[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 98 (Thursday, June 15, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1258-E1259]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                AMERICAN OVERSEAS INTERESTS ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                               speech of

                            HON. TOM LANTOS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, June 8, 1995

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1561), to 
     consolidate the foreign affairs agencies of the United 
     States; to authorize appropriations for the Department of 
     State and related agencies for fiscal year 1996 and 1997; to 
     responsibly reduce the authorizations of appropriations for 
     United States foreign assistance programs for fiscal year 
     1996 and 1997, and for other purposes:

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong support for the 
amendment proposed by my distinguished friend from New York, Mr. 
Ackerman. His reasonable amendment calls for reports by the 
Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and budget 
prior to implementing the provisions of this legislation requiring the 
consolidation of the functions of the Agency for International 
Development, the United States Information Agency, and the Arms Control 
and Disarmament Agency into the Department of State.
  The organizational changes that are mandated in this legislation are 
the most sweeping and comprehensive changes ever proposed to the 
structure and function of the agencies charged with the conduct of our 
Nation's foreign policy. None of the Members of the Congress--no matter 
how long they have been serving in this House or in the other chamber--
have dealt with changes in our foreign policy agencies of this massive 
a scale and none of us have any sense of what the unforseen 
consequences may be.
  Before the Department of Defense scaled back and reorganized our 
national defense effort, a Bottom-Up review was conducted to assess our 
Nation's defense requirements in the post-cold war world. But here in 
the case of the Department of State, we have had only a few general 
hearings before the International Relations Committee earlier this year 
on reorganization in general. After the specific provisions of this 
legislation were drafted, the International Relations Committee held a 
single hearing on the specific reorganization proposals in this 
legislation--a hearing, I should add, which was requested by the 
Democratic members of the Committee to provide the administration with 
the opportunity to comment on the language in the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, our Nation is facing unprecedented challenges and 
threats to the security of our Nation as we face the uncertainly of the 
post-cold war world. No effort has been made a assess the nature of the 
perils we face, no effort has been made to assess how our Nation's 
foreign policy agencies can best address these threats, no effort has 
been made to determine the impact of this massive restructuring of our 
foreign policy organizations.
  In view of the scope of the changes that have been proposed, the 
amendment of Mr. Ackerman is a reasonable, prudent, and thoughtful 
effort to consider the impact and evaluate the consequences of 
consolidation before that irreversible step is taken. In the last few 
months, Mr. Chairman, this House has not been given to actions that are 
reasonable, prudent, and thoughtful. In this case, however, we are 
dealing with the national security of the United States--and caution is 
only appropriate and reasonable in this case.
  If this consolidation policy is so all-important and self-evident, 
why did we not have such proposals from two presidents and four 
Secretaries of State in the previous administrations. Alexander Haig, 
George Schultz, Jim Baker, and Larry Eagleburger were obviously guilty 
of a tremendous dereliction of duty and responsibility for not 
proposing the wholesale downsizing of our foreign policy apparatus. If 
there is such urgency for this action, if there is such necessity to 
take these decisions without essential review, study, and reflection 
before acting, these previous Secretaries of State should have been 
able to see and make such recommendations for change.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, no effort has been made to consult and 
work with the Department of State and the administration to come up 
with a bipartisan consensus to deal with this consolidation. All of us 
agree that government can and should be made more efficient and that 
redundancies should be eliminated. But it is highly inappropriate for 
the Congress to dictate to the administration the structure of our 
foreign policy agencies. These are decisions that can and should be 
made cooperatively in a bipartisan fashion.
  Mr. Chairman, during the 14\1/2\ years that I have served in this 
Congress, 12 of those years were with a Republican administration and a 
Democratically-controlled House of Representatives. During those 12 
years, the Democratic members of the Foreign Affairs Committee 
consulted with our Republican colleagues on the Committee and with the 
Republican administration to try to achieve a truly bipartisan foreign 
policy. While there were some areas of disagreement, in the foreign 
policy realm we were remarkably successful in achieving broad 
bipartisan agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, in coming up with the legislation that is now before 
us, I find that the procedure which we used through the years--of 
consulting with Republicans and Democrats to come forward with 
bipartisan proposals--is all gone by the board. I think it is a sad 
spectacle when the bipartisan foreign policy process of this Nation is 
torn asunder for cheap partisan political ends. This is not the way to 
build a superpower and enhance its ability to conduct foreign affairs 
in the 21st century.
  What we see in this legislation--in this rush to consolidation with 
no regard for the consequences and with no consideration of 
alternatives--is rampant isolationism in action. As I told my 
colleagues in the markup of this legislation in the International 
Relations Committee, this is nothing more than pathetic, preposterous 
partisan posturing. It is cutting to shreds the international 
capabilities of the one remaining superpower on the face of this 
planet. It was aptly and accurately described by Dr. Tony Lake, the 
National Security Advisor to the President, as unilateral 
disarmament. [[Page E1259]] 
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment of Mr. Ackerman is a rational approach, a 
thoughtful recommendation in dealing with a process of consolidation 
that should be given serious and careful consideration before it is 
implemented. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the 
Ackerman amendment.


                          ____________________