guidance. If in 
fact we are going to enlarge into the Visegrad Four countries or other 
eligible countries for a period of time when they meet the criteria 
spelled out in title VI, then we would have an opportunity to expand 
NATO, with the approval of our 15 additional NATO allies.
  But what we are attempting to do with this program is to provide some 
guidance to the executive branch. That is an entirely appropriate 
activity of the Congress of the United States. The President is 
proposing to spend $100 million on the Visegrad Four and other 
Partnership For Peace countries. We are going to give some direction 
through section 604.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of the Torricelli amendment.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Johnston], a member of the committee.
  Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Torricelli amendment. I believe that the mandated-funding provision 
and other policies contained in title VI of this bill are severely 
flawed.
  Mandating a funding program for these four countries is a serious 
mistake. Congress should not attempt to legislate the expansion of 
NATO--NATO expansion must be handled flexibly, in close consultation 
with our allies, as circumstances in Europe evolve. In addition, NATO 
expansion would be at an enormous expense--tens of billions of dollars. 
This bill mandates an expansion of our commitments overseas, yet it 
doesn't say how we should pay for them--and all during a period of 
declining foreign assistance resources.
  Specifying countries that are to be fast-tracked into NATO membership 
is also a mistake. As Secretaries Christopher and Perry recently wrote 
in the New York Times, ``If we arbitrarily lock in advantages now for 
some countries, we risk discouraging reformers in countries not named 
and fostering complacency in countries that are.''
  In general, this bill micromanages U.S. foreign policy to an 
unacceptable extent. Any policy of NATO expansion should be closely 
responsive to the very fluid political landscape in Europe--the 
President should decide how and when NATO is expanded. Members on both 
sides know well that this sort of micromanaging simply does not work.
  Mr. Chairman, I must also question the wisdom of the underlying 
policy of NATO expansion as expressed in this bill. At the very least, 
I believe the Nation needs a broad national debate on NATO expansion, a 
debate that has hardly begun.
  This policy of NATO expansion would draw clear new lines across 
Europe. It would prejudge, and I believe adversely affect, the outcome 
of transitions underway in Russia and throughout the region. Moreover, 
I am not convinced that NATO expansion is viable politically. Do the 
American people truly understand the legal and financial implications 
of providing security guarantees to Bratislava and Budapest? Are we 
ready to sacrifice the lives of our sons and daughters to defend 
Slovakia and the other countries? Once the public debate begins in 
earnest, the expansion of NATO by treaty obligation may well be 
politically impossible.
  I strongly support the Torricelli amendment to this bill.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to respond to a couple of the 
points that have been made in this debate. I am very familiar with 
Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, having visited and 
examined some of their emergence from the former Soviet bloc, and I can 
tell you that this amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey is a 
grave mistake at this time.
  The point was made here that this is some extension of foreign aid, 
and that is not correct. There is foreign aid already in all of these 
countries, United States foreign aid. This amendment says the President 
shall establish a program to assist in the transition to full NATO 
membership. He says ``may.''
  Well, the President already may. That is what we are suffering from, 
is a lack of leadership, a lack of direction. And what this Congress is 
trying to do is say that we shall assist these emerging nations to 
reach NATO status. And that is the clear intent.
  That is what has been lacking here, and that is what will be lacking 
if we miss this opportunity. We will make a grave mistake if we pass 
this amendment and put us back in the situation we are in, because 
these countries, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia want 
this status and want to work toward this status, and this directs from 
the Congress, providing leadership, to say that we will establish a 
program and the President will cooperate with us to bring these people 
into NATO. And that can only be in the long-term interests of the 
security and peace of not only this Nation, but the entire world.
  If we adopt this amendment, we are voting for the status quo, and we 
are voting to make a great mistake in the history of these emerging 
nations. I urge its defeat.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to 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. Chairman, if I were a NATO ally, I would be 
scratching my head in wonderment and asking has the U.S. Congress gone 
mad, or is this a joke? Did the Americans hear that the cold war is 
over, or is this a time warp?
  Whatever happened to consultation with our NATO allies? What does the 
President think about this initiative? Oh, I forgot, we now have 230 
Secretaries of State and Defense, and we do not need an executive 
branch. We now have an imperial Congress with a constitutional 
authority to run foreign policy.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill. It is an attempt to dictate the 
terms of NATO expansion with no criteria for membership. England is 
against this, France is against this, Germany is against this. Russia 
is going to think we are indicating aggression. Slovakia is run by an 
authoritarian leader. Poland is run by a former Communist Party member. 
Should we not be discussing these issues with others, rather than 
dictating to NATO and the executive branch?
  We are also starting a new military assistance program, an 
entitlement program. This is going to take money from other strategic 
allies like Israel, like Turkey, like Pakistan.
  Mr. Speaker, let us not allow this amendment of the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] to go down. It corrects a serious flaw. 
This bill is not going to become law, but it sends a chilling signal to 
our allies that the United States is divided, that there is no cohesion 
between the executive and congressional branches.
  Mr. Chairman, let us debate NATO expansion within the Congress, 
within the American public, but with our allies. Let us pass the 
Torricelli amendment and correct a very, very chilling signal that is 
going to arrive in Europe and NATO tomorrow that the United States is 
divided.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman, I 
hope 
[[Page H1877]] the gentleman is aware there is no entitlement program 
created by this. The President, of course, is proposing to spend $100 
million for the Warsaw Initiative, part of which could go for the 
countries which would be eligible. There is no mandatory timeframe, of 
course.
  We have by the action of the framers of H.R. 7 and by action of the 
Committee on International Relations taken additional criteria that 
ought to be considered, giving some guidance to these countries on how 
we ought to proceed. But we certainly are not forcing our allies or the 
President to take them in.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is an expert on many of 
these issues, NATO especially. The gentleman knows our allies are 
seriously concerned about this initiative, and you are going to be 
taking money from other strategic allies. You are setting forth a 
military assistance program. The language is very clear.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the ranking member of the 
Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Torricelli 
amendment. It calls on NATO membership for four countries in the near 
future. It mandates an assistance program of all kinds to aid in the 
transition to NATO membership. It specifically designates four 
countries. Now, there are a lot of things wrong with that.
  First of all, it prejudges and dictates the pace and direction of 
NATO expansion. What you have got going on in this part of the world is 
a very elaborate historical process to determine the security regime of 
Europe in the years ahead, and the Congress of the United States comes 
in with this provision in H.R. 7 and tries to dictate what that result 
would be.
  Furthermore, this is just gratuitous advice, because NATO expansion 
cannot be dictated by a statute of the Congress. We short-circuit the 
partnership for peace initiative, which is supported by all of our 
allies today. That establishes closer military and political ties 
between NATO and the nations of central and Eastern Europe. We ought to 
let that evolve.
  Now, there has been a lot of talk in here about this bill providing 
guidance to the President. This dose not provide guidance to the 
President. This tells the President what to do. It mandates the 
President shall establish a program. That is not providing guidance. 
That is mandating. And you are telling the President to assist in the 
transition, and furthermore, you are not giving him any resources to do 
what you tell him to do.
  That is no way to conduct American foreign policy. You are mandating 
an ambitious program of military and economic assistance here. You are 
picking out winners and losers in this historical process that is going 
on. You are creating a dangerous gulf between our commitments on the 
one hand and the resources that we provide on the other hand.
  We are extending U.S. security commitments under the plan you put 
into H.R. 7, and that is an unwise thing to do. I strongly support the 
Torricelli amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes].
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I would ask if the distinguished gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Gilman] would engage in a brief colloquy with my 
regarding the U.S. policy toward NATO as spelled out in clause 4 of 
section 603, which is language I worked with the chairman and his 
committee to develop.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to engage in a colloquy 
with the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that this provision 
addresses NATO's current lack of an airborne ground surveillance system 
to provide allied forces with essential, timely, and reliable enemy 
movement and targeting information.
  Mr. GILMAN. If the gentleman would yield, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman 
is correct. In 1991, the United States recommended to NATO that it 
consider procuring an airborne ground surveillance capability to 
complement the air surveillance capability of the NATO AWACS fleet. The 
AWACS system has effectively provided our pilots with a map of the 
skies, however, it is not designed to observe real-time movement of 
ground forces on the battlefield at extended ranges. It is, therefore, 
in the best interests of the United States and the NATO alliance to 
expedite a program which will provide our ground forces with the same 
ability to see the battlefield that our pilots currently enjoy with the 
AWACS fleet.

