[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.
____________________