[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign 
Appropriations as well.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who just spoke gave a fine 
speech. The problem is it does not have anything to do with this bill. 
If you look in this bill to find the cut in narcotics that the 
gentleman is talking about, there is not any. We did not cut the drug 
interdiction program. We should have, because it does not work.
  Do you know what percentage of the drugs that come into this country 
are interdicted at the border? Less than 5 percent. Do you know what 
the former deputy administrator of this program told me when he came 
and talked to me privately? He said the program does not work, and that 
you should not spend a dime on it. Despite that fact, we fully funded 
last year's level in the bill.
  Now, we did not increase the program as the administration asked us 
to because we did not have the money. We had to cut $9 billion to make 
the Clinton budget conform with the ceilings under the Budget Act. So 
we had to cut $400 million out of the foreign aid program, and we did.
  But we did not cut one dime in narcotics. What we refused to do is to 
fund an increase that we did not have the dollars to provide.

                              {time}  1440

  I would also point out that we have been attacked because we have 
supposedly engaged in a partisan act by structuring the rule on this 
bill. I want to give my colleagues the facts.
  Seven amendments are being allowed by this rule. Five of the seven 
amendments that are being allowed are Republican amendments. Only two 
are Democratic amendments. I happen to oppose those amendments.
  There were 38 amendments offered in the Committee on Rules; 16 of the 
38 amendments were amendments that would not even have been in order if 
we had had the totally open rule that the gentleman from California is 
suggesting that we should have. Six other amendments were withdrawn by 
their Republican sponsors.
  There were nine across-the-board amendments. Some of them 
duplicative, calling for the same percentage cuts, and the one that was 
agreed to was the one of the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 
in an effort to try to fund a higher number for population programs, an 
amendment which I also oppose.
  I also want to trace for Members the history of this subcommittee in 
terms of structuring the rule on this bill. This bill has been brought 
to the floor under a structured rule for the past 9 years, because we 
were originally asked to do so by Undersecretary of State Bill 
Schneider, serving in the Reagan administration, and by then-Secretary 
of the Treasury Jim Baker. They asked us to help them pass the Reagan 
foreign aid program, and they knew that because there was such 
controversy at that time that a lot of the issues in this bill were 
going to be demagoged. So they asked us to help structure the rule so 
that we would have a fair and balanced discussion on the bill. And that 
is what we did.
  I make absolutely no apology for it. It was an effort on the part of 
a Democratic chair to support a reasonable request on the part of the 
Republican administration, and we pursued that same policy under the 
Bush administration. We are pursuing it now under the Clinton 
administration. We are doing precisely the same thing that we have done 
for 9 years.
  I would suggest that rather than get exercised about a nonexistent 
power play, I would simply suggest that what we are doing is allowing 
Members to debate the major budgetary issues on this bill. And we are 
doing so by denying, in the main, consideration of amendments that 
would not be allowed under an open rule.
  I want to make one other comment with respect to narcotics. I 
understand the gentleman from New York and his concern about this 
society and this Congress' willingness to pour billions of dollars into 
new prisons, to put a great amount of political effort into three 
strikes and you are out, without doing anything real to deal with the 
problems of the victims of crime or to deal with the problems of drugs. 
I share that concern. But this bill does not have anything to do with 
that, and this bill does not do that.
  I repeat, this bill did not add money to the narcotics program, 
because we did not have the money to do it. Neither did we cut the 
program from last year's level. I repeat, we did not cut the narcotics 
program. In the context of a bill which is reduced overall by $400 
million from the President's request, we level-funded this 
appropriation. It is getting the same number of dollars it got last 
year. A number of programs are getting considerably less; some are 
getting zero.
  We zeroed out the administration's $100 million request for ESAF. In 
my view, if we are going to fight drugs, we need to fight it here at 
home through education, and through law enforcement. If we had the 
money available, I would strongly suggest that we not put it into this 
program, because any program that only stops about 4 percent of the 
drugs coming into this country is, in my view, by definition a failure.

  But the fact is, we did not cut the program. We level-funded it, in 
spite of the misgivings of the chairman and in spite of the misgivings 
of the committee.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. No 
one in the House has more respect for him.
  He consistently characterized my statement as having nothing to do 
with this bill. Now, I know that he knows a lot about a lot of 
subjects, but when the President of the United States, the Secretary of 
State, the drug czar, Mr. Brown, and all of the people that have 
developed over the years some expertise in fighting this problem, and 
they ask for $152.4 million, and the gentleman, with all of his 
expertise, gives them $100 million, under what type of logic is he 
saying that he did not cut the President's request.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I did not say we did not cut the President's 
request. I said we did not cut last year's budget.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
may have misspoke, but all I am saying is, I do not think my country 
and this administration is doing all that it can. It makes a feeble 
effort to ask for $152.4 million and the gentleman, in his judgment, 
says, ``I do not like the program so I will give them $100 million, 
because they got it last year.''
