Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in the strongest possible support for House Resolution 120, legislation condemning the recent outrageous behavior of Iraq in seizing and incarcerating two American citizens. It has been over 4 years since the end of the Persian Gulf conflict, but Saddam Hussein and his band of thugs continue to flaunt basic international norms, seemingly at every opportunity. For example, Saddam Hussein continues to let his people starve because he refuses to pump oil and provide the proceeds into international humanitarian organizations. People are starving, the economy is in a shambles, but Saddam's military remains intact. Iraq has waged a vicious war against the Marsh Arabs in the south, and with the Kurds in the north. Iraq has waged a clever campaign to lift the sanctions that the United Nations imposed, but it continues in every way to behave as an outlaw. The most recent outrage is the seizure of William Barloon and David Daliberti, two civilian Americans who were seized as they went to visit a friend at a U.N. compound just south of the Iraq-Kuwait border. Lost and having strayed across the border, Iraqi military forces seized these two Americans, charged them with sabotage, and sentenced them to 8 years in prison in what was patently a kangaroo court. Mr. Speaker, civilized societies do not behave in this manner. Responsible governments do not impose trumped up charges against innocent civilians in an effort to achieve foreign policy objectives. This Member must note that, if the Government of Iraq hopes to enhance its international image, this is not the way to accomplish this goal. The wholly unwarranted imprisonment of William Barloon and David Daliberti only serve to reinforce the consensus that Iraq is not ready to behave responsibly. In the face of this outrage, this body needs to speak in a clear and unequivocal voice and urge the immediate release of Mr. Barloon and Mr. Daliberti. This Member commends the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Sterns] for bringing House Resolution 120 before this body, and the distinguished gentleman from New York, the chairman of the International Relations Committee [Mr. Gilman], for his cooperation in bringing this resolution to the floor. Mr. Speaker, this Member urges adoption of House Resolution 120.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, the subject of this special order is the United States-North Korea Nuclear Agreement. Mr. Speaker, it increasingly is clear that the United States-North Korea Nuclear Agreement signed last October is flawed and that it contains great risks to important American nonproliferation and regional security interests. North Korea's confrontational behavior to date raises serious questions about whether Pyongyang is acting in good faith. North Korea has diverted to military use some of the United States- supplied heavy oil that we already have delivered under the terms of the agreement, and the North has continued its relentless political attacks against our ally, South Korea. North Korea continues to make new and outrageous demands, including a demand for a billion dollars in additional assistance. Earlier this week United States-North Korean talks in Berlin were broken off prematurely and without agreement due to Pyongyang's refusal to accept South Korea as the source of light water reactors to be provided under the agreement--a crucial violation of the spirit of the agreement and a definite deal stopper. Mr. Speaker, Congress must send a strong message to North Korea. The United States will not succumb to North Korean blackmail and brinkmanship. Today, this Member is introducing legislation that seeks to address the outstanding significant problems with the October 1994 agreement. This legislation would give the Clinton administration much-needed policy direction. Among other features, this legislation will: First, underscore that the Congress regards the terms of the October 1994 agreement as the absolute minimum acceptable conditions for addressing the threat posed by North Korea's nuclear program; second, the legislation will make clear that South Korea is the only acceptable source for the light-water rectors that are to be provided to North Korea under the agreement; third, no legislation will emphasize the primacy of the United States-South Korea relationship by conditioning further steps toward the normalization of United States-North Korea relations on progress toward a North-South dialog and fulfillment of the 1992 North-South accord on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula; fourth, the legislation will reinforce the importance of other American objectives regarding the Korean Peninsula, including the reduction of North Korea's military forces and their redeployment away from the Demilitarized Zone, prohibiting the deployment of ballistic missiles by Pyongyang, and deterring the export of missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Fifth, and, finally, the legislation will make it clear to the administration that the Congress retains final authority over any expenditures in support of the agreement, by insisting that any reprogramming actions must follow the notification requirements stipulated in the Foreign Assistance Act. Mr. Speaker, this is not a partisan issue. Everyone should be concerned about the very real danger on the Korean Peninsula. This Member would urge his colleagues to join as co-sponsors on this important national security initiative.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this member has supported nationwide congressional term limitations the past and currently is an original cosponsor of legislation in the 104th Congress to accomplish just that in the form of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In addition, this Member cosponsored term limitation legislation the first day of the 103d Congress--the first legislative day after Nebraska offered term limits by citizen initiative. This was necessary to protect Nebraska's interest vis a vis other States who had not passed similar congressional term limits. This Member believes that the prevailing criteria for any congressional term limits must be a nationwide standard. Otherwise, this Member must reiterate his belief and previous statements that the unilateral action by this Member's home State of Nebraska in passing a term limitation for its congressional delegation places Nebraska at a disadvantage in terms of seniority and representation when compared with the congressional delegations from other States without such limitations. Under the rule, the House will consider