[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 57 (Tuesday, April 30, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H4151-H4161]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 1996 AND 1997--VETO 
            MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the further 
consideration of the veto message of the President of the United States 
on the bill (H.R. 1561) to consolidate the foreign affairs agencies of 
the United States; to authorize appropriations for the Departments 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.
  The question is, will the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill, 
the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], pending which I 
yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, during this 
debate, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.


                             general leave

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

[[Page H4152]]

may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on the veto message on H.R. 1561.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, despite the President's State of the Union 
promise to ``end the era of big government'', on Friday, April 12, 
President Clinton vetoed H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Authorization 
Act. This compromise bill delivered on the President's pledge to reduce 
the size of Government through a flexible reorganization of the 
international affairs agencies. It was, regrettably, rejected by the 
administration as unacceptably restrictive.
  I am stunned by this assessment. Instead of working with the 
International Relations Committees to fulfill the mutual goals of 
reforming our international operations, the administration remained 
mute and unwilling to find a bipartisan approach.
  The administration's attempts to reinvent and reform Government, are 
merely hollow platitudes, with little creativity, or bipartisan support 
to sustain them. This is a great disappointment since we should be well 
on our way to organizing our international relations for the next 
century. The only thing this administration has reinvented are new 
excuses to maintain the status quo.
  Let me remind my colleagues that in January 1995, Secretary of State 
Warren Christopher proposed the idea to President Clinton to 
consolidate the foreign affairs agencies that proliferated during the 
cold war. He argued that consolidation would reduce duplication, cut 
the budget, and provide a firm new direction to U.S. foreign policy in 
this century. Secretary Christopher was right. His idea recognized that 
to meet a changed world, the institutions themselves need to be 
changed.
  The core missions of the Agency for International Development, the 
U.S. Information Agency, and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency to 
contain the spread of communism all dissipated with the fall of the 
Berlin Wall. Regrettably, the President disagreed with his own 
Secretary of State and chose to defend the bureaucracies. The Foreign 
Relations Authorization Act was offered as the blueprint for the 
future, yet the President vetoed this bill.
  Many of our colleagues in the House and the Senate agreed with the 
need to change the foreign affairs structure to meet the future. That 
support is well placed and appreciated. This legislation reflects the 
interests of the American public to reduce spending and zero in on the 
essential activities of our international affairs agencies. It also 
applies the MacBride fair employment principles to Northern Ireland, 
links expansion of our embassy to progress on POW's/MIA's, backs our 
allies on Taiwan, helps protect Chinese women fleeing coercive abortion 
policies, includes the Humanitarian Corridors Act to help Armenia, and 
fully funds antinarcotic and Peace Corps activities.
  I want to make a special note regarding Father Sean McManus. No one 
has fought harder against discrimination in Northern Ireland. Father 
Sean single-handedly brought the MacBride fair employment principles to 
the edge of enactment. I am greatly disturbed to see an apparent White 
House effort orchestrated to discredit Father Sean and his work, so as 
to divert attention away from another flip flop of a campaign pledge. I 
am ashamed of their actions and opposition to the cause of fair 
employment for all in Northern Ireland.
  This was a well considered bill, and reflects many of the interests 
and concerns of the administration. Over 20 major organizations 
including Citizens Against Government Waste and the American Legion 
support provisions in this bill.
  Therefore, I urge you to support the veto override motion to end 
waste, overlap, and duplication in our foreign affairs agencies. Let us 
seize this opportunity to make constructive changes that will move us 
effectively into the next century.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote to sustain the 
President's veto of H.R. 1561 and to vote no on the motion to override 
which will ensue shortly.
  H.R. 1561 is a flawed bill. It would undermine the foreign policy 
powers of the Presidency and force the adoption of policies that would 
harm U.S. national interests. It does not give the President the funds 
he needs to conduct U.S. foreign policy and protect and promote U.S. 
interests. It mandates a far-reaching reorganization of the U.S. 
foreign policy apparatus that has no connection to the real problems of 
foreign policy.
  In short, this bill, rather than revitalize U.S. foreign policy, as 
its sponsors suggest, would weaken the power of the President--any 
President--to conduct foreign policy. If we allow this bill to become 
law we would be reducing U.S. influence in the world.
  Let me mention several specific provisions.
  This bill interferes with the President's authority to organize the 
foreign affairs agencies. It mandates the elimination of at least one 
agency--any agency--and severely reduces budget levels at other 
agencies. Yet the proponents have never demonstrated the need for this 
reorganization. They have never demonstrated how the conduct of 
American foreign policy would be improved under this reorganization. 
They have merely mandated that it occur.
  This bill also includes numerous policy provisions that tie the 
President's hands in the conduct of foreign policy. I will mention just 
three of the more serious problems in this area.
  It amends the Taiwan Relations Act in a way that undermines 
longstanding United States policy on China, including the 1982 joint 
communique. The management of relations with China is one of the 
central challenges of United States foreign policy. The administration 
right now is working to reduce tensions between China and Taiwan. This 
provision if enacted would complicate, not facilitate, that task.
  It unduly restricts the President's ability to normalize relations 
with Vietnam, which could set back progress that has been made on the 
POW-MIA issue.
  It limits United States participation in international organizations, 
including the United Nations. A provision restricting intelligence 
sharing with the United Nations infringes on the President's power to 
conduct diplomacy. These provisions would also make it difficult, if 
not impossible, to pursue efforts to reform the United Nations and 
reduce the assessed United States share of the U.N. budget.
  The funding levels set in this bill are inadequate to conduct U.S. 
foreign policy and protect U.S. interests. Reduced funding levels of 
U.S. missions overseas would limit our ability to promote arms control 
and nonproliferation, reform peacekeeping, streamline public diplomacy 
and promote sustainable development.
  U.S. foreign policy is most effective when it enjoys bipartisan 
support, and when the President and Congress work together to advance 
U.S. interests. H.R. 1561 has never enjoyed bipartisan support, and 
does not appear to be based on the principle of cooperation between the 
branches. All but nine Democrats opposed this conference report when it 
was adopted in the House on March 12, by a vote of 226-172. I urge my 
colleagues who voted against the conference report to vote today to 
sustain the President's veto.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for 
yielding me the time.
  Let me just begin by expressing my very sincere thanks for the great 
job that Chairman Ben Gilman did in sheparding this legislation through 
the Congress, through both Houses, through a very difficult markup in 
full committee, the divisive floor fight that we had. Regrettably it 
was divisive, and then a very difficult conference, and now we are 
trying to deal with an override attempt, and hopefully that will 
succeed. He did a very good job. He was very fair, and this 
legislation, I

[[Page H4153]]

think, is a very reasonable piece of legislation that merits the 
support of my colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, when President Clinton vetoed H.R. 1561, the Foreign 
Relations Authorization Act of 1996 and 1997, he gave a number of 
reasons. He said that we were spending too little. He said it was 
somehow inappropriate for Congress to require the executive branch to 
consolidate Federal agencies even though the legislation mirrored 
Secretary Christopher's consolidation proposal. As a matter of fact, it 
was even less, far less than what actually Secretary Christopher wanted 
us to do. You might call it ``Christopher light'' in that regard. It 
would only consolidate and get rid of one agency rather than three.
  The President said it was inappropriate to prohibit the expansion of 
our Embassy in Hanoi until the Hanoi regime comes clean on POW's and 
MIA's. Mr. Speaker, I think the POW-MIA issue is one of the most 
important issues this Congress, this country could ever face, and not 
to link those issues with an ongoing effort to resume full diplomatic 
relations with Hanoi would be a serious mistake.
  Mr. Speaker, he objected to the provision of H.R. 1561 which states 
that the Taiwan Relations Act supersedes the joint communiques with the 
People's Republic of China, even though this is a simple and 
uncontroversial statement of law and fact. A law enacted by Congress 
and signed by the President does supersede an agreement entered into 
only by the executive to the extent that there is any conflict between 
the two.
  Then the President provided a laundry list, apparently generated by 
the State Department bureaucracies, of other provisions that they would 
prefer not to have been in the bill. By discussing these issues and 
only these issues, the President's veto message managed to obscure what 
H.R. 1561 is really all about.

