```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5632-H5636]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1561, AMERICAN OVERSEAS 
                         INTERESTS ACT OF 1995

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 156 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 156

       Resolved, That when the Committee of the Whole House on the 
     state of the Union resumes consideration of H.R. 1561 
     pursuant to House Resolution 155, consideration for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule may continue beyond the initial 
     period of ten hours prescribed in House Resolution 155 for an 
     additional period of six further hours. Consideration for 
     amendment may not continue beyond such additional period. 
     During further consideration for amendment only the following 
     further amendments to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute, as modified and amended, shall be in order--
       (1) pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate;
       (2) amendments printed before May 25, 1995, in the portion 
     of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in 
     clause 6 of rule XXIII;
       (3) amendments en bloc described in section 2 of House 
     Resolution 155, but only if consisting solely of amendments 
     so printed before May 25, 1995, in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 
     of rule XXIII or germane modifications of any such amendment; 
     and
       (4) one amendment offered by the chairman of the Committee 
     on International Relations after consultation with the 
     ranking minority member of that Committee.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending 
which time I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of 
debate only.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to include extraneous 
material.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, as most Members know, this rule is the product 
of an emergency rules committee meeting held the day before the House 
adjourned for the Memorial Day recess. At that time, H.R. 1561 had been 
under consideration for almost 12 hours and a host of amendments were 
still pending--
 amendments offered by Republicans and Democrats. Using past precedents 
on similar bills as our guide, we had hoped that the original allotment 
of 2 hours of general debate and 10 hours of open amendment process 
would be sufficient, if properly managed, to allow a full and free 
debate on all the major issues at play in this important foreign policy 
bill. Looking back at the rules granted for foreign aid authorizations 
during past Congresses, where 1 hour of general debate and amendment 
time caps of 8 to 10 hours were standard, we felt that our formula 
would be sufficient.

  Clearly we underestimated Members' interest in extending debate on 
several standard issues along the way. That's somewhat understandable, 
partially because we have so many new Members and these programs have 
not been properly reauthorized since 1985. So, when it became clear 
that more time would be needed on this bill, our leadership attempted 
to work out a compromise with the minority to allow the extension of 
debate by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, some Members of the 
minority were not interested in that type of bipartisan cooperation. 
Hence the emergency rules meeting that produced this rule, a rule which 
responds to Members requests to add debate time, hopefully for some 
important points.
  I commend Chairman Solomon for his flexibility and his efforts to 
work this out in a congenial manner--and I do believe this rule leans 
over backwards to provide a fair solution. Under this rule we will have 
an additional 6 hours of open debate, with Members having the 
opportunity to offer any amendment that was properly prefiled by May 
24. In addition, this rule allows the chairman of the international 
relations committee, in consultation with the minority, to offer one 
amendment that was not prefiled but is otherwise in order under the 
rules of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, as we gear up for the appropriations cycle in the 
immediate months ahead it is crucial that we complete our work on H.R. 
1561, and I am pleased that our rules committee was able to develop a 
plan to ensure that the major issues properly managed can be dealt with 
in a reasonable period of time without jeopardizing that legislative 
schedule. I say ``properly managed,'' because under this type of fair 
open rule, there is always a possibility for some abuse of allotted 
time by some Members who for whatever motive choose to indulge in 
dilatory tactics. Nevertheless, I urge support for this good workable, 
fair rule.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding.
  Under the rule, can the gentleman tell me, at the end of the 6 hours, 
if there are still pending printed amendments, will they be allowed to 
be offered without debate?
  Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, my understanding is that we have used 
that provision up in the first rule, so we will have to complete all of 
the business in the time left for debate; that is, the 6 hours plus, I 
understand, with some 25 or 35 minutes of carryover. I am not sure what 
the exact number was. It is at that time we will be finished with the 
debate.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield further for a question, does 
that mean there are 35 minutes remaining under the old rule? Is that 
correct?
  Mr. GOSS. I cannot confirm that. I believe approximately.
  Mr. HOYER. Approximately a half an hour?
  Mr. GOSS. I believe it is in that order.
  [[Page H5633]]
  
  Mr. HOYER. At the end of that half hour, would it be in order for 
anybody to offer an amendment without debate?
  Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, my understanding of the rule, as it was 
originally filed before we had the second rule, was keyed to a time 
specific on a certain date for that provision. So, therefore, that 
provision is not available, and all Members need to be advised that the 
rule, as I explained it in my statements, would be the way we carry on, 
and after the 35 minutes or 30 minutes has gone plus the 6 hours of 
debate, that is the end, subject to the other parts of the rule.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his clarification.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House 
Resolution 156, the second rule limiting debate on H.R. 1561, the 
American Overseas Interest Act of 1995. While this rule does provide an 
additional 6 hours of debate for previously printed amendments, capping 
time on a bill of this magnitude is unnecessary and impedes the proper 
legislative process. As my colleague on the other side of the aisle 
well knows, an additional 6 hours will only slightly improve a bad 
situation. We have 90 amendments remaining. The 6 hours allowed under 
this rule will not provide enough time to debate many of these 
amendments, especially because
 voting time is counted under the time restriction. Under this rule, 
only a handful of amendments will be likely to receive consideration.

  Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my May 23 speech on the first time 
limit rule, the bill before us is a mixture of foreign policy 
initiatives and reorganizations that could change and weaken the 
conduct of U.S. foreign policy. In the few days following the bill's 
original consideration we have seen major developments around the 
world, including an escalation of hostilities in Bosnia. Yet this rule, 
which admittedly takes a step forward by providing some additional 
time, continues the pattern of shutting out amendments simply because 6 
hours is not enough. Many of us argued against the first rule because 
it did not provide enough time. Here we have a second rule with the 
exact same problem. Again, we will be making substantive foreign policy 
decisions based on who is recognized before the time runs out.
  In addition to the obvious procedural problems, this bill itself is 
seriously flawed. In addition to cutting funds in the wrong areas, it 
includes the elimination of three agencies, including the Agency of 
International Development [AID]. Yet no sound evidence exists to show 
this will save the taxpayers any money. The American people do not want 
us to be ramming bills through for the sake of reorganization without 
any kind of cost analysis. I support the work of AID and believe, at 
minimum, we should seriously study the merits of reorganizing its 
functions before doing so in this bill.
  Fortunately, this rule does make in order one amendment to be offered 
by the chairman of the International Relations Committee, Mr. Gilman, 
even though it was not printed in the Congressional Record as required 
under the previous rule. There is an opportunity, therefore, for 
improvements to be made in the legislation.
  I sincerely hope that funds for both development assistance and 
Africa in this bill can be restored, and the AID reorganization will be 
considered. The International Affairs budget represents only 1.3 
percent of total Federal spending. It has already been cut by 40 
percent since 1985. I am particularly troubled with the 34 
percent cut in development assistance. While the bill 
earmarks $280 million for the Child Survival Fund, the overall 
reduction squeezes necessary prevention efforts such as basic 
education, microenterprise programs, and self-help initiatives that 
have been proven to work. It makes no sense to have the United States 
functioning as the world's ambulance when famine and disaster occur in 
developing countries, when we could have prevented them.
  In addition to saving lives, development assistance enables many 
countries to become self-sufficient enough to buy U.S. exports. Between 
1990 and 1993, U.S. exports to the developing countries grew by $46 
billion, creating 920,000 new jobs in this country. It is in our 
economic interests to continue meeting our foreign assistance 
obligations.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill has many, many flaws. However, it would be 
more palatable to many of us if it did not devastate development aid. 
This is not the time to turn our backs on the world's poor. I sincerely 
hope the overall spending priorities will be reworked.
  At any rate, Mr. Speaker, this rule simply does not provide enough 
time for us to handle this comprehensive, complicated piece of 
legislation. There are major reorganizations of agencies in this bill. 
There are also major restraints and new conditions our Government must 
follow when dealing with other nations.
  Because of this time cap, I am going to oppose this rule and I urge 
my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this restrictive rule.
                              {time}  1300

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, the proposed rule for the final 
consideration of the American Overseas Interests Act should be adopted 
by the House.
  This bill is a very important step forward in our goal to reform 
Government to make it more efficient and more effective.
