[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 33 (Tuesday, March 12, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2075-H2082]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1561, FOREIGN 
        RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 1996 AND 1997

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 375 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 375

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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 years 
     1996 and 1997; to responsibly reduce the authorizations of 
     appropriations for United States foreign assistance programs 
     for fiscal years 1996 and 1997, and for other purposes. All 
     points of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GOSS. For purposes of debate only, Mr. Speaker, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to include extraneous 
material.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple, fair rule providing for 
House consideration of the conference report on H.R. 1561, the American 
Overseas Interests Act--otherwise known as the State Department 
Reauthorization. As is the custom for conference reports, this rule 
allows for 1 hour of general debate and preserves the right of the 
minority to offer a motion to recommit, with or without instructions. 
Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the conference 
report and its consideration. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1561 was passed by the 
House on June 8, 1995. Since that time, Members in both Houses have 
invested a great deal of time and energy working to make this the first 
year since 1985 that we have reauthorized the State Department programs 
in this bill. In our Rules Committee hearing last week, both Chairman 
Gilman and the ranking minority member, Mr. Hamilton, said they were 
encouraged by the efforts that the conference committee has made to 
bring us this far. Unfortunately, I understand that the President is 
planning to veto this reform-minded initiative, essentially because it 
will cramp his unique foreign policy style.

  In response, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I think we all 
understand that the responsibility for conducting foreign policy rests 
primarily but certainly not exclusively with the executive branch. 
Today, this long overdue legislation recognizes and addresses the 
responsibility of the legislative branch in this area--responsibility 
it has passed on over much of the past 10 years. These duties include 
policy oversight and, most importantly, laying out the broad priorities 
for the expenditure of U.S. tax dollars overseas. In this respect, 
Congress must share some of the blame for our current confused and 
inconsistent foreign policy agenda. However, it is clear that the 
lion's share of the blame for recent flip-flops, diplomatic gaffs, 
excessive costs and ill-defined missions rests squarely with President 
Clinton and his foreign policy ``B'' team. To date, the Clinton 
administration has focussed its priorities and resources on extensive 
involvement on high-visibility--low-yield projects in Northern Ireland, 
Bosnia and Haiti--to the point where the United States has been 
actively engaged in the de facto governance of two out of these three 
regions. While the administration may have the best of intentions, its 
focus on these efforts has resulted in the neglect and/or 
mismanagement of critical situations in Cuba and Taiwan, to name just 
two. Today, the administration is finally getting around to recognizing 
that Fidel Castro is not such a nice guy, and that a Chinese invasion 
of Taiwan could threaten the entire balance of power in Asia and the 
Pacific--but I am afraid that the reason it took so long to arrive at 
these rather obvious conclusions is that the White House has conducted 
United States foreign policy in the same way it has conducted domestic 
policy: setting priorities by what the opinion polls say, bowing to 
pressure from hunger-striking activists, and giving more attention to 
photo ops that will resonate with the voters instead of doing the hard 
work of conducting a vigorous and consistent policy agenda across the 
globe based on a clear delineation of what our national security 
interests really are in today's world.

  Mr. Speaker, I hope that passage of H.R. 1561 will begin to put us 
back on the right track by freeing up foreign policy assets and making 
them reflect changing priorities in a changing world. It does make some 
necessary cuts to the operating expenses of the bureaucracy at the 
State Department and agencies like USAID, USIA, and ACDA--a total of 
$1.7 billion over 4 years--and requires one of these agencies to be 
consolidated into the State Department. It also includes many other 
important provisions, including asserting the supremacy of the Taiwan 
Relations Act, and setting strict reporting requirements for the Bosnia 
operation. I would urge my colleagues to support this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 375 makes it in order to consider the 
conference report on H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act 
for fiscal years 1996 and 1997. As our friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] has explained, it waives all points 
of order against the conference report.
  The conference report authorizes appropriations for the State 
Department, and it requires the President to select and abolish at 
least one foreign affairs agency among the Agency for International 
Development, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, or the U.S. 
Information Agency, USIA. We have concerns about the substance of this 
conference report, as well as the manner in which the conference was 
conducted.
  The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the ranking Democrat on 
the Committee on International Relations, told the Committee on Rules 
that a Democratic alternative to the conference agreement was dismissed 
out of hand. Furthermore, the gentleman from Indiana said that he as 
the ranking member never saw the conference agreement before it was 
filed. He told the Committee on Rules ``With this kind of approach, we 
are not making laws, we are making political statements.''
  Furthermore, I want to express strong objections to the provisions in 
this conference agreement, as our colleagues know. If the measure is 
presented to the President in its current form, he has said that he 
will veto the bill. This bill could result in the abolition of AID, the 
Agency for International Development. This agency provides vital 
assistance to millions of poor and hungry people in developing nations. 
The small amount, the really tiny amount of savings that his, perhaps, 
would achieve could come at a terrible loss to human life and to our 
international standing around the world.
  The funding levels contained in this bill are inadequate to protect 
the foreign policy interests of the United States. The bill would 
seriously undermine our ability to conduct diplomacy and operate 
overseas posts of foreign affairs agencies. If the bill passes, our 
Nation would retreat like a turtle into its shell, avoiding our 
international responsibilities and opportunities. That should not, it 
seems to us, be the image of our great Nation.