  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a human rights bill. It is about the United 
States vigorously pursuing a foreign policy which is internationalist, 
not isolationist, which is driven by fairness and justice and not by 
diplomatic convenience. Despite the need to cut spending and 
consolidate programs, H.R. 1561 as passed by the House and Senate 
manages to hold harmless or even enhance the most important programs 
and to enact important policy provisions that will support freedom, 
building democracy and save lives.
  Mr. Speaker, even more important than spending levels are the foreign 
policy provisions themselves. The bill contains a number of important 
provisions that would require human rights be at the centerpiece of our 
U.S. foreign policy. For example, the Humanitarian Aid Corridors Act, 
section 1617 of the bill, would limit assistance to countries that 
restrict the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance. I 
offered this language to the bill, and I was also the prime sponsor of 
the Humanitarian Aid Corridors Act because it is wrong, absolutely 
wrong for any country receiving American assistance to keep United 
States humanitarian assistance from reaching another country; yet this 
is precisely what is being done by Turkey, which has been blockading 
Armenia for several years. The result? People die, children and mothers 
and families get sicker because our medicines and our foodstuffs never 
get to Armenia, and those that do get there get there in much lesser 
amounts.
  Then take, for example, the MacBride principles, guaranteeing that 
U.S. assistance programs in Northern Ireland will only go toward 
projects that do not engage in religious discrimination, which provide 
employment opportunities for members of the region's Catholic minority. 
Here Mr. Clinton has done 180 degrees. He has done a flip-flop.
  Members might recall that in April 1992, when asked about the 
MacBride principles, then-candidate Clinton said: I like the 
principles; I believe in them. He went on to say how strongly he 
supports them. And yet in a letter that we received from the White 
House dated April 11, Anthony Lake writes: The President does not 
believe it would be useful to place conditions on the funding we 
provide to the International Fund for Ireland.
  He is now against the MacBride principles. An election is coming up, 
so expect another flip-flop right before the election on this one. The 
proof is in the deed. The President vetoed the MacBride principles, Mr. 
Speaker, and now we have a situation where the discrimination goes on 
unabated.
  Mr. Speaker, I have so much to say in so little time. On refugee 
protection we provided very, very important language in this bill that 
protects the Vietnamese boat people, people who fought with us side-by-
side, who this administration has in the past tried to send back, 
joining with some in the international community.
  Mr. Speaker, we would help those people and we also, as the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman, 
pointed out, would help those women who today languish in U.S. prisons. 
Their only crime? They were victims of forced abortion. These women who 
appeared before my Subcommittee on International Operations and Human 
Rights came in in chains, Mr. Speaker. These women were almost 3 years 
in custody simply because they fled the tyranny of the People's 
Republic of China.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation reinstates the Reagan-Bush policy of a 
well-founded fear of persecution being sufficient if they can prove 
that they have or are in fear of getting a forced abortion.

  Mr. Speaker, we have many, many other important provisions in here 
dealing with broadcasting, protecting Radio Marti and Radio Free Asia 
and making sure that those important freedom broadcasts get up and 
running.
  This is a good bill. I urge Members to vote to override the 
President's veto on this important human rights legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record, the following information:


                           refugee protection

  The refugee provisions of H.R. 1561 would prevent United States tax 
dollars from being spent to return to Viet Nam and Laos thousands of 
men and women who served side-by-side with American forces.
  These provisions would also restore the Reagan-Bush policy of 
protecting people who can show that they are fleeing forced abortion or 
forced sterilization, or that they have actually been subjected to such 
measures--such as the women now being held in Bakersfield, California, 
most of them victims of forced abortion or forced sterilization, all of 
them about to be forced back to the People's Republic of China. Mr. 
Chairman, this urgent humanitarian provision has passed both the House 
and Senate by wide margins. The Administration recently announced that 
it supports this provision. And yet, tragically, President Clinton 
vetoed the bill that would have enacted it.
  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 on how people are treated who are 
returned to Cuba pursuant to the second Clinton-Castro immigration deal 
of May 1995. And it would fill a gap in the law by prohibiting the use 
of authorized funds to return people to places in which they are in 
clear danger of being subjected to torture.


                 democracy building and freedom support

  Despite the need for cuts in international broadcasting and other 
public diplomacy programs, H.R. 1561 would hold harmless two of our 
``freedom broadcasting'' programs: Radio Free Asia and Radio/TV Marti. 
The bill would also require that when cuts must be made, they must not 
fall disproportionately on broadcasts to countries such as Iran and 
Iraq, whose people do not enjoy freedom of information within their own 
country. The bill also requires that Radio Free Asia commence its 
broadcasts into China, Viet Nam, North Korea, Burma, and other 
countries whose people do not fully enjoy freedom and democracy, within 
6 months. And the bill would continue the authority for scholarship and 
exchange programs for Burmese and Tibetan scholars who have been forced 
into exile by the dictatorships that currently exercise authority in 
these countries.

  Mr. Speaker, even if the President were right to oppose some 
provisions of H.R. 1561, these human rights provisions were far more 
important. Mr. Speaker, I ask my friends on the other side of the 
aisle: Which is more essential to America's role in the world: 
Preserving the federal bureaucracy in exactly the same structure it 
happens to have now, or helping to end pervasive discrimination against 
Catholics in Northern Ireland? Making the embassy in Hanoi the biggest 
embassy it can possibly be, or ending blockades against U.S. 
humanitarian aid to Armenia and other countries? The sensibilities of 
the dictatorship in Beijing, the soldiers of Beijing, or the 
internationally recognized human rights of torture victims?
  The President had a clear choice. He chose to throw the baby out with 
the bath water.

[[Page H4154]]

Today we in Congress--all of us, Republicans and Democrats, who are 
interested in a vigorous American foreign policy based on American 
values--have a chance to correct the President's mistake. Let us 
override this veto by an overwhelming bipartisan margin.

  Governor Clinton on MacBride Principles at Irish Forum, New York in 
                              April, 1992


I. QUESTION BY RAY O'HANLON, IRISH ECHO: IN EFFECT: IF ELECTED WOULD HE 
                    SUPPORT THE MACBRIDE PRINCIPLES?

