Space

(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 246. I had hoped to be in a position to support this rule, but the recommendations reported by the Rules Committee make my support impossible.

First, instead of making one Republican and one Democrat amendment in order on the issue of ballistic missile defense [BMD], as I believe makes sense, this rule makes a second Democrat BMD amendment by Mrs. Schroeder in order. Not only does this represent piling on, in my view, but the position advocated by Mrs. Schroeder was explicitly addressed by the Armed Services Committee and was rejected with bipartisan support. Moreover, the Schroeder amendment printed in this rule has been modified since the August 2 Rules Committee filing deadline without any discussion, negotiation, or bipartisan consent.

My second set of concerns has to do with the Rules Committee's decision to make the Abercrombie amendment on the D-5 missile in order. While I support the idea of the House debating the D-5, having the Abercrombie amendment follow the Dellums-Perry-Woolsey amendment simply gives opponents of this program an unnecessary second bite at the apple. As with the Schroeder BMD amendment, the Armed Services Committee rejected the position advocated by Mr. Abercrombie on a strong bipartisan basis.

My third set of concerns has to do with the so-called burdensharing amendments. First, making the Schroeder overseas base closures amendment in order as a burdensharing amendment is inappropriate. It ought to compete for floor time with the many other base closing related amendments that were filed and are to be considered in a later rule and should not be arbitrarily recategorized and inserted into this second rule.

Second, as was the case with the Schroeder BMD amendment, the Frank-Shays-Schroeder burdensharing amendment has also been modified since the amendment filing deadline without any discussion with the minority. Deadlines and rules ought to apply to all members on both sides of the aisle.

Finally, my last set of concerns involve the conversion amendments. Despite the recommendations of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Weldon's amendment was not made in order along with the other conversion amendments as it should have been. The rationale given by the Rules Committee was that last-second concerns expressed in a letter from the Merchant Marine Committee made the Weldon amendment too hot to handle in this second rule. My first counter is that the Merchant Marine letter used by the Rules Committee to justify elimination of the Weldon amendment from this second rule was dated a full 3 days prior to the day this rule was reported--3 days notice does not strike me as a last second development.

My second counter is that if the Merchant Marine Committee's objections to the Weldon amendment were enough to have it eliminated from this rule, why were the other burdensharing amendments made in order over the objections of the Foreign Affairs Committee as expressed in a August 4, 1993, letter from Chairman Hamilton to the Rules Committee?

This kind of inconsistent treatment of amendments compels me to oppose this rule. Despite this unfortunate development, I nevertheless look forward to working with Chairman Dellums and the Rules Committee on the third, and hopefully final, rule governing debate on H.R. 2401.

[Page: H6397]

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the gentleman that he has pointed out the reason why we oppose the rule. I have great respect for the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] and for the ranking member, Mr. Spence. In years past those 2 gentlemen and their staffs and other members have sat down with the Committee on Rules on a bipartisan basis. And we have negotiated what is not an open rule. We did that in order to try to be able to handle this very, very intricate bill in a timely and responsible manner.

Rep. SOLOMON. But by throwing that approach out the window, this kind of cooperation, and now just saying that the Democrats can have whatever amendments they want and shut Republicans out, the Democrat leadership flies in the face of our cooperation with some kind of a restrictive rule.

If we are going to have an open rule and let every Member have his or her amendments, then that is fine. Let us do it that way. But let us not bring a rule to this floor which deliberately affects the outcome of debate before a vote is even taken.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SPENCE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, the gentleman referred to the amendments as if they were all partisan. I appreciate his conceding to us sole ownership of burdensharing, but I am afraid I have to turn down the honor.

Burdensharing is widely supported in a bipartisan way. In fact, the amendment I offer this year, as last year, is coequally offered by a Member on the other side, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].

So with regard to burdensharing, I have always tried to treat that as a very bipartisan issue. We did last year. It shows in the votes, and we do again this year.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee [Mrs. Lloyd].

(Mrs. LLOYD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Later today we will be considering a series of amendments addressing burdensharing. While we all share the goals of reducing U.S. presence overseas to reflect the changing threats, I must caution against reducing our presence overseas too fast.

Some argue that the need for the NATO Alliance has declined substantially now that the threat from the East has deteriorated. We should not subscribe to this theory. NATO remains every bit as important as it was in deterring Soviet aggression 15 years ago. It has served the security of interests of the United States and its allies exceptionally well and given the unpredictability of future conflicts, the need for a strong NATO will continue.

NATO is undergoing a metamorphosis. It is adjusting its mission to the post-cold-war era while also considering the admission of several new members including Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary. These changes should be nurtured and supported by continued U.S. participation. Make no mistake about it: Should U.S. participation in the NATO alliance be perceived as waning, the effectiveness of that alliance in addressing future threats would be seriously crippled. A favored presence allows us to pursue our interests on a collective basis and not unilaterally.