[[Page H2076]]

  We are, however, pleased with a provision in the bill that prohibits 
the United States from selling small arms to Indonesia. This provision 
was included in response to that country's 1975 invasion and continued 
military presence in the island territory of East Timor, where numerous 
deaths and human rights abuse have occurred. We are glad this 
legislation does not let the East Timor tragedy go unnoticed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield such time he may 
consume to the distinguished 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. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of House 
Resolution 375, the rule governing consideration of the conference 
report on H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. I commend 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], my good friend and 
colleague, chairman of the Committee on Rules, for his committee's 
expeditious consideration of the rule, and the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Goss], for advocating the adoption of this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to list at this point the main provisions 
of the conference report, an important conference report. This bill is 
the first major authorization bill reorganizing the international 
affairs agencies designed back in the 1950's to fight the cold war. It 
is also the first Republican foreign affairs authorization bill in 40 
years.
  In short, the bill will require the President to abolish one of three 
international affairs agencies, either the USIA, AID, or ACDA, moving 
their functions back into the State Department, pursuant to the initial 
suggestion by Secretary Christopher.
  It mandates $1.3 billion in budget savings below the fiscal year 1995 
spending levels for the operating expenses of State, of AID, of USIA, 
and ACDA over the next 4 years. It provides authorization of 
appropriations totaling $6.5 billion for fiscal year 1996 and 1997 to 
fund the State Department, to fund USIA, to fund ACDA, AID, and related 
programs. This represents a $500 million reduction from fiscal year 
1995 spending on these programs.
  It also eliminates the AID housing guarantee program that GAO 
estimates will lose over $1 billion of the taxpayers' money, the Roth-
Gejdenson section. It includes the MacBride principles of economic 
justice for aid to Northern Ireland. It includes the Humanitarian 
Corridors Act language, conditioning aid to Turkey on releasing United 
States humanitarian aid to Armenia. It includes many administration-
requested provisions to improve the management of the State Department; 
in other words, allowing the State Department to collect from insurers 
for free medical care provided.

                              {time}  1700

  It authorizes full administration requests for narcotics control 
assistance and for the Peace Corps. This bill also imposes a number of 
important human rights restrictions carefully modified to meet the 
concerns of the administration. Major provisions include the supremacy 
of the Taiwan Relations Act over executive agreements and reporting on 
United States involvement in Bosnia to ensure our mission fulfills its 
stated purpose of bringing about a lasting and just peace and further 
restricts the use of refugee funds for involuntary repatriation of 
genuine refugees or persons in serious danger of subjection to torture.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule 
and look forward to their support for the important conference report.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 22 minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from California has 27\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], who is the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human 
Rights.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for 
yielding me this time.
  I urge Members to support this rule. It is a good rule, and it is a 
very good, comprehensive conference report that we have put together. 
It has taken our subcommittee and the full committee the better part of 
a year and a half, working with the Senate, to craft this legislation. 
There were delays, as I think many Members know, on the Senate side, 
regrettably, but thankfully we are going to have this bill presented to 
the whole House very shortly.
  H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Authorizations Act for 1996 and 1997 
has attracted attention, Mr. Speaker, including a veto threat from the 
Clinton administration, because it would require the consolidation of 
at least one Government agency and because it would save $1.7 billion 
over 4 years.
  I think it is important that, with the taxpayers clamoring for 
downsizing throughout the Federal bureaucracy, that the State 
Department and other agencies of our foreign policy apparatus not be 
immune to the budget-cutting knife.
  Amid the discussion of these issues, however, some of the most 
important aspects of H.R. 1561 have gone almost unnoticed. 
Specifically, despite the need to cut spending and consolidate 
programs, the conference report manages to hold harmless, and at times 
even enhances, the most important programs and to enact important 
policy provisions that will indeed support freedom, democracy, and save 
lives.
  Mr. Speaker, in considering H.R. 1561, I hope we will carefully 
consider the following human rights provisions:
  First, Mr. Speaker, the Humanitarian Corridors Act. Section 1617 of 
the bill will limit assistance to those countries that restrict the 
transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance. I introduced the 
Humanitarian Corridors Act and offered the entirety of that legislation 
to this bill for a very simple reason: It is wrong, patently wrong, for 
countries receiving American assistance to keep U.S. humanitarian aid 
from reaching other countries. Yet this is precisely being done by 
Turkey, which has been blockading Armenia for several years. Ankara's 
opening of an air corridor with Armenia last summer indeed was a step 
in the right direction, but it does not represent a remedy for the 
problem. Turkey still refuses to open land routes through its territory 
for the delivery of badly needed United States humanitarian assistance 
to Armenia, which creates an unacceptable situation.

  The MacBride principles, another very, very important set of 
principles that for years we have been trying to get enacted into law, 
Mr. Speaker, section 1615 of the bill includes language that guarantees 
United States assistance programs in Northern Ireland will only go 
towards projects that do not engage in religious discrimination and 
which provide employment opportunities for members of the region's 
Catholic minority. Some of us in Congress have been fighting, as I 
said, for these principles for many years. It has been a bipartisan 
effort. We have the opportunity to codify that this evening.
  Chairman Gilman, I think, deserves particular credit for his tenacity 
for steering this important human rights provision through this 
legislation and including it.
  Refugee protection, the refugee provisions, Mr. Speaker, of H.R. 1561 
will prevent the United States tax dollars from being spent to return 
to Vietnam and Laos thousands of men and women who served side by side 
with the American forces during the Vietnam war.
  These provisions will also restore the Reagan and Bush policy of 
protecting people who can show that they are fleeing forced abortion or 
forced sterilization or they have actually been subjected to such cruel 
measure, such as the women who are now being held in California and in 
other parts of the country.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1561 would also require periodic reports to 
Congress on what Fidel Castro is doing to enforce his end of the 
Clinton-Castro immigration deal of 1994 and how people are treated who 
are returned to Cuba pursuant to the second Clinton-Castro immigration 
deal of May of 1995.
  Despite the need for cuts, Mr. Speaker, in international broadcasting 
and other public diplomacy programs, H.R. 1561 holds harmless two of 
our freedom