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, is it not correct that the United States has 
already developed such a system which is called JSTARS and demonstrated 
its battle management capabilities during Desert Storm?
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
the gentleman is again correct. In fact, the JSTARS program has been 
nominated by our Nation as the best candidate to meet the needs of 
NATO. I am confident that the JSTARS program will provide NATO with a 
significant operational advantage that will strengthen the capabilities 
of our allied forces.
  Mr. HAYES. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, all sides including the 
administration, envision the eventual expansion of NATO. The problem is 
that the administration has been unwilling to spell out in clear terms 
what conditions candidates would have to meet. This ambiguity does not 
serve any good purpose and, in fact, plays into the hands of the 
Russians who want to block any expansion.
  Let me remind Members and assure Members the bill does not mandate 
that the countries listed or any others would be invited to even join 
NATO. There is a separate process for that. The process for expansion 
is qualified by article 10 of the NATO treaty. There is a specific 
process for that. We are talking about a program to assist in the 
transition.
  I urge Members to read on page 69 the kinds of things we are talking 
about that we would like to see happen: shared values and interests, 
democratic governments, free market economies, civilian control of the 
military, and so on and so forth.
  Let us not just be passive and reactive. I believe we need to be 
proactive for the sake of security for Europe and for the rest of the 
world.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me and for his leadership in presenting this amendment, because I think 
that if it passes, it will vastly improve H.R. 872.
  I am very, very concerned about the language contained therein, which 
would expand NATO membership. We must remember that NATO membership 
means that our security alliance would be expanded, that we would 
expand the guarantee of security to many more countries.
  And this may be appropriate, as my colleague and friend, the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] said, we all envision a time when 
that would happen. But right now, 16 governments are involved in any 
decision to expand NATO. The United States, we do not make this 
decision alone. The situation in Eastern Europe and in the New 
Independent States is a delicate one, the balance of which could be 
very disturbed by this legislation.
  The administration's partnership for peace was designed to enhance 
the security of our allies in this region while providing incentives 
for reform for the new European democracies. If we move forward with 
these NATO provisions, we will run the risk of alienating the countries 
not named and the greater risk of developing a bunker mentality with 
Russia.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Torricelli amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 872, which 
poses a significant threat to our national security. The bill before 
[[Page H1878]] us violates basic tenets of our national defense 
strategy; it abrogates international treaties; and, it violates the U.S 
Constitution. The National Security Revitalization Act is fundamentally 
flawed. It is also dangerous.
  H.R. 872 is dangerous because it would revive the old star wars 
project, an ineffective, unnecessary, and costly project which was, 
after significant public and congressional debate under previous 
administrations, deemed to be not worthy of funding.
  The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has estimated that the system 
proposed by the Republicans in this bill could cost $29-$30 billion 
over the next 5 years. Others have estimated that the costs could range 
as high as $39 billion. In today's budget climate, funding one projects 
means not funding something else. If star wars goes forward, troop 
readiness and weapon modernization will be cut.
  In addition, restarting star wars would actually make the world less 
safe. The passage of this bill could abrogate the Anti-Ballistic 
Missile Treaty, threaten START II negotiations, and terminate existing 
Nunn-Lugar agreements to dismantle nuclear warheads with Russia, 
Ukraine, Byelarus, and Kazakhstan. These actions do not increase our 
security, they undermine it by threatening the real progress which is 
being made toward diminishing the threat of nuclear destruction.
  H.R. 872 is dangerous because it would tie the hands of the 
President, any President, in international crisis when he or she 
determines it is in our national interest to place our troops under the 
operational control of another country, including NATO allies. My 
Republican colleagues must know that with this law on the books, 
President Bush would not have been able to deploy the troops he deemed 
necessary to carry out Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm 
against Saddam Hussein; President Clinton would not have been able to 
respond to Hussein's threats by deploying troops to Kuwait in 1994. For 
that matter, if constrained by this law, President Truman would not 
have been able to deploy troops to Korea in 1950.
  This provision is unnecessary. Today, our forces always remain under 
the command of the President of the United States. We already apply the 
most rigorous standards when we pass even the most limited 
responsibility to a competent foreign commander--an action which has 
been done throughout this great Nation's history from the Revolutionary 
War through the Persian Gulf war. I frankly do not understand why my 
Republican colleagues, who have steadfastly defended the President's 
prerogatives for years, would choose to tie his hands in what is a very 
dangerous way.
  H.R. 872 is dangerous because it undermines the very viability of 
international peacekeeping efforts. Many argue that the United States 
cannot and should not be the world's policeman. We cannot afford to 
intervene everywhere; we do not want to put American lives at risk. 
However, conflicts do not go away and in this post-cold-war world, 
there seem to be an evergrowing number of global hot spots. If we want 
to retain our role as the world's only superpower and if we do not want 
to be the world's policeman, it is critical for us to work to 
strengthen, not to weaken, multinational institutions.
  If this bill passes, we are going in the wrong direction. The U.N. 
peacekeeping provisions contained in this legislation would cripple 
multinational efforts to address international crises. If we reduce our 
assessed peacekeeping dues dollar-for-dollar by the costs of 
peacekeeping operations which we conduct voluntarily and in support of 
U.S. interests, we would force the cancellation of peacekeeping 
activities, undermine U.N. peacekeeping efforts, and ultimately 
devastate the United Nations. If the United States changes the way it 
funds U.N. peacekeeping, other countries will follow suit.
  As much as some would like to believe this country can survive in 
isolation, it cannot. If we pass this bill, we will be forced either to 
be the world's sole policeman or to ignore conflicts which could 
threaten our national security. I do not believe this choice is what 
the American people really want.
  H.R. 872 is also dangerous because it unilaterally designates certain 
candidates for NATO membership. Sixteen governments are involved in any 
decision to expand NATO; the United States does not make this decision 
alone. The situation in Eastern Europe and the New Independent States 
is a delicate one, the balance of which can be disturbed by H.R. 872. 
The Administration's Partnership for Peace was designed to enhance the 
security of our allies in the region while providing incentives for 
reform for the new European democracies. If we move forward with these 
NATO provisions, we run the real risk of alienating the countries not 
named by the Republicans for NATO membership and destabilizing an 
already precarious region. These NATO provisions are imprudent also 
because it sends the wrong message to Russia. The last thing we need is 
for Russia to adopt a bunker mentality as the security guarantee is 
extended to all of their neighbors. Against what country.
  H.R. 872 contains a number of other objectionable provisions, some of 
which are dangerous and some of which are just plain silly. One of the 
themes of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle has been that 
government should be downsized, reduced, and eliminated. It is 
therefore with some perplexity that I note the inclusion in this bill 
of an unnecessary and duplicative commission to review national 
security.
  Why do people who claim to be opponents of government agencies, 
bureaucracies, and departments, propose to establish a brand new one, 
one which would duplicate services which are already being provided by 
the Secretary of Defense and Members of Congress?
  American taxpayers already pay the salaries of people to review U.S. 
security needs. We have a Department of Defense and defense specialists 
in other Government agencies and here in Congress. But, this bill would 
spend an additional $1.5 million of American workers' hard-earned 
dollars to copy what people in Government are already doing. This 
Commission does not make sense.
  Mr. Chairman, for all of the above reasons and others, I believe that 
the National Security Revitalization Act should be defeated. If it 
passes, U.S. national security will be weakened significantly.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myelf the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations in a colloquy, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  Mr. Chairman, I wondered if the gentleman could succinctly tell us, 
does he have some estimation of exactly how much we would be spending 
in new foreign assistance to help these poor countries? Is there a 
dollar amount he has in mind?
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, the President has to evolve a program and 
then send the program to us. We are not mandating.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, so in fact, we 
would be mandating a foreign assistance program without knowing a 
number?
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield----
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Reclaiming my time, if the gentleman would then 
answer, is there a reason, a theory in mind, why when each of these 
four countries is declining in their defense spending, spending less of 
their dollars, we would take the American taxpayers' dollars in foreign 
aid to substitute for their military spending? Is there a rationale 
there I am missing?
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for his comment. We await the 
President's program before we can analyze what the costs would be.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, this is evidence 
that if one lives long enough, they can see anything.
  The majority has come to this Congress to establish a mandatory 
foreign aid program at a time of enormous domestic problems and 
mounting deficits in this country.
  They have done so claiming that our current program to help these 
same foreign nations is not working, even though it is only 90 days 
old. We have asked the President for 90 days to begin working 
militarily for NATO expansion with these countries. Now in our 
impatience we tell him on a mandatory basis, he must do so, that we do 
not know what it would cost. We overlook the fact that two of the four 
countries have former Communists running their governments. One is 
becoming an authoritative government. But we want to expand foreign aid 
to help them. Even though the same countries, every one of them, has a 
declining defense budget. But in our enthusiasm to help them, even when 
we do not have enough money for our own armed forces, we are going to 
throw our money upon them.
  Mr. Chairman, the simple truth is, this has not been well thought 
through. We have a program that is working. We tell the President of 
the United States, you may have a program to help these countries if 
they are democratic, they are pluralistic, it would help the security 
interests of the United States, our NATO allies agree.
  [[Page H1879]] It is a good program. It is under way, and we should 
remain with it. Our differences indeed are narrow, whether we apply 
those criteria to those four countries, do so on a basis of the 
President's discretion or, in my judgment, have the largest mandatory 
expansion of the American foreign assistance program that I have ever 
witnessed.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members of this institution to vote for my 
amendment. It is consistent with bipartisan foreign policy, the actions 
of the 103d Congress, and indeed, as the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Roemer] has pointed out, the Contract With America, which itself talks 
about a permissive expansion of our foreign assistance program, not a 
mandatory expansion.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. I would just like to remind my colleagues, on page 108 of 
the contract, it says ``the President is given authority to establish 
this program.''
  If the Torricelli-Roemer amendment is adopted, we say he ``may 
establish'' this program, not as the current language reads, he ``shall 
establish'' a program, which is mandatory. The other side even lists 
the countries that should be in NATO.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indian. I 
urge a yes vote. I thank Members of the majority party, the new members 
in the committee who voted for this amendment in committee.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, section 604(a) of H.R. 872 directs the President to 
establish a program to assist in the transition of full NATO membership 
of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia and any other 
country emerging from Communist domination that is designated by the 
President.
  The author of this amendment, Mr. Torricelli and the administration 
opposes the mandatory establishment of this program. That is no 
surprise to me. This administration, and in fact, any administration, 
nearly always opposes congressionally mandated initiatives.
  I am reminded of the Bush administration's vociferous objections to 
the establishment of the Nunn-Lugar program. And also to the 
establishment of the nonproliferation and disarmament fund which was a 
part of the Freedom bill.
  In fact, I am quite confident that each and every Member here can 
point to examples of congressional initiatives which this and other 
administrations have opposed. It seems to me that if it is not their 
idea then it is not a good idea.
  Permit me to explain why I think it is so important to direct that 
this program be established. The answer is quite simple.
  It is clear that this administration wants to provide assistance to 
certain Central European countries. This administration has been trying 
to find a way for more than a year to make additional countries 
eligible for excess defense articles.
  In fact, the administration recently briefed staff of the 
International Relations Committee about the President's fiscal year 
1996 budget request for $100 million for military cooperation with 
Central European states. We want to work with the President to support 
that assistance.
  But I want to make clear that we want that done in a proper 
framework. The establishment of a program under this provision provides 
a framework for the Committee on International Relations to carry out 
its fundamental oversight responsibilities. It will provide us a 
framework for accounting purposes. It will provide us a framework for 
hearing purposes. I don't know why any Member would oppose that 
provision.
  One final point and it is a key one, let me be clear that although 
section 604 directs that the program be established it does not in any 
way, shape, or form, mandate that the President provide assistance to 
these countries. Not one penny is earmarked in this legislation. The 
decision to provide assistance under this program is left entirely up 
to the administration.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to defeat the Torrecelli amendment.
                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Torricelli].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 15-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 232, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 143]

                               AYES--191

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Manton
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--232

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     [[Page H1880]] Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Becerra
     Clay
     Ewing
     Green
     Hastings (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     McHugh
     Roukema
     Stark
     Thornton
     Wilson

                              {time}  1318

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Lewis of Georgia for, with Mr. McHugh against.

