June 7, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5681

Contrary to the representations of the supporters of this bill, foreign aid constitutes less

than 1 percent of the U.S. budget. This small

investment is leveraged further by a public-private partnership involving several hundred

U.S.-based charitable organizations. Without

the U.S. contributions of seed money, these

cuts in aid will be devastating.

Foreign aid is no giveaway. These dollars

work as an effective means of developing and

expanding U.S. export markets. In fact, the recipients of U.S. Foreign aid constitute the fastest growing market for U.S. exports. In the

past 10 years, our exports to developing countries have more than doubled from $71 to

$180 billion. This valuable trade results in

thousands of badly needed jobs for American

workers.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1561 is not only a bad

deal for the American economy, it also compromises the President’s initiatives in foreign

affairs. In a seven to one decision, the U.S.

Supreme Court in United States v. CurtisWright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936) held

that because of ‘‘fundamental differences’’ in

national power with respect to internal and external affairs, the President of the United

States possesses additional prerogatives in

the foreign affairs field that, in my opinion, this

legislation compromises.

This bill imposes restrictions and limitations

on the President’s special authorities that

would hamper the ability of the United States

to respond to rapidly changing international

circumstances. Therefore, the constitutionality

of the American Overseas Assistance Act is in

question and should be carefully examined

prior to any further consideration of this bill.

A dramatic example of the negative impact

this legislation would have on the President’s

prerogatives in foreign affairs is the fact that

H.R. 1561 directly inhibits vital Presidential objectives such as—implementation and funding

for the framework agreement with North

Korea; debt reduction for poorer nations; democracy building and market reform in Russia;

and funding for worldwide family planning activities.

Contrary to the arguments that have been

made by the supporters of H.R. 1561, President Clinton has proposed a budget that reasonably addresses the overseas interests of

the United States. President Clinton’s fiscal

year 1996 foreign affairs budget has two key

initiatives; reasonable consolidation and maintenance of our obligations to our friends and

the world’s neediest people.

The administration has proceeded vigorously with its efforts to streamline AID, ACDA,

USIA, and the Department of State. Under the

administration’s efforts, foreign affairs agencies are reducing staffing by 4,700 positions,

cutting bureaucratic layers and duplication,

eliminating low-priority posts and programs,

reengineering their business processes, and

establishing common administrative services.

The administration has taken these steps to

enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of

these agencies.

By contrast, the approach of H.R. 1561 is to

simply eliminate AID, ACDA and USIA. This

extreme action would result in an unwieldy,

costly, and ineffective compromise of U.S. foreign policy objectives and would constitute an

abdication of American humanitarian leadership overseas.

The ironic truth about H.R. 1561 is that it

will actually weaken our influence overseas

and therefore compromise our national defense, prestige, and effectiveness. As a result

of the bill’s redirection of $1.8 billion away

from programs that help uplift the world’s poor,

American interests will be compromised.

Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that with

the end of the cold war the United States now

reigns supreme as the world’s only superpower. Over the past 7 years, our foreign policy has undergone a massive undertaking to

adjust to a post-cold-war world which has allowed us to maintain a better balance of our

domestic and foreign interests. Because of

these changes in world politics, the United

States is faced with an unprecedented opportunity to redirect funds to relieve problems

here at home and help improve the lives of

our friends overseas.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, as a political

maneuver, the current majority has attached to

this bad bill provisions authorizing aid to Israel

and her Mid-East peace partners. This insulting and cynical attempt to force those of us

who support Israel to endorse the overwhelmingly shortsighted and offensive objectives of

H.R. 1561 will not work.

My record in Congress supporting issues

important to Israel and the Mid-East peace

process has been consistent and steadfast. In

the form of foreign aid, trade relations, and

support for the peace process, I have recognized the wisdom of a vital Israel and a fair

peace process. Despite the fact that I have

been forced to vote against this bill, rest assured I will do all that I can to ensure that the

President’s budgeted aid for Israel and the

Mid-East peace process is delivered by this

Congress.

