Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger].

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan]. (Mr. FLANAGAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg].

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry].

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf], who has been so effective and so helpful in helping to bring this matter before us tonight. (Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], chairman of our Republican Policy Committee.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss]. (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], first of all, I would like to start by thanking him for the level of this debate. By and large I think the level of this debate was excellent, considering the emotional foundation of it, how strongly we feel. I respect the passion that the gentleman just expressed here on this House floor. I appreciate that tremendously. The gentleman says that we predicate sending troops on a peace plan. Let me say to my friend that we should have predicated committing troops on a peace plan, cart before the horse. We should not have committed and then say, oh, you have got to back up the commitment, when we have not even seen a peace plan. What we are saying by this legislation tonight is that we want to see the peace plan; we want the arguments made. We want the questions answered. And then we may say, OK, it is worth doing. Most of the disagreement tonight is about time. Member after Member on that side went to the floor and said, I may vote against sending troops but the time is not right. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues that I think, if we do not do it tonight, in this time, and insist that the President bring this matter before this House before troops hit the ground over there, the time is lost, the time is gone. If this hurts the peace process, then the peace process is too fragile for us to risk lives in. I do not think this will hurt the peace process. What we are saving to the President is to get us together, how much stronger the process would be if we are together, Congress, and the President, and the American people on this. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I have to personalize this a little bit. I had one of our Members, one of our colleagues, come to me before the debate started tonight and said, ``Joel, I have an 18-year-old son that I do not want to go to Bosnia,'' and I think of that when I make these kinds of decisions. Have I been given the information necessary to say to my three daughters: Janet, Bosnia is worth it; Laurie, go to Bosnia for your country; Julie, we need you to go to Bosnia. And I would ask every Member in this Chamber to personalize it a little bit. Based on the evidence we have, would my colleagues say, yes, let us send our children, our fathers, our brothers, our sisters to Bosnia? Do my colleagues have the answer of ``for what?'' For a vague dream that it might create peace? Somalia. For What? Twenty-nine Americans lost. We sent some people, we did some good; but for what? Lebanon 241 lost. For What? Vietnam, 58,000 lost, and we look back on it today. I talked to a Vietnam Veteran yesterday who said, ``The reason the pain of Vietnam is still so in people's hearts is because they cannot answer the ``for what?'' I sometimes go to Arlington Cemetery to help remind me what this country is based on. Started burying people there in 1863. Civil war; we could answer the for what. First World War; we could answer the for what. Second World War; the answers were there. And all we are asking is that the President come down here and tell us, before he puts troops there, he tells us for what. As my colleagues know, in the Book of Revelations the scripture tells us to beware of those who cry or shout peace peace when there is no peace, and I am afraid that is the situation we have here. Before our troops hit the ground, I want the answer for what. I would encourage support of the Hefley bill.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], a gentleman who has invested an enormous amount of himself and his time in this effort.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], the distinguished chairman of our delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. I might just point out this was in our appropriations bill, and it was in a resolution. I do not know how many messages we have sent to the President on this. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers]. (Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton]. (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler]. (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham]. (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke]. (Mr. HOKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth]. (Mrs. CHENOWETH asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, finally I appreciate the willingness of the gentleman from Pennsylvania to include several changes in the manager's amendments which were brought up by myself and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay]. The changes regarding the panel's authority over partial line abandonments help give rail carriers authority to conduct their business as the market dictates and not as the Federal Government dictates. Removing the language allowing the adjudication panel to conduct investigations at their initiative would assure that the panel does not assume an investigative power that Congress does not intend for it to have. Mr. Chairman, with these changes and promises for the future, I am happy to stand here and support the bill which will eliminate the ICC.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, first, Bill Clinton as a candidate said he would balance the budget in 5 years. Then he got into office. He said it is not really important to balance the budget. Then he said maybe we can do it in 10 years, then maybe we could do it in 7 years. Only his figures did not balance. [[Page H 12205]] So I guess now he is back to the point where balancing the budget is no longer important again. Would not it be wonderful to be like Bill Clinton and wake up in a new world every day? When I was a kid, and many of you will remember this, too, by the way, today I will be the cowboy, you be the Indian; tomorrow I will be the Indian, you be the cowboy; maybe we will be policemen, maybe we will be explorers. We called it playing make believe. Bill Clinton is still playing make believe. Maybe it is fun for him to wake up in a new world every day and decide who he will be. But it is not fun for the rest of America. Decide, Bill Clinton, who are you? Liberal, conservative, whatever? America is getting tired of playing make believe.