[[Page H2077]]

broadcasting programs, such as Radio Free Asia and Radio and TV Marti.
  The bill also requires, when cuts must be made, they must not fall 
disproportionately on broadcasts to countries, such as Iran and Iraq, 
where people do not enjoy freedom of information within their own 
country.
  The bill also requires that Radio Free Asia commences its broadcasts 
into China, Vietnam, North Korea, Burma, and other countries whose 
people do not enjoy freedom and democracy, as we all know so well, 
within 6 months. No more delays; it is about time this important 
broadcasting got up and running.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule, and I believe it is a very, very 
comprehensive conference report. As I think Members know, there were 
objections made by the other body when it came to the foreign aid 
section. That has been taken out of this bill, so we are talking 
basically about consolidation and about reauthorizing many of our 
important programs like USIA, the State Department refugee assistance.
  I urge support for the rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], for yielding this time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned with provisions in the bill which 
could result in the abolition of USAID, the U.S. Agency for 
International Development. This Agency provides vital assistance to 
millions of poor and hungry people in developing nations. The small 
amount of savings would come at a terrible loss to human life and to 
our international standing.
  Mr. Speaker, the abolishment of USAID is a misguided idea that will 
lead to increased pain and suffering in the poorest countries of the 
world and it will reduce the effectiveness of the United States in 
international affairs. Now is the worst time to be thinking of getting 
rid of USAID. While the world is becoming increasingly interdependent, 
there are civil breakdowns in places like Bosnia and Rwanda, and there 
are outbreaks of deadly diseases in remote regions of the world. I 
think at this time there are 25 major humanitarian crises going on in 
the world.
  I have been particularly impressed by the work of Brian Atwood as 
administrator of USAID. He has done an excellent job transforming USAID 
into an agency that improves its performance at the same time making 
dramatic budget reforms. In recent years, under Atwood's leadership, 
USAID has reduced senior management by nearly one-third and he has 
eliminated 90 organizational units in Washington. He also achieved $7 
million in cost savings over 5 years by combining administrative 
functions with other Government agencies.
  If this bill passes, our Nation will retreat like a turtle into its 
shell, avoiding our international responsibilities and opportunities. 
This is not my image of our Nation, and it should not be ours.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the distinguished chairman of the 
committee.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to address the gentleman from Ohio 
and mention that we have provided discretionary authority to the 
President to eliminate one of three agencies, not mandating that AID be 
eliminated, giving the President the opportunity to decide between AID, 
USIA, or ACDA, the Arms Control Agency. So there is no mandate, and I 
just wanted to make certain that the gentleman understands that there 
is no mandate to remove AID.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall].
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would just respond to the chairman 
of the Committee on Foreign Relations that I am aware of the fact that 
it does not mandate that USAID go out of business, or not exist. It 
gives the choice. It could be one of three agencies.
  I think it is felt by many of us here in Congress and many people in 
the administration that if they are given this, and I hope that they 
are not given this choice, that probably USAID will be given a 
direction to eliminate that, and I do not even want it considered in 
the legislation.
  I think USAID is probably one of the more important programs that we 
have and when we consider where we used to be years ago, when we had 
$19 or $20 billion in foreign aid, which is like less than one-half of 
1 percent of our total budget and now it is at $12 billion, and we want 
to eliminate the humanitarian agency in the whole Government when, in 
fact, it saves millions and millions of lives, I would not say every 
year but over the many, many years, to put them into the equation that 
they possibly could be abolished I think is a wrong way to go.
  I think the people that we have at AID, starting with Brian Atwood, 
have done a very impressive job. I am very enthused about their 
direction, their vision for the future, and what this world is about as 
far as humanitarian concerns are concerned.
  I just think we are going the wrong way here, and it makes us look 
like we are retreating on one of the most important issues that we have 
to deal with in the Congress of the United States.
  People were asked in several polls, ``Would you be willing to fund 
humanitarian issues, humanitarian types of aid in countries overseas,'' 
and almost 90 percent of the people agreed that that was a good thing 
to do.
  They also said in the poll, ``Would you be willing to give 100 extra 
dollars in tax moneys to humanitarian aid,'' and they said if they 
could be assured that the money was going to the poorest of the poor, 
they would be glad to do it. I was amazed by that poll.
  Another poll showed that a lot of people believe that, you know, our 
foreign aid, when they did this poll across the country, that of our 
total budget, that somewhere between 18 and 22 percent of the people 
believed that, I am sorry, of the people polled, they believed that the 
total amount going to foreign aid, 18 to 22 percent was the amount of 
money going to foreign aid from our total budget. And they said, ``What 
actually do you think the money ought to be,'' and the numbers said 
they thought it ought to be 8 to 9 percent when, in fact, all we are 
arguing about here today is less than one-half of 1 percent. This is 
the aid that goes to humanitarian issues, the many crises going on in 
the world today.
  So even to raise the issue, to have the possibility that it would be 
eliminated, to put it into the State Department, would be a political 
decision, I think, that would not work for the poorest of the poor and 
would hurt them. And I think it would go a long way in not bringing the 
kind of child survival activities and the type of micromanagement kinds 
of things that we need overseas in development assistance.
  I oppose this bill. I do not think it is a good idea.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to comment on another matter relative to this, if I may, at this time.
  Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974, we had been considering making a point 
of order against consideration of this rule. Section 425, as opposed to 
426 of that same act, states that a point of order lies against 
legislation which, one, imposes an unfunded mandate in excess of $50 
million actually against State or local governments, or, two, does not 
publish prior to floor consideration a CBO estimate of any unfunded 
mandates in excess of $50 million annually for State and local entities 
or in excess of $100 million annually for the private sector.
  Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Committee 
on Rules may not waive this point of order. However, on page 2, lines 9 
and 10 of House Resolution 375, which we are discussing here today, all 
points of order are waived against the conference report and against 
consideration. For that reason we were, as I said, considering making a 
point of order. This rule should not have been considered pursuant to 
this rule 426.

