Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that with sadness, I find that I must disagree and oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I read it. Let me read it to the body. ``No funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to assign or detail any member of the Armed Forces to duty with the United Nations Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters (or any similar United Nations military operations headquarters).'' This amendment could lead to disaster. First, Mr. Chairman, let me state unequivocally that I am against a standing union army. I will repeat that. I am against a United Nations standing army. That is not right. Also, thinking of the words of my friend from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), who is my good friend, he speaks of the commitment of the United States forces being kept with Congress, and if he will recall, not so long ago our colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) and I, made that case very well, and successfully, on this floor through our debate, and I think the gentleman from Colorado agreed with us, that the forces at that time should not be deployed to Bosnia. So on the very basics of which the gentleman from Colorado speaks, I agree, but that is not what we are passing into law. What is being passed into law is the amendment that I just read. It could create some real problems for American soldiers. It could create some real problems for American leadership. For instance, it restricts the flexibility of the President's ability to detail or otherwise deploy U.S. military personnel in his capacity as Commander in Chief with the advice of his military advisors. That is very, very important. I speak not just for this President, I speak for those future Presidents regardless of what political party to which they belong. I also mention the fact that it would undermine our efforts encouraging other nations to play a greater role in U.N. peacekeeping activities. If we are not helping plan something, and they know we are the best, and we are the best, whether it be at planning or in the field, it would undermine those nations' confidence, playing a role in those activities where we participate. But more than that, it concerns me a great deal that this amendment would prevent the best and the brightest of our Armed Forces to plan with other nations and to be a leading part of planning with those other nations in an operational situation. Mr. Chairman, this would be similar to prohibiting the United States of America's military forces from planning NATO operations. This does not prevent them from being in the field; this does not prevent or interfere with the Commander in Chief's prerogatives. This prevents good military thinking, and we are the best. I have spent a great deal of time, as my friend from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) will recall, with the military war colleges, both intermediate war colleges such as at Fort Leavenworth and the senior war colleges such as the National War College, and we put a lot of time, effort and money into making our captains and majors and lieutenant commanders the best and the brightest for planning things. We are good at it. We are going to say to the finest military planners, whether it be an operation that involves risk, or an operation that involves humanitarianism, or an operation that involves peacekeeping; this is going to say to the best and brightest planners in military uniform of the United States you cannot participate. You can send the troops out there, but you cannot participate in the planning. That is an invitation for disaster for some fine young Americans. One of the problems that we had in Somalia, if the gentleman remembers, was that there was no central planning for that operation. What this amendment will allow, for instance, it would allow the Bangladeshis, the Ethiopians, the Kazakhstanis, to do the planning for American forces to go out in the field. I am not about to let that happen. I am not about to let other people plan for the American troops. That is wrong. When American troops are involved, when their safety is involved, when their mission is involved, I cannot and I will not support that. I must compliment the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) in his attempt to stand, as I do, against a standing in our Nation's army. But as so often happens, this rifle shot, Mr. Chairman, sadly misses the mark. In truth and fact, the U.S. forces in Korea would be affected because that was and is a United Nations operation. The troops that we have, and I visited them, and I am so proud of them, in Macedonia on peacekeeping, watchful duty, no American military personnel could plan what they do. Do we want those other folks to tell where they are going to be, what they are going to be doing and how they are going to be doing it? No. I want Americans planning this. I would really hope that my friend from Colorado would take a good look at this and if he would like to have an amendment that would say that he stands against a standing by the United Nations army, I am with the gentleman. I think that is absolutely wrong. But let us not risk the lives of bright young Americans by not having bright, a little bit older Americans, plan what they are going to do in humanitarian or peacekeeping crisis situations. So I find myself driven to the conclusion that I must oppose this. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, may I at this point, since no Member has risen in opposition, ask unanimous consent to be permitted to control the time normally allotted to the opposition?

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Nebraska for yielding to me. I take this opportunity, however, to point out that in our research the amendment, in part, simply repeats well-established legal requirements, and we are going to hammer that nail in, I guess, twice today.

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me add some facts. One can have one's own opinions, but one cannot have one's own facts. Let me add a few of the facts. It is my understanding that in response to a letter from the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman, that was sent to various officials here in this city seeking the secret DOD report was responded to by 3 folks, one from DOD, one from the ACDA, and the other from Justice, that there is an ongoing criminal investigation by the District Attorney of the District of Columbia, and the turnover of any evidence on this matter might jeopardize the case. Mr. Chairman, being a former prosecuting attorney in the State of Missouri, I fully understand that response. I think that the facts should be clear on that issue. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair as to how much time each side has remaining?