In closing, H.R. 1561 reflects my colleagues’

desire to sacrifice the interests and obligations

of the American people in exchange for isolationism and inhumanity. I urge my colleagues

to vote against this bill.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move

that the committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly the Committee rose; and

the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. WALKER)

having assumed the chair, Mr.

GOODLATTE, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of

the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration

the bill (H.R. 1561) to consolidate the

foreign affairs agencies of the United

States; to authorize appropriations for

the Department of State and related

agencies for fiscal 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, had come to no resolution

thereon.

CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1561

SCHEDULE FOR FURTHER

f(Mr. MORAN asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1

minute.)

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I have

asked unanimous consent to inquire of

the chairman of the Committee on

International Relations the schedule

for tomorrow so that we understand

what amendments might come up. I

would like to inquire of the chairman

of the Committee on International Relations the implications of the decision

to rise at this point.

I understand that there is an hour

and 45 minutes left of debate. We have

at least three Democratic amendments

scheduled: the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. HOYER], the gentleman from

California [Mr. BERMAN], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. ANDREWS]. However, with an hour and 45

minutes tomorrow, it is conceivable

that, particularly if the chairman was

to oppose the Burton amendment, that

the chairman might have two amendments in succession which would preclude the ability of the Democrats to

offer any of our amendments.

I would like some assurance from the

chairman that the Democrats will be

able to offer an amendment after the

subsequent Republican amendment to

this bill.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman

from New York.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have

been informed that 1 hour and 45 minutes remain on full debate on this bill.

We have a manager’s amendment

which is en bloc, a number of amendments, and then we have the Burton

amendment. And whatever additional

time that may be remaining, we will

try to accommodate the gentleman.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I would

suggest to the Chairman that is the

reason for the inquiry because that

may very well take up the full space of

the 1 hour and 45 minutes which means

that there would be two Republican

amendments. There would not be the

opportunity for any Democratic

amendment to be offered, if that were

the schedule. That is the concern of the

minority side.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the

gentleman will continue to yield, we

will try to urge the Members to keep

their remarks as brief as possible and

the Berman amendment will be next

following the Burton amendment.

Mr. MORAN. Can the Chairman assure us that we will get a Democratic

amendment, at least one Democratic

amendment considered tomorrow.

Mr. GILMAN. It will depend on the

amount of time that we will be able to

save with the debate on those two

measures.

Mr. MORAN. This side would much

appreciate the Chairman cooperating.

Mr. GILMAN. We will try to do our

best to allow some time for additional

amendments.

(Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was

ON AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 1561

fgiven permission to address the House

for 1 minute.)

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, does

that mean that no one else will be able

to offer amendments? We have only got

this 1 hour and 45 minutes and, as you

know, I have a very, I think, important

amendment dealing with immigration,
H 5682 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 7, 1995

which I do not even think should be in

this bill. Does that mean that we are

not going to have time to get to anybody else’s amendment?

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, it will all

depend on the amount of time that we

can conserve in the remaining time

that has been allotted to us by the

rule. We have an hour and 45 minutes

remaining, and we will try to work

with the minority as best we can.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.

Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.

Speaker, I would just like to note that

under this unfair rule we have, the

quorum call, a totally unnecessary

quorum call came out of the time for

amendments. We will probably have

one less amendment because for no

valid parliamentary reason, we spent

about 25 minutes with a quorum call so

somebody could get a bigger audience.

And under the crazy rule we have, a

quorum call comes out of the time and

the quorum call has probably eclipsed

one amendment.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the

gentlewoman will continue to yield, let

me explain that on four occasions this

evening, I attempted to arrive at unanimous consent to cut back on the debate time so we would have additional

time left for other amendments.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.

Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I do not regard it as an

acceptable trade-off that you cut off

debate time to have a quorum call. I do

not think cutting debate on important

amendments is an acceptable defense

of a very arbitrary and unfair rule.

CLARIFICATION SOUGHT CONCERNING DEBATE ON BOSNIA AMENDfMENT

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for

1 minute.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reserving

the right to object, I will not object if

the request is something other than an

imploring of the chairman that someone else be allowed to offer an amendment. If the request is something other

than that, I will not object.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have a

question for the chairman.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without

objection, the gentleman from New

York [Mr. ENGEL] is recognized for 1

minute.