  To achieve this goal, the bill calls for the consolidation of three 
independent agencies--the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the 
Agency for International Development, and the U.S. Information Agency--
into an enhanced Department of State.
  The consolidation of three independent agencies into the State 
Department has been endorsed by five former Secretaries of State who 
argue that it will improve foreign policy by clarifying lines of 
authority and responsibility.
  Secretary of State Warren Christopher also endorsed this concept 
earlier this year, but his proposal met strong bureaucratic opposition 
and was withdrawn.
  But the fundamental soundness of the proposal led to the leadership 
in both the House and Senate international relations committees, to 
study it and include it in our 1995 reform efforts.
  The bill also sets forth the spending priorities for our foreign 
operations during this time of fiscal austerity.
  There are protections in this bill for our efforts to promote 
democracy and freedom in Cuba through Radio and TV Marti.
  There is also a provision that supports our efforts to isolate the 
Castro regime by prohibiting aid to countries that provide economic aid 
or preferential trade benefits to the Castro regime.
  The bill also sets out Congress' desire that a priority be placed on 
economic and other assistance to the developing countries in Africa.
  While the Africa programs have had to bear a share of the overall 
effort to cut Government spending, they have been given more than they 
would have received under an across-the-board budget cut process.
  This bill represents a fair and responsible approach to the 
management of Government programs in foreign policy.
  Therefore I urge the adoption of this rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the former chairman of the Committee 
on Rules.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hall], who has been always a leader in this type of 
legislation, for his continuing hard work.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the second rule we have granted for this bill. 
The first time around we said 10 hours was not enough. We said that the 
drop dead time was a lousy idea, and no one believed us. Now, here we 
are again, 2 weeks later, taking up rule No. 2 that still will not do 
the job. There are still 
[[Page H5634]] at least 99 preprinted amendments that we cannot 
possibly finish in 6 hours.
  The floor schedule for this week is unusually light. There is no 
reason to shut down the amendment process, particularly when we are 
considering an issue as important as this one.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. We have plenty 
of time. Let us open up this rule and give members a chance to fix this 
bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Kim].
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this rule; however, as we 
debate this important legislation today, I think it is important that 
we address North Korea's denial of a bipartisan congressional 
delegation trip to North Korea.
  For the first time in 40 years, we finally have a Republican Speaker 
of the House, and our Republican committee chairmen have requested that 
I pick a small delegation to North Korea. This is a bipartisan group of 
both Republicans and Democrats, yet the North Koreans denied our 
group's entry. We have contacted North Korea again for an August trip, 
yet we have not still received any answer yet. All this happened while 
the other Member of Congress have visited North Korea.
  Ironically that Member was a Democrat.
  This picking and choosing of Member visits is a discriminatory 
policy. This is simply unacceptable. This is an insult to the Speaker 
of the House, the House leadership, and to this Committee of 
International Relations.
  This is the most serious insult in my opinion to the U.S. Congress. 
We should not tolerate these actions, otherwise the entire world will 
laugh at us, laugh at this Congress.
  My original course of action was to offer amendment to this 
legislation boycotting congressional visit to North Korea until this 
issue is resolved. I can understand why they are afraid of my going up 
there, because of my unique background, but I understand that our 
chairmen prefer to dress this issue in conference if the North Koreans 
fail to change their position.
  Again I would like to say for the Record this issue must be addressed 
during conference meeting.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform my colleagues that later 
this afternoon I hope to have the opportunity to offer an amendment to 
lift the arms embargo against Bosnia and Herzegovina.
  Mr. Chairman, I do so knowing that difficult circumstances confront 
the United States as well as our allies. It is after all their forces 
that are still being held hostage by Bosnian Serb forces.
  I think we all recognize that the U.N. peacekeeping forces went in to 
provide critically needed humanitarian aid. But, it has ended up 
providing a cover, enabling the Serbs to continue the war largely 
without the credible threat of resolute military action by the United 
Nation or NATO.
  The fact is there is no peace being kept. In this the United Nation 
has failed.
  I am encouraged by the more forceful actions that are being planned 
by our allies, that is the plan to deploy a rapid-expansion force to 
protect UNPROFOR, thereby giving some muscle to those forces in Bosnia. 