[[Page H2078]]

                              {time}  1715

  We decided not to pursue that point of order for a number of reasons, 
one of them being an unusual CBO estimate that we have heard about but 
have not yet seen. But we do think it is important to discuss very 
briefly, and I shall be very brief, Mr. Speaker, our reasons for 
objecting to the waiver of the unfunded mandate rule.
  We should, of course, be sticking with the rules. Our good friends on 
the other side of the aisle came up with this proposal at the beginning 
of last year, and since that time have consistently waived it. We think 
we ought to take some of these rules a little bit more seriously and 
perhaps not pass them in the first place if we are not going to pay 
much attention to them.
  This particular conference report has four refugee-related provisions 
which, taken together, may well result in increased costs to individual 
States throughout this country. There are good arguments on both sides 
of the question of whether these four provisions represent unfunded 
mandates, and apparently CBO itself is having some trouble coming up 
with a definitive answer.
  What I want to say and be clear about is we would have made the point 
of order not because of necessarily opposition to the four particular 
provisions dealing with refugees, but because of our understanding of 
the intention of the unfunded mandates law, which is to provide full 
and open debate on any issues or that may raise unfunded mandates for 
the States. That, after all, was the expressed purpose from our friends 
on the other side as part of their Contract for that particular change 
in our rules.
  Allowing for debate on the unfunded mandates question in this bill 
would provide one way to alert States that the Congress is in fact 
taking action which may well have come impact on state costs. It would 
give some notice to the States that the States' costs may increase or 
that State programs may assume some new burdens or may in fact need to 
be changed to avoid those burdens because of this particular 
legislation which Congress in fact will be considering today as soon as 
we are through with the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me simply say that Members should be 
aware that this legislation does in fact contain provisions which could 
impose unfunded costs on State and local governments. Last year, as we 
have just discussed, the House overwhelmingly approved legislation that 
would help identify instances of unfunded mandates on public and 
private sector entities. In fact, much of the month of January of 1995 
was consumed by that particular piece of legislation.
  We find it somewhat ironic, after all the debate that took place at 
that time, particularly with regard to protecting Members; rights to be 
informed about unfunded mandates, that on one of the first major 
authorization bills that is coming out of the Committee on Rules since 
that time, the Republicans are apparently attempting to allow 
legislation that imposes unfunded costs on State and local governments 
without our raising that point. Most on that side of the aisle, and I 
guess a lot of Members on our side of the aisle as well, voted for the 
unfunded mandates bill.
  We simply hope that Members will think long and hard about what a 
``yes'' vote on this rule in fact proves. If one is truly opposed to 
the imposition of unfunded mandates on the States by the Federal 
Government, then we suggest that one would oppose this particular rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the gentleman from 
California. Old friendships are worth a lot around here.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the provision 
to withhold funding for expanding diplomatic relations until the 
President certifies that the Vietnamese government ``fully cooperates'' 
in accounting for our MIAs. This measure is essential to achieve the 
fullest possible accounting of our missing heroes. In repeated 
testimony before my subcommittee the most senior Defense Department 
analysts who investigate this issue have stated under oath that the 
Vietnamese continue to hold back critical information on servicemen who 
were known to have been alive under Communist control in Vietnam, Laos 
and Cambodia.
  In January, the U.S. Government gave the Vietnamese a list of 69 MIAs 
that based on the Defense Department's recent ``comprehensive review'' 
of all MIA cases. The review shows that there are over 400 MIAs who 
were last known alive or dead under Vietnamese control whom the 
Vietnamese can provide either bodily remains or their own documents, 
records and witnesses that can resolve their fates.
  Based on this official review, I provided the Vietnamese with an 
additional 29 priority MIAs that the Communists should be able to 
account for. About a dozen of these cases overlap with the Defense 
Department list. All together the Vietnamese has been given the names 
of 75 MIAs that the U.S. Government knows they can account for 
immediately. And on January 20, 1996 while visiting Hanoi Assistant 
Secretary of State Winston Lord expressed to the Vietnamese 
``disappointment in the level and quality of work that the Vietnam 
government Office for Missing Persons performs on cases.'' Although the 
Vietnamese dribble out isolated records and documents to manipulate the 
political debate in this Congress, the bottom line is that they are 
continuing to torture the families of our missing heroes. We have the 
power to stop this cruel charade.
  This provision is strongly supported by the vast majority of veterans 
organizations and families of the missing heroes. We have letters of 
support from: the National League of POW/MIA Families, the National 
Alliance of POW/MIA Families, the American Legion, the Disabled 
American Veterans, the Vietnam Veterans Coalition, the Veterans of the 
Vietnam War, Inc., The American Defense and the Vietnam Veterans of 
America. I strongly encourage all Members of Congress to support this 
much needed measure.
  For the Record I would like to include letters from the veterans and 
families organizations who support this provision.
  But first, Mr. Speaker, check this out.

                                Vietnam

 (SRV Papers Back Cuban Downing of U.S. Airplanes--BK0103131396 Hanoi 
             Voice of Vietnam in English 1000 GMT 1 Mar 96)

       [FBIS Transcribed Text] Under the title ``Genuine Rights to 
     Self Defense,'' the leading daily newspaper NHAN DAN and the 
     Army paper QUAN DOI NHAN DAN on March 1 run commentaries 
     reaffirming that the shooting down of two planes being flown 
     by a reactionary organization involving Cuban exiles in the 
     United States was genuine self-defense in line with 
     international law to defend Cuba's territorial integrity and 
     security.
                                                                    ____

         National League of Families of American Prisoners and 
           Missing in Southeast Asia,
                                   Washington, DC, March 12, 1996.
     Hon. Ben Gilman,
     Chairman, House International Relations Committee, 2170 
         Rayburn House Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Gilman: In response to the President's 
     veto message regarding HR 1561, the League has always 
     maintained that the Government of Vietnam could unilaterally 
     account for hundreds of Americans, and League policy has 
     emphasized that ability as the crucial aspect of the fullest 
     possible accounting since the League's inception. This 
     legislation outlines the four criteria of unilateral action 
     by Vietnam that President Clinton set forth as his measure 
     and the League agrees with each of them.
       Recently the administration completed a comprehensive 
     review of all cases of those Americans missing and 
     unaccounted for from the war in Southeast Asia which 
     confirmed that Vietnam can unilaterally respond to and make 
     significant progress on each of these four criteria.
       What is particularly strange to the League is that the veto 
     message was sent while a high level Presidential delegation, 
     led by a cabinet member and included a member of the 
     President's staff, was in Vietnam to present the expectations 
     of the United States Government from this review. This 
     delegation is comprised of the League's Executive Director 
     Ann Mills Griffiths and the leadership of five major veterans 
     groups all at the invitation of the President.
       We're concerned that someone in the administration may have 
     undercut the entire purpose of the trip with this veto 
     message while the President's delegation was in Hanoi. If the 
     President can't support the language concerning Vietnam 
     within this bill, then the board views this as nullifying the 
     praise that his administration has been lauding on Vietnam 
     for their supposed ``outstanding cooperation''. The League 
     position remains as stated and will be such until Vietnam has 
     responded in a concrete way to the President's stated 
     criteria. This is the