       Answer: ``I like the principles. I Believe in them. I would 
     encourage my successor to embrace them. If, Lord forbid, I 
     don't get elected President, I'm going to have a legislative 
     session in 1993 and would look at that. As President I would 
     encourage all the governors to look and embrace them. I think 
     it's a good idea. I like them very much.''
       Follow-up question by O'Hanlon: In effect: One of the 
     objections to the MacBride Principles is that they may 
     discourage investment, would you assure those in opposition 
     that they have nothing to fear from MacBride.
       Answer: ``Absolutely. I think that it's a way to encourage 
     investment because it's a way to stabilize the political and 
     economic climate in the work force by being free of 
     discrimination. That argument is made against any principles 
     in a country where there is discrimination. I just don't buy 
     that. I don't think that is a serious problem.''


   II. PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON MARCH 17th 1993 AT THE WHITE HOUSE ST. 
                         PATRICK'S DAY CEREMONY

       Asked by Conor O'Clery of the Irish Times if he still 
     supported the MacBride Principles, Mr. Clinton replied ``YES 
     I DO.''

  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter to which I referred:

                                              The White House,

                                   Washington, DC, April 11, 1996.
     The Reverend Sean McManus,
     President, Irish National Caucus, Inc.,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Father McManus: Thank you for your letter about the 
     legislation linking the MacBride Principles of fair 
     employment to funding for the International Fund for Ireland.
       As you know, the Administration supports the goals of fair 
     employment which the MacBride Principles embody. The 
     Administration also actively supports efforts to promote 
     trade and investment in Northern Ireland and the border 
     counties as the best way to underpin a lasting peace. The 
     President does not believe it would be useful to place 
     conditions on the funding we provide to the International 
     Fund for Ireland, which has an excellent record of attention 
     to and effectiveness on fair employment issues. U.S. 
     companies, with considerable experience in equal opportunity 
     employment, are among the best employers in Northern Ireland 
     in terms of meeting the goals of fair employment.
       The setting of the June 10 date for the beginning of 
     comprehensive negotiations on the future of Northern Ireland 
     marks a watershed in the peace process. In this critical 
     period, the Administration will continue to work with the two 
     governments and the parties to help them achieve a just and 
     lasting settlement in Northern Ireland. I appreciate your 
     support for our efforts.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Anthony Lake,

                                    Assistant to the President for
                                        National Security Affairs.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, there are some very good human rights 
provisions here, as my colleague from New Jersey mentioned. The 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], is a very good chairman of the 
Committee on International Relations.
  This bill, nonetheless, still needs to be defeated. It has gone 
through a revision. It is better than it was when we first were 
presented with it, but it still should be vetoed, principally because 
it infringes on the President's right to conduct foreign policy. It 
micromanages foreign policy. It forces the consolidation of agencies. 
It basically tells the President that he has to eliminate agencies to 
conduct foreign policy.
  Mr. Speaker, it also authorizes spending levels that would force 
other organizations in the international diplomacy area to retreat. In 
other words, we are retreating as internationalists through some of the 
spending provisions in this bill. Plus, the bill fails to provide 
necessary flexibility for the administration to manage all of these 
agencies that this bill is ordering virtually be dismantled.
  The bill also hurts in very key areas in the funding levels: Arms 
control and nonproliferation, international peacekeeping, international 
organizations, public diplomacy, sustainable development. What this is 
going to cause is a severe reduction in force of highly skilled 
personnel at several of our foreign affairs agencies.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill messes with our China policy. We do not need 
right now to get into China policy. Things are very delicate there. We 
do not need to repudiate what President Nixon and Secretary of State 
Kissinger, then National Security Adviser Kissinger, preceded with in 
the Taiwan Relations Act. What we have now is a new venture, a new 
China policy, which is not in this bill what we should be doing at this 
moment.
  Relations with Vietnam, this is a very, very sticky issue. The last 
thing we want to do is deter and impede progress on the POW-MIA issue. 
It is coming. It is coming slowly. I do not think we want to provoke a 
reaction that is going to stymie any further progress.
  On participation in international organizations, Mr. Speaker, I am a 
member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I think we 
have some good safeguards right now that deal with intelligence sharing 
with U.N. agencies. We do not need further micromanagement of this 
issue.
  On housing guaranteed programs: South Africa, Eastern Europe, some 
very good country programs in these nations. Section 111 would 
terminate several of these programs, specifically as I said before, in 
South Africa and Eastern Europe. And family planning, this bill is not 
a good bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to, despite the fact that this is not a good 
bill, acknowledge the very worthwhile efforts by many internationalists 
on the other side. I think the President has the main ability and right 
to conduct foreign policy. We are interfering in that.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Indiana has made some very 
viable and positive statements about what our role as a Congress should 
be. We do have a role, of oversight, of war powers. But when we get in 
and micromanage specific situations, I do not think it is in the best 
interest of this country. The President's veto should be upheld.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], a senior member of our 
Committee on International Relations.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to join 
me in voting to override the President's veto of the conference report 
to H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1561 makes several reforms to our Nation's foreign 
policy apparatus: Reducing bureaucracy and cutting waste, while 
preserving our ability to conduct the foreign affairs of the Nation. 
That the President would veto a bill which reduces duplication, cuts 
the budget, provides firm direction to our foreign policy is baffling 
to me. You cannot say you support balancing the budget and then veto 
packages which would accomplish just that. You cannot say you support 
eliminating bureaucracy and then veto a bill which does just that.
  However, the president's veto of the bill did more than simply damage 
our efforts to cut bureaucracy. His veto also directly affects the 
lives of Chinese detainees held for over 1,000 days in the York County 
jail in my district, the very city where the Articles of Confederation 
were written and signed, the very city which was the first capital of 
the United States. What is their crime? Many of these men fled China in 
fear of China's coercive abortion and sterilization policy.
  It was mentioned that we cannot interfere with our Chinese policy. 
What is our Chinese policy? I have tried to speak to the President of 
the United States on this issue for several months, and I only get to 
speak to the National Security Adviser. When I spoke with him, I said: 
I suppose this business has something to do with our Chinese policy. He 
said: Oh, no, it has nothing to do with our Chinese policy or he would 
know about it, and he did not know about it.
  Had these individuals fled China for the United States when the last 
two Presidents were in office, they would likely have been granted 
asylum in the United States. Under President Reagan, then Bush, fear of 
repressive coercive population control policy, which China clearly 
employs, was

[[Page H4155]]

grounds for asylum. Under the Reagan-Bush policy, these individuals 
would likely have been set free, and the Federal Government would not 
be paying over $1 million in taxpayers' money each year to keep them 
locked up.
  Unfortunately, President Clinton changed the policy when he took 
office in the belief that fear of forced abortion or sterilization does 
not merit asylum in this country. H.R. 1561 would change the U.S. law 
back to the Reagan-Bush policy, which was the law of the land for many 
years and which hardly resulted in our Nation being overrun by hordes 
of asylum seekers.
  Mr. Speaker, I am the first to say that illegal immigrants who have 
no grounds for asylum must be sent away. But it is wrong to make an 
example of these Chinese men and women who fear coercive population 
policy. This provision is supported by the Family Research Council, the 
National Right to life Committee, various churches and pro-life groups. 
This provision is humane and, most of all, it speaks well of America 
and Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Gilman for his work on this 
bill, and I urge all Members to override the veto, return fiscal sanity 
and justice to American foreign policy.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California, [Mr. Berman], a member of the 
Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in urging my colleagues to vote to sustain the 
President's veto of H.R. 1561. This is the third vote we have had on 
this bill. Last June, 192 Democrats voted against H.R. 1561. More 
recently in March, only nine Democrats supported the conference report. 
Only six Republicans voted against the conference report.