  I do not think the gentleman ought to characterize what I said as 
being out of line with the legislation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is misstating my position. I 
said that in spite of my misgivings about the program, I decided not to 
cut the program. I did not operate on the basis of the President's 
budget. We operated on the basis of last year's budget, because we did 
not have the money to go around providing large increases.
  Does the gentleman think it was a mistake that we provided an 
increase for IDA, 50 percent of that money goes into Africa?
  We decided that that had a greater effect than some of the other 
requests that the President made.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman's thinking is that putting 
the money in Africa has a greater effect than what is happening in our 
districts, then once again, I differ with his thinking.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest if we are going to deal with 
drugs, we need to put them in the drug programs that work. We funded 
last year's level fully, but we did not have the money for an increase.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Findlay, OH [Mr. Oxley], a coauthor of this very important amendment.
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me first pay tribute to our leader in the 
narcotics area, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel]. I think the 
House made a huge mistake when it eliminated the Select Narcotics 
Committee because it did not encourage those Members who have been 
fighting the drug fight for all these many years. And the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Rangel] represents the best of our efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, I really think the question for the House to decide is 
whether our amendment is going to be made in order. That question is, 
do Members want this money going to the former Soviet Union, or do they 
want it to be used to fight the narcotics trafficking going on in this 
world and that is penetrating this country. That is really the 
question.
  It seems to me that the House, not the Committee on Rules, not the 
Committee of the Whole, but in fact the House ought to determine 
exactly where that money ought to go. That really is what we are 
asking, that we defeat the previous question and allow this one 
amendment to be offered.
  I do not think it is too much to ask that the House be given an 
opportunity to work its will. We have seen huge cuts in the drug czar's 
office, in the DEA, in the FBI and in the Coast Guard, in Customs, who 
are set up to fight this drug war.
  We are going to send a terrible message to the American people that 
we no longer think drugs are a major concern in this country.
  I ask the House to consider, to vote against the previous question, 
give us an opportunity to make our case on the floor of the House. Give 
us an opportunity to make the case that drugs are a major component of 
the crime problem in this country, and the best way we can deal with it 
is to use that money to help countries who are cooperating with us in 
this drug war, whether they are producing countries or whether they are 
transit countries. That really is the question before the House.
  I think that amendment will pass overwhelmingly. I think the 
Committee on Rules and the leadership understood that intuitively, and 
that is why they would not allow the amendment.
  I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] for the help he has 
given us. Please defeat the previous question.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Winter Park, FL [Mr. Mica], a hard-working freshman 
Member who had an amendment denied by the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I had two amendments that I considered most 
reasonable. One was to cut 10 percent of the half a billion dollars 
used to administer AID. That is 10 percent of half a billion dollars, a 
half a billion dollars more than any nation on the face of the earth 
spends for administration of a giveaway program.
  The second part of my amendment is to say, ``We could cut that, but 
we could put it into supporting U.S. exports,'' which I think is a 
valuable area. I was not even talking about reducing the amount of 
money in the bill.
  Last night, Mr. Speaker, on TV millions of Americans and I had a 
chance to see the history of waste and fraud and abuse of foreign aid 
in Zaire. That is history. In 2 minutes I cannot tell the Members the 
trail of waste, fraud, and abuse in this bill. Members will hear some 
of it. Many of the amendments that were denied being heard, Mr. 
Speaker, take that kind of waste, fraud, and abuse out of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House, unfortunately, has not gotten the 
message. Maybe they did not get it in Oklahoma, Kentucky, or wherever, 
but they did not get the message that the American people want this to 
stop.
  The Committee on Rules killed an amendment that cut $50 million and 
would have transferred it from a giveaway program to a good program. 
The United States gets beat by Japan, by France and Germany. We spend 
the lowest amount of money in export underwriting and assistance of any 
civilized nation, according to this report, which is carefully detailed 
and just released by the Small Business Exporters Association.
  This committee and the bill is committed to giveaways and to studies, 
while other countries are conducting trade and business. I believe in 
trade, not aid. The world has changed, but we are still living in 
another era, in a giveaway era in this House of Representatives.
  I urge Members to kill this rule and send the Committee on Rules a 
message, and the American people will respect them for it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Madison, WI [Mr. Klug], the author of a very important 
amendment dealing with Ireland, which tragically was denied by the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, this House is supposed to debate issues, and 
that is what the fight on this rule is all about, the sense that many 
of us would like to debate foreign policy issues and the way that U.S. 
Government money gets spent on foreign policy issues, but we are never 
allowed to do it.
  Yesterday I offered an amendment to trim back funding for the 
International Fund for Ireland in fiscal year 1995 from $19.6 million 
to $10 million. A number of my colleagues think this is a terrific 
idea. It was originally set up in 1986 as part of a joint agreement 
with the European Community, New Zealand, Canada, and the United 
States, to help fund economic development projects on the Irish 
Republic-Northern Ireland border.