four constitutional amendments in the nature of a substitute under a winner-take-all procedure. This Member has carefully examined the four substitutes and provides the following analysis of these measures. First of all, this Member supports the passage of the McCollum 12- year term limit proposal, the base bill, since this Member has been cosponsoring it since the first day of the 103d Congress. Therefore, this Member hopes that the McCollum provisions are the final passage vote. Second, this Member will vote for the Inglis 6-year term limit alternative even though, in this Member's judgment, it is not in the best interest of the country. That is an issue about which people can legitimately disagree, and voting for this provision which is, in this Member's judgment, of doubtful merit, is not a violation of our oath of office. This Member's vote for it can only be justified on the basis that it is what the people of Nebraska overwhelmingly approved during the last election. This Member does not see any clear justification for substituting his judgment for their collective judgment even though this Member laments the payment for petition circulators and the inordinate amount of out-of-state money used by supporters as is unfortunately still permissible under Nebraska State law. Third, this Member intends to vote ``no'' on the Hilleary 12-year cap alternative because it does not preempt State law. Thus if the U.S. Supreme Court permits under the Arkansas case, or a subsequent case, other States could have a 12-year, a 10-year, or an 8-year term limit while Nebraska will be stuck with a 6-year limit; that would put Nebraskans at a disadvantage. While it is true that the Inglis alternative also does not preempt State law, but it provides for a 6- year term limit and no State is likely to limit terms to less than 6 years; thus, Nebraska at least would not be at a disadvantage under the Inglis alternative. Finally, this Member will vote against the Peterson-Dingell-Frank retroactive term limit alternative as a transparently disingenuous, partisan ploy. Again, this Member supports nationwide congressional term limits and will vote in accordance with that stance.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his colleagues this editorial which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald on March 12, 1995. Rush Limbaugh urged his listeners to complain to news organizations that have carried misstatements about a House GOP plan to convert the school lunch program into block grants. Many listeners, it is reported, followed his advice. Their concerns are grounded in fact. As recent World-Herald editorials have noted, a good many people, including some writers and commentators, accept the falsehood that food would be taken away from poor kids if the Republicans had their way. In reality, the GOP plan would spend more, not less, on school lunches although spending would grow at a slower rate in the next few years. The charge that poor kids would go hungry is only one of the ridiculous misrepresentations that have circulated about the proposal. Another misrepresentation has been addressed by Robert W. Goldberg, a researcher at Brandeis University. School lunches aren't just for poor kids, he noted. School lunches have become a middle-class entitlement with most of the growth in recent years coming in wealthier school districts. The stupidy of subsidizing meals for non-needy kids was noted by President Jimmy Carter in 1980. But his attempt to preserve the benefits for low-income children while making others pay more of their own way failed to attract congressional support. Little by little, the truth comes out. It should help the public evaluate the plan fairly to know that a previous liberal Democrat in the White House had concerns about school lunches that are similar to those now being voiced by House Republicans. Jimmy Carter was right. Providing nutrition for needy children is one thing. But a government that is spending itself into bankruptcy can't afford to feed the rich and near-rich.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is a proud day for Nebraska because the NCAA football champions University of Nebraska Cornhuskers are in the city to be honored today. At 11:30 on the south lawn of the White House, they were honored by President Clinton. We are very proud, of course, of coach Tom Osborne, his coaching staff and the players of the Nebraska Cornhuskers. Coach Osborne has taken his teams to 22 consecutive bowls. He has the best winning record of any active college coach in the Nation, with over 82 percent wins. We are also very proud of the fact not only do we have three all- American players on the team this year, but we have three academic all- Americans, including the outstanding academic all-American in the United States, which gives the University of Nebraska now more academic all-Americans by far than any other school in the country. Coach Osborne, we take our football very seriously out there. We liked the event so much today, we think we will make it an annual affair. Congratulations.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of this measure and to express his pleasure at seeing this much needed legislation finally brought before this body. This Member introduced the first product liability legislation in the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature in 1977. During this process this Member realized that this issue must be dealt with on the Federal level, because the vast majority of products and services move through interstate commerce. Addressing product liability at the state level is like patching one hole in a tire with fifty holes. Now, finally, this issue is being debated on the House floor after years of being bottled-up in committee by the trial attorneys and the former chairmen of the respective committees. Mr. Speaker, all Americans are paying much higher prices for consumer goods and services because this legislation has been delayed for so very long. The insurance costs incurred by companies protecting against and paying for outrageous and unreasonable product liability suits are passed along to the consumer each and every day, in nearly every product and service purchased. Perhaps even more outrageously, the current system unfairly imposes upon the American public product design standards, which are created in response to penalties awarded in a few states with the highest punitive and compensatory damages. Those States get to impose their juries' ideas of appropriate design and safety standards on the rest of the Nation. That is a perversion of Federalism. National standards should be set by the national legislature. That is what this bill will do. Mr. Chairman, this Member has been a long-time co-sponsor of product liability reform, dating back to at least 1986. This Member is pleased that this long delayed measure is finally being debated on the House floor and urges his colleagues to support it.