                              {time}  1730

  There is no bipartisan support for this bill.
  As I said at the time the conference report was adopted, this was the 
first time in 13 years that I had the honor of serving in this body 
that a State Department authorization bill has been taken up in 
committee, on the floor, or out of a conference committee without 
bipartisan support.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield. Let me just finish my 
statement, and then, if I have time, I would be happy to yield to the 
gentleman.
  Why is this bill for the first time breaking with the tradition that 
this House and this Congress has had to pass this legislation on a 
bipartisan basis? It is because this bill is not about a bipartisan 
foreign policy. It is not about protecting America's national interests 
while rationally reforming Government. This is about tying another 
scalp to the Republicans' Contract With America belt. It is about 
nailing another agency so that the Republicans could pretend to claim 
to have reduced the size of the Federal Government without regard as to 
whether or not their plan made sense and protected our national 
interests, just like the cockamamie idea to abolish the Commerce 
Department when it took every single purpose of that Department and put 
it in some other part of the Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, their plan would have eliminated the Arms Control and 
Disarmament Agency at a time in which clearly one of the most serious 
threats we face are weapons of mass destruction: nuclear, biological, 
and chemical. It is about usurping the rights of a Democratic Commander 
in Chief, trying to paint the President into a corner so he would 
appear ineffective. Well, President Clinton stood strong, said ``No.'' 
As he stated in his veto message, the inflexible, detailed mandates and 
artificial deadlines included in this bill should not be imposed on any 
President.
  I urge my colleagues to support the President, to sustain his veto, 
and, if I have any additional times, I am happy to yield to my friend, 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. 
Just let me say that, as my colleague knows, he must find some things 
in this bill that he agrees with. I mean we worked together on the 
refugee provisions. There are a lot of things in this bill: the boat 
people, protections that are in the bill.
  But let me just say, so the record is very, very clear about this, 
during markup of this legislation we had five hearings that preceded 
the markup in my subcommittee because major provisions of this bill 
went through my subcommittee because we are the committee of 
jurisdiction on the State Department. I was much aghast and chagrined 
by the fact that my ranking member walked out. Rather than participate 
in the markup, he walked out.
  So we talk about bipartisanship. We sought at every turn to include 
rather than to exclude.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond simply by pointing 
out two things.
  One, I think in retrospect that that was a mistake. Second, the 
gentleman knows full well, because he has told me on many occasions, he 
does not agree with the decision to abolish these agencies. He thinks 
the U.S. Information Agency has a purpose independent from the State 
Department in communicating a message to the captive countries of this 
world that agency from the government to government relationships of 
that State Department. He knows there is no underlying sense in the 
abolition of these agencies; that is why we are supporting the 
President's veto. That is why it is the right thing.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from 
California pointed out, I had misgivings about the consolidation taken 
as it was originally passed by the House, but we worked with that. 
There was a spirit of compromise, a spirit of giving and taking, and we 
got from a consolidation of three agencies down to one, leaving the 
option to the President of the United States to decide which agency 
would go. It is my feeling that USIA would not go. It is made up of 
many more people than ACDA and ACDA was the most likely, which is a 
relic of the cold war period. I did not know that for sure, but now I 
have come to that conclusion after much study and research.
  So it could be done. We have got to save money.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Chabot], another distinguished member of our Committee on 
International Relations.
  (Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the effort to 
override President Clinton's ill-advised veto of the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act. It is time to end the foreign aid ripoffs, and this 
legislation is a good start.
  I want to take a moment to applaud the hard work and tremendous 
leadership of the chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. 
Chairman Gilman and the Committee on International Relations' staff 
have spent countless hours putting together a truly historic piece of 
foreign policy legislation, only to have it vetoed by a President who 
prefers the status quo. From the time our committee began deliberations 
last year, the Clinton administration stood in the way. In fact, top 
White House lobbyists promised to and I quote, ``delay, obfuscate and 
derail any effort to consolidate outmoded foreign policy bureaucracies 
and reduce the amount of taxpayer dollars used for foreign aid.'' They 
tried but had failed. Congress passed the bill, but the liberal foreign 
policy establishment had the last word. The President vetoed the 
legislation saying that our money levels, quote, ``fall unacceptably 
below the level of foreign aid'' he wants.
  Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at just what the President vetoed: a 
bill that would drastically reduce waste in our foreign affairs 
bureaucracies, that would fully fund our international war on drugs, 
that would assist Chinese women fleeing coercive abortion policies. 
that would finally apply McBride fair employment practices to Northern 
Ireland, and that would support our longtime friends and allies in 
Taiwan.
  Why did President Clinton veto this bill? Too many reforms, too 
little bureaucracy, too few tax dollars going to foreign aid. So much 
for the President who recently told us that the era of big government 
is over.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1561 is a good bill. It would strengthen America's 
role in

[[Page H4156]]