I am also pleased by the statements coming from a number of our allies, 
notably president Chirac that France ``refuses to yield to fatalism and 
irresponsibility.''
  My concern remains, however, that we are still confronted with a U.N. 
force that is mandated to be ``impartial'' in a war of aggression and a 
genocide that claims the lives of mostly civilians. It is an untenable 
position both from the members of UNPROFOR who must stand by and watch 
the killings, and the ethnic-cleansing, and for the nations who have 
failed to take the necessary action to protect the hundreds of 
thousands of victims from their persecutors. It is a position which 
states as its working premise to choose no sides to treat the aggressor 
and victim the same. Yet at the same time UNPROFOR watches in horror, 
the arms embargo has the effect of denying the right of Bosnians to 
defend themselves, their families, and their nation from a well-armed 
and well-trained military force that seeks to annihilate them.
  Once this current crisis is resolved we must not allow the status quo 
to be reinstated. And what I mean by that is for a slightly reinforced 
UNPROFOR merely to go back to what it was doing, or I should say not 
doing.
  This is a war between sovereign nations in the heart of Europe. It is 
a war that has been and continues to be the result of an illegal act of 
aggression by Serbia against the peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It 
is a war and genocide of a scale that we have not witnessed since World 
War II in Europe. And most tragically of all it is a war against a 
nation that stands for the very values which the United States, NATO 
and the U.N. security council espouse over and over again, and which 
Serbian policy is bent on exterminating.
                              {time}  1310

  I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the United States must act to lift the 
arms embargo against the victims of a war of aggression not of their 
making. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting that amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I also rise to express concern about this rule. This 
issue is a critically important issue. I believe that the amendment to 
be offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the War Powers 
Act amendment, is also a critically important amendment, worthy of more 
than a few minutes of debate on the floor of the House of 
Representatives.
  The gentleman from Ohio is correct: If we are serious about being the 
policy makers and enunciating the policies that this Nation ought to 
pursue, I think the American public expects us to do so in a considered 
way, allowing full time for debate.
  These are not unserious issues. These are not issues of little 
consequence. Indeed, the issue of which I speak speaks to the very 
essence of what America stands for, of what the United Nations stands 
for, and what NATO has pledged to protect: The opportunities of a 
people freely elected to be free from international aggression. That is 
what America stands for.
  The gentleman who just preceded me spoke about the unwillingness of 
North Korea to allow a bipartisan delegation to come in and to talk and 
to see. The lesson that we learned in World War II and the lesson that 
we ought to be learning is that openness in foreign policy leads to 
international security on all sides.
  I regret very much, Mr. Speaker, that time is being limited; that in 
effect some of us are going to be, I think, prevented as I understand 
it from offering a critically important amendment that passed this 
House overwhelming 1 year ago, when we said then we ought to lift 
unilaterally the embargo imposed upon Bosnia and Herzegovina.
  What does that mean in real terms? It means you have two people 
confronting one another in a war. One is heavily armed and one is very 
lightly armed, and we say we are neutral. We will not allow any arms to 
go in. We will not allow others to help the combatants.
  What does that mean? That means by definition you have taken the side 
of the party that has been heavily armed, in this case the Bosnian-Serb 
aggressors who have succeeded to the Yugoslavian arms heavy weapons.
  Mr. Speaker, I have had a discussion with the chairman of the 
Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman]. He is my good friend and I believe a supporter of this 
amendment. I do not want to speak for him. He and I have fought 
together on the side of preventing the genocide that has occurred in 
Bosnia and Herzegovina.
  But I must tell my friend I am deeply disappointed we will not be 
able to, if that is the case, address this issue today. As a result, I 
will not support the rule, because I believe we need more time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, just in response, of course we would like to 
be supportive of the gentleman's proposal. What we are concerned about 
is the limited amount of time in this measure to enable Members on both 
sides of the aisle to take up their amendments. I 
[[Page H5635]] hope the gentleman will be able to present his bill as a 
free standing bill shortly after the consideration of this measure so 
that the House will have a full opportunity to debate the gentleman's 
measure.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] who, as I say, is a very close 
friend of mine. We say that about most, but in this case it is really 
the case. He has always been fair, and he and I have always, since I 
can remember, fought on the same side of issues as they relate to 
justice and international fairness and opposition to human rights 
abuses.