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his colleagues this editorial which appeared in the Omaha World-Hearld on March 2, 1995. GOP Would Keep School Lunches and Let States Run the Program The notion was spread that Republicans in Congress are about to snatch school lunches from the mouths of hungry kids. It's not going to happen. It hasn't even been proposed. Such talk is part of a gross misunderstanding, orchestrated by critics of a GOP plan that would transfer the school nutrition program from the federal government to the states. Nobody is proposing that the school lunch program be eliminated. Nobody is recommending that low-income kids be denied free lunches. Certainly nobody is urging that less be spent to keep poor children properly fed--and therefore attentive--during the school day. Neither does the issue have anything to do with shutting down the cafeteria lines. Some Republicans merely believe that the states can feed the kids more efficiently and bring the program's runaway costs under control. Those Republicans may well be right. Critics say that states have a poor record in providing social services. Some states have indeed done poorly, although the critics sometimes have to reach back to Mississippi or Alabama in the 1950s or 60's to illustrate their contention. Times have changed. No good reason exists that Governors Nelson, Branstad and Romer and their colleagues shouldn't have the opportunity to show whether they can run the lunch program more efficiently and compassionately than the federal government has run it. If the states revert to the behavior of a Mississippi in the 1950s, of course, Congress should take another look. But nothing suggests that they would do that. Unfortunately, the GOP plan has been widely misrepresented. President Clinton said it threatens the interests of children. Ellen Goodman, a Boston Globe columnist, made it sound monstrous when she wrote that the country ``is simply not too broke to feed poor schoolchildren,'' Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., called it despicable and declared that children would go hungry if it passed. An Agriculture Department official said decades of progress in good nutrition were about to be reversed. Such overheated rhetoric. Sponsors of the proposal deny that spending would be cut at all. In 1994, the federal appropriation was $4.3 billion, with the states adding funds of their own. The GOP plan would allocate block grants of $6.78 billion next year, rising to $7.8 billion in 2000. That's not a cut. But critics have another way of measuring things. They note that earlier projections were $5 billion to $7 billion higher over the five-year period. That much will be needed, they contend, to meet population growth and inflation. Whether the projects reflect genuine need, however, is debatable. Most beneficiaries in the school lunch program are kids from middle-income and upper-income families. They receive subsidized meals even though they are deceptively told that they pay ``full price.'' In the language of the school-lunch bureaucracy, ``full-price'' means that the government is paying only 32 cents of the total instead of the $1.90 it pays for low-income kids. Under the Republican plan, there would be no subsidies for the rich and middle-income lunchers. But that hardly constitutes forcing children to go hungry. Since when did the government have the right to use the tax of low-income and middle-income people to subsidize families who live in $400,000 houses and earn $300,000 a year? Other critics of the GOP plan stress the welfare aspect. They talk about the lunches as a way of fighting hunger among kids who may have no alternative to the subsidized meals they receive at school. Some of the critics say the number of needy kids is certain to grow in the next few years. Suppose they are right. It would provide further vindication for the Republican approach, under which middle- income families and rich families would pay their own way to free more funds for the needy. That isn't a bad thing. Certainly it would constitute the dreadful assault on defenseless children that critics have so deceptively accused the Republicans of proposing.

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, would my understanding be correct though, that a Member of the House, not a member of the committee, who has his amendment printed in the Record would have priority over a member of the committee?

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, was I correct in understanding that amendments that are preprinted will have priority under the proposal?

Mr. BEREUTER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the reason this gentleman was so upset when we took up the crime bill, block grant, is that the parliamentarian informed the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole that no matter how long I stood here, and I waited for nearly 7 hours to offer an amendment, but not being a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole was informed by the parliamentarian that the Chairman had no option but to continue to recognize members of the Committee on the Judiciary for amendments, be they printed or not printed. And many, many, many were nonprinted, and they continued to be offered. And Members of the House who were not members of the Committee on the Judiciary were shut out from offering amendments. In fact, I just directed a letter to the chairman of the Committee on Rules about how this process does not serve Members well who are not members of the committee debating the bill before us. So I would hope that the Committee on Rules might at least give all Members priority whose amendments are preprinted. I understand that the members of the committee and certainly the chairman should have priority for amendments that are printed in the Record, but you see we can be completely shut off from offering our amendments if we are not members of the committee. That is exactly what happened to this gentleman. So I would like to ask the chairman of the Committee on Rules if he would give that matter some consideration. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. BEREUTER. Would a Member who has his amendment printed have priority over a member of the committee whose amendments were not printed in the Record.