[[Page H2079]]

     President's chance to signal Vietnam that his administration 
     is serious in upholding his four criteria.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Jo Anne Shirley,
     Chairman of the Board.
                                                                    ____

         National Alliance of Families, for the Return of 
           America's Missing Servicemen,
                                                   March 12, 1996.
     Hon. Robert K. Dornan,
     Chairman, Subcommittee Military Personnel, International 
         Relations, 1201 Longworth Bldg., Washington, D.C.
       Dear Chairman Dornan: The National Alliance's Families and 
     Veterans plead with you to stand firm in maintaining the 
     provision that asks for THE LIMITATION OF FUNDING FOR 
     UPGRADING OF THE EMBASSY IN VIETNAM TO THE LEVEL AS OF JULY 
     11, 1995 (Sec. 609, HR 2076) in both the AUTHORIZATION and 
     APPROPRIATION BILLS of 1996; until such time, that President 
     Clinton can sign on the dotted line confirming that Vietnam's 
     Government is fully and totally cooperating. This would 
     entail Vietnams being forthcoming with the unilateral return 
     of U.S. Servicemen's Remains, records and documents that we 
     known they are concealing.
       At your two hearings in the Military Personnel Subcommittee 
     on the POW/MIA travesty in the past months, testimony was 
     received indicating that the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 
     continues to hide information as well as the remains of our 
     Servicemen which they dribble out slowly at their discretion 
     to give the appearance that Vietnam is fully cooperating.
       President Clinton promised that the precondition for 
     normalized relations with Vietnam would be the fullest 
     possible cooperation. Well, Clinton ``normalized'' and 
     Communist Vietnam is still deliberately and perniciously 
     dribbling out documents as you can see with the enclosed 
     Reuters' story dated (3-12-96). Where is this ``superb'' and 
     ``splendid'' cooperation by Vietnam?
       Our Families, Veterans and concerned citizens thank you for 
     your total support regarding our loved ones. Please, there 
     should be no compromise of the House language for H.R. 2076 
     (Sec. 609). We ask only for honesty, and the full unilateral 
     return of the remains of our loved ones, including the 
     records and documents before the U.S. gives the funding for 
     Diplomatic facilities in Vietnam.
       Bless you for your stalwart support.
           Sincerely,
                                           Dolores Apodaca Alfond,
     National Chairperson.
                                                                    ____



                            Veterans of the Vietnam War, Inc.,

                                     Freeport, NY, March 12, 1996.
     Hon. Ben Gilman,
     Chairman, International Relations.

     Hon. Robert Dornan,
     Chairman, Military Personnel Subcommittee.
       Dear Sirs: The Veterans of the Vietnam War, Inc. strongly 
     supports the provisions in the State Department Authorization 
     and State Department Appropriations bills that deny funds for 
     expanded relations until the Vietnamese government fully and 
     honestly cooperates to account for American Prisoners of War 
     and those still missing in action.
       Based on sworn testimony given by General James Wold before 
     the Military Personnel Subcommittee, who admitted that the 
     Communist Vietnamese government continues to withhold 
     valuable documents, including records of the Vietnamese 
     Politburo and Central Committee, our membership is adamant 
     that no further funding with American dollars be allocated to 
     the expansion of relations with the Communist government of 
     Vietnam.
       These provisions strengthen the efforts of United States 
     negotiators who are seeking the truth about the large number 
     of POW/MIA cases. These include men last known alive or whose 
     corpse was photo documented, and continued warehousing of 
     remains. The Vietnamese government can unilaterally provide 
     these remains, records and documents that will lead to 
     resolution of this ongoing tragedy. Without this leverage, 
     the Vietnamese Communists will never give us the answers that 
     they are withholding on hundreds of brave Americans.
       It is in the interest of the American people and the 
     Clinton Administration that the President demands immediate 
     resolution to the POW/MIA issue before further funding is 
     granted.
       We thank you for your dedication to our POW's and MIA's and 
     to the TRUTH.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Joyce A. Rommel,
     National POW/MIA Dir.
                                                                    ____



                                          The American Legion,

                                Washington, DC, February 27, 1996.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     Senate Majority Leader, Hart Senate Office Building, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Dole: In December, the President vetoed the 
     Commerce-Justice-State (CJS) appropriations bill that 
     contains a provision which denies funds for expanded 
     relations with Vietnam unless he certifies that Vietnamese 
     officials are fully cooperating with efforts to account for 
     American POW/MIAs from the Vietnam War. Under this 
     certification provision, the State and Commerce Departments 
     would be prohibited from expanding the number of personnel 
     assigned to posts in Vietnam beyond what existed on July 11, 
     1995, and only allows the United States to operate the 
     Liaison Office established on January 28, 1995.
       The American Legion urges you to include this language in 
     the Omnibus Appropriations Bill that is currently under 
     consideration. The President moved to include the Socialist 
     Republic of Vietnam in the family of nations when the 
     President decided to normalize relations on July 11, 1995. 
     The Administration said this will lead to progress on the 
     issue of American Prisoners of War and Missing in Action, but 
     regretfully, we have not found that to be true.
       The Vietnamese posseses the ability to unilaterally 
     disclose information on specific cases, as Defense Department 
     officials have testified and their Comprehensive Review of 
     individual cases clearly shows. Thus, we should emphasize 
     this fact and show how important the POW/MIA issue continues 
     to be to the American people by limiting funds for diplomatic 
     facilities in Vietnam subject to the President's 
     certification that Vietnam is ``fully cooperating.''
       The American Legion expects the fullest possible accounting 
     of our POW/MIAs, and believes that withholding funds for 
     diplomatic facilities would restore at least some of the 
     leverage the United States has surrendered while prematurely 
     normalizing relations with Vietnam.
       The American Legion thanks you for your continuing strong 
     support on this important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Daniel A. Ludwig,
     National Commander.
                                                                    ____