foreign affairs, and it would provide much needed relief to the 
American taxpayer.
  Let us say no to the status quo, no to the ripoffs. Override the 
Clinton veto.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Houston, TX [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank my colleague from Florida, and I 
guess I risk to vigorously disagree with my well-intended colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle.
  I come from a community richly diverse, with many international 
citizens and international concerns. This is a bad bill, and I would 
rather have a better bill. I realize the intensity of the work that 
went into H.R. 1561, and I applaud those who have worked on it. But I 
think we can go a step further and make this bill more responsive to 
the responsibilities of the President of the United States.
  This bill would impede the President's authority to organize and 
administer foreign affairs agencies to best serve the Nation's 
interests. The Agency for International Development, United States 
Information Agency, and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency are 
doing valuable work that would be undermined if various programs are 
consolidated under the State Department.
  Yes, we can save money. We all agree that a balanced budget is 
important. But the cuts in this particular legislation undermine the 
President's effort and this country to be a world leader.
  This bill does not speak well of America's leadership in the world. 
As a superpower, we must lead by example. We must promote democracy and 
human rights. We must not isolate ourselves from the rest of the world.
  I would ask my colleagues to consider sustaining the President's 
veto. For example, this bill limits U.S. population assistance. Here we 
go again, with personal interests and attitudes about the United 
States' very forceful and productive efforts in working with the world 
population.
  This bill does not allow very important agencies, like the U.S. 
Information Agency, to carry on its responsibilities, and likewise, I 
say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, this bill simply ties 
the chief executive officer's responsibility on the world forum.
  Yes, it is important to find a balance between the interests of 
Taiwan and China. Well, we must find it in a way that fairly treats all 
entities in this and respect previous obligations that this country has 
made and the Congress has approved. Yes, we must deal with countries 
like Indonesia and Burma and Turkey and Ireland, but we must likewise 
see fit to insure that we bring forth a balanced State Department 
funding and State Department legislative bill.
  I would ask simply that this veto be sustained in order for us to get 
the better bill, the better bill that would insure the reimplementation 
of agencies such as the Agency for International Development, the 
United States Information Agency, and Arms Control and Disarmament 
Agency, as well as insuring that the opportunity to deal with U.S. 
population and opportunities and service around the world are 
continued.
  Please respond and recognize we must work with the President, not 
against the President, to insure the right kind of policy 
internationally.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Manzullo], another member of our Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, in his State of the Union Address, 
President Clinton boldly declared that the era of big Government was 
over. Sadly enough, our vote to override the President's veto of H.R. 
1561, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, proves the hollowness of 
his claim.
  H.R. 1561 is the first bill in 40 years to reduce and reform this 
country's international affairs bureaucracies. A multitude of 
international agencies and programs proliferated during the cold war in 
an effort to contain and roll back global communism. With this mission 
successfully completed, it is time to redesign our foreign policy 
apparatus. H.R. 1561 consolidates the Agency for International 
Development, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the U.S. 
Information Agency into the State Department and reduces their budgets 
to force streamlining efforts. This bill will save the taxpayers $1.7 
billion over 4 years.
  In January 1995, Secretary of State Warren Christopher proposed to 
President Clinton that he consolidate the many foreign affairs agencies 
that had sprung up during the cold war. Mr. Christopher wisely argued 
that the Agencies' independence did not facilitate cohesive 
policymaking. Republicans took the Secretary at his word and devised 
such a streamlining bill. Unfortunately, President Clinton ignored the 
advice of his own Secretary of State when he vetoed H.R. 1561.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill reduces bureaucratic duplication, it cuts the 
budget, and provides a bold new direction to U.S. foreign policy for 
the coming century. I ask my colleagues to help end the era of big 
Government and support the motion to override President Clinton's veto.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this provision, as vetoed by President Clinton, is 
styled the American Overseas Interest Act. I find it passing strange 
that in all of our discussions, not just here today, but in the runup 
to this particular measure being on the House floor and the subsequent 
veto by the President, very little is being said about American 
interests abroad in a fashion that allows for the private sector to be 
considered by those actions that are undertaken by us as policymakers.
  It is a fact that American business interests benefit greatly from 
the efforts that are put forth on behalf of our great country. Toward 
that end I cannot believe that we would want to mandate such a far-
reaching reorganization of the U.S. foreign policy apparatus that has 
no connection to the real problems of foreign policy.

                              {time}  1645

  In my view, having sat in many hearings with my colleagues, it is 
reorganization for the sake of reorganization. In the final analysis, 
it just simply will not serve the best interests of this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the veto override of H.R. 
1561, the American Overseas Interest Act.
  One of the most important provisions in this bill is the inclusion of 
the MacBride Fair Employment Principles, consisting of nine fair 
employment, antidiscriminatory principles that are a corporate code of 
conduct for United States companies doing business in Northern Ireland. 
The MacBride Principles were initiated in November 1984 and since their 
inception have provided Irish-Americans with a direct, meaningful, and 
nonviolent means of addressing injustice in Northern Ireland. The 
principles do not call for quotas, reverse discrimination, divestment--
the withdrawal of United States companies from Northern Ireland--or 
disinvestment--the withdrawal of funds now invested in firms with 
operations in Northern Ireland.
  It is my hope that someday employment practices in Northern Ireland 
will be fair so that this kind of legislation will no longer be 
necessary. However, at this stage in the Northern Ireland peace process 
the voice of the United States on the topic of fair employment 
practices is more critical than ever. I am proud to endorse this bill 
and urge its passage.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], a senior member of our Committee 
on International Relations and the distinguished chairman of our 
Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the chairman of the full 
committee, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the President has been very badly advised in vetoing 
this bill. It is clear that the foreign aid establishment has closed 
ranks in opposition to any meaningful reforms. The bureaucracy has 
worked overtime to maneuver the President into opposing any

[[Page H4157]]

changes in our Government's bloated and outdated foreign policy 
machinery.
  Consider just two provisions of our bill which the bureaucracy has 
fought tooth and nail: First, our bill curtails the foreign aid 
pipeline. How many Members in this House know that AID has $8 billion 
socked away? That is right, $8 billion left over from previous years. 
This is on top of the $6 billion that Congress appropriated to AID this 
year. Five years ago, AID alerted us to this problem. For 5 years, we 
have fought to put some limits on this program.
  The bill before us would reduce this foreign aid waste by $1 billion. 
It would help make permanent reforms to stop the waste that results 
from overfunding foreign aid programs. But the opponents of this bill 
say no to any cuts in the foreign aid pipeline.
  Second, the bill shuts down one of the worst-run programs in the 
Government, the housing guarantee program. How many Members know that 
for 35 years, the American taxpayer has cosigned loans all over the 
world for housing and community development? Today, the American 
taxpayer is in hock for nearly $3 billion in these guaranteed loans in 
44 countries.
  My subcommittee has conducted a 2-year investigation of this program. 
Do Members know what we uncovered? We uncovered huge losses in this 
program. Half, half of the countries which have U.S.-backed loans have 
stopped payment. That is right; 22 out of the 44 countries. GAO 
estimates that we are going to have to pay over $1 billion in bad 
loans. Our bill would shut down this program and stop the losses by 
imposing tough penalties on these deadbeat foreign governments. But the 
foreign aid bureaucracy wants to keep this program going even though it 
is hemorrhaging money.
  There are two other examples, but these two examples, I think, 
pinpoint the problem with this program. These examples are of vital 
importance if we are to make the reforms that our taxpayers demand be 
made. But the foreign aid establishment says no to any reform. For the 
bureaucrats that populate the State Department, AID, and USIA and the 
arms control agency, the watchword is business as usual. We cannot have 
business as usual. That is why we want to override the President's 
veto, because what we are doing is making some very basic reforms that 
have to be made.
  Today, this House has the opportunity to strike a blow for reform and 
to stop the abuse and put the interests of the American taxpayer first 
for a change. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting 
for reform by voting to override the President's ill-considered veto.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes 
to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], a member of the Committee 
on International Relations.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge this body to sustain the 
President's veto of this neoisolationist foreign aid bill called the 
American Overseas Interests Act. We all know this bill proposes deep 
cuts in our foreign assistance budget and wants to dismantle either the 
Agency for International Development, the Arms Control and Disarmament 
Agency, or the U.S. Information Agency. But what we do not adequately 
appreciate is the important and distinct responsibilities that all 
these agencies perform on a day-to-day basis. Those functions and 
responsibilities will not be performed in the same independent nor 
effective manner as they are now performed if they are combined within 
the administrative structure of the State Department. Some of their 
mission and independence will be compromised.
  It is wrong for us to restrict this or any other President's ability 
to address the complex international challenges and opportunities of 
the post-cold-war era. At issue is whether the United States will have 
the policies and the resources available to open markets, to prevent 
conflicts, to advance our national interests through people-to-people 
contacts by broadcasting the truth as an antidote to the poison of 
extremist propaganda, and to prevent crisis through humanitarian aid.
  The United States must continue to lead this world. We should not 
turn our back on a half-century of success. Our past strong investment 
and a vigorous foreign policy continues to pay enormous dividends: The 
end of the Soviet Union, a world map dominated with democracies and 
allies, expanding markets, especially in the Third World, and free 
elections in South Africa, just to mention a few.
  This bill undermines our leadership role in the world. To cut 
development aid will ultimately cost the United States more in the form 
of foregone markets, increasing demands for disaster relief, worsening 
environmental conditions and rising migration pressures.
  Foreign aid is an important, cost-effective investment in the future. 
About 1 percent of the Federal budget is actually spent on foreign aid. 
Yet, Members have heard time and time again that most of our 
constituents think that it is about 15 percent of our budget that we 
spend, and believe it should be around 5 percent.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the 
gentleman from Virginia that the foreign aid portion of this 
legislation was dropped in conference. This is consolidation and State 
Department reauthorization part C, which was in the original bill, and 
the gentleman is correct in noting that that was dropped, so the bill 
that the President vetoed had nothing whatsoever to do with the foreign 
aid portion of the legislation.
  Mr. MORAN. I appreciate that clarification, Mr. Speaker, But the 
point that I am making, Mr. Speaker, is the support that this country 
has for foreign aid, more support than it is obvious to us when we 
listen to the debate.
  The fact is that most Americans think we should be spending five 
times what we are spending for foreign aid. The fact is that AID is a 
principal funnel for that foreign aid. I do think that their mission 
would be compromised if in fact they are consolidated within the State 
Department.
  We ought not wait for a disaster to act, because then the costs are 
going to be much higher. We ought not revert to the isolationist 
attitude of the 1930's. What happens in one part of the world can 
happen in our part of the world. We should not forsake our leadership 
role in this world. We should be eager to lead this world to promote 
our interests.
  The United States is the world's leader. We have earned that 
position, not just because we have the strongest military, but because 
our diplomacy is so effective. Our political and cultural values are 
widely shared, and our economic system is emulated around the world. 
The reason is because in the past we have had bipartisan support in 
Congress and in the administration for a sound appropriation for the 
managing of our foreign affairs. But with leadership comes 
responsibilities. I do not think this bill meets them.
  We just heard from the AID administrator, Brian Atwood, in the 
Committee on International Relations. He has cut over 17 percent of his 
personnel at AID, from 11,000 to 8,700 since President Clinton was 
elected. That is the second largest cut in the Federal Government. I do 
not think that cut would have happened if it was part of the State 
Department.
  The administration has already implemented significant steps to 
reinvent our international operations and reduce costs to the 
taxpayers. We have asked the government to cut waste, to reduce 
programs, and to freeze future planning. This administration has 
responded vigorously with a scalpel, cutting away the fat and the dead 
tissue.
  The problem with this bill is that it hacks away at the muscle and 
vital organs with a cleaver. It is all posturing and politics to be 
able to say we eliminated an agency, whatever that agency might be. We 
are given three choices, but we have to eliminate one of them. It is an 
artificial savings. It harms not only the body politic, but more 
importantly, the head of this world in terms of foreign policy, in 
terms of advancing democracy, advancing truth throughout the world.
  We ought not do this. This is a step backward. We have need to be 
moving forward into a global economy and advancing our democratic 
interests, creating more purchasing capabilities in