Some of the amendments being offered to the bill before us cast a shadow on the future direction of NATO and on continued U.S. involvement. We should indeed be reducing our presence overseas, both in Europe and elsewhere and we are. We are moving rapidly toward a ceiling of 100,000 U.S. personnel in Europe as prescribed in last year's authorization bill.

Pursuant to another provision of that same law, we are reducing our total overseas military presence by 40 percent. Spending to support U.S. Forces in all locations overseas will have decreased by 36 percent by 1994. Since January 1990, we have had a 50 percent reduction in overseas facilities and that number is growing. We are moving very quickly in the right direction. But we must caution our colleagues before they vote on politically appealing amendments that seek further reductions in U.S. presence overseas.

Congressman Sisisky and I will be offering an amendment to H.R. 2401 which will reduce the spending at overseas installations by $580 million. Coupled with the reductions already contained in the legislation, the total cuts is about $3.3 billion.

Rep. LLOYD. At the same time, our amendment continues to insist that the administration and DOD negotiate burdensharing arrangements that further reduce the costs we pay to support U.S. military bases overseas. But most important our amendment recognizes and respects the need for a continued U.S. military role in Europe and Asia. Any future conflict that we find ourselves in will require the assistance and participation of our allies. Preserving the necessary level of overseas military presence and alliances like NATO will ensure that support.

Vote yes on the Lloyd-Sisisky amendment and reject all others.

[TIME: 1330]

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], a distinguished member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Let me just say that I also rise in opposition to the rule, and certainly want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Rules.

Those of us on this side of the aisle are very realistic about our position as members of the minority. We know full well that it is our obligation and our responsibility to make our views known in as forceful a way as we possibly can. We are also realistic to know that inasmuch as the Committee on Rules is dominated by the majority party, by a membership of nine Democrats to four Republicans, that it is very often that we do not find ourselves in a position of a rule that we think a lot of. That is certainly the case with this rule. I would just like to explain from one Member's point of view, my point of view, why that is.

In so doing, I would just like to use one example of one thing this rule does which has been mentioned by both the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], but in terms of a specific and in terms of a substantive issue that is very, very important to the national security of our country and to the national security of our allies all around the world, including the Middle East, including Israel.

This is the issue of what used to be called SDI, which today is called ballistic missile defense [BMD ]. This, for the current SDI, is funded at about $3.7 billion. This rule provides for a number of opportunities to do other things with funding, depending on what their position happens to be. The President, for example, says we need about $3.4 billion this year. He has sent his budget over here, his request, in that amount. The committee disagreed with that. The committee said we needed about $3 billion. That is the way this bill has come to the floor.

Here on the floor there will be a number of opportunities for people to vote for different levels of funding. For example, right off the bat the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] will offer an amendment to cut that $3 billion in half. If the Members think this $3 billion is too much money and that this is not an important issue for our country and for our allies, they have an opportunity, and rightfully so, to vote for half as much.

If, on the other hand, the Members agree with the President, they have an opportunity to vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley]. The amendment of the gentleman from Colorado adds about $440 million, so those of us, and I will vote for the so-called Hefley amendment, who believe that that is the proper level of funding have an opportunity to vote for it. There are three options already: The way the committee bill has come out at $3 billion; the Dellums amendment, the chairman's amendment, which will be $1.5 billion; and the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], a Republican amendment, which returns it to the level of the President's request, $3.4 billion.

Rep. SAXTON. The rule does not stop there, however. The rule does something that from there to me seems very unfair. We have had a high option, a middle option, and a low option, and along comes one more amendment, the amendment by the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], at $2.8 billion. Thus, the Democrats have had two bites of the apple already, one at $3 billion and one at $2.8 billion. The Republicans have had one bite.

Obviously, we are going to overload this in favor of the majority party, and have one more attempt to cut it even further at $2.8 billion; inherently unfair, not to the Republican Party, not on a political basis, but inherently unfair to those people, those Americans, who have a concern over the ballistic missile defense system as proposed by the President, who belongs to the party of the other side.

I ask in fairness for people, for all of us, to join together. Let us send this rule back to the committee. Let us get out a rule that would be fair to both parties and to the American people.

[Page: H6398]

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

(Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take the floor to say that I do not have one-tenth of the power that is being attributed to me. As I count this rule, it looks like we have five Republican amendments and eight Democratic amendments. I want to really talk a bit about the one that I have heard lambasted from several Members over there. That deals with the ballistic missile defense area.