  Mr. EVANS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. HARMAN, Mr. NADLER, and Mr. COOLEY changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under a previous order of the House, it is now in order 
to consider the amendment of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].


                    amendment offered by mr. skelton

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Skelton: Page 73, line 15, strike 
     the close quotation marks.
       Page 73, after line 15, insert the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(5) The number, types, and costs of NATO armed forces 
     that would be required to defend the country and the number, 
     types, and costs of United States Armed Forces that would be 
     required as part of such a NATO force.
       ``(6) Whether the United States is prepared to provide a 
     nuclear guarantee to the country.
       ``(7) The likelihood that the country may become involved 
     in disputes or armed conflict with neighboring countries in 
     the region.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Skelton] will be recognized for 1 minute, and a Member 
opposed will be recognized for 1 minute.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would add a section to 604 
requiring the President to assess the number, types, and costs of NATO 
armed forces that would be required to defend the country and the 
number, types, and costs of U.S. Armed Forces; also whether the United 
States is prepared to provide a nuclear guarantee to the country; and 
also the likelihood that the country may become involved in disputes or 
armed conflict in neighboring countries in that region.
  I would hope that the majority will accept this amendment. We have 
discussed it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, the majority is prepared to accept the 
gentleman's amendment to title VI regarding NATO. The information 
requested from the administration will be useful to the committee and 
the Congress in determining just how fast and under what circumstances 
NATO should be expanded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  The amendment was agreed to
  The CHAIRMAN. Under a previous order of the House today, it is in 
order for the consideration of the amendment of the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].


              amendment, as modified, offered by mr. engel

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the previous order, I offer an 
amendment, as modified.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Engel: Page 23, strike line 12 and 
     insert the following:
       ``(c) Additional Exceptions.--
       ``(1) Exception for authorization by law.--
       Page 23, after line 17, insert the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Exception for nato operations.--Subsection (a) shall 
     not apply in the case of a proposed placement of any element 
     of the armed forces in an operation conducted by the North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization.
       Page 31, strike line 8 and insert the following:
       ``(d) Additional Exceptions.--
       ``(1) Exception for authorization by law.--
       Page 31, after line 14, insert the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Exception for nato operations.--Subsection (b) shall 
     not apply in the case of a proposed placement of any element 
     of the armed forces in an operation conducted by the North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization.

  Mr. GILMAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1320

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I have been troubled by the fact that this 
bill would prohibit U.S. troops from serving under a military commander 
from a NATO country. The NATO alliance is very, very, important and I 
think that that is really not what ought to be.
  This amendment, and I thank the chairman of the committee, goes a 
step in the direction not quite as far as I would like it to go, but 
needless to say it goes a step in the right direction in saying that 
U.S. troops would be able to serve under a military commander of NATO, 
in a NATO operation.
  I think that at a time when we are talking about expanding NATO we 
ought to respect it.
  I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, that the process really is terrible, 
it is terrible because we have to operate under this majority-imposed 
ridiculous 10-hour constraint and it is terrible, frankly, because some 
people on this side of the aisle were unhelpful and less than frank 
with me in terms of helping me to bring my amendment for a vote. 
However, in the 10 or so seconds I have left, I want to say that the 
chairman has tried his best and I appreciate the fact he has worked 
with me to bring this amendment forward.
  If we did not have something like this, we could not have had D-day, 
fought World War I or II or Desert Storm, and that is why I think the 
amendment is a step in the right direction.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] for a colloquy.
  (Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. In view of the tremendous progress 
toward establishing democratic political institutions and market 
economies made by the Baltic States and their keen interests in NATO 
memberships, I want to clarify my understanding that this bill in no 
way compromises their opportunity for future NATO membership.
  It is my understanding that today's bill includes language 
recognizing the transformation toward economic, political, and military 
reform in Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary. These 
states have taken the necessary steps toward democratic reforms and I 
support the recognition of their efforts and continued U.S. assistance.
  Mr. GILMAN. The gentlewoman is absolutely correct.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman.
  The expansion of NATO will foster continued economic growth and 
political stability in these regions. Moreover, the declining defense 
budgets of European and American forces necessitate expansion of the 
NATO security umbrella and the military cooperation it fosters.
  It is also my understanding that this bill authorizes the President 
to designate ``other European countries emerging from communist 
domination'' who might receive assistance. Title VI of H.R. 872 
specifically designates the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and 
Lithuania 
[[Page H1881]] as eligible to be considered for future NATO membership. 
These countries will be required to continue to develop their 
democratic political structures, market economies, and military reforms 
while contributing to the security of the North Atlantic area.
  To date, the Baltic States have made significant progress in these 
areas. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania all have progressed toward 
democratic institutions by adopting Western-style constitutions and 
holding free and fair elections. In addition, these states have moved 
toward a market economy by following tight fiscal and monetary 
policies, creating strong currencies, and moving toward privatization 
of housing, small businesses, and industry.
  Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania also constitute the Baltic 
Peacekeeping Battalion. This force is currently receiving assistance 
from the U.S. Military and should be operational for security and 
mutual defense by 1996. As members of the Partnership of Peace, these 
states hope to maintain cooperation in the areas of defense and 
peacekeeping while adopting NATO military hardware standards.
  Further, the Baltic States have been admitted to the Conference on 
Security and Cooperation in Europe [CSCE] and the United Nations. 
Besides being members of the International Monetary Fund [IMF] and the 
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development [EBRD], the Baltic 
States hope soon to be members of the European Union [EU], with which 
they have free-trade agreements.
  I am pleased with the language of H.R. 872 regarding the expansion of 
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This provides the United States 
a historic opportunity to ensure future regional security by taking 
appropriate actions now. We can no longer adhere to lines drawn during 
the cold war. NATO expansion and admissions will lend stability to the 
entire region, promote U.S. interests, and provide security against a 
possible resurgence of nationalism.
  I thank the gentleman from New York for entering into this colloquy 
with me and am glad that we were able to clarify this important issue.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, the majority is prepared to accept the 
gentleman's amendment to title VI regarding NATO.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].
  The amendment as modified was agreed to.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The minority leader is recognized for 3 minutes.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in disappointment and sorrow 
that this bill which I think is terribly ill-advised will be passed by 
our House of Representatives.
  I have served in this House for 18 years and I have witnessed the 
fiercest debates on both domestic and foreign policy. But I have seen 
that even though we have differed sometimes on foreign and defense 
policy, that for all the time that I have been here and before, this 
has been a country, this has been a House of Representatives that could 
find its way to support a bipartisan internationalist foreign and 
defense policy for our country.
  I think back to the 1920's when there were isolationists in both 
parties, but America finally rejected isolationism and fought World War 
II, and after World War II came together in the greatest act of 
compassion in the world, and sensibility, and supported the Marshal 
Plan. Republicans and Democrats together.
  We formed the United Nations, whereas in the early part of the 
century we decided we did not want the League of Nations and backed out 
of the world after World War II and in a bipartisan way we created a 
multilateral action for world peace.
  After the Marshal Plan and the United Nations, we fought a cold war 
for 45 years, and together, Republicans, Democrats, Americans, we 
stayed involved as the leader of this world and rejected isolationism, 
rejected pulling back into our borders, rejected the idea that we could 
be self-sufficient, alone in this world.
  The crowning achievement of these years was no matter how much we 
squabbled about our internal domestic policies, when it came to the 
shores of the United States we came together, and we decided together 
with the American people what our policy would be.
  I believe that if this bill passes today we put all of that history, 
all of that partnership, and all of that progress at risk.
  When you try to politicize the actions of the United Nations and our 
relationship with the United Nations, when you strain to reinvent a 
cold war that no longer exists, when you politicize NATO and who should 
be in NATO, and who should be out, and who should decide it, when you 
politicize the decisions in NATO between the Congress and the 
President, and when you politicize arms control and try to reinvent 
nostalgically a weapon system that may have been appropriate 10, 15 
years ago but is not appropriate to the threats we meet today, then you 
put at risk all of that progress, all of that achievement which is the 
crowning achievement of our country.
  Theodore Roosevelt once said we have no choice, we the people of the 
United States, as to whether we shall play a great part in the world. 
That has been decided for us by fate, by the march of events. All that 
we can decide is whether we play it well, or ill.