                                   Disabled American Veterans,

                                   Washington, DC, March 12, 1996.
     Hon. Robert K. Dornan,
     Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman,
     House of Representatives, 1201 Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Dornan and Gilman: The provisions in 
     section 609 of H.R. 1561 are consistent with the DAV's 
     position, as embodied in and mandated by a resolution adopted 
     in National Convention, that calls for release of any 
     Americans who may still be held captive, return of the 
     remains of deceased service members, and the fullest possible 
     accounting of those still missing as a condition to 
     increasing our relations with the Socialist Republic of 
     Vietnam. The DAV therefore supports the provisions of section 
     609 and urges that they be retained in the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                Richard F. Schultz
     National Legislative Director.
                                                                    ____

                                                  National Vietnam


                                           Veterans Coalition,

                                   Washington, DC, March 12, 1996.
      Re Appropriation Bill (H.R. 2076, Sec. 609)--Limitation of 
         funding for the upgrading of the U.S. Embassy in the 
         Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

     Rep. Robert Dornan,
     Chairman, Military Personnel Subcommittee, 1201 Longworth 
         Bldg., Washington, DC.

     Rep. Ben Gilman,
     Chairman, House International Relations, 2449 Rayburn House 
         Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressmen: The FY 1996 Commerce/Justice/State House 
     Appropriations Bill passed the House on March 7, 1996, 
     keeping in tact Section 609--``Limitation of the use of funds 
     for diplomatic facilities in Vietnam''. It is our 
     understanding that President Clinton is now seeking to VETO 
     this bill in opposition to Section 609.
       The National Vietnam Veterans Coalition urges President 
     Clinton to reassess his position on this matter. The 
     Coalition in its entirety, strongly and unanimously supports 
     the present language of this bill. This provision is 
     necessary to assure a full accounting of American POW/MIAs. 
     This provision will also enhance prospects of U.S. Vietnamese 
     economic relations by firmly demonstrating to Vietnam that 
     the United States will accept nothing less than honesty in 
     all relations that affect both nations.
       We are asking that the President do nothing more than what 
     he, himself has always committed to the American people. In 
     January, the United States told Vietnam that resolving the 
     fate of missing U.S. servicemen would be its priority 
     regarding any future ties between the two countries and said 
     at that time we wanted more progress.
       As we all know this has not happened. Again, we are urging 
     the President to reassess his position and to sign this bill 
     in its entirely.
           Sincerely,

                                         J. Thomas Burch, Jr.,

                                                Chairman, National
     Vietnam Veterans Coalition.
                                                                    ____



                                    American Defense Institute

                                                   March 12, 1996.
     Hon. Robert K. Dornan
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel, House of 
         Representatives, LHOB-1201, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Dornan: The American Defense Institute 
     respectfully requests the House to make one final effort to 
     obtain information on missing U.S. servicemen before our 
     nation fully embraces Vietnam. The House can demonstrate to 
     the Hanoi government America's continuing concern about

[[Page H2080]]

     men like James Kelly Patterson, my navigator, whose name 
     surfaced in the Foreign Broadcast Information System, 
     February 28, 1996, stating that evidence exits that he had 
     been forced to work at a secret arms testing site in the 
     Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan. Denying diplomatic funding in 
     the Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations Bill (section 609 
     of H.R. 2076) as passed by the House, will help accomplish a 
     final resolution to this national tragedy.
       The Administration has clearly stated the nation's 
     intention to move forward with diplomatic ties with Vietnam. 
     At the same time, Department of Defense officials have 
     testified that there has not been full disclosure of 
     information Vietnam can provide to account for missing 
     Americans. Is it not unreasonable to limit diplomatic 
     activity until that information is forthcoming? Can we do 
     less for our fallen soldiers?
       As a defense policy organization, the American Defense 
     Institute considers the nation's continuing effort to obtain 
     information on missing service personnel to be critical to 
     the morale of those serving in the military today. On behalf 
     of those active duty men and women, POW/MIA families who 
     still wait for answers, the majority of former Vietnam POWs, 
     and most of the nation's 27 million veterans, we urge the 
     Senate to join with the House of Representatives and say with 
     one voice to the government of Vietnam that full diplomatic 
     relations with the United States must be earned by providing 
     all available information on missing Americans.
           Sincerely,
                                               Eugene B. McDaniel,
     President.
                                                                    ____



     dornan two dozen mia cases to be unilaterally resolved by the 
                         government of vietnam

       Refno 0021.--Versace, Humberto Rocque.
       Refno 0024.--Roraback, Kenneth M.
       Refno 0050.--Cook, Donald Gilbert.
       Refno 0054.--McLean, James Henry.
       Refno 0096.--Hall, Walter Louis.
       Refno 0105.--Lindsey, Marvin Nelson.
       Refno 0162.--Pogreba, Dean Andrew.
       Refno 0215.--Nordahl, Lee E.
       Refno 0691.--Patterson, James Kelly.
       Refno 1329.--Francisco, Sam Dewayne.
       Refno 1329.--Morrison Joseph C.
       Refno 1388.--Brucher, John Martin.
       Refno 1402.--McDonnell, John Terrence.
       Refno 1405.--Luna, Carter Pervis.
       Refno 1437.--Brashear, William James.
       Refno 1437.--Mundt, Henry G.
       Refno 1456.--Sparks, Donald L.
       Refno 1625.--Duke, Charles R.
       Refno 1719.--Burnett, Sheldon John.
       Refno 1747.--Pearce, Dale Allen.
       Refno 1747.--Soyland, David Pecor.
       Refno 1748.--Entrican, Dannly D.
       Refno 1843.--Wiles, Marvin Benjamin C.
       Refno 1927.--Borah, Daniel Vernon Jr.
       Refno 1934.--Anderson, Robert Dale.
       Refno 1945.--Brown, Robert Mack.
       Refno 1945.--Morrisey, Robert D.
       Refno 1948.--Stafford, Ronald Dean.
       Special Case, Laos--Renno 0084.--Hrdlicka, David Louis
                                                                    ____