Mr. Speaker, as everybody knows, we had a new administration take over this year. At the beginning of this year they basically sent over the prior administration's numbers as we were waiting for Secretary Aspin to do his bottom-up review. As he was doing his, we on the committee asked our staff to do our bottom-up review. Now we have even double wisdom, because Les Aspin's bottom-up review has since come out, since we acted on this bill.

That is basically what my number is. My number on the ballistic missile defense was what our subcommittee reported to the full committee. It almost passed. It was voted down by 16 to 15. If the Members take the Aspin bottom-up review on the BMD and ramp it back to 1994, we would have actually $100 million less than is my amendment, so I came out really $100 million over. We were trying to guess and we were trying to stay in synchronicity with what they were doing. I think it is the one that comes out most on point.

That is why it was really being offered. It was originally a subcommittee proposal, and it seems to track most with where the bottom-up review is. I understand that it is late and all of that is happening, but part of that is because there are new people on board and everybody is trying to rethink this changed situation.

I also think when we talk about the burden-sharing, we all know that our allies are much richer because of the Marshall plan and all the things that we did. We maintained troops there when our national interest would have been threatened if we were overrun and they were overrun by the Soviet Union. Now what we are seeing is that there is still lots of flexibility. We can still stay there if they want to pay more monies, but our allies in Asia are doing a much better job of paying their fair share than our allies in Europe.

When we push our allies in Europe as to why they want us there, they want us there to babysit themselves. If they have not worked out their agreements after hundreds of years, I am really sorry, but I am not sure how much the American taxpayer wants us to sit there and be the referee in all their nice little ethnic complaints that they have. If they want us to do that, then they ought to pay for it. People ought to pick up those costs, because they certainly are able to now. That is what we are really talking about as we look at this terrific budget deficit and how we can be smarter and what we are doing.

Rep. SCHROEDER. We now have a whole new added aspect of the bottom-up review being done. I think we have a very tight bill and we know that we are under terrific time constraints. I think this is a very good rule, and I encourage people to vote for it.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], one of the most distinguished members of the Committee on Armed Services on our side of the aisle.

[TIME: 1340]

Mr. KYL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the comments of the gentlewoman from Colorado, who has it all wrong. As a matter of fact, the bottom-up review just performed by this administration supports the funding level of the Hefley amendment of about $3.5 billion, not the committee level or that suggested by the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Let me quote from the letter dated September 7 from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, John Deutch, to the chairman of the committee, Ron Dellums:

When you take the fiscal year 1994 defense authorization bill to the House floor, I realize you will be under strong pressure to reduce funding for the Nation's Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD ) program. I urge you to support the funding level approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee and to fight attempts to further cut this important program's budget.

Quoting further:

As you are aware, the Department of Defense has completed the bottom-up review and refocused the BMD program. The revised funding profile through the Future Year Defense Plan is $18 billion--averaging about $3.6 billion a year. the Senate Armed Services Committee approved $3.2 billion, plus $250 million for the Brilliant Eyes program, which totals about $3.5 billion for the missile defense effort. The Department supports the Senate position and encourages the House of Representatives to adopt the same funding level.

Mr. Speaker, that is the funding level that will be offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].

If I could just continue to quote further from Mr. Deutch's letter:

Now that the Department has made the difficult choices with regard to missile defenses, I am certain you will appreciate the importance of continuing the program on the right course. I urge you and your colleagues to adopt the Senate Armed Services Committee's position.

Reading further:

Budget cuts below the Senate Armed Services Committee level and program fences this year will endanger our ability to deliver our new plan.

The reason that we should oppose this rule, Mr. Speaker, is because, unlike past years, this year's rule skews the result. The reason this rule skews the result is that unlike past rules which have permitted accommodation and negotiation between the two sides, and usually developed a position which recognizes the preeminence of the committee mark or the committee position, under this rule the chairman of the committee is permitted an amendment to reduce the level of funding to $1.5 billion. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] is then allowed to propose his amendment to add $467 million, or to essentially get to the position that Mr. Deutch, the administration's spokesman, is supporting. But then, under the unique procedure of the king of the Hill, the gentlewoman from Colorado is permitted to offer an amendment to reduce the amount of ballistic missile defense funding to $2.8 billion.

What is the significance of this, Mr. Speaker? That was the gentlewoman's subcommittee mark which was overridden by the full Armed Services Committee when it went to just about $3 billion. So what we have here is the usual procedure which permitted a bracketing in effect, a lower amendment which in the past has been offered by Mr. Frank or Mr. Dellums usually, a higher amendment which I have offered in the past and Mr. Hefley is offering this time, with the full committee position being in the middle. Not so this year. Under this rule the gentlewoman from Colorado has the last word, and if her amendment passes, it does not matter what was passed before. We would be reducing the funding level to $2.8 billion, or in other words, about $700 million below what the administration is recommending after its bottoms-up review, according to the letter from Mr. Deutch.