                              {time}  1330

  My friends in the House, I think if this bill passes, we will play it 
ill and not well.
  This bill is not about campaigns and about pollsters and what may 
achieve some more votes or some more popularity among some in the 
country or in the world. It is about our conscience. It is about our 
achievement together of a foreign and defense policy that has made the 
American people secure. It is not about campaigns. It is about our 
conscience, and if we allow that conscience to be dictated by opinion 
polls, if we allow it to be bought and sold for votes, then God help 
this Congress and God help this United States of America.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the majority leader, the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Armey].
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, yes, this has been an 
important bill. It has been an important debate.
  It has not been the most important bill, nor the most important 
debate on this Nation's role in protecting the peace and freedom and 
dignity of nations as well as ourselves across the globe. In the 10 
years I have been here, I have seen more exciting debate. I have seen 
more fitful differences of opinion. I have seen more important and more 
immediate and more pressing issues with extraordinarily more sharply 
divided and heartfelt differences of opinion. The debate we had for so 
many years over Nicaragua, for example, comes to mind.
  It has been a strange debate. People have been lining up in positions 
that we have not been accustomed to seeing them in over these past few 
years.
  There is no need to hyperbolize this. This is not this Congress' last 
word. This is not the last word on defense of this session of Congress. 
There will be a defense authorization bill later.
  What is this bill about today within this contract period? It's a 
course correction. It is a statement by this Congress that, yes, we, 
too, have heard the voices of the American people. These voices have 
said it is necessary to this Nation and to this world for this Nation 
to have a strong, independent, and able defense--first and foremost of 
its own national interest and then also, and importantly, the interest 
of peace and freedom across the globe. It is important that this 
Nation's strong defense be deployed when necessary in support of our 
NATO allies--and even to the U.N. peacekeeping efforts--but they must 
be deployed in a balanced, thoughtful way, and never, never when the 
interests of this Nation, nor the safety and security of this Nation's 
troops, are made subservient to some other cause.
  It is a mid-course correction that recognizes that this Nation is and 
must be the world's champion for democracy, the world's guardian 
against tyrants, in concert with alliance with the United Nations at 
times, NATO at times, and other nations in the world and other theaters 
in the world.
  It is a bill that says this Nation has a duty even in the post-cold-
war era to recognize new and different kinds of threats and to be ready 
and able to change deployment schemes.
  This is a good bill. It is a bill that has enjoyed the jurisdiction 
of three of 
[[Page H1882]] our most important committees. It has had thoughtful 
debate. It has had thoughtful markup. It does deserve our thoughtful 
consideration, and it does deserve our vote.
  I am saddened to see even the intimidation by anybody in the debate 
that this is a political effort. This is a serious effort and an effort 
that has commanded the serious attention of the people on those 
committees that have taken their most serious professional commitment 
to the task. Their work product needs to be respected. Their motives 
need to be understood to be decent and honorable motives. The product 
is important to reaffirm Congress' standing with the American people, 
for us to say to America at this time, ``Yes, we agree, and we 
understand what you have told us.'' The Nation has gone too far in the 
direction of globalism and has lost sight of its essential footing, and 
we intend to correct that before we go on to the larger task of this 
year's defense authorizations and appropriations bills.
  I want to give my best regards to and appreciation for all three of 
the committees of jurisdiction. I want to thank everybody who has 
participated in the debate. I want to appreciate everybody for their 
different point of view at times, and ask my colleagues, vote for this 
product, reaffirm our standing with the American people.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, in the words of our former 
President, here we go again. Believe it or not, after spending billions 
of dollars on a defense system with questionable results, the 
Republicans are now asking that we immediately build up a new arsenal 
to fend off who? Darth Vader? The star wars missile defense system made 
a modicum of sense when we were worried that the Soviet Union would 
launch missiles against us. But now, with the Soviet Union 
disintegrated and no other significant long-range ballistic missile 
threat existing, I cannot fathom why we should direct millions of 
Federal dollars toward this far-out defense system.
  Thousands of families in my congressional district desperately need 
improved schools, housing, job training, and so forth. Over half of the 
public schoolbuildings in Chicago were built before World War II and 15 
percent were built before the turn of the century. And yet there is no 
funding for our children, our future? Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot 
accept the whimsy explanations offered by the other side of the aisle 
for promoting this over-the-top star wars system.
  Even worse, Mr. Chairman, is that this bill calls for the 
reestablishment of the budget firewalls between defense and domestic 
spending. This means that should we one day realize that our priorities 
are completely distorted, our hands will be tied. Should we one day 
regret that we are spending billions of dollars to fight off fictional 
foes that never materialize, we will be hamstrung. When we finally take 
a look around and realize that teenagers are being shot in the streets, 
families are working full time and still aren't able to climb out of 
poverty and young children are attending pitifully under-funded schools 
with almost no chance to afford a college education, it will simply be 
too bad. We will not be able to redirect our billion dollar star wars 
budget to here at home where it is needed the most.
  And finally, Mr. Chairman, this bill is heading directly for a 
Presidential veto because it completely destroys our current military 
operation system which allows the President to respond quickly to 
threatening situations. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting 
this ill-prepared bill and voting against H.R. 7.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, passage of the Durbin, Lipinski, Gilman, 
Knollenberg amendment will encourage stability in Central Europe. As 
written, H.R. 7 mentions only the visegrad nations. We need to make it 
clear that other European countries emerging from communist domination 
should receive assistance and be welcomed into NATO when they meet 
appropriate standards.
  Expressing an interest in having these countries join NATO one day 
will create stability and provide for the growth of democracy and 
economic prosperity. We will be encouraging these countries to expedite 
the promotion of democratic principles within their respective 
governments. It follows that a less volitle political environment will 
provide fertile ground for foreign investors.
  With the end of the cold war, the United States is the largest single 
investor in this part of the world. Our investment creates employment 
and encourages stability and the strengthening of democracy.
  By assisting our friends in Central Europe, we will bring continued 
stability and prosperity in Western Europe, and thus secure United 
States interests in all of Europe.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman: Yesterday the House of 
Representatives reversed course on resurrecting the star wars anti-
missile defense system, demonstrating clearly how out of step the 
Republican contract is with the views of the American public. This 
misguided effort to further bankrupt our defense coffers with wasteful 
spending simply reflects failed policies of the past rather than a 
fresh vision for the future.
  Little acknowledgement is given in this measure for the changing 
world view we face and the types of regional conflicts likely to arise. 
With the end of the cold war we need to reevaluate the role of the 
United States as a world leader and the types of alliances that will 
support our efforts abroad. This bill chooses to relinquish our 
involvement with strategically important allies that in the past have 
fostered political and economic as well as military cooperation. An 
unfounded fear of United Nations control of American forces belies the 
fact that since World War I the President has only on occasion allowed 
purely operational control--not military command--of U.S. troops by a 
foreign commander.
  Now more than ever the United States has an obligation and an 
opportunity to promote peace and democracy world-wide. This effort to 
hamstring and second guess the President's authority as Commander in 
Chief is not only short-sighted but dangerous. Asking the President to 
jump through hoops in order to execute vital military actions 
diminishes the U.S. stature as a world power and jeopardizes the 
effectiveness of our foreign policy.
  Times have changed and a return to isolationism and a star-based 
missile defense system is a return to foreign policy based on fear 
rather than readiness. Let us take advantage of the fall of the Soviet 
Union to make the kind of changes which prepare us against the 
redefined threats that realistically may occur. Allowing Congress to 
undermine the President's position as world leader subjects us to the 
kind of divisiveness that makes effective foreign policy decision-
making impossible. While not every foreign policy decision may be 
universally supported, the current checks and balances serve adequately 
to preserve our ability to act responsibly when needed.
  Now that we have shown the foresight not to once again take the path 
to frivolous defense spending with the reinvention of the star wars 
missile defense system, let us also reject a return to isolationist 
policy centered on imaginary fears and insecurity. Our true national 
security interest lies in our ability to assert our leadership and to 
focus our defense dollars on combat readiness. To be successful in 
dealing with the end of the cold war, we need to look to the future--
not to the past.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my 
strong support for the provisions of the pending legislation which 
squarely addresses the issue of NATO expansion. At the outset let me 
dispel the notion that this section would somehow hamstring the 
administration's foreign policy--assuming it has one. Nothing in the 
National Security Revitalization Act mandates NATO membership for any 
country or group of countries. Changes in the membership of NATO are 
determined on the basis of consensus among the Alliance's member states 
as stipulated under article X of the North Atlantic Treaty, a point 
reaffirmed in the pending legislation and known to Members on both 
sides of the aisle.
  The crux of the matter is how best to consolidate and build upon the 
fundamental political changes which have occurred in many of the 
countries of central Europe, the Baltics, and some of the New 
Independent States of the former Soviet Union. On the security front, a 
veritable no-man's-land has emerged between Germany and Russia 
following the demise of the Warsaw Pact, and the ensuing moves toward 
democracy and market economy by many in the region.
  The Clinton administration, like the one before it, has been slow to 
move to fill this vacuum. Mr. Chairman, this has been a source of great 
consternation to the emerging democracies of the region, who rightly 
view it as a source of potential instability. I think my colleagues 
would agree that the Partnership for Peace initiative, launched by the 
administration a year ago, has failed to fill this void.
  The National Security Revitalization Act provides a reasonable 
framework for addressing these concerns consistent with U.S. interests 
in ensuring stability in Europe. It lists a variety of criteria, such 
as respect for democratic principles and human rights enshrined in the 
Helsinki Final Act, against which to evaluate the suitability of 
prospective candidates for NATO membership. In addition, it establishes 
a program to provide the emerging democracies with the necessary tools 
to facilitate their transition to full NATO membership, which, as I 
pointed out earlier, will ultimately be up to the current members to 
decide.
  Given the broad range of our political, economic, and security 
interests in Europe, strengthening new free markets and democracies in 
that region benefits the United States. Two of the most prominent 
members of the foreign policy establishment, Henry Kissinger and 
Zbigniew Brzezinski, are ardent supporters of the timely expansion of 
NATO.
  [[Page H1883]] Kissinger sees the existing vacuum as a threat not 
only NATO cohesion but the very existence of NATO as a meaningful 
institution. ``NATO expansion,'' he observed, ``represents
 a balancing of two conflicting considerations: the fear of alienating 
Russia against the danger of creating a vacuum in central Europe * * 
*.'' ``A wise policy,'' he counsels, ``would proceed with membership 
for the Visegrad countries [Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and 
Slovakia] and reject a Russian veto.'' Dr. Kissinger concluded, ``NATO 
cannot long survive if the borders it protects are not threatened while 
it refuses to protect the borders of adjoining countries that do feel 
threatened.''