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, all I want to point out is that in our committee there was an amendment that passed overwhelmingly against the COSCO Chinese company taking over Long Beach. I think that was important.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, since no Member has risen in opposition to this amendment, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to control the time on this side.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last week, the Committee on Rules received some 12 amendments dealing in one form or another with China. Those amendments were combined and fashioned into the four that we will address here today. As a footnote question, however, I would be interested in knowing the source of the information that the gentlewoman just said regarding missiles being targeted toward us. I would appreciate that in a timely fashion. The two broad targets of these amendments are, first, the administration policy of engagement with respect to China, and, second, the alleged improper flow of U.S. technology to China. These four amendments are either redundant, Mr. Chairman, or simply counterproductive. Let me first discuss the administration policy of engagement with China. A quarter century ago, President Richard Nixon traveled to China initiating a new relationship with the world's largest country. It is a relationship that has evolved over the past quarter century through six administrations, Republican and Democratic. Over that time, we have seen China make great strides economically as it adopted market reforms. The earlier policy under President Nixon shifted during the Bush administration as the Cold War came to an end. The strategic component that brought the two countries closer together in 1972, a mutual concern about the Soviet threat, ended upon the breakup of the Soviet Union. President Bush, the Nixon administration's first Ambassador to China, understood the important role that China would play in world affairs as the 20th Century drew to a close and the 21st approached. He realized that a country with a quarter of the world's population a country, with nuclear weapons, a country having one of the five permanent seats at the United Nations, a country successfully adopting Western market reforms was a country that the United States had to engage. The aim was to help China become a cooperative power in both Asia and the world, to have it become a responsible world power interested in promoting stability, not promoting revolution. U.S. and China relations over the more than 25 years have had more than their share of controversies, over human rights, over trade imbalances, and over proliferation. The two countries will continue to have differences in the future. However, the overall effect should be to establish a relationship where those differences can be reduced and managed in such a fashion that China sees it to be in its own interest to promote a stable international order. The Clinton administration has continued the Bush administration policy. Two years ago, relations between the two countries were at a low point, as symbolized by the Straits of Taiwan incident. Since then, the relationship has improved, with a new generation of leaders adopting policies more in keeping with those of a responsible world power. Last year's October summit between President Clinton and President Jiang Zemin marked a turning point. Recent actions seem to bear out this positive development. Last fall, for example, during the Southeast Asia's economic crisis, China took measures to stabilize the situation. It provided Thailand a billion dollar loan and resisted the temptation to devalue its currency. In financial circles, China earned high marks for acting in a responsible fashion. Let us look at a more recent crisis, the Indian detonation of five nuclear weapons last week. Under Mao, China was unconcerned about the spread of nuclear weapons. One of the difficult issues that the Clinton administration sought to address over the past five years has concerned the Chinese nuclear technology relationship with Pakistan. After the Indian explosions we see a China acting with great caution, assuming a role of responsibility on this difficult issue. It described the Indian action as showing brazen contempt for international efforts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. Recent newspaper accounts have the Chinese government trying to reassure the Pakistani government so that it does not feel compelled to meet the Indian actions with nuclear tests of its very own. I say all this, Mr. Chairman, because I believe that the actions that we take here today rather than protect U.S. security interests may actually tend to harm them. The effort to coax China along, to help those responsible figures in this government to proceed in a positive direction, will probably suffer if we succeed in bashing China today in an attempt to criticize administration policy. The tenor of the amendments is to make judgments about important policy issues before we have all the facts. We need to deal with these important matters with great care and great deliberation. I will listen to each of the amendments with great care along that line. I am afraid that we are not going to be doing a great deal positively through this debate. I hope that I am wrong.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that we are hammering the nail in that is already been flush to the board. Nevertheless, let me point this out: No controlled information relevant to ballistic missiles or warhead delivery technology has been authorized to be made available to Chinese authorities in connection with past space launches of commercial satellites. The existing procedures, including the technical safeguards agreement negotiated under the Bush administration, that is the previous Republican administration, signed in February 1993, explicitly prohibit transfer of technology related to launch vehicles. Warhead delivery technology was also prohibited. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, since no Member has risen in opposition, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to control the time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me say that if what we are really after is the same thing, why do we not amend this or rewrite it and say that the United States shall not participate in a standing United Nations army? That is not what this says. I am very, very concerned that, after the fact, we may very well find some fine young Americans, as a result of not being able to plan ahead and not have people planning ahead who know what they are doing, and Americans who know what they are doing, injured or even killed. It is a deep concern of mine. I know full well, Mr. Chairman, that on the very substance of this issue that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and I agree, but the wording of this frankly causes me a great deal of concern. If we read this very carefully, we will see that it opens a door to Ukranians and Russians and Kazakhstanis and Bangladeshis for planning what our armed forces are going to do. I cannot, I cannot, stand by and let that happen. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ike Skelton

Speeches

Manage analytics