Mr. BEREUTER. Would a Member, not a member of the committee, have priority, who has his amendment printed in the Record, have priority over a member of the committee in offering such an amendment?

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend two recent editorials regarding H.R. 728, the Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants Act, to his colleagues. Editorials from Omaha World Herald and the Lincoln Journal support the House-passed local government block grant program over the grant programs in the 1994 crime control bill that would provide money for the COPS program and other specific grant programs. According to the Lincoln Journal editorial from February 20, 1995: . . . When Congress passed a crime bill with a 100,000 officer component last year, dozens rushed forward to grab the first round of grants and cash in on the chance to add people to their police forces. President Clinton, sensing that 100,00 is still a magic and marvelously symbolic number, has chosen to make it the centerpiece of his first veto threat. Tinker with that portion of the crime bill, he is warning Republicans who are all too anxious to do just that, and bipartisanship will go by the boards. The Journal is certainly interested to hear the news that the President is--apparently--prepared to make one of his few firm stands. But the Journal is not interested in seeing him issue a veto for the sake of a single number--even a six- figure number. In this case, it is the Republicans who have the better plan. They want to let states and individual communities decide how to take a bite out of crime. They want to distribute money and leave the decision at the local level as to whether it will be spent directly on more police officers or on some other crime efforts that are regarded as more effective. It make sense for a variety of reasons, including flexibility. In a metropolitan setting, the oft-maligned idea of midnight basketball might actually offer more help in crime prevention. In cities like Lincoln, where community policing is much in vogue, it might make more sense to spend it on a satellite police station or some need that is closely aligned with community policing. It is also important ton note that the Federal commitment to putting more police on the street does not extent to training or equipment and that it is only good for three years. After that, as it appears now, grant recipients would be left to stand the entire cost of however many personnel they hire. The second editorial is from the February 17, 1995, Omaha World Herald. No False Promises in House Crime Plan President Clinton has been in a huff over congressional efforts to redesign the crime bill he signed into law in 1994. The president says he will veto any attempt to dismantle a program that promised to put 100,000 police officers on the streets. However, Clinton's claim that the $8.8 billion allocated by Congress for that purpose would actually finance that many officers has always been suspect. City officials in Omaha and a number of other places soon discovered that Congress had attached so many strings to the money that applying for it was in some cases impractical. For one thing, cities can't add even one officer unless they put up their own money first--25 percent of the total. The federal funding runs out after five years. Moreover, law enforcement experts said the $8.8 billion wouldn't come close to covering the cost of hiring, training and equipping 100,000 officers without forcing communities to come up with still more of their own money. By some accounts, the federal money would pay for closer to 20,000 new officers. The House has now voted to cancel $7.5 billion in unspent funds for the police buildup. Also canceled would be $3.9 billion in unspent funds for social programs that the previous Congress had included under the heading of ``crime prevention.'' Instead, the House proposes $10 billion in block grants to the states. States and cities could design their own anti-crime programs. Clinton has been adamant about preserving the 100,000- officer program. But the House idea is better. It makes no false promises. And it takes government another step away from the idea that Big Brother in Washington knows more about fighting crime than the mayors and police chiefs who are engaged in that fight every day.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, on February 15, 1995, HUD issued regulations to revise and clarify the final rule on escrow accounting procedures under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The final rule was published on October 26, 1994 and established accounting rules and methodologies for computing escrow accounts on federally related loans. The amendments to those regulations, which were published last week make a number of changes which were sought and are supported by the mortgage industry. I would like to clarify that it is just these type of regulations that would fall within the exclusion of Section 6(3)(B)(i).