[[Page H4158]]

Third World countries that in turn result in market opportunities for 
our firms.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to sustain this veto.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback], a member of our Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman from Kansas 
[Mr. Brownback] is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. BROWNBACK asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues and urge them to 
support this veto override. We need to do this. We need to do this 
consolidation. If it has not been already pointed out, or even if it 
has, I would like to reiterate that this is being supported by 
Secretary Baker, and previously it had the support of Secretary 
Christopher, until he was talked out of it by some other people within 
the administration.
  I think it is key to point out that lead individuals within the 
administration, people that have occupied key positions within the 
foreign policy apparatus, have said that we need to have this sort of 
consolidation take place. These old entities do not have a place at 
this point in time of U.S. history. It is important for us to be able 
to effectively manage our foreign affairs resources at a time of 
declining budgets, at a time of declining budgets, when we are going to 
better manage our foreign affairs budgets and resources, that they be 
put in together, that they be allowed to be managed and consolidated.
  The very essence and focus of this bill was to allow some people that 
are running the foreign policy apparatus to be able to more effectively 
and efficiently operate the foreign policy apparatus, rather than from 
these myriad different stand-alone entities. Let us allow some ability 
to be able to manage this. Any time we are going into a time like we 
are of balancing the budget for the first time since 1969, we are going 
to be making changes, needed changes, real changes to take place. What 
we are going to have to do is allow some flexibility of people in the 
system to make those changes.
  This bill does that. Secretary Christopher was supportive of this 
bill, and then was talked out of it by other people within the 
administration, saying, ``Well, you should not do this.'' A prior 
Secretary of State, Secretary Baker, who I would say knows a little bit 
of something about foreign affairs and foreign policy, says, ``This is 
a good thing to do. You need to be able to do this to be able to manage 
foreign affairs.'' We do not need 5 different entities doing foreign 
affairs in the United States. We need one Secretary of State. We need 
to be able to act, to be able to move, and to be able to get things 
done.
   Mr. Speaker, I think it is more posturing and politics to leave it 
alone and to not do the veto override; that it is more posturing and 
politics to say, well, OK, they are just trying to do this to show that 
they can eliminate an agency, rather than listening to their own people 
within the system who have said that these are things that needed to be 
done; than to listen to the people who historically have worked in this 
area and are saying we need this to effectively manage in a time of 
downsizing.

  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the veto 
override. It is needed. It is needed to effectively manage the foreign 
affairs arena in our country. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
the veto override.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Let me ask my colleague, for whom I have 
great respect, and I certainly have great respect for former Secretary 
Baker that he mentioned, did he say how this reorganization should take 
place? And specifically which agency should be eliminated? And could 
the gentleman tell me how all of that, put in context, is going to help 
improve foreign policy?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I would be happy to. He testified in front of the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which my colleague is a distinguished 
member, as well, saying that this was an entity, that one of these or 
several of these entities needed to be folded within the State 
Department itself. What we are saying in this bill is, let us let the 
State Department itself pick and choose which would be the most 
effective now, at this point in time, so that they could implement what 
Secretary Baker and what Secretary Christopher have suggested earlier, 
as well.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. But if the gentleman will yield further, how 
does that improve foreign policy? When a mission is closed, a U.S. 
citizen is seeking assistance in some foreign place, how does that help 
that U.S. citizen? And we do know that missions are closed.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. It helps by virtue of allowing the key foreign policy 
leader for this country who the President has appointed, the Secretary 
of State, the added flexibility to be able to say in a time of 
declining budget, ``I have this as a higher priority than this 
artificially set entity over on the other side that the Congress has 
put.'' It gives that individual greater flexibility to be able to 
address what they deem to be the key and the highest point interest. 
That is why we urge this bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne], a distinguished member of the 
Committee on International Relations and the chairman of the Black 
Caucus.
  (Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton in his State 
of the Union Address promised ``to end the era of big government.'' Big 
government is over. I think we've got the wrong idea of exactly what 
the Government should and should not do.
  The other side wants us to believe that the United States should not 
be responsive to the needs of the poor, the hungry, and the dying. They 
don't want to share in the cost of peacekeeping missions, sustainable 
development programs, population assistance, and our national security.
  Yes, the cold war and imminent nuclear threats of communism and 
remnants of the past. The core missions of USAID, USIA, and ACDA have 
changed. Nonetheless, they have been able to adapt to the paradigm 
shifts of this era.
  I am ashamed that I live in a society that devalues human life. While 
our aid budget is shrinking, our defense budget is steadily increasing. 
Looks to me like someone forgot to tell the GOP that the Soviet Union 
is gone.
  The GOP claim that this piece of legislation is important because it 
reflects our American values. Our American values? If this is a 
reflection of our American values, it is clear just what we value.
  We spend less than 1 percent on aid to less developed countries even 
though the American people said they would be in favor of a 5-percent 
increase. The G-7 countries especially Japan has become the No. 1 aid 
donor. They are outranking us in everything.
  Where should U.S. foreign policy be targeted for the 21st century? 
I'll tell you. It should go to Africa and Asia where almost 45 percent 
of the people live below the U.N. level for absolute poverty.
  If this piece of legislation passed, it would undercut U.S. 
leadership abroad and damage our ability to assure a secure future for 
all Americans. As an American, I was led to believe that we had a 
responsibility to help out our allies and friends.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle want to end the Agency for 
International Development's housing guaranty [HG] program, and restrict 
the United States from participating in the U.N. Human Rights 
Committee.
  They clearly have different value systems.
  The GOP wants to change that. The bill would also restrict funds to 
normalize relations with Vietnam. The Vietnam war was a horrible war in 
American history. The hard work we have made with the help of our 
foreign commercial service has opened markets. They have, more 
importantly, healed open wounds left from the war.