  I would say to my friend that I appreciate that effort and, 
obviously, if I am not successful today, I will work with the gentleman 
to bring that bill forward as quickly as we can.
  But I say to my friend, it is unfortunate that we do not allow 
sufficient time on this issue, which is so timely. There is no more 
timely foreign policy issue that currently confronts the United States 
and its western allies than the issue of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as we 
all know.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will further yield, I want 
to assure him I will be pleased to work with him to bring this to the 
floor in a timely manner.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to congratulate the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] for his very articulate presentation, and look 
forward to being able to deal with that issue in the very near future. 
I would point out there are some aspects to the American Overseas 
Interests Act that do deal with some of the problems, particularly this 
dual management problem with the United Nations, which I am sure every 
American--if they read about it in the paper this morning--is as 
outraged this morning as I am about, that we cannot defend our 
aircraft, but only expose our aircraft. Some of those problems that 
demand immediate attention are provided for here.
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 156, 
the rule under which the House would be afforded an opportunity to 
devote an additional 6 hours to consideration of H.R. 1561, the 
American Overseas Interests Act.
  As my colleagues recall, the initial rule under which this bill was 
brought to the floor provided for 10 hours for debate on amendments.
  When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, May 24, 9\1/2\ 
hours of that time had been consumed. Nine amendments have been 
disposed of out of some 75 that had been filed under the rule.
  It was obvious that more time would be needed to enable the House to 
fully consider the measure. Moreover, an additional 25 amendments were 
filed so that when the House adjourned for the Memorial Day recess, 
there were 91 amendments pending--51 by Republicans and 39 by 
Democrats.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1561 is the first major challenge to the foreign 
policy status quo since the cold war began nearly 50 years ago--
providing for the first major reorganization and consolidation of our 
foreign affairs apparatus in that period.
  It also reauthorizes our foreign assistance programs and reduces 
current spending by nearly $3 billion over 2 years--while redirecting 
and targeting our resources on high priority programs.
  H.R. 1561 is about projecting American power and influence around the 
world at a cost of 1 cent on the Federal dollars.
  It defends our national security--supports our trade and economic 
interests--provides for those who have been struck by disaster and 
cannot provide for themselves--and cuts duplication and waste in dozens 
of programs.
  The administration opposes H.R. 1561 because it wants to maintain the 
status quo of the cold war period.
  Mr. Speaker, when it's winter, we need the appropriate clothing to 
deal with the snow and cold--boots, gloves, and earmuffs--and a good 
snow shovel. But, when warm weather arrives, we discard the heavy 
clothing and put away the snow shovel.
  Similarly--with the cold war over--it is now time to put away our 
cold war agencies and policies and retarget our priorities. H.R. 1561 
does just that.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1561 provides the House with an 
additional 6 hours to consider the first major recording of our foreign 
affairs operations since the cold war began, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield for a moment to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Kim].
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Kim earlier addressed the House with regard to his 
rejection of the opportunity to visit North Korea, is that correct, Mr. 
Kim?
  Mr. KIM. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. GILMAN. If the gentleman would yield, I was dismayed by the North 
Korean Government's refusal to allow our good friend and respected 
member of our Committee on International Relations the opportunity to 
visit Pyongyang as an official of our Government. Along with the 
Speaker, I personally requested Mr. Kim to travel to North Korea. The 
House leadership and our committee support Mr. Kim in that endeavor. 
But we were rejected outright by the North Korean Government.
  North Korea has yet to respond to Mr. Kim's third request to be 
allowed to be able to travel to North Korea in August. This rejection 
is an outright insult, not only to Representative Kim, but to our 
committee and the House leadership. I believe we should take this 
opportunity to send a clear message to the North Koreans that they must 
satisfy our demand that Mr. Kim be allowed to join a congressional 
delegation to North Korea.