There was no objection.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would

like to inquire of the chairman, with

the big events in Bosnia this past

week, we are dealing with a very, very

important foreign aid bill. I know that

the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.

HOYER] has an amendment which I am

sure the American people would like to

see debated.

I just find it incongruous that we are

being denied, for whatever reason; I am

not blaming anyone, but the way it is

working out, it seems that Mr. HOYER

will not be allowed to put forth his

amendment which would call for an

end to the arms embargo. I think this

is a very, very important vote on a

very important amendment at a very

important time.

I am wondering if I could somehow or

other ask unanimous consent or ask

the chairman if we can somehow get

some time to debate Mr. HOYER’s

amendment because I think the American people want to see us debate it

and it is too important to just push it

to the side.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman

from New York.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will be

pleased to respond to the gentleman.

We all share the concern about the

Bosnia situation. Tomorrow afternoon

we will be having a hearing on Bosnia

in the Committee on International Relations. I discussed the Bosnia amendment with the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. HOYER]. We talked about trying to have sufficient time to properly

debate that measure on a single standing bill rather than to take it up as

part of this in a very short and limited

period of time.

I assured Mr. HOYER that I would try

to work with him in bringing that

measure to the floor at an early date

following the consideration of this

measure.

fON BOSNIA

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1

minute.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank

the gentleman from New York, the

chairman of the committee. As the

Members of this House know, I, along

with the gentleman from New York

[Mr. GILMAN] and others, offered an

amendment last year that dealt with

lifting the arms embargo to allow the

Bosnians to defend themselves. This

situation has gone on now for almost 3

years. The largest number of refugees

since the Second World War have been

created as a result of this confrontation and over 100,000 deaths. Genocide

is occurring.

I regret that it appears, based upon

the schedule that is going forward now,

that I will be precluded from offering

this amendment, which I believe is

critically timely today and will be

critically timely tomorrow.

I would hope that we could configure

the schedule tomorrow so that I would

have a half an hour to offer this

amendment at the end of the other

amendments so that this House can address this issue. It is critical. It is on

the front page of every newspaper in

Europe and the United States. It is in

the councils of the armed forces of

every NATO nation. And it seems to

me it is timely now for this Congress

to speak.

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL

fDISASTER ASSISTANCE AND RESCISSIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR

1995—VETO MESSAGE FROM THE

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

STATES (H. DOC. NO. 104–83)

The Speaker pro tempore laid before

the House the following veto message

from the President of the United

States:

To the House of Representatives:

I am returning herewith without my

approval H.R. 1158, a bill providing for

emergency supplemental appropriations and rescissions for fiscal year

1995.

This disagreement is about priorities,

not deficit reduction. In fact, I want to

increase the deficit reduction in this

bill.

H.R. 1158 slashes needed investments

for education, national service, and the

environment, in order to avoid cutting

wasteful projects and other unnecessary expenditures. There are billions of

dollars in pork—unnecessary highway

demonstration projects, courthouses,

and other Federal buildings—that

could have been cut instead of these

critical investments. Indeed, the Senate bill made such cuts in order to

maintain productive investments, but

the House-Senate conference rejected

those cuts.

For example, H.R. 1158 would deprive

15,000 young adults of the opportunity

to serve their communities as

AmeriCorps members.

It would deprive 2,000 schools in 47

States of funds to train teachers and

devise comprehensive reforms to boost

academic standards.

It would reduce or eliminate

antiviolence and drug prevention programs serving nearly 20 million students.

It would prevent the creation and expansion of hundreds of community development banks and financial institutions that would spur job growth and

leverage billions of dollars of capital in

distressed communities across the

country.

And it would seriously hamper the

ability of States to maintain clean

drinking water, thus jeopardizing the

health of residents.

In the end, the Congress chose courthouses over education, pork barrel

highway projects over national service,

Government travel over clean water.

At my instruction, the Administration has provided alternatives to the