teetering towards the peace camp,
mbs
-----Original Message----- From: McGlinchey, Daniel [mailto:Daniel.McGlinchey at mail.house.gov] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 1:00 PM To: 'daniel.mcglinchey at mail.house.gov' Subject: Update on Shays-Frank amendment
The amendment to reduce the number of troops that the United States keeps permanently stationed in Europe from 100,000 to 25,000 over a period of three years was cosponsored by Reps. Shay (R-CT), Frank (D-MA), Rohrabacher (R-CA), Condit (D-CA), Bilbray (R-CA), Rivers (D-MI), Upton (R-MI), Sanders (I-VT), and Foley (R-FL).
This amendment to the Defense Authorization bill was presented to the Rules Committee on May 25, and Reps. Shays and Frank testified in support of it. However, the Rules Committee blocked it and did not allow it to be offered on the floor of the House of Representatives.
On May 27, the House of Representatives debated the Rule and enough members of the House opposed the Rule for various reasons that the Republican leadership was forced to pull it from the floor because it was going to be defeated. The Rules Committee will now be redrafting the Rule in order to gain enough support for its passage. This means that there is some chance that the Shays-Frank amendment will be allowed when Congress reconvenes next week.
People should call their member of Congress and ask him or her to insist that the Shays-Frank amendment to the Defense Authorization bill be allowed to be debated on the floor of the House of Representatives, and to oppose the Rule if it is not. You should also request a written response from your congressman.
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1401 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 House of Representatives - May 27, 1999
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this rule degrades democracy. It is a conscious decision for the democratically elected House of Representatives to avoid open discussion and debate on the most important national security issues. Let us put aside the suggestion that time dictated that.
The gentlewoman from North Carolina said, well, there were 89 amendments submitted. The leadership that decided not to go forward with the debate on these significant issues gave us all a present a week ago of 3 days off next week that were scheduled for work. The original work schedule called for us to meet next week. Three days were canceled. So it was not time. It was a political decision.
We have on the other side Members who say, and some on this side, that one of the problems that is driving the military budget and causing strains in the budget like we just saw agony on this floor over the agriculture bill. Why? Because there is a general perception that the amount of money we have to work with does not equal the amount that people think is necessary to meet various programmatic needs. Clearly, as you increase military spending, you cause a problem there.
One argument has been, we have to increase military spending because the Clinton administration has exceeded its capacity by overcommitment. Now, that is a valid argument to be debated, but we will not be debating it here, because that is too hard. That is one that might make people mad politically. That is too fundamental. We will debate the proceeds of the dairy farm at the Naval Academy and strength equipment and whether or not it is being bought right, and nonsecure tactical radios for the 82nd Airborne. Those will all be separately debated.
But should America continue to have 100,000 ground troops in Western Europe on a permanent basis subsidizing the Europeans 50-some-odd years after the end of World War II? Nine of us, five Republicans and four Democrats, put together an amendment to say, let us cut that to 25,000, subject to the President's right to send more if there is an emergency, an absolutely untrammeled right to say in an emergency, they go over, but as an ongoing, permanent situation, let us not continue to have 100,000 American troops there.
Many of my Republican colleagues say, `Well, we don't want ground troops going into Kosovo. We didn't want ground troops in Bosnia.' I have agreed with that, but I am willing to vote that way. What we have are people who want the easy rhetorical out of denouncing something, but do not want to get caught voting for it because voting for it might someday have political consequences.
So this leadership refuses to allow the House to debate an amendment put forward by five Republican, three Democratic and one Independent Member to say, `Let's reduce troops from Europe.' In 1989, a group of us began working on burdensharing, on saying to our wealthy allies in Japan and Europe and in a few other places, the American taxpayer cannot keep paying that defense burden . We have had some successes. It has been bipartisan. My friend from Connecticut and I have been working on it.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is here. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), Ms. Schroeder when she was here, we had a good bipartisan group. This is the first time in my memory, the first time since 1989, when we have been refused an opportunity to debate burdensharing.
So let me say to the people of Europe, I hope you are grateful to the Republican leadership, because having ended one welfare program, they decided to keep another. They are keeping the most expensive welfare program in human history, the one by which American taxpayers, year after year after year--I cannot give all the years because it has been since 1945--in which we subsidize the budgets of Western Europe.
Now, you may think America ought to keep 100,000 troops in Western Europe so the Europeans can cut their budget, even though we do not ever want to use those troops, but how do you justify in the House of Representatives of this great democracy not allowing it to be debated and voted on?
There is nothing in this bill, nothing, I take it back, there is one thing, there is an amendment that would say, we will remove our troops from Haiti on a permanent basis, one of the smaller interventions. But I heard the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) talk about Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda, et cetera.
People denounce the level of commitment and say that is driving up the cost of defense. But this bill quite deliberately guarantees that whether or not we should maintain those commitments will not be debated. It is very cowardly. It is a stance of people who want to talk tough and take no action whatsoever.
It is easy to wave your arms and denounce all these commitments, but then, however, to guarantee that they cannot be debated on this floor so Members never have to take responsibility for what they proclaim politically is unworthy of a democratic process.
This bill ought to be, as it was in the past, as the gentleman from South Carolina said, the form in which this great democratic body debates, should we have a two-war strategy? What kind of nuclear strategy should we have? What should the role of the American armed forces be?
You demean democracy with this refusal to allow fundamental issues even to be debated.
***************************************************************** *********** *************
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. I just want to say from the outset that I have serious reservations about this rule, and I have serious reservations about our military. I believe our military is in trouble and needs significant help and assistance from this Congress.
Our military is not as strong as it should be because, in my judgment, we have too many bases at home and abroad. Our military is not as strong as it should be because we are oversubscribed in weapons systems. Our military is not as strong as it should be because we have not asked our allies to pay their fair share of the nonsalary costs of stationing our troops overseas.
We have asked the Japanese to pay their fair share. They pay over 75 percent of the nonsalary costs. The Japanese give us more than $3 billion in actual cash payment for the 40,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan.
The Europeans have more than 100,000 of our troops on their soil and they give us a grand total of $200 million. We offered an amendment, five Republicans and four Democrats, to initiate a U.S. troop reduction in Europe from 100,000 to 25,000 over 3 years. We thought this was a sensible proposal. We thought it should have been debated.
I just want to express again my reservation that this amendment was not made in order. Europeans have the ability to do more for the defense of their part of this world. They have the ability to pay more, but if we do not ask them to, they will not do so. They will be more than grateful to get this welfare from these United States.