  Brzezinski recently urged NATO to formally declare its ``criteria for 
expansion and indicate which countries appear to meet them. This would 
end the counterproductive debates with Russia over whether NATO should 
expand. The longer this step is delayed, the more vociferous Moscow's 
objections are likely to be.''
  Mr. Chairman, this is precisely the purpose of title VI of the 
National Security Revitalization Act.
  Rather than dodging the issue of NATO expansion, as it has largely 
done to date, the Clinton administration, should move on the membership 
issue before more time is lost. But that requires leadership. We must 
seize upon today's opportunities which could be gone tomorrow. A steady 
and deliberate course of action is one thing, obfuscation, which has 
characterized the Clinton administration's approach to date is another.
  Russia, perhaps sensing a certain timidity within the administration, 
has sought to block NATO expansion. It is instructive to recall that 
the Soviet Union vehemently opposed German membership in NATO in 1955 
and attempted to deny unified Germany's continued participation in the 
Alliance. A democratic Russia has nothing to fear from a defensive 
alliance founded on democratic principles. It would be foolhardy and 
dangerous, as Henry Kissinger rightly pointed out, to give Russia a 
veto over NATO expansion. And, as Dr. Brzezinski observed, failure to 
act now will only make matters worse.
  Our approach to NATO expansion is steady and deliberate, not the 
sketchy and indecisive path proposed by some.
  Some are critical of the fact that four countries--Poland, Hungary, 
the Czech Republic, and Slovakia--are mentioned as leading candidates 
for NATO membership at some point in the near future. This reference is 
a testament to the great strides which these countries have, in fact, 
made since the fall of communism. It neither ensures their membership 
nor precludes others from joining. It does not, as some claim, 
arbitrarily lock in advantages from some countries. Instead of 
fostering complacency in these countries as some warn, the reference 
should serve as an incentive for continued progress as those named 
should be subjected to more, not less, scrutiny as they move toward 
membership in NATO. The reference is simply an acknowledgement of the 
fact that reform in the region is uneven. Rather than serving as a 
discouragement, this should spur others to redouble their efforts if 
they are seriously interested in pursuing NATO membership.
  Mr. Chairman, my endorsement of an expanded NATO should not be read 
as a failure to understand that each of the countries considered here 
has residual problems with its transition to democracy. On the 
contrary, I believe that NATO membership, and the integration and 
cooperation with Western countries it entails, increases the 
opportunities for
 addressing outstanding concerns. There are, in fact, specific areas 
where I believe the United States should weight in to seek further 
reform. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I am very much aware of 
need for further progress in these and other countries in the region. I 
believe the Czech citizenship law, for example, is deeply flawed and 
should be amended; the newest Slovak government has signaled in word 
its commitment to continuing reform, but has yet to follow through in 
many specific areas where reform has been slow or altogether lacking 
thus far, and the Hungarian government would do well to lead by example 
in improving its relations with many of its neighbors.

  Mr. Chairman, nothing in the pending legislation diminished the fact 
that each candidate will be individually judged on its own merits on a 
case-by-case basis.
  It is also instructive to recall that this is not the first expansion 
of NATO. In 1952 Greece and Turkey acceded to the North Atlantic Treaty 
joining the 12 NATO countries in common security system. The Federal 
Republic of Germany joined the Alliance in 1955 and in 1982, Spain also 
became a member of NATO. Besides its contribution to collective 
security in Europe, NATO has served as an important vehicle for 
bolstering democracy among its members as these cases demonstrate.
  Finally, critics assert that the course we have proposed could lead 
to instability in Europe. Mr. Chairman, one thing is clear: continued 
ambiguity and foot-dragging will not enhance European security but 
will, as Kissinger and Brzezinski point out, be counterproductive. The 
National Security Revitalization Act, provides a much needed action 
plan for seizing new opportunities as NATO and its members face new 
challenges.
  Given the implications for our own national security, the future of 
NATO demands our immediate attention.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  This bill does not actually authorize any specific missile defense 
system. But this amendment seeks to tie our hands despite whatever 
technologies may develop. If there is a problem with a particular 
missile defense system, the normal authorization and appropriation 
process is the proper forum for this type of program restriction.
  I am personally opposed to committing, at the present time, to a 
space-based antiballistic missile defense system because we are not at 
a point technologically where such a system makes sense. But it does 
make sense to continue doing the research necessary to develop this 
important defense option. I am committed to making the necessary 
funding investment to determine the feasibility of such a program.
  This amendment is too restrictive and raises concerns about whether 
this option could be even explored. Congress needs to be very careful 
that we do not act in a precipitous way which would preclude this 
research option.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject the Spratt amendment.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support to Congress reaffirming its commitment to a strong national 
defense.
  The world is a changing place, Mr. Chairman. If you had told me 15 
years ago that the Soviet Union would be dissolved and the Berlin Wall 
would vanish by the 1990's, I certainly would have had trouble 
accepting your claims. However, as time passed on during the eighties, 
our late nemesis, the Soviet Union, eventually splintered and the 
Berlin Wall was reduced to dust. Since the Soviet Union has been 
disintegrated, we have discovered other situations and crises in the 
realm of foreign affairs. Within the last 4 years, there have been 
crises with nations such as Kuwait, Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Korea, and 
Rwanda which have required the aid, in one form or another, of the 
United States.
  This example alone should serve as a reminder to my colleagues that 
our planet is in a constant state of evolution and flux. Events happen 
which cause the world to be sometimes turbulent and volatile and it is 
up to our Nation to take the lead. With this in mind, it is important 
that our country stay in its position of strength and leadership within 
the world community while protecting our own national interests.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe H.R. 7, the National Security Revitalization 
Act, is a measure which our body should adopt to achieve these 
purposes.
  The National Security Revitalization Act has been written to refocus 
the priorities of our military so it may keep in step with a world that 
is constantly changing.
  H.R. 7 would direct the leaders of our Nation to address questions 
and situations which should have been dealt with during the past 
several years. For example, H.R. 7 would direct that the Department of 
Defense establish a comprehensive review of American defense needs by 
commissioning a bipartisan panel of independent defense experts to 
assess our Nation's military readiness, process and status of 
modernization, force structure, and strategic vision. Mr. Chairman,
 this commission will play a most essential role in maintaining our 
security needs which are so vital to our Nation's well-being.

