Ronald Dellums: “My first observation would be, as you listen very carefully to this debate, it is a classic example of why significant…”

“My first observation would be, as you listen very carefully to this debate, it is a classic example of why significant policy with such extraordinary implications should not be offered on the floor and debated on the floor when you have not had adequate time in the context of committee proceedings to deliberate carefully. None of us knows the awesome implications of this amendment. This is not the place to simply offer an amendment without having laid the prefatory base for this amendment. Having made that observation, I rise in opposition to the Gingrich amendment because I believe this is bad foreign policy, from whatever vantage point one views it. The amendment would unilaterally change the mechanism by which U.S. assessments for U.N. peacekeeping operations are determined and paid. It would limit our U.N. peacekeeping contributions in a fashion that would do damage, in this gentleman's opinion, to our overall foreign policy and, to national security interests. This amendment may appeal to some because it appears to hit hard at the United Nations. I would suggest that this amendment is rather anti- United States rather than anti-United Nations. It strikes at the heart of American interests in preventing wars from erupting and expanding.”