  Speaker Foley, for example, has said, ``In my judgment, this 
contribution represents some of the best value for U.S. dollars spent 
abroad under the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act.'' However, the former 
chairman of it, Sir Charles Brett, said that this has grown out of a 
``muddled but benevolent desire to believe that money could buy 
peace,'' and that he did not think of the purpose or potentialities of 
the fund had at all been clearly worked out before it came into 
existence.
  Last year, of the $20 million that we sent to the International Fund 
for Ireland, $8.6 million went to encourage tourism to Ireland, 
including production of a golf video, construction of a theater, and 
pony trekking centers across the country of Ireland.
  $285,000 of that money went to enhance Northern Ireland's reputation 
for quality, and $127,000 went to assist stores in Boston to sell Irish 
products.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know the legend of the leprechaun, where somebody 
gets in trouble for stealing his pot of gold. In this case, I think the 
roles are reversed, and it is the leprechaun who has been stealing 
money from us.
  Mr. Speaker, I make the point that what we need to do is to debate 
the continued United States involvement in the International Fund for 
Ireland, and it is my sense that given a $200 billion U.S. deficit, it 
is awfully difficult to explain $10 million to the American public 
spent on Irish tourism development, spent on swimming pools and 
Jacuzzis in Irish hotels, spent in golf course videos, and spent in 
pony trekking centers. It is not an appropriate use of money.
  Mr. Speaker, that is one of the reasons this rule should be voted 
down so we can debate the issue.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Middletown, NY [Mr. Gilman].
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to clarify the 
record. In fiscal year 1994 the President requested $147 million for 
the INM fund, and only $100 million was enacted. In fiscal year 1995 
the administration's request was for $152.4 million, more than last 
year's request, and again only $100 million was recommended. Fiscal 
years 1994 and 1995 are cuts any way we slice it.
  Permit me to recite some of the noteworthy results from the 
Republican antinarcotics strategy in the 1980's: There was a drop in 
cocaine use from $5.5 million in 1985 to $1.3 million in 1992, 
marijuana use was down from 20 million users in 1990 to 9 million in 
1992. Roughly half of all the estimated cocaine production was seized 
by our own agents in foreign interdiction operations, indicating that 
our international narcotics efforts have been substantial and have been 
worthwhile. Let us continue that effort by supporting this amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hall] on the Committee on Rules how many speakers there are 
remaining?
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I am 
prepared to move the previous question on the resolution.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both 
sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torres). The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dreier] has 1 minute remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hall] has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to defeat the previous question. I hope 
very much that we can make this Rangel amendment in order.
  In order to close debate, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Fort Lauderdale, FL [Mr. Shaw].
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would very quickly like to make the observation that 
the previous question that we are trying to defeat, the amendment that 
the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Rangel and Mr. Gilman, and the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] spoke to, is not money for 
interdiction, it is money for foreign operations. It is tremendously 
important to our effort.
  I would also like to correct a statement made by the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, that interdiction is not 
working. For every dollar that we spend on the interdiction effort, we 
are taking $20 of street value out of the system. I do not know of 
anywhere in the Federal budget we are getting more bang for the buck. I 
do not know anywhere we have to do more than in eradication in the 
source countries.
  Let us wake up. We have to attack this drug war on every front. 
Education is important. I agree on that. Treatment is important. I 
agree on that. Also, our foreign efforts are tremendously important.
  As the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] said, and I think quite 
courageously, and I would say this to our Democrat friends, never in 
this Congress has fighting a drug war been a partisan issue. We have 
worked together, we have worked shoulder to shoulder in this Congress, 
in trying to do a better job on all fronts. Let us not make this a 
partisan issue. To defeat the previous question is not a partisan 
issue. Let us vote to defeat the previous question.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Appropriations Committee's 
thoughtful recommendation not to appropriate funds this year to the 
ESAF, a facility within the International Monetary Fund. I want to 
thank the committee for listing to and addressing my serious concerns 
about the policies of the ESAF and the IMF in general. ESAF lends money 
to countries at concessional rates on the condition that borrowers 
adopt harsh economic structural adjustment programs based on supply-
side trickle-down economics which has been proven unsuccessful in our 
country and abroad. The goal of the IMF is to promote stable economies 
in the Third World which, in turn, would increase the standard of 
living of the citizenry. The general consensus of both progressives and 
conservatives is that, in practice, the policies of the IMF actually 
exacerbate the plight of the poor, are fundamentally undemocratic, and 
are unnessarily unaccountable.
  The burden of IMF structural adjustment programs falls inequitably on 
the poor. In the short run, they cut government programs that provide 
the bare necessities to the poor. In the long run, the countries' 
productive capacity is destroyed. Not surprisingly, the standard of 
living of the poor within the borrowing countries, in both rural and 
urban