  This bill would also reassert our Nation's commitment to an effective 
national missile system to having the Department of Defense cultivate 
and create mature ballistic missile defense systems in the future. 
American intelligence officers such as Lt. Gen. James Clapper of the 
Defense Intelligence Agency and Adm. William Stuedeman, the Acting 
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency have alerted Congress to 
the possibility of a rogue regime possessing the capability of 
attacking the United States with ballistic missiles toward the end of 
this decade. With effective antimissile defenses, I believe we can 
ensure basic protection for the citizens of America. Mr. Chairman, 
there may be chronic opponents of defense spending who will complain 
that we are trying to create star wars II by implementing this part of 
H.R. 7. This is not true. What we are trying to do is build upon the 
technology we have now and the vision of Clinton Defense Secretary 
Perry who claims we can create a ground-based missile system by the end 
of the decade at a reasonable price over 5 years. I believe the 
Department of Defense should pursue this objective and I would support 
the Department's efforts.
  [[Page H1884]] H.R. 7 also addresses new guidelines for restrictions 
in regard to U.N. operations. In the past, the American Ambassador to 
the United Nations would make commitments to United Nations without 
either the House or Senate being consulted. Mr. Chairman, with H.R. 7, 
we state that before we send our troops under the command of the United 
Nations, the President must make it clear to both Houses that the U.N. 
operation is vital to our own interests, that the commander of the 
American forces be allowed to report to our own Nation's military 
authorities and decline to partake in actions which he may deem to be 
illegal, imprudent or beyond what the U.N. mission is supposed to do. 
Also, this bill also dictates that American forces will remain under 
American administrative command. Mr. Chairman, our troops have been 
trained by American commanders in the ways of American military 
procedure with the best American military equipment available. I feel 
that it is in the interests of our Nation, our soldiers, and even the 
U.N. operation to enact the certain amount of autonomy and the certain 
amount of legislative and executive responsibility as dictated by this 
bill.
  I also want to point out that H.R. 7 would state that it should be 
the policy of the United States to include the former Soviet bloc 
nations Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia as full 
members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]. Mr. Chairman, 
by allowing these countries to join NATO, we will be able to help them 
to continue their maturing into full-fledged democracies.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 7 is not the ultimate panacea in regard to our 
foreign affairs and defense matters, as we will have to continue debate 
and consideration of these matters in our authorization and 
appropriation bills. Rather, I feel that it is a responsible first step 
toward a sounder foreign policy and a sturdier defense policy in a 
constantly changing world. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7 and 
oppose any amendments which can be deemed as weakening the bill.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, over the last several years, the world has 
changed dramatically, and with it, the role of the United States, as 
well as the activities required of the U.S. military to carry out that 
role. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold 
war, United States defense policy has shifted its primary, concentrated 
focus to a widely dispersed number of potential threats. At the same 
time, peacekeeping operations have greatly increased. Since 1988, the 
United States has entered into 21 new peacekeeping missions compared to 
only 13 missions in the previous 40 years. In light of these dramatic 
changes, it is necessary to redefine U.S. defense and foreign policy.
  In my view, H.R. 7 takes a sound and balanced approach to clarifying 
the new U.S. position in the world. It calls for a commission to 
evaluate U.S. defense needs and assess force structure, readiness, 
strategic vision, modernization, and personnel policies, requires the 
President to identify our national security interests before deploying 
United States troops, wisely restricts the ability of the Commander in 
Chief to place troops under foreign control or command, promotes the 
expansion of NATO to include fledgling democracies in Central and 
Eastern Europe, and encourages the deployment of a workable national 
missile defense system.
  I would like to draw attention to the provision that prohibits U.S. 
troops from being under U.N. or foreign command. The measure is vital 
to our goal of maintaining the integrity of our military force. As 
Speaker Gingrich noted: ``We invest a lot of money in the best command 
and control, the best communications and the best training in the world 
* * *. When you take a unit from that level of speed and effectiveness 
and you reduce it by putting them under the command of somebody who has 
never practiced the tempo and complexity of American operations, you 
are raising the risk of young Americans getting killed * * *.''
  The missile defense provisions in the bill have precipitated a 
significant amount of debate, and, I'm afraid, a fair amount of 
misunderstanding. The original language in the bill states that ``it 
shall be U.S. policy to deploy at the earliest practical date an anti-
ballistic missile system'' to ensure the security of the United States. 
Last night, the House properly rejected an amendment offered by 
Representative Edwards that would have prohibited the Department of 
Defense from deploying a missile defense system that included space-
based interceptors. It is bad policy for Congress to tie the hands of 
DOD before giving the agency the time to make recommendations to 
Congress on how best to protect the American people. By rejecting this 
amendment, Congress has allowed for the opportunity for an analysis of 
the effectiveness and costs of both ground- and space-based systems 
before mandating which one should be deployed.
  I opposed another amendment, offered by Representative Spratt, for 
largely the same reasons. The amendment requires that operational 
readiness and modernization of existing forces take fiscal priority 
over developing and deploying an effective theater missile defense. 
Modernization of defenses is absolutely necessary to maintain a 
reasonable level of readiness in the face of ever-improving offensive 
systems in regions of potential conflict, such as North Korea and Iraq. 
The Spratt amendment will tie the hands of our military in ensuring 
such readiness. Unfortunately, the Spratt amendment passed by a narrow 
margin of 218-212.
  I should note that two important amendments were passed en bloc 
Wednesday night that I believe removed a flaw in an otherwise sound 
approach to national security. These amendments removed from H.R. 7 
language that prohibits the use of defense funds to pay the cost of 
participating in the U.N. peacekeeping missions unless such action is 
specifically authorized by Congress. I believe this provision imposes 
unfair and counterproductive restrictions on the President as Commander 
in Chief, violating his constitutionally granted powers. In certain 
situations, I believe it has been in our interests to move from 
unilateral occupation to a U.N. operation. For example, at the end of 
this month it is my understanding that in Haiti the United States 
command will become a U.N. peacekeeping operation. We do not want to 
continue to occupy Haiti. The shift to the United Nation is in our 
national interest and gives us a way out. The Bereuter amendments 
remove language in the original bill that would have given the 
administration an incentive to maintain the unilateral U.S. mission 
instead of moving to a more sensible, cooperative effort with the 
United Nation. I am pleased that my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle were able to come to agreement on this issue and eliminate this 
inadvertent but realistic effect of this bill.
  In the end, I believe H.R. 7 successfully enhances the national 
security of the United States in a balanced and appropriate manner. It 
affirms our commitment to a strong, modern defense force and properly 
limits our role in United Nations operations. I commend Chairman Spence 
and Chairman Gilman for their good work on this legislation.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would take this opportunity 
to explain the two Bereuter amendments to title V of H.R. 872, the 
National Security Restoration Act, that were accepted under unanimous 
consent during yesterday's debate.
  The first of these amendments addresses concerns raised about section 
508 of the bill. This amendment deletes language that would prohibit 
the President from spending Department of Defense funds on any 
operation that was authorized by the U.N. Security Council unless 
Congress specifically authorizes the use of funds for that purpose.
  This body should know that section 508, as drafted, would be an 
extraordinary limitation on the President as Commander in Chief. This 
limitation has its origins in what many on our side of the aisle view 
as legitimate concerns about the judgment of the current Commander in 
Chief, but that does not, ipso facto, mean that this body should limit 
the prerogatives of the Commander in Chief. If enacted, this statute 
would limit the actions of any future administration--Republican and 
Democrat alike.
  There is a need to separate our understandable frustration about some 
policy decisions made by this administration from the act of 
legislating restrictions.
  Constitutional questions have been raised. Can the legislative branch 
limit the actions of the President as Commander in Chief by withholding 
funds until a specific authorization has been approved? for decades, 
Members on both sides of the aisle have complained about constitutional 
infringements through the War Powers Act and the Boland amendments. 
This body should be very careful about placing further limitations, 
however well intended.
  This body needs to be aware that crises do occasionally occur when 
Congress is not in session. The President still must have the 
flexibility to act as Commander in Chief after this body has recessed.
  Lastly, section 508 reflects a genuine and bipartisan indignation 
regarding the manner in which this administration went to the U.N. 
Security Council for approval of nonemergency peacekeeping operations 
in Haiti without coming to Congress for prior approval; nor did the 
Clinton administration come to Congress when they escalated the 
humanitarian operation in Somalia into a peace-enforcement operation. 
But we should remember that this provision is not central to the 
Contract With America.
  Members on this side of the aisle should recall that section 508 is 
not a part of the contract document that many House Republicans signed. 
The important peacekeeping provisions of Contract With America deal 
with: maintaining U.S. command of U.S. troops; making sure the United 
States is no longer to be grossly exploited through exorbitant 
assessments; and ensuring that the United States reimbursed for all of 
incremental costs in our peacekeeping expenditures.
  [[Page H1885]] We should not permit the very good peacekeeping 
provisions in this legislation to be obscured by raising this an 
unnecessary constitutional question. Failing to address this issue 
would leave the administration with a legitimate excuse for challenging 
the constitutionality of this legislation and thereby justifying a 
Presidential veto.
  The second amendment that was approved under unanimous consent 
addresses this Member's concern regarding the level of reimbursements 
that nations should receive for peacekeeping activities.
  This Member raised the issue in committee, seeking at that time to 
set U.S. policy on this matter. While both majority and minority 
generally expressed sympathy for my concern, this Member was persuaded 
by the argument that it was not yet time to establish a new U.S. 
Government policy on reimbursement matters.
  But the problem remains. It is only proper that Congress understand 
the full extent of the problem. Hence, the reporting requirement.
  We know how much the United Nations pays nations who supply 
peacekeepers--slightly over $980 per month for enlisted, and around 
$1,300 for officers. It is also clear that some of the lesser developed 
nations that provide a higher proportion of the peacekeeping troops in 
many U.N. operations are paying their troops far less than this 
amount--sometimes less than 10 percent of the U.N. personnel payments--
in other words a 1,000 percent mark up.
  The personnel payments, of course, don't go to the individual 
soldiers--but, yes, you guessed it, to the treasury of the country 
sending that underpaid soldier.
  It might be one thing if these nations were plowing their 
reimbursements back into their military to augment training. But this 
does not appear to be the case. Rather, it would seem that this is a 
case of take the money and run. This is a poor reason to be involved in 
peace-keeping operations.
  We also have indications that the civilian managers and general-
purpose police officers, international cops on the beat, attached to 
peacekeeping operations from some accounts are making obscene amounts 
of money--over $100,000 per year.
  The International Relations Committee has heard tales, which I have 
reason to believe are accurate, of mid-level civilian employees making 
six figure salaries, with an extraordinary package of perks that would 
make even the most jaded individuals blush.
  Regrettably, I have concluded that it is premature, in H.R. 7, to set 
U.S. policy on these issues until this body has the facts, but it is 
entirely appropriate to expect to receive the facts so that we can 
strenuously demand reforms. This amendment requires the Secretary of 
State to present these facts.
  The United Nations probably may object to supplying some of this 
information. After all, some at the United Nations and certainly some 
member nation may find it to be in their interest to keep us in the 
dark as to how our peacekeeping dollars are being spent.
  But the United States--indeed any nation--should be able to get such 
information from the United Nations.
  Again, this amendment is a vehicle to require this information and to 
ask our Government to recommend the kind of reforms it will push in the 
United Nations or which we in the Congress can demand next year.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I will vote against this bill because it 
infringes on the constitutional authority of the President to use the 
military command and control structure that is essential to our 
Nation's strategic interests.
  The bill's provision prohibiting the President from deploying U.S. 
troops in peacekeeping operations without an explicit authorization by 
Congress for such purpose is unacceptable and quite possibly 
unconstitutional. Under such a provision, President Bush would not have 
been able to deploy troops and equipment to Operation Desert Storm, 
President Clinton would have been blocked from deploying troops to 
Kuwait in 1994 to stop an Iraqi threat, and even President Truman would 
have been prevented from sending troops to Korea in 1950. Such 
prohibitions would not have been in our strategic interest.
  By dictating how the President should conduct foreign policy, the 
bill both micromanages U.S. actions and denies the President the 
flexibility needed in times of crisis.
  In the post-cold-war world, it remains essential that the President 
retains his authority to establish command arrangements best suited to 
meet the needs of future operations. U.S. troops will always and 
ultimately be under U.S. command as per the Constitution. No 
Presidential action can change this fact. This bill undermines the 
power of the President as Commander in Chief, and I cannot support it.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 7 is bad legislation and 
should be defeated. In the stated opinion of DOD, H.R. 7 is 
``dangerous, wasteful, and unconstitutional.'' It is a Republican 
tactic to provide ``defense welfare'' for military contractors who seek 
lucrative Government contracts.
  H.R. 7 is dangerous because it sacrifices American military readiness 
for star wars. It is a wasteful Republican effort to spend $30 to $40 
billion on star wars at the price of military readiness. These billions 
of dollars should be spent to make life better for American families 
and for decreasing the deficit. H.R. 7 is a Republican boondoggle.
  H.R. 7 is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of the 
President of the United States to fulfill his constitutional role as 
Commander in Chief of our military forces. It restricts his ability to 
utilize troops in a most effective manner by limiting the amount the 
United States can spend on operations with the United Nations. H.R. 7 
cripples U.N. peacekeeping and destroys the idea of collective 
security. If H.R. 7 had been law during Desert Storm, America would 
have been prevented from successfully deploying necessary troops.
  If America insists on spending countless billions on star wars at the 
expense of our troops, if America retreats from global economic and 
military cooperation, if America refuses to feed, educate, and house 
her own troops and citizens at risk--the children, the sick, and the 
elderly--a bankrupt America will fall into economic and social ruin.
  For years, respected Members of Congress, such as former Congressman 
Charles Bennett who represented Jacksonville, have opposed funding for 
star wars. These Members believed that troop readiness was a top 
priority. Their efforts were focused on conventional warfare 
requirements and on providing all that was necessary for our troops to 
perform their duties with excellence.
  Today it is shameful that many U.S. troops live in substandard 
housing and use food stamps because they cannot stretch their pay to 
cover even the most basic needs for their families. This does not 
contribute to military readiness.
  We in Congress should demonstrate our interest in funding military 
programs that benefit our troops and our military families. We want our 
military dollars spent to keep our troops ready in every way.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7, the 
National Security Revitalization Act of 1995. While I am aware of the 
current fashion in the Congress to increase defense spending at the 
expense of our domestic programs, I am also mindful of my duty as a 
Member of Congress to act in the best interest of the people I 
represent and in the best interest of the U.S. Constitution I have 
sworn to uphold. This shortsighted and rushed legislation will not only 
try to resurrect cold war programs long not needed, but will endanger 
the delicate balance of domestic and defense spending.
  The National Security Revitalization Act of 1995 that we are 
considering here today is completely out of balance. H.R. 7 seeks to 
isolate the United States by restricting America's role in peace 
keeping operations, and misguidedly redirects billions of dollars to a 
star wars missile defense system whose time passed with the end of the 
cold war. It would be an abdication of congressional responsibility if 
we support this legislation at the expense of our most important 
efforts to improve the quality of life for all Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that our military if by far among the 
world's best. This was demonstrated by our leadership of international 
forces during the war in the Gulf. Over the past 20 years, our military 
has undergone a massive undertaking to build a defense infrastructure 
which has allowed us to effectively provide an international show of 
strength.
  While I believe that we must maintain a strong military presence in 
an era of low intensity global conflicts, I am an avid believer that a 
healthy balance must be reached between domestic and defense spending. 
The importance of striking this balance is especially true in light of 
recent world events such as the end of the cold war. Because of these 
changes in world politics, the United States is faced with an 
unprecedented opportunity to redirect funds to relieve problems here at 
home.
  Contrary to the arguments that have been made by the supporters of 
H.R. 7, President Clinton has proposed a budget that reasonably 
addresses the defense needs of this Nation. President Clinton's fiscal 
year 1996 defense budget, which is strongly supported by the Pentagon, 
has two key initiatives: Enhancement
 of military readiness, and improvement of quality of life for our men 
and women in uniform and their families. The ironic truth about H.R. 7 
is that it will actually weaken our national defense. The bill directs 
massive amounts of defense dollars to a star wars missile defense 
system that will certainly undermine the more legitimate funding goals 
outlined in the President's budget.