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], a member of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I seek to control the time in opposition. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], the senior member of the Committee on International Affairs.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would take this opportunity to explain the two Bereuter amendments to title V of H.R. 872, the National Security Restoration Act, that were accepted under unanimous consent during yesterday's debate. The first of these amendments addresses concerns raised about section 508 of the bill. This amendment deletes language that would prohibit the President from spending Department of Defense funds on any operation that was authorized by the U.N. Security Council unless Congress specifically authorizes the use of funds for that purpose. This body should know that section 508, as drafted, would be an extraordinary limitation on the President as Commander in Chief. This limitation has its origins in what many on our side of the aisle view as legitimate concerns about the judgment of the current Commander in Chief, but that does not, ipso facto, mean that this body should limit the prerogatives of the Commander in Chief. If enacted, this statute would limit the actions of any future administration--Republican and Democrat alike. There is a need to separate our understandable frustration about some policy decisions made by this administration from the act of legislating restrictions. Constitutional questions have been raised. Can the legislative branch limit the actions of the President as Commander in Chief by withholding funds until a specific authorization has been approved? for decades, Members on both sides of the aisle have complained about constitutional infringements through the War Powers Act and the Boland amendments. This body should be very careful about placing further limitations, however well intended. This body needs to be aware that crises do occasionally occur when Congress is not in session. The President still must have the flexibility to act as Commander in Chief after this body has recessed. Lastly, section 508 reflects a genuine and bipartisan indignation regarding the manner in which this administration went to the U.N. Security Council for approval of nonemergency peacekeeping operations in Haiti without coming to Congress for prior approval; nor did the Clinton administration come to Congress when they escalated the humanitarian operation in Somalia into a peace-enforcement operation. But we should remember that this provision is not central to the Contract With America. Members on this side of the aisle should recall that section 508 is not a part of the contract document that many House Republicans signed. The important peacekeeping provisions of Contract With America deal with: maintaining U.S. command of U.S. troops; making sure the United States is no longer to be grossly exploited through exorbitant assessments; and ensuring that the United States reimbursed for all of incremental costs in our peacekeeping expenditures. provisions in this legislation to be obscured by raising this an unnecessary constitutional question. Failing to address this issue would leave the administration with a legitimate excuse for challenging the constitutionality of this legislation and thereby justifying a Presidential veto. The second amendment that was approved under unanimous consent addresses this Member's concern regarding the level of reimbursements that nations should receive for peacekeeping activities. This Member raised the issue in committee, seeking at that time to set U.S. policy on this matter. While both majority and minority generally expressed sympathy for my concern, this Member was persuaded by the argument that it was not yet time to establish a new U.S. Government policy on reimbursement matters. But the problem remains. It is only proper that Congress understand the full extent of the problem. Hence, the reporting requirement. We know how much the United Nations pays nations who supply peacekeepers--slightly over $980 per month for enlisted, and around $1,300 for officers. It is also clear that some of the lesser developed nations that provide a higher proportion of the peacekeeping troops in many U.N. operations are paying their troops far less than this amount--sometimes less than 10 percent of the U.N. personnel payments-- in other words a 1,000 percent mark up. The personnel payments, of course, don't go to the individual soldiers--but, yes, you guessed it, to the treasury of the country sending that underpaid soldier. It might be one thing if these nations were plowing their reimbursements back into their military to augment training. But this does not appear to be the case. Rather, it would seem that this is a case of take the money and run. This is a poor reason to be involved in peace-keeping operations. We also have indications that the civilian managers and general- purpose police officers, international cops on the beat, attached to peacekeeping operations from some accounts are making obscene amounts of money--over $100,000 per year. The International Relations Committee has heard tales, which I have reason to believe are accurate, of mid-level civilian employees making six figure salaries, with an extraordinary package of perks that would make even the most jaded individuals blush. Regrettably, I have concluded that it is premature, in H.R. 7, to set U.S. policy on these issues until this body has the facts, but it is entirely appropriate to expect to receive the facts so that we can strenuously demand reforms. This amendment requires the Secretary of State to present these facts. The United Nations probably may object to supplying some of this information. After all, some at the United Nations and certainly some member nation may find it to be in their interest to keep us in the dark as to how our peacekeeping dollars are being spent. But the United States--indeed any nation--should be able to get such information from the United Nations. Again, this amendment is a vehicle to require this information and to ask our Government to recommend the kind of reforms it will push in the United Nations or which we in the Congress can demand next year.

Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman, I hope created by this. The President, of course, is proposing to spend $100 million for the Warsaw Initiative, part of which could go for the countries which would be eligible. There is no mandatory timeframe, of course. We have by the action of the framers of H.R. 7 and by action of the Committee on International Relations taken additional criteria that ought to be considered, giving some guidance to these countries on how we ought to proceed. But we certainly are not forcing our allies or the President to take them in.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Torricelli amendment. There is a lot of confusion around here. Nowhere is there a requirement that the President enlarge NATO. Nowhere is there a requirement that the United States support an enlargement provide some leadership. It is assisting, and it would encourage NATO expansion. This has been unfairly characterized as mandatory foreign aid, even mandatory military aid. There is nothing about it that is mandatory. If the President decides to create an office but uses no funds, he has that authority. But what has the President done? He has offered the Warsaw Initiative last July, and in the budget document we submitted, we have $100 million for the Warsaw Initiative. We would expect that under section 604 as written the Warsaw Initiative funds would be channeled through this source. Nowhere is it restricted to military assistance. If in fact we talk to the State Department, they will talk to us about transportation improvements and other kinds of ESF related expenditures. There may in fact not be a single penny spent on military aid as a result of this. What I think we are doing is trying to provide some guidance. If in fact we are going to enlarge into the Visegrad Four countries or other eligible countries for a period of time when they meet the criteria spelled out in title VI, then we would have an opportunity to expand NATO, with the approval of our 15 additional NATO allies. But what we are attempting to do with this program is to provide some guidance to the executive branch. That is an entirely appropriate activity of the Congress of the United States. The President is proposing to spend $100 million on the Visegrad Four and other Partnership For Peace countries. We are going to give some direction through section 604. Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of the Torricelli amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I commend him on his work. It has indeed taken care of some clarification both with respect to the Soviet Union and the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia. I thank the gentleman for his work, it is very fine work. I hope we can support it.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Nebraska rises in strong opposition to the Leach amendment. It is not what the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] adds that is the problem. It is what he deletes. As the gentleman may recall, I did something like this in the committee without success, but without deleting language. The amendment would take out of the statement in section 401 the phrase ``that nothing in this section may be construed, one, as authority for the President to use any element of the Armed Forces in any operation, two as authority for the President to place any element of the Armed Forces under the command and operational control of a foreign national, or, three, as an unconstitutional infringement on the authority of the President as Commander in Chief.'' The third element in this phrase is exactly what the Committee on National Security added to assure that we are not infringing upon the constitutional rights of the President as Commander in Chief. Without these statements, it would be argued that section 401 is intended by Congress as a grant of authority to the President to place U.S. forces under foreign operational control in those circumstances where it has not been forbidded. I for one do not ever want my vote on this legislation to be criticized as a vote in favor of authorizing the President to place U.S. forces under foreign command. It is to ensure that our approval of this measure is never interpreted as an authorization of foreign command that this language is found in section 401. But the Leach amendment will delete it. He will also delete the report requirement which is in a following subsection. gratuitous requirement. There is a serious question whether foreign command arrangements can ever be constitutional. A recent article in the Washington Times by distinguished former officials in the U.S. Justice Department, Mr. Casey and Mr. Rivkin, set forth the constitutional problems with foreign command, and I will add that op-ed piece for the Record. The reporting requirements which the amendment would delete provide us further insulation from the charge that we are authorizing something in section 401 that is unconstitutional. I would say to the gentleman respectfully that his arguments, while learned, do not go to what the gentleman is really doing through his amendment, because what the Armed Services Committee or National Security Committee has done is put in the phrase to assure that we are not violating the constitutional powers of the President, again it is the following: Nothing in this section may be construed as an unconstitutional infringement on the authority of the President as commander in chief. I urge my colleagues to reject the Leach amendment. (The article referred to follows:) [From the Washington Times, Jan. 30, 1995] Congress, the President and the United Nations (By Lee A. Casey and David B. Rivkin Jr.) When American troops began to arrive in France in 1917, the Allied High Command demanded that they be immediately assigned to fill the gaps (created by the kaiser's machine guns and the Allies' own idiocy) in the French and British formations on the Western Front. Gen. John ``Black'' Jack Pershing said no. As commander of the American Expeditionary Force, he insisted that American troops would fight under American officers, in American formations, pursuant to the direction of the American president. American troops were in Europe as the representatives of a great power, fighting to make the world safe for democracy, not as modern-day Hessians. Pershing's decision was both politically wise and constitutionally correct. It is a precedent that has been honored in the observance more than the breach, and Sen. Bob Dole would like to keep it that way. The new Senate majority leader is so concerned with President Clinton's affection for U.N. peacekeeping missions (and suggestions that American troops may actually be assigned to serve under U.N. commanders) that he has introduced legislation to require congressional approval of any such arrangement. Ironically, Mr. Dole's bill--S. 5 the ``Peace Powers Act of 1995''--has provoked