     wold list dpmo cases requiring critical vietnamese assistance

       0023.--Cody, Howard Rudolph.
       0024.--Roraback, Kenneth M.
       0047.--Tadios, Leonard Masayon.
       0048.--Parks, Joe.
       0049.--Bennett, Harold George.
       0050.--Cook, Donald Gilbert.
       0052.--Hertz, Gustav.
       0077.--Shea, James Patrick.
       0086.--Walker, Orien J.
       0096.--Compa, Joseph James, Jr.
       0096.--Curlee, Robert Lee, Jr.
       0096.--Hagen Craig Louis.
       0096.--Hall, Walter Louis.
       0096.--Johnson, Bruce G.
       0096.--Owens, Fred Monroe.
       0096.--Saegaert, Donald Russell.
       0097.--Holland, Lawrence Thomas.
       0099.--Schumann, John Robert.
       0105.--Lindsey, Marvin Nelson.
       0121.--Gray, Harold Edwin, Jr.
       0266.--Smith, Harold Victor.
       0301.--Mape, John Clement.
       0315.--Cooper, William Earl.
       0326.--Malone, Jimmy M.
       0350.--Alberton, Bobby Joe.
       0350.--Edmondson, William Rothroc.
       0350.--McDonald, Emmett Raymond.
       0350.--Shingledecker, Armon D.
       0350.--Stickney, Phillip J.
       0430.--Eaton, Curtis Abbot.
       0435.--Milikin, Richard M., III.
       0476.--Taylor, Danny Gene.
       0512.--Scungio, Vincent Anthony.
       0529.--Niehouse, Daniel Lee.
       0542.--Begley, Burriss Nelson.
       0586.--Silva, Claude Arnold.
       0589.--Poor, Russell Arden.
       0641.--O'Grady, John Francis.
       0680.--Jefferson, James Milton.
       0727.--Apodaca, Victor Joe., Jr.
       0732.--Klemm, Donald M.
       0826.--Moore, Herbert William, Jr.
       1065.--Hunt, Robert W.
       1093.--Ray, James Michael.
       1112.--Cichon, Walter Alan.
       1258.--Acosta-Rosario, Humberto.
       1260.--Ferguson, Walter, Jr.
       1277.--Shark Earl E.
       1329.--Francisco, San DeWayne.
       1329.--Morrison, Joseph C.
       1456.--Sparks, Donald L.
       1504.--Cook, Glenn Richard.
       1538.--Long, Carl Edwin.
       1719.--Ard, Randolph Jefferson.
       1719.--Burnett, Sheldon John.
       1843.--Wiles, Marvin Benjamin C.
       1870.--Fowler, James Alan.
       1870.--Seuell, John W.
       1924.--Buell, Kenneth Richard.
       1934.--Anderson, Robert Dale.
       1940.--Hall, James Wayne.
       1952.--McElvain, James Richard.
       1952.--Ward, Ronald J.
       1965.--Bennett, Thomas Waring, Jr.
       1978.--Bush, Elbert Wayne.
       1978.--Deane, William Lawrence.
       1978.--Lauterio, Manuel Alonzo.
       1978.--Stinson, William Sherril.
       1978.--Wilson, Mickey Allen.

       69 INDIVIDUALS.--(51 CASES)
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, if passed into law, this bill would be 
the beginning of the U.S. withdrawal from the international arena.
  If this bill passes, the United States is on the slippery slope 
toward isolationism, and as the last superpower, the United States 
cannot withdraw from the world. Sections of this bill force the United 
States to retreat from further engagement in world affairs.
  American leadership in the international arena is directly threatened 
by this bill. The conduct of foreign policy is a significant 
Presidential prerogative. It is not the prerogative of the Congress. 
Presidential authority to conduct foreign policy and direct national 
security legislation is severely curtailed by this bill.
  The President should always be prepared to consult the Congress in 
foreign policy questions, but this bill goes too far in undermining the 
ability of the President to conduct foreign policy. The bill does not 
authorize the necessary level of funding for the President to conduct 
effective foreign policy.
  Diplomacy is America's first line of defense. Diplomacy is essential 
to maintaining American leadership in world affairs. Diplomacy is also 
an inexpensive way to represent vital U.S. interests abroad.
  I recently returned from a trip overseas in the subcontinent, and I 
spoke to many foreign service officers, AID officers, USIA officers. 
They are demoralized. They feel that their true worth and value is not 
appreciated by this Congress. These are men and women that risk their 
lives, do their jobs well, are patriotic, effective and efficient, yet 
they are being sent a message that their service is not important, that 
funding for their agency is not important, that they are furloughed.
  This is not the way to treat America's diplomats. These are men and 
women that form the elite of the American Federal Government. They have 
been tested through extensive examinations. They do not deserve this 
treatment.
  The United States spends slightly more than 1 percent of its Federal 
budget on international diplomacy and international assistance 
programs. This investment in peace and prosperity is the cornerstone of 
our national security policy. It is clearly cheaper to engage in 
diplomacy than to pay for military operations.
  At this very time that we are in a state of tension between Taiwan 
and China, there is a provision in this bill, section 1601, amending 
the Taiwan Relations Act that is going to increase risk at a time of 
heightened tensions. This is not the time, this is not the week, this 
is not the day to be sending a message at a time of very heightened 
tensions. We have ships and destroyers in a state of alarm in Taiwan 
and in China. This is not the time when we abruptly shift policy and 
tie the President's hands.
  We also have a provision on international organizations which would 
provide inadequate funding levels for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 and 
unworkable notification requirements which would undermine our 
diplomatic efforts in the U.N. and also are efforts to reform the U.N. 
system. This is not the kind of bill nor the kind of initiative we want 
to be sending at this time.
  The bill also threatens the existence of vital international agencies 
in foreign policy. The U.S. Agency for International Development, the 
U.S. Information Agency, and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency 
may all be shut down by passage of this bill. At

[[Page H2081]]

least one of them is going to be closed down. What is America's foreign 
policy going to be, if not to help international markets for American 
firms, extending America's promise of freedom through the free flow of 
information, and to make the world safe from the horrors of nuclear 
warfare?