  Mr. Chairman, I have always been in favor of a balanced approach to 
our domestic and foreign affairs interests, and the Constitution's 
separation of powers. H.R. 7 requires that U.S. Forces may not be 
placed under control 
[[Page H1886]] of any foreign commander. Such actions would effectively 
end U.S. involvement in multilateral peacekeeping operations. This is 
contrary to the principle of separation of powers and the clear 
language of the Constitution. The Constitution permits the President as 
Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces the power to place U.S. 
Forces under the operational control of other nations' military leaders 
for United Nations operations.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for me to point out that under 
the current congressional leadership, U.S. policy has taken a direction 
that will adversely affect the essence of each and every one of our 
lives. The majority party's plan ignores quality of human life 
questions, and in order to finance additional military spending, we 
have been expected time and time again to sacrifice already 
substantially depleted health, housing, education, and employment 
budgets.
  As opposed to spending billions of dollars to immunize American 
children, revitalize our urban centers, provide jobs to the jobless or 
homes for the homeless, this bill seeks to divert funds from these 
essential services to fund star wars and other unworkable initiatives. 
H.R. 7 is an essential part of the Republican strategy to force through 
a series of bills that will gut the chances for many Americans to live 
the American dream.
  A review of the Contract With America's plan to slash domestic 
discretionary programs reveals that many programs serving the most 
needy will be cut. Legislation such as H.R. 7, would result in defense 
spending on Reagan era star wars gimmicks. This misdirection of funds 
would greatly harm the American people, the strength of our Nation's 
defense and the future of our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to say that while the pursuit 
of peace is a noble and necessary objective, it is no easy task--
especially when certain Members of Congress are determined to promote 
antiquated notions left over from the cold war. This legislation 
clearly reflects the new majority's desire to sacrifice the domestic 
interests of the American people in pursuit of isolationism and star 
wars.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 7, the 
National Security Revitalization Act. I think this legislation is an 
important step toward restoring America's reputation as a superpower. 
In addition, this legislation preserves our ability and reaffirms our 
intent to defend America's national security interests around the 
globe.
  Mr. Chairman, I am especially glad that H.R. 7 includes language 
restricting the placement of U.S. troops under the control of foreign 
nationals acting on behalf of the United Nations. The language included 
in H.R. 7 is almost identical to a bill I introduced last year (H.R. 
3334), and reintroduced again this year (H.R. 631).
  I strongly believe this legislation is necessary in order to counter 
the Clinton administration's proposed policy directives that would 
allow U.S. military forces to be placed under foreign command, on a 
regular basis, for U.N. peacekeeping operations.
  Mr. Chairman, the people in my district, especially the war veterans, 
demand that when we send our young men and women overseas to battle 
that they will do so under the American flag, not the blue helmet of 
the United Nations.
  Some argue that this legislation will hamstring the President's 
ability to act as Commander in Chief. This is simply not true. My 
proposal, included in H.R. 7, requires the President to certify to 
Congress that such foreign operational control is necessary to protect 
vital national security interests of the United States. The President 
must provide Congress with a report setting forth the following: a 
description of the interest that requires placing U.S. troops under 
foreign operational control; the mission and objectives of the U.S. 
Armed Forces, and an estimate of the duration they will serve under 
such foreign operational control; the expected size and composition our 
forces involved; the cost of U.S. participation in the proposed 
operation; the precise command and control relationship between the 
U.S. forces and the United Nations; and the extent to which the U.S. 
forces will rely on non-U.S. military forces for security and self-
defense and an assessment of the ability of those forces to provide 
adequate security to the U.S. forces involved.
  In addition to being unconstitutional, Mr. Speaker, putting U.S. 
troops under U.N. control can be very dangerous as the Clinton 
administration learned in Somalia.
  Last, I would include a letter I received from the commander in chief 
of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Mr. Allen F. 
``Gunner'' Kent. His outstanding organization supports inclusion of my 
proposal in H.R. 7, as do millions of people across the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7.

                                          Veterans of Foreign Wars


                                         of the United States,

                                 Washington, DC, February 2, 1995.
     Hon. John T. Doolittle,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Doolittle: On behalf of the 2.1 million members of 
     the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., I want to endorse 
     your proposed legislation, H.R. 631 which would limit the 
     placing of U.S. military forces under command of foreign 
     officers acting for the United Nations.
       At our 95th National Convention last August, this issue was 
     considered and the delegates overwhelmingly approved VFW 
     Resolution 437 opposing U.S. forces under foreign command. I 
     have enclosed a copy of this resolution for your information 
     and use.
       Also I would urge you and the Congress to examine 
     Presidential Decision Directive 25 to determine if 
     Constitutional authority has been misused and if so, to find 
     an appropriate remedy.
       If the VFW can be of any assistance or support in moving 
     H.R. 631 to passage, please feel free to contact our 
     Washington Office Executive Director Bob Currieo at the 
     earliest opportunity.
           Sincerely,
                                         Allen F. ``Gunner'' Kent,
                                               Commander in Chief.
       Enclosure.
      Resolution No. 437--Oppose U.S. Forces Under Foreign Command

       Whereas, Presidential Decision Directive 25 states as 
     follows: ``The President retains and will never relinquish 
     command authority over U.S. forces. On a case by case basis, 
     the President will consider placing appropriate U.S. forces 
     under the operational control of a competent U.N. Commander 
     for specific U.N. operations authorized by the Security 
     Council;
       Whereas, if U.S. military forces were to be placed under 
     foreign command (as they now are in Macedonia) they could be 
     removed from their primary missions of defending the United 
     States, its citizens and its territory;
       Whereas, by permitting U.S. military forces to operate 
     under the orders of any international organization, these 
     forces could find themselves executing military operations 
     which are not in the national interest of the United States; 
     and
       Whereas, we believe the American people will not support 
     the deployment of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines 
     and Coast Guardsmen in dangerous, life-threatening missions 
     that do affect the security of the United States, its 
     citizens or its territory; Now, therefore, be it:
       Be it resolved, by the 95th National Convention of the 
     Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, that we oppose 
     any play or directive placing U.S. military forces under the 
     command of foreign military officers including those who are 
     operating exclusively under orders from the United Nations; 
     and
       Be it further resolved, that Congress be urged to examine 
     Presidential Decision Directive 25 to determine if any 
     constitutional authority has been misused, and if so, to find 
     an appropriate remedy.

