Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. This amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the subcommittee allocation made under section 302(b) and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the act. I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. ROGERS. I do not see that it would.

Mr. ROGERS. I am not sure I understand the gentleman's point.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, yes, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I do claim such time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, just to be sure that a point of order is reserved on this amendment as well.

Mr. ROGERS. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) again for his persistence on this matter. There are other areas that he is working with our subcommittee on in this regard, and we will continue to work with the gentleman to try to help solve a massive problem on our border with Mexico. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from California. MR. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time to really thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for his cooperation on this specific issue but also with the other issues, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) has so appropriately brought up, that we have a comprehensive problem here and I look forward to working with the chairman as this bill moves forward, making sure that we address these issues, these environmental issues. I want to sincerely thank him very much for being so sensitive to a problem that has been ignored for much too long.

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

Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 3 minutes.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman makes an awfully strong case. We were just informed this morning on the subcommittee of the decision of the Court. I realize that it puts everyone in a very severe bind. I think we should agree to this. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an additional 1 minute total.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if, in fact, we can establish peace in Sierra Leone, we can reprogram money for them, as well.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, there is no language in this bill that would prevent the U.S. from paying an assessment for U.N. peacekeeping in Ethiopia and Eritrea in fiscal year 2001. As I said earlier on another amendment, and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) may not have heard, there now is apparently a peace agreement in effect in Ethiopia entered into since we marked up this bill. And would I say to the gentlewoman that if, in fact, that is the case and, in fact, the administration requests that we reprogram monies from this account to pay our share of a peacekeeping operation in Ethiopia, it would be eligible; and we would give it due consideration, as we do all the others.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 92, line 4, be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida, (Mrs. Fowler), who is a very important Member and senior member of the Committee on Armed Services dealing with national security.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Asia Foundation makes an important contribution to the development of democracy and economic reform in countries like Indonesia, China, other places in that part of the world where vital U.S. national interests are at stake. We froze funding at the current year level so we are already almost $2 million below what was requested of us. Any further cuts would inflict serious damage to this program and to U.S. interests and objectives all over Asia. For that reason, I urge that we reject this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I continue to reserve my point of order. Mr. Chairman, first let me respond to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). No, I was not elected Secretary of State. I would not have the slightest idea how to be Secretary of State. What I was elected to do, though, by my constituents at home and by my colleagues in the House is to be sure that we are spending our tax dollars wisely. That is what the Committee on Appropriations is supposed to do. It falls to my lot, as chairman of the subcommittee, to try to establish some discipline on the past extravagant spending by the U.N. for peacekeeping missions in the early 1990s, when we spread American troops and other nations' troops all around the world. Today we have several of these peacekeeping missions around the world, and we are paying 25 percent. I think we should have a say in how those tax dollars are spent and whether or not they should be spent in a given peacekeeping mission. Now, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is not correct. This bill does not prohibit peacekeeping missions in any country in the world. What we say in the report language is that, in any of the missions she named, monies can be spent in those missions if it is reprogrammed for that purpose. But that is true of all other peacekeeping missions that we enter into. My opposition to particular U.N. peacekeeping missions has nothing to do with where they are. It has everything to do with the nature of the task the U.N. is being asked to carry out and whether the conditions are favorable for that mission to be effective. Everyone who has looked at the failures of the U.N. in Bosnia and Somalia, Congress, the GAO, the administration, the U.N. itself, has come to the same conclusion that U.N. peacekeeping is not an effective policy tool when the situation calls for the use of force or the credible threat of force to restore or enforce peace. Sierra Leone and Congo are two such situations, and placing U.N. troops into such situations has not and will not and cannot bring peace. I deplore the current situation in Sierra Leone, and I sincerely hope that the administration will actively pursue military assistance to Nigeria to allow them to establish a real peace in that country that can be kept by the U.N. When they do, U.N. monies from this account will be reprogrammed to pay our share of the costs of a peacekeeping mission there, as we have in the past. Sending more poorly trained U.N. troops with no will or ability to pursue offensive military action against seasoned troops will not bring about that result, and yet that continues to be the administration's position. They have supported expanding the U.N. force there to 6,000, then to 8,000, then to 11,000, then to 13,000. Shortly we expect a notification that they want to expand to 16,500. And it has been nothing but a disaster, Mr. Chairman. The U.N. was supposed to disarm the rebels. The rebels have more arms now than when the U.N. mission began. Why? Because the U.N. troops surrendered their arms when they were challenged, they retreated and left their arms and their armored personnel carriers for the rebels to take and use against the rest. It is the same old lesson as Somalia and Bosnia, but I guess it is a lesson we have to learn over and over again. If we continue to bet everything on the success of the U.N. peacekeeping force waging a successful aggressive war against a rebel guerilla army, we will be sitting here a year from now, the American taxpayers will be out more than $200 million, and Sierra Leone will continue to be mercilessly attacked and its children's arms cut off. So, Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of this amendment.