[[Page H4159]]

  Yes, my friends, the cold war is over. However, when we talk about 
cutting agencies like USAID, we are talking about returning to those 
dark days of foreign policy. Remember--when power and democracy were 
synonymous, when ballistic missile proliferation were our sleeping 
partners, our Japan policy was viewed through Soviet lens.
  The GOP wants to overturn glasnost and detente.
  The bill also limits participation in international organizations 
such as the United Nations. It also undermines the President's ability 
to conduct foreign policy.
  I have received many letters from my constituents saying the United 
States should pay up the debts owed to the United Nations. We use the 
United Nations as a shield and our scapegoat. We used the United 
Nations in the gulf war.
  I cannot with a clear conscience support the veto override. The state 
of the American Nation and the state of the world are depending on it. 
At a time in history when our enemies were clear, someone once said, 
``We can only secure peace by preparing for war.''
  Even though the Berlin wall has fallen, the GOP wants to take us back 
to isolationism of the 1930's. Let's let our democracy programs work 
before our missiles do. Sustain the President's veto of H.R. 1561--
Foreign Relations Authorization Act.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the distinguished senior member of our Committee 
on International Relations.
  Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time and I thank 
the gentleman for the characterization as senior member. I appreciate 
that. I guess I am.
  Mr. Speaker, I just hope that the Members will override the 
President's veto. I know that is difficult to do for some Members, but 
there are some very important human rights provisions in this 
legislation, most significantly, the MacBride principles which require 
fair employment practices by companies with using American funds over 
in Ireland. If there is any reason in the world why fair employment 
should not obtain, especially with American funds, I cannot think of 
it, and the MacBride principles are very important. This bill restores 
them. As I say, they are very significant.
  In addition, this bill remedies a situation where Chinese women have 
come to this country to escape coerced abortion, coerced sterilization, 
and they have sought to apply for asylum. Instead, they were brought to 
our hearing rooms in chains. I think that is a stain on our Nation's 
conscience. This bill would give them legal status. We consolidate the 
foreign aid bureaucracy, which is very important.
  I think there are a lot of reasons to vote to override and I hope the 
Members do.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair be good enough 
to give me the remaining time on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Hastings] has 2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Gilman] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. The gentleman from New York has the right to 
close; is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, then, I am 
pleased to yield my remaining time to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Engel], a former member of the Committee on International Relations and 
the newest member of the Committee on Commerce, and we hope that he 
will return to the Committee on International Relations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] is 
recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank my friend from Florida, who is my mother's 
Congressman and is doing such a great job, and I intend to return to 
the committee.
  Let me say first of all, Mr. Speaker, I hope that our House will vote 
to sustain the President's veto. This is not a good bill and the 
President was correct in vetoing it. This is an isolationism bill. It 
is a retrenching bill, a retreating bill.
  The United States is the leader of the free world. No one anointed us 
as leader. We took the mantle. As a result, we have a responsibility. 
Countries look to us and we have a responsibility for our own self-
interest.
  There was no Democratic input into this bill. There is a haphazard 
reorganization of U.S. foreign policy agencies. In fact, it is, Pick an 
agency, any agency, we want to close an agency, it doesn't matter what 
agency, just pick one. That is no way to conduct foreign policy. The 
appropriations are too low. There are not enough funds in here. It 
undermines the President's ability to conduct foreign policy.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle unfortunately seem to 
want to embrace isolationism. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and 
the collapse of communism, I feel that the Republican Party is 
reverting back to its 100 years ago isolationism policies. This is a 
dangerous policy.
  Henry Kissinger, we all know Henry Kissinger, a very prominent 
Republican Secretary of State, says about this bill, and I quote, 
``Further cuts would necessitate closing many overseas posts with the 
result that there would be less complete political and economic 
reporting on foreign conditions, less effective representation and 
advocacy of U.S. interests in foreign countries, and less adequate 
services provided to U.S. citizens traveling abroad, tourists or 
business people.''
  So even Henry Kissinger realized that the funding here is dangerously 
low, and that this is an isolationism bill and not really a very good 
bill at all. We should not undermine the President's ability to conduct 
foreign policy. We are the leaders of the world, my colleagues. Let us 
act like the leaders of the world. Let us sustain the President's veto. 
This bill ought not to become law.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have all heard the President's State of the Union 
promise to end the era of big government. President Clinton's own 
Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, showed that over a year ago 
when he moved to close three outdated international affairs 
bureaucracies and fold their functions back into the State Department, 
giving the President the discretion to pick and choose of those three 
agencies which he wanted to fold.
  This is not an isolationist policy. Responding to Secretary 
Christopher's plan, this Congress passed a major reform bill to follow 
through with this plan, reducing waste, duplication, and overlapping 
among these Federal agencies that are best designed to fight a cold war 
that ended 5 years ago.
  And what was the President's response? His lobbyists responded by 
promising to, and I quote, ``delay, obfuscate and derail'' our bill. 
They failed, and the Congress passed the first sweeping foreign affairs 
reform bill in over 40 years. The President then used a congressional 
recess on a Friday afternoon, after the press deadline, to veto the 
bill which his own Secretary of State first suggested.
  With this veto, the President defended the bureaucracy and the status 
quo in opposition to his own Secretary of State. This is clear proof 
that under this White House, the era of big government is not over. It 
lives on, despite the best advice of senior members of his own Cabinet.
  We are here today to override the veto of the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act. In short, this bill gives the President the 
flexibility to merge one of three foreign affairs agencies back into 
the State Department as recommended by Secretary Christopher. This bill 
fulfills the President's campaign promise to back the MacBride fair 
employment principles in Northern Ireland. This veto means that he has 
reneged on his promise to our Irish-Americans.