  The State Department must know that it is an appropriate solution, 
that an appropriate solution is needed and must be reached. I am 
prepared to address that issue during the conference on our bill to 
ensure that North Korea accepts all congressional visitors or faces 
some repercussion.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I 
would briefly conclude by yielding myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe truly that this bill, if it passes, is really 
a step backwards for the Congress and for the President of the United 
States. It ties the hands of the President, of any President. It 
abolishes departments and agencies by incorporating them under the arm 
of the State Department. Issues like AID and the Arms Agency and USIA, 
those issues have not even been debated on this floor of the House, and 
yet we are kind of confusing the whole situation by just kind of 
putting them under the State Department. Nobody knows what is going to 
happen. They are being put under the idea that in fact it will save 
money, but nobody has been able to prove that. We are doing that 
without debate.
  The second thing is there is over 90 amendments left, with only 6 
hours. I suspect that probably with the tremendous number of 
controversial issues that come up, we will only be able to address 4 or 
5 amendments of all the 90 amendments that are previously printed in 
the Record.
  So that rule is not a good rule. It is devastating to the whole 
process, and to the whole direction we are trying to give our President 
as far as being a leader in the world. This ties his hands.
  The way the United States goes in the world, a lot of nations follow 
us. We have cut foreign aid since 1985 by 40 percent. But under this 
bill, there are further cuts that are devastating. There is going to be 
a 34-percent cut in development assistance, something that Americans 
have asked us for years to get involved. Why aren't we helping these 
people help themselves? But we are cutting the very thing that 
Americans want us to do.
  The second thing is we are cutting the African Fund, where most of 
the humanitarian crises are going on today. So many of these cuts could 
be redirected in a better way.
  I am not sure that this bill can be improved upon. There is a chance 
to do it. But the way the bill stands now, it is devastating, it ties 
the hands of the [[Page H5636]] U.S. Government, it is a step 
backwards, with substantial cuts in areas that for the most part are 
going to hurt a lot of women and children in poor nations, and it is 
not something that our Government, our Congress, ought to be behind.
  For that reason, I hope that the Congress votes the rule down and 
votes the bill down.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have no further requests for time. Before yielding back the balance 
of my time, I would just simply like to say that this act is called the 
American Overseas Interests Act. Usually the labels that we have on a 
lot of our legislation around here are somewhat grandiose. I think this 
label actually means something.
  I think we are making a shift from what we used to call foreign aid 
to put the emphasis on something that is truly what are America's 
interests overseas. I think that is a major departure from some of the 
direction that we have been struggling with in the past 10 years or so 
here. It is one of the reasons why we have not gotten the bill through.
  I think this is a new time, and I think that justifies in part this 
extra debate time which is really an extraordinary amount of time, 
almost 20 hours when we count the rules and general debate, that is an 
awful lot of time.
  With regard to the observation of the gentleman from Maryland that 
there probably is no greater time or no more important thing right now 
than discussing Bosnia, there, of course is another avenue, as the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations has 
pointed out. And the thing about what goes on in the world is that 
every day there is always something new anyway that is very important 
for us, not that Bosnia is not critically important, but there will be 
other things that are critically important.
  We have to make sure we have a process to bring those things forward. 
But the basis, the structure, the foundation of what we are trying to 
signal here in this legislation are American overseas interests and to 
provide for them appropriately, well aware of the message that we have 
had from our American constituency that says we have got to be a little 
bit more careful about how we spend our money, make sure it really 
counts for national security and true interests overseas and we are not 
in the business of being the world's policemen or the world's welfare 
source.
  I think that this bill goes a long way in dealing with that.
  The ranking Member and distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Moakley], a wonderful man and a good friend, has said we need more 
time, more debate, and that we might not even have enough after this 20 
hours. I do not know how much debate is enough debate on any particular 
bill, but it seems to me this is an extraordinary amount of time for a 
very important subject, where we are having a change of direction which 
is part of the change that was promised in the November 8 elections. I 
believe that we have got it pretty well covered now. I urge my 
colleagues to support this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is 
on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed until later today.

                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, will that vote be automatically called by the 
Chair?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct; the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and it will automatically be called later today.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear, but was a time certain set for 
that?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It will be after the three fish hatchery 
bills, which are next on the calendar.
  Mr. GOSS. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________
```