[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 157 (Tuesday, November 9, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H11710-H11711]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   REPUBLICANS ARE NOT ISOLATIONISTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I have not participated in morning hour 
before but sometimes we hear things in the news that just cause us to 
be so upset we come to the floor, and that is what I am doing here 
today.
  President Clinton, Mr. Speaker, made an address to Georgetown 
University yesterday and some people say it was an extension of an 
olive branch to Republicans who he had labeled as isolationists and who 
he criticized for partisanship when the other body refused to approve a 
comprehensive test ban treaty.
  I welcome his initiative but I would like to set the record straight 
here today and raise a few questions that relate to some of my 
Democratic colleagues, too.
  I have tried to provide bipartisan leadership in the House Committee 
on International Relations. Indeed the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Barrett) and I come from the only state legislative body that is 
nonpartisan, our State legislature of Nebraska, so I find the degree of 
partisanship here in the Congress to be very unusual and not 
productive. However, I would have to say this, Mr. Speaker, to the 
President, when national security advisors and secretaries of defense 
of both parties from past administrations are critical of the proposed 
treaty and suggest that it should not be ratified in its current form, 
then I think it is inappropriate for this administration and for this 
President to label any opponents of the treaty as isolationists.
  This use of the isolationist label contributes further to something 
that the National Journal perpetrated a few weeks ago when their cover 
story suggested that Republicans, particularly those in the House of 
Representatives, were isolationists.
  I have to say to my colleagues, that yes, there are people that I 
suppose could properly be labeled isolationists on the Republican side 
of the aisle and some whose actions I certainly do not approve of in 
terms of their impact on foreign policy, but I would have to say also, 
Mr. Speaker, to the President and to the Administration, that when it 
comes to isolationism, he may look to his own party, particularly in 
the House.
  It is, after all, Democrats who were only willing to give 20 percent 
of their votes to fast track authority for trade agreements to their 
own President. This is the first President, since we began the process 
of fast-track, since President Ford, who has been denied fast track 
authority to negotiate bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. 
Only 20 percent of the members on the Democratic side of the aisle were 
willing to support that. At least 80 percent on the Republican side 
were willing to vote for fast-track authority for President Clinton by 
whip counts conducted by the two respective parties.
  I would also say this goes on top of the fact that the major 
opposition to the Africa trade bill and to the Caribbean trade bill 
came from the Democratic side of the aisle; there were more votes on 
the Republican side of the aisle for fast-track in both Houses.
  I also think it is important that we look at what happened last 
April, when Premier Zhu Rongji came here from the People's Republic of 
China with a commercially viable trade agreement for accession to the 
WTO. Everyone was shocked with the fact that this Administration 
rejected it. As I understand it, all of the President's primary 
substantive advisors suggested he should seize the moment and agree to 
what was a much more beneficial agreement from the United States point 
of view than we had expected. His political advisors said, no, do not 
do this, Mr. President.
  Now, there are many suggestions that this is because of the 
relationship and controversy related to alleged Chinese campaign 
contributions to the

[[Page H11711]]

 Clinton-Gore campaign, and also to the then recently completed Cox 
Committee report on Chinese espionage at some of our national 
laboratories.
  Whatever the case, the impediment was not there for the President to 
approve accession arrangements with the Chinese for the WTO was not a 
Republican one.
  Just a few minutes ago, one of our colleagues from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) suggesting his great concerns about the WTO and was very 
critical of his own Administration. I would say to the National 
Journal, when they do an article like that cover story on Republican 
isolationism perhaps they ought to be a little bit more careful that 
they are doing it competently and that they are not doing it with bias.
  I was also very concerned, Mr. Speaker, when I saw some comments by 
National Security Advisor Sandy Berger when the conflict took place in 
East Timor. He suggested in a variety of ways, some things he has 
retracted, others he has not, that we, of course, could not be involved 
even in assisting the Australians in trying to keep peace in East Timor 
because, after all, it was not in the center of Europe.
  Now, if that is not isolationism, at least it is Eurocentrism, and it 
is the kind of thing that bothers Asians and Pacific leaders and their 
citizens, and with good cause.
  I urge my colleagues to take a look at the need to come back for 
bipartisanship in foreign policy and I urge the administration, Mr. 
Speaker, to be more careful that they do not alienate some of their 
best friends for a bipartisan foreign policy on the Republicans' side 
of the aisle in either House of Congress.

                          ____________________