criticism from usually sympathetic quarters. For example, The Washington Times suggested that the bill would unwisely limit the president's power to deploy American troops as necessary around the world. More broadly, a number of senior Republicans (including former Secretary of State James Baker) have admonished the Republican-controlled Congress not to continue their Democrat predecessors' destructive policy of interfering with the president's foreign policy powers. In principle, these admonitions are well-placed. However, as applied to S.5, they miss the mark. Mr. Dole's bill might well tie the president's hands in certain instances, but it does not interfere with his constitutional prerogatives. In fact, Mr. Dole's instinct--to try to limit the president's ability to place American troops under foreign command--is constitutionally sound, and the bill has much to recommend it. As a start, it would repeal the War Powers Resolution, replacing that provision's constitutionally impermissible limits on the president's use of American forces abroad with simple consultation and reporting requirements. Contrary to the claims of its critics, the bill's major flaw is not that it would prohibit the president from assigning American forces to U.N. command, but that it purports to allow such arrangements if Congress gives its consent. Under the Constitution the president does not have the authority, either as commander-in-chief or as chief executive, to subordinate American troops to foreign command--and Congress cannot vest him with that authority. The president's authority as chief executive to make foreign policy is broad (in the Curtiss-Wright Export case the Supreme Court called it ``plenary''), and the Constitution admits of few limits on his ability to command the armed forces as commander in chief. The Supreme Court also has made clear that these powers are at their height when the president acts with the specific authorization of Congress. These powers are not, however, entirely without limit. (It was not the Framers' habit to grant absolute power, with respect to any subject, to any branch of government.) In this instance, the president's authority over the armed forces (and the authority of Congress) is limited by the Constitution's requirement that anyone exercising the legal authority of the United States must be an ``officer'' of the United States, appointed in accordance with the ``Appointments Clause.'' The Constitution's Appointments Clause (Article II, section 2, clause 2) provides that the president ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.'' Congress may vest the authority to appoint less important or ``inferior'' officers in the president alone, the courts of law, or with the heads of federal agencies. ``Principal'' officers, however, must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Supreme Court made clear in the landmark case of Buckley vs. Valeo that only individuals appointed in accordance with this provision may exercise ``significant'' federal authority. Although the Appointments Clause is more often analyzed in terms of civilian appointments, it is fully applicable to military appointments--a point the Supreme Court reaffirmed only last term in a case styled Weiss vs. United States. Indeed, it is difficult to think of a more significant federal authority than the right to command American troops and, unlike the civilian service, Congress has required that even very junior military officers be appointed by and with the consent of the Senate. Neither the president nor Congress can waive the applicability of the Appointments Clause. As a result, no individual, whether the secretary general of the United Nations or a U.N. commander in the field, who is not a properly appointed officer of the United States can direct the actions of American troops. There have, of course, been instances when American troops did indeed serve under foreign command. Pershing himself was forced to relent--for a time--in the face of a massive German offensive, and allow American troops to serve under Allied command. GIs also fought--again for a time--under British Field Marshal Montgomery during World War II. These are, however, exceptions to the rule, expedients undertaken in the very gravest circumstances of world war. Such instances do not alter the Constitution's clear requirement that only officers of the United States may command U.S. troops; that document cannot be amended by its own violation. Nor do they justify further violation of the Constitution's requirements. Naturally, there are many possible arrangements for cooperation with the United Nations, and between American and allied troops on the ground, that would not violate the Appointments Clause. A prime example is NATO's practice, where the Supreme Allied Commander Europe--the Alliance's top military officer--has always been a U.S. general, an arrangement that is fully consistent with the Appointments Clause. In this respect, as in other military and foreign policy areas, the president has very great discretion in making agreements with the United Nations, or other international organizations. He is free to consult with the U.N. hierarchy in formulating American foreign policy. He can dispatch American forces to trouble spots at the request of the United Nations, and he can instruct those forces to cooperate fully with the U.N. command structure and with any other forces U.N. members contribute. He can subordinate the interests of the United States to those of the international community if he chooses. The president is answerable for each of these actions to the electorate, and may well face congressional retaliation in the form of slashed budgets, legislative gridlock or even impeachment, if Congress objects. The Constitution, however, does not forbid any of these actions. What the president cannot do is to interpose a U.N. (or any other foreign) official into the chain of command. The president can delegate his authority only to a duly appointed officer of the United States. Any arrangement for international cooperation that includes the actual subordination of American military command to individuals who are not duly appointed officers of the United States, interposing those officials between the president and American troops, must fail. If Mr. Clinton persists in placing American troops under U.N. command, Congress would be perfectly within its rights to remind the president that the Constitution forbids such an arrangement. Congress cannot, however, remove the constitutional impediment simply by giving its consent. The branches of government cannot among themselves agree to ignore the Constitution's mandates. Congress could, of course, remove the constitutional impediment in accordance with the terms of Appointments Clause itself, by allowing the president to commission U.N. officials into the federal service. Senior officers (and junior ones if Congress chooses) would have to undergo Senate confirmation, but there is no constitutional requirement (although there currently is a statutory one) that officers of the United States also must be U.S. citizens. Under these circumstances, U.N. or foreign military officers could command American forces. They would, of course, be subject to the direction of the president, to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and accountable for their actions as are other American officers. Such an arrangement might or might not be acceptable to the United Nations (probably not), and it is likely that there would be considerable congressional opposition (snowballs in hell come to mind). But Congress within the bounds of the Constitution. What it cannot do is to agree with the president to ignore the Constitution's requirements--and the accountability they ensure--by allowing him simply to assign American troops to foreign command.