  Mr. Speaker, this is not a good bill. There are many serious Members 
on the other side that know the limits and the possibilities of 
American foreign policy. They know that we are the last superpower. 
They know that, regrettably, because we resolved the Bosnia issue and 
many others, that the world is coming to us for leadership. When we 
retreat and when we say that we cannot staff our embassies and we close 
consulates, not providing services to Americans and not showing the 
American flag, that is a signal at this time of our existence when the 
American leadership is not only going to be questioned, but once again 
many are going to say that the American giant, the country that is a 
hope for freedom and diplomacy and democracy, is not out there to do 
its job.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a good bill. It should not be passed. The 
President's right to conduct foreign policy should be maintained, and 
this bill does not do that.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I simply want to commend the gentleman 
who just spoke for his excellent and his very thoughtful statement. His 
points, especially those made relative to the fine men and women who 
serve us overseas and what we owe them, I think could not have been 
better said.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Mexico, perhaps more than any 
Member of this Congress, knows how helpful Members of this Congress can 
be in the execution of foreign policy, and I think that it is correct 
to say that foreign policy is not the exclusive right of the executive 
branch. It is an area where we both have an interest.
  I would agree, as I said in my opening remarks, that the executive 
branch has primary responsibility, but we have primary oversight 
responsibility. Surely in terms of foreign policy of the national 
interests of the United States, this body has a tremendous amount to 
say and should have a tremendous amount to say.
  Second, I would like to reply just very briefly to the remarks of my 
distinguished colleague from California, Mr. Beilenson, about this 
question about points of order. We had looked very closely into that 
ourselves, and, as traditional with conference reports, I would have 
waived all points of order against it. We had gotten to the conclusion, 
after checking with CBO, that we in fact have no unfunded mandate. 
Therefore, we did not see any problem with waiving a rule when there 
was no unfunded mandate. In fact, I have a letter I will introduce into 
the Record from the Congressional Budget Office dated March 12, that in 
fact says, among other things, the bill would impose no 
intergovernmental private-sector mandates as defined by Public Law 1044 
and would have no direct budgetary impacts on State, local, or tribal 
governments. I believe that as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I will also include in the Record a statement which 
would have been our statement had we actually taken the point of order 
question to the floor. I would simply say it would be a futile gesture 
to provide an answer when there is no problem, although that is the 
kind of thing we do very well in government these days. It seems at 
great cost to the taxpayers, and I would put that point of order in 
that particular category.
  Finally, I would like to urge strong support for the rule at this 
time. Whether one agrees with the substance of the bill, the rule is 
actually a pretty good rule. It should allow us to get on with our job. 
I think there is every reason for people to support this particular 
rule.

  Mr. Speaker, the letter and statement referred to earlier are 
included for the Record.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the question of 
consideration of this rule and urge an ``aye'' vote on it. Let me make 
quite clear from the outset that the point of order that has triggered 
this separate 20-minute debate and vote is completely bogus--there are 
no unfunded mandates in this State Department conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, the point of order was made that House Resolution 375 is 
in violation of section 426(a) of the Budget Act which prohibits the 
consideration of a rule that waives section 425 of the Budget Act 
relating to unfunded mandates. A section 425 point of order is 
triggered if the maker of the point of order can, and I quote, 
``specify the precise language on which it is premised.''
  In this case, the existence of a blanket waiver in this rule is 
sufficient specific language to trigger the point of order and a 
separate debate and vote. There is no requirement that a point of order 
against the rule need identify any matter in the conference report that 
might be in violation of the unfunded mandate procedures.
  And so, while the rule waives all points of order against the 
conference report, implicitly including any unfunded mandate points of 
order, there is no provision that we are aware of in the conference 
report that remotely relates to mandates on State or local governments.
  There were no such mandates identified by the Congressional Budget 
Office in the House reported bill, or in the House-passed bill, H.R. 
1561, or in the Senate-passed bill. Nor are we aware of any that have 
been added in conference.
  I would therefore submit that while the point of order may be 
technically valid because this is a blanket waiver, its use in this 
instance is an abuse of process--a dilatory tactic designed to prolong 
and delay consideration by the House of this boilerplate rule on a 
conference report that contains no unfunded mandates of order and that 
the House should not be subjected to additional debate and a vote where 
no such valid point of order would lie.
  So, the question might be asked, Why not exempt the unfunded mandate 
point of order from the blanket waiver in the rule? The point of order 
that has been made against this rule is the perfect answer to that 
question. While you can have only one bogus point of order against the 
rule, you could have an infinite number raised against the conference 
report--each of which would trigger a separate debate and vote of the 
House to consider the conference report.
  In other words, the minority has already made the case for the 
blanket waiver with this completely groundless and dilatory point of 
order against the rule. I would therefore urge that the motion to 
consider this rule be adopted.

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                   Washington, DC, March 12, 1996.
     Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman,
     Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to the request of your 
     staff, the Congressional Budget Office has reviewed the 
     Conference Report to H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997, as reported on 
     March 8, 1996. The bill would consolidate various foreign 
     affairs agencies, authorize appropriations for the Department 
     of State and related agencies, and address other matters in 
     foreign relations.
       The bill could impose no intergovernmental or private 
     sector mandates as defined by Public law 104-4 and would have 
     no direct budgetary impacts on state, local, or tribal 
     governments.
       We are preparing a separate federal cost estimate for later 
     transmittal.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Pepper 
     Santalucia (225-3220) for effects on state, local, and tribal 
     governments, and Eric Labs (226-2900) for impacts on the 
     private sector.
           Sincerely,
                                                  June E. O'Neill.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BEILENSON. 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.

[[Page H2082]]

  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 226, 
nays 180, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 56]

                               YEAS--226

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     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
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     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

                               NAYS--180

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

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Barton
     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Collins (IL)
     de la Garza
     DeLay
     Durbin
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Ford
     Gallegly
     Green
     Johnson, Sam
     Laughlin
     Ortiz
     Roukema
     Rush
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Waxman
     Wilson

                              {time}  1749

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________