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, recent events in Somalia and 
elsewhere have raised serious questions about when, if ever, members of 
the United States Armed Forces should be commanded not by fellow 
Americans but by officials of the United Nations. The surrender of 
command and control may set a precedent for further diminution of 
American sovereignty, at a time when most Americans believe that too 
many decisions affecting their lives are already made by unaccountable 
institutions in faraway places.
  I share these concerns. They are reflected and addressed in sections 
401 and 402 of the National Security Revitalization Act, relating to 
command and control of U.S. forces.
  Let us make some crucial distinctions.
  First, this legislation would not interfere with U.S. participation 
in multinational military efforts. Such efforts have a long and 
honorable history in U.S. foreign policy. For instance, in World War I 
some 2 million Americans served under the ultimate direction of a great 
French general, Marshall Ferdinand Foch. In World War II, American 
units worked under British commanders in Italy, in Normandy, and in the 
China-Burma-India theatre of operations. In the post-war era several 
multilateral peacekeeping operations, including some under United 
Nations auspices, have included U.S. Armed Forces under the temporary 
and limited operational control of foreign officers. It is a 
dramatically different matter however, to take the step that has been 
the subject of recent discussion: that the United States should 
contribute its soldiers to a standing U.N. army whose commanders, 
whatever their own national origins, are part of the command structure 
of the United Nations itself.
  It is important to note that sections 401 and 402 allow the President 
substantial flexibility to act in the national interest. They do not 
absolutely prohibit the President from placing U.S. forces under the 
command or control of foreign commanders in U.N. operations, or even 
under the command and control of the United Nations itself. Rather, 
they simply require the President to explain the necessity of
 such arrangements, and to assure the Congress that United States 
officers involved in the operation will retain sufficient authority to 
protect their forces and to prevent them from being used illegally or 
inconsistently with the terms of the 
[[Page H1887]] U.S. mandate. The requirement of advance certification 
by the President may be waived in an emergency. Finally, the 
requirements of sections 401 and 402 did not apply at all to 
specifically authorized by law. So, in effect, Congress can waive the 
reporting requirements of sections 401 and 402 whenever it discerns an 
emergency that makes this prudent.
  The role of U.S. troops in U.N. operations is steadily expanding. A 
year ago we had 15 troops in the post-Desert Storm U.N. peacekeeping 
operation in Iraq, 29 in the Western Sahara, 647 in former Yugoslavia, 
33 in Cambodia, and almost 2,000 in Somalia. Some of these operations 
have prevented bloodshed. The Somalia operation, which began as a 
genuine peacekeeping effort, was somehow allowed to become a war. It 
then claimed the lives of 26 Americans.
  Sections 401 and 402 achieve a balance between the need to protect 
U.S. sovereignty and the need to give the President the necessary 
flexibility for handling international crises. Section (a) creates a 
presumption against the legality of placing any elements of our Armed 
Forces under the command or control of a foreign national acting on 
behalf of the United Nations. But this presumption is overcome if the 
President invokes the certification process that is announced in 
section (b), and for which section (d) gives the substantive 
requirements. The President is given 15 days before the start of the 
operation in question to certify to Congress that the operation is 
necessary to protect our national security interests, and that the 
arrangements of the operation are such that U.S. sovereignty will be 
protected. Furthermore, as I noted a moment ago, even this reasonable 
requirement does not apply when the operation in question is already 
authorized by law, or when the President certifies that he is acting in 
response to an emergency that precludes compliance with the 15-day rule 
just mentioned. In an emergency situation, the certification 
requirement detailed in section (d) is postponed until 48 hours after 
U.S. participation in the U.N. operations begins.
  Section 402 amends the United Nations Participation Act so that U.S. 
participation in Security Council ``special agreements,'' as set forth 
in chapters VI and VII of the U.N. Charter, is subject to the same 
certification requirements as in section 401.
  There must be clear rules governing the exposure of U.S. service 
personnel to mortal danger. Such exposure should be related to U.S. 
interests, and the extend and urgency of those interests should be 
determined by officials who are accountable to the people of the United 
States. This is not just the principle of sovereignty; it is also the 
principle of democracy. Sections 401 and 402 are designed to uphold 
these principles. They would prohibit commitments of U.S. troops only 
in cases where the President of the United States cannot or will not 
articulate to the Congress the justifications and the limitations of 
such commitments.
  At U.N. headquarters in New York City, the flags of all the member 
nations fly proudly over First Avenue. No national flag is higher than 
any other, signifying that despite diversities of power, wealth, and 
territory, the principle of sovereignty means that every nation may 
deal equally with every other under international law.
  One flag in front of the U.N. building does fly higher than the 
national flags: the flag of the United Nations itself. This signifies 
that in joining together to form the United Nations, the sovereign 
member states have recognized that the ideals of human rights, peace, 
and cooperation for which the United Nations stands may in some 
circumstances transcend national sovereignty itself.
  Even a limited surrender of sovereignty, however, is fraught with 
risks. One of those risks is that this great international body whose 
flag flies higher than the others may someday cease to be the 
instrument of its member nations and become instead master of their 
policies--and increasingly of their destinies.
  American participation in multinational military operations is, has 
been, and will remain a sound policy option for particular cases. But 
American participation in the standing armies of another power--
especially a power that claims to supersede that of the United States--
is an abdication of our sovereignty and a threat to the democratic 
values that our sovereignty ultimately protects.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Bunning) having assumed the chair, Mr. Linder, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 7), to 
revitalize the national security of the United States, pursuant to 
House Resolution 83, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment adopted 
by the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on the 
amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               motion to recommit offered by mr. skelton

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit with 
instructions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. SKELTON. Absolutely.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Skelton moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 7, to the 
     Committee on National Security with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Strike out the last section of title II (relating to the 
     ballistic missile defense as a component of military 
     readiness) and insert the following:
       Section 204. Readiness Certification.
       Of the total amount of funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1996, 
     the amount obligated for national missile defense programs 
     may not exceed the amount made available for national missile 
     defense programs for fiscal year 1995 until the Secretary of 
     Defense certifies to the Congress that the armed forces are 
     properly sized, equipped, housed, and structured and are 
     ready to carry out the assigned missions as required by the 
     national military strategy.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Skelton] for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise with this motion to recommit with 
instructions with a heavy heart. I do so with the background, Mr. 
Speaker, of having stood with my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, lo, those many times in the cause of national defense. I stood 
with those on the other side of the aisle concerning the Nicaragua 
crisis. I stood with those on the other side of the aisle in the gulf 
war issue that was so important to our then President George Bush and 
to the American people and to freedom throughout this globe.
  I find, though, there are parts of this bill I would individually 
vote for; the part concerning the command and control of American 
troops is to be commended, but the weight of this bill overall, Mr. 
Speaker, causes me to offer this motion to recommit.

                              {time}  1340

  This motion to recommit is in favor of the troops. This morning we 
had the sad news of 4 soldiers giving their lives in training in Eglin 
Air Force Base in the Ranger course. The job that we call those in 
uniform to do is a dangerous job. This is a motion to stand by those 
young men and those young women from whom we ask so much and who should 
be given the very best of our efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the Montgomery/Skelton language that states that 
the Secretary of Defense must certify to us, to us the Congress of the 
United States, that the Armed Forces are properly sized, equipped, 
housed, structured, and filled with readiness to do the job that the 
Commander in Chief and our national interest requires of them. This is 
putting the troops first. This is saying to those young men and women 
in uniform, ``We care for you. We want to stand by you.''
  This does not cut off national missile defense programs, it allows 
for the year 1996 to have a $400 million program, where we make sure 
that those troops are ready and able to do their job.
  My case was made by my friends on the other side of the aisle when 
they said that we are not ready. My friend from California [Mr. 
Cunningham] spoke eloquently of the need for readiness. That was my 
speech. That was my point. That is what we need to do 
[[Page H1888]] to stay ready. We never know how much. It was Winston 
Churchill who once said that war comes very suddenly. This past year we 
came within an eyelash of having armed conflict three times, once 
involving North Korea, once involving Haiti, and one with Saddam 
Hussein. These young men and young women we send in harm's way should 
be fully ready and every penny should go toward their training, 
readiness, their quality of life. We should not, as we have seen, have 
young men and young women on the rifle range, who do not have enough 
bullets to fire, cancel training so that they are not able to fulfill 
their duties.
  In Europe we learned just a few weeks ago that the Army had taken 
from its training account in Europe $300 million to put in the 
maintenance account. That is a lack of readiness. We need to pay 
attention to that and not offer these dollars up to something in excess 
of what we can fairly spend.
  I ask everyone here, Mr. Speaker, to vote for this motion to 
recommit. It will send the message to the young men and young women we 
are so proud to call Americans, those in uniform that ``we want you to 
get the best training, the best possible advantage should you have to 
walk onto that battle field.'' And if there is a lack of training, if 
there is someone that is injured or sadly loses his or her life because 
of lack of readiness, let it not be a reflection of today, let us stand 
with them, let us work with them, let us vote to recommit this with the 
instructions on the Montgomery-Skelton language. It is the least we can 
do for those fine young Americans.
  The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman from South Carolina opposed to the 
motion?
  Mr. SPENCE. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this motion 
and vote ``yes'' on final passage of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, last evening we voted twice on this particular 
amendment. It was defeated on both occasions. We need not say anything 
more about that.
  I want, just for a minute, Mr. Speaker, to tell this body that in 
referring to this legislation we are responding, as I have said 
earlier, to the concerns of the American people. In putting together 
this contract, we listened to the American people and the concerns they 
have concerning a number of issues, and then we proceeded to put those 
things down in the form of a contract.
  The American people, for instance, are concerned about the state of 
our defenses. They think we have cut too much from our defense, 
readiness is suffering, modernization needs to be fixed, a number of 
things. We are responding to those concerns because we entitled this 
legislation the revitalization or the restoration of national security.
  The people of this country are outraged when they find that we have 
no defense against ballistic missiles, protecting them and their 
families from certain death. They want to know who is responsible for 
leaving them unprotected. But most of all they want it fixed, and we 
are trying to fix that for them in this contract, this legislation.
  Again, I repeat, we are responding to the concerns of the American 
people. The American people are concerned about the fact that this 
administration had a threat assessment conducted after the fact, called 
a Bottom-Up Review, which is not sufficient. And even if it were, it is 
underfunded. And so they want to have a new threat assessment of the 
threats we are facing in this world.
  So we are proposing a bipartisan commission advise us as to the 
course of action to take. Again, we are responding to the American 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Gilman], chairman of the Committee on International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit and I 
urge my colleagues to defend this motion and to support this vitally 
important legislation which we have fully debated in the International 
Relations Committee and on the House floor over the past 2 days.
  Our committee held numerous briefings and hearings on the issues we 
have debated today.
  Contrary to some of the assertions made in this debate, this bill 
does not end our support for the United Nations and it most certainly 
does not end our support for the United Nations and it most certainly 
does not signal a retreat from our security commitments and our 
international obligations around the world.
  The provisions in this bill simply reaffirm that our foreign policy 
and our role at the United Nations and in all U.N. peacekeeping 
operations must serve our national interests.
  The bill for example, ensures that we receive credit for our ongoing 
and extensive support for the U.N. peacekeeping operations around the 
world.
  Presently, we are spending several billions a year on direct and 
indirect costs in support of these peacekeeping operations. To the 
extent that the Department of Defense is spending a disproportionate 
share of its declining resources on U.N. peacekeeping we should be 
recouping some of those costs against our U.N. peacekeeping 
assessments.
  This bill does set strict limits on any U.S. troops serving in U.N. 
operations and promotes the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization. Our provisions on NATO will ensure that all countries in 
Europe deemed eligible to be included in an expanded NATO will be given 
the political support and the military assistance they need to join 
this transatlantic security alliance. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues 
to join in supporting this bill which provides a strong national 
defense and a clear foreign policy road map for our Nation.

                              {time}  1350

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Bunning). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 197, 
nays 225, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 144]

                               YEAS--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     [[Page H1889]] Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--225

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Becerra
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Green
     Hastings (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     McHugh
     Radanovich
     Schumer
     Stokes
     Thornton
     Wilson

                              {time}  1408

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Lewis of Georgia for, with Mrs. Chenoweth against.
       Mr. Stokes for, with Mr. McHugh against.

  Mr. JACOBS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                              {time}  1410

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241, 
noes 181, not voting 13, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 145]

                               AYES--241

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--181

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Becerra
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Green
     Hastings (FL)
     Johnston
     Lewis (GA)
     McHugh
     Petri
     Schumer
     Stokes
     Thornton
     Wilson

                              {time}  1425

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Chenoweth for, with Mr. Johnston of Florida against.
       Mr. McHugh for, with Mr. Stokes against.
       Mr. Petri for, with Mr. Lewis of Georgia against.
  [[Page H1890]] So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________