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to express his dissatisfaction with the rule granted for consideration of H.R. 728. This rule placed a 10-hour time limit on debate on any amendments. According to the rule, preference was to be given to amendment preprinted in the Congressional Record. Preference was also given to members of the Judiciary Committee, whether their amendments had been printed in the Record or not. Over 1 hour and 47 minutes were taken for votes, leaving many Members who are not members of the Judiciary Committee without an opportunity to offer their amendments. If the time for votes had not been included in the 10 hours for debate, many other Members would have been able to offer amendments. Specifically, this Member tried throughout the day on Tuesday, February 14, to offer his amendment No. 22, which was printed in the Congressional Record on February 13. A copy of the amendment follows: Amendment to H.R. 728, as Reported, Offered by Mr. Bereuter of Nebraska Page 12, after line 7, insert the following: ``(10) the unit of local government will spend not more than 50 percent of the funds received under this title to purchase law enforcement equipment and hardware, including but not restricted to vehicles, machinery, communications equipment, and computer equipment, that assist law enforcement officials in reducing or preventing crime and improving public safety unless the Attorney General certifies that extraordinary and exigent circumstances exist that make the use of more than 50 percent of such funds for such purposes essential to the maintenance of public safety and good order in such unit of local government. The Bereuter amendment was simple and straightforward. It would have prohibited the use of more than 50 percent of the grant for law enforcement equipment and hardware, including but not restricted to vehicles, machinery, communications equipment, and computer equipment. This amendment also had a waiver provision so that in extraordinary circumstances a local government may make a request to the Attorney General for an exemption from the 50-percent restriction. The 50-percent restriction would be a very minimal requirement. It was not unreasonable in any way and would not have imposed a burden or hardship on local governments. It is interesting to note that a 1976 study of the LEAA grants indicates that the percentage of LEAA grants spent on equipment from 1969 to 1971 range from 39.2 to 22.2 percent. The Bereuter amendment was very generous perhaps to a fault, by limiting equipment expenditures to 50 percent. The Bereuter amendment would have gone a long way to improve H.R. 728 by placing greater emphasis on funding for personnel and locally supported and locally effective crime programs. This amendment also provided some answer and some assurance to those concerned that there would be a decrease in the numbers of new cops on the street by ensuring that only half of the funds could be used for equipment and hardware. This restriction also provided some restraint against excesses by local governments. The Schumer amendment accept in the Judiciary Committee would not have been affected by this amendment. The prohibition on the use of grant funds for tanks, limousines, planes, real estate, and yachts would have remained in place. Another Schumer amendment offered during Floor debate added the prohibitions on the use of funds for consultants and for vehicles not intended for police use. The last general block grant program to fight crime was the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration block grant program in the 1970's. There were many documented cases of outright abuse and waste of taxpayers' funds. During debate on H.R. 728, many examples were given and many comparisons were made to that now defunct program. LEAA was grately revised in 1979, and eventually eliminated during the Reagan administration in 1982. This Member has first-hand knowledge of some of the excesses of the LEAA grants as a result of his service on the Nebraska State Crime Commission from 1969 to 1971. While there were many criticisms of the LEAA program, the source of the most flagrant abuses of Federal funds was the use of the LEAA grants for crime fighting equipment and hardware. For example, LEAA funds were used to purchase a tank in Louisiana, an airplane for the personal use of the Governor of Indiana, a $2 million prototype that did not work, and $1.3 million fingerprint computer never used in the 7 years it was owned by the State of Illinois. In 1979, the House and Senate prohibited the use of grant funds for the purchase of equipment or hardware, except for information and telecommunications systems and bullet proof vests. Hardware and equipment could only be purchased if the purchase or payments are incurred as a incidental and necessary part of an of improvement program or project. This allowed an exception for necessary purchases but indeed it was a very wide loophole. This Member's amendment to H.R. 728 would have allowed local communities to use no more than 50 percent of the grant for equipment and hardware; this limitation would have precluded the use of a disproportionate share of funds for equipment and hardware. The Bereuter amendment was necessary to assist in avoiding the mistakes made during the existence of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. We should have learned those lessons before through the LEAA experience, after millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted. We have the power to establish a new grant program that effectively fights crime, is a formula that would reduce waste and abuse. This Member believes it is most unfortunate that this Member was not allowed to offer his amendment for a vote. It would have greatly improved the block grant program created by H.R. 728 and answered numerous arguments that personnel needs like cops on the beat and local attuned prevention programs would not be ignored or downgraded.