                              {time}  1815

  This bill, the product of many hours of negotiations, fulfills many 
of the administration's objectives, and yet the President vetoed the 
bill after months of refusing to allow his agencies to work with our 
House and Senate Committee on International Relations to craft a 
bipartisan measure.
  The hue and cry is that this needs to be a bipartisan bill. This 
needs to be a bipartisan process. Traditionally this is a bipartisan 
measure, but, let me point out, bipartisanship requires all parties to 
participate in this debate.

[[Page H4160]]

  In this case the administration, the opposition party, offered 
nothing but roadblocks. In over 50 hours of negotiations on the bill's 
conference, the House and Senate Democrat staff only attended for 
purposes of note taking.
  I commend the members and staff of our Committee on International 
Relations for their diligent, tenacious efforts to enact this bill and 
to fulfill our promise to the American people to reduce the size of the 
Federal Government.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to override 
the President's shortsighted veto of H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act. Congress has delivered and the President should be 
held accountable for rejecting a bill that helps to advance our U.S. 
foreign policy and to end the era of big government.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
adoption of H.R. 1561, the objections of the President notwithstanding.
  I have served as a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and now 
the Committee on International Relations since I was first elected a 
Member of the Congress. In the nearly 16 years that I have served in 
this body, I have never seen such a partisan, one-sided, ill-considered 
piece of legislation come out of our committee.
  Earlier the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations 
and Human Rights talked about the process by which this legislation was 
shoved through the Subcommittee and Committee. He made reference to me, 
in my capacity as ranking minority member of the subcommittee, although 
he did not mention me by name. I was the Democrat who walked out of the 
subcommittee markup of the sections of H.R. 1561 that were in the 
jurisdiction of that subcommittee. I was joined in walking out of that 
markup by every other Democratic member of the subcommittee. Let me 
explain why my colleagues and I took that action.
  Mr. Speaker, the traditional practice when the Democrats were in the 
majority on the Foreign Affairs Committee was to consult with the 
minority on all of the issues being considered in the foreign affairs 
authorization legislation to reach bipartisan compromise on as many 
issues as possible on the legislation, to reach out and work together 
to resolve differences. That did not happen. The chairman of the 
International Operations Subcommittee consulted with some individuals 
who were not members of the subcommittee or even members of the full 
International Relations Committee, and he included provisions of 
interest to them. He did not, however, have the courtesy to consult 
with me or other members of the minority on the subcommittee on any of 
these issues.
  Not only were we not consulted on the legislation, when we went into 
the markup of H.R. 1561, we did not have the final version of the bill 
until the very morning the bill was to be considered. As ranking 
minority member of the subcommittee, the first version of the bill was 
delivered to me late on a Wednesday night. Major changes were made in 
that bill, and a second revised version was delivered to me 2 days 
later on a Friday evening. The last changes in the bill were made the 
following Sunday afternoon. The markup took place the following day--on 
Monday morning.
  I make this point, Mr. Speaker, because I want the record to be 
clear. There was no bipartisan effort to work out differences or 
resolve problems in advance. The fact that all of my Democratic 
colleagues joined me in walking out of the markup only indicates the 
partisan nature of the process with which we have been dealing on this 
legislation during the past year.
  I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the conference report was handled in 
the same partisan fashion. The Republican members of the House 
International Relations Committee and Republican members of the Senate 
Foreign Affairs Committee met, made their decisions on the legislation, 
and presented what they had done to the Democratic Members. We were 
invited to accept what they had done without any opportunity whatsoever 
to participate in the process of producing a better piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I have long advocated bipartisan cooperation on our 
foreign policy. I am still a strong advocate of such cooperation. We 
are strongest when we are united. There is no reason we can not and 
should not work together for the improvement of our country's foreign 
relations. There are serious threats to our Nation, serious threats in 
the international arena which affect all Americans. We must work 
together to meet those challenges. Making partisan political points--
which is precisely what H.R. 1561 is about--will do nothing to 
strengthen our Nation's foreign policy. While there are a few good 
elements in the legislation, on the whole it will weaken our Nation's 
ability to face the international challenges we face. We need 
thoughtful cooperation, and we need careful bipartisan consideration of 
such legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to join in voting against 
the override of the President's veto on this legislation. This is a bad 
bill. This is a partisan bill. This is a bill that should be defeated.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise to again state for the 
Record that I am constantly amazed at the lengths to which the Gingrich 
Republicans will go to waste the time and money of the American people. 
Again, we are called to vote to override a Presidential veto on a 
measure that has been voted for by Members who are subservient to the 
conservative Republican leadership.
  This bill was rejected by the President because it directs a major 
reorganization of U.S. foreign policy agencies--structured in the most 
partisan of ways. The President's veto message says: ``This legislation 
contains many unacceptable provisions that would undercut U.S. 
leadership abroad and damage our ability to assure the future security 
and prosperity of the American people. It would unacceptably restrict 
the President's ability to address the complex international challenges 
and opportunities of the post-cold-war era. It would also restrict 
Presidential authority needed to conduct foreign affairs and to control 
state secrets, thereby raising serious constitutional concerns.''
  I couldn't have said it better.
  Mr. Speaker, all across America, school-children studying American 
history are learning about America's bipartisan foreign policy that 
allows our Government to function from administration to administration 
in our dealings with other countries and world leaders with the 
knowledge that there will be consistency in our dealings with other 
governments. World leaders trust American foreign policy because of the 
strength of our historical ability to forge and carry out a bipartisan 
foreign policy. This bill strikes all that down.
  The Gingrich Republicans have been unable to impose their radical 
views on America's foreign policy through reasonable debate so they are 
attempting to force America's foreign policy to their philosophy by 
imposing reorganization and restrictions on the President. The Gingrich 
Republicans have been unable to work in harmony with the Clinton 
administration so they are attempting to force their radical 
conservative views on America's dealings with foreign policy.
  The Gingrich Republicans apparently don't know anything about 
coalition-building and cooperation with others in Congress to achieve 
objectives through communication and coordination. These elementary 
organizational and management strengths are the foundations of 
America's foreign policy development, and without them being used 
successfully, America is made to look like a bunch of kids fighting 
over a ball on the playground.
  In closing, the veto message states: ``I recognize that the bill 
contains a number of important authorities for the Department of State 
and the U.S. Information Agency. In its current form, however, the bill 
is inconsistent with the decades-long tradition of bipartisanship in 
U.S. foreign policy. It unduly interferes with the constitutional 
prerogatives of the President and would seriously impair the conduct of 
U.S. foreign affairs. For all these reasons, I am compelled to return 
H.R. 1561 without my approval.''
  And for all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote to sustain 
the President's veto of H.R. 1561.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the 
contrary notwithstanding?
  Under the Constitution, this vote must be determined by the yeas and 
nays.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 118, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 136]

                               YEAS--234

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     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
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart

[[Page H4161]]


     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--188

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

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bryant (TX)
     Clay
     Ford
     Hayes
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaptur
     Kingston
     Lincoln
     Molinari
     Rush

                              {time}  1836

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Kingston and Mr. Hayes for, with Ms. Kaptur against.

  So, two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof, the veto of the 
President was sustained and the bill was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The Clerk will notify the 
Senate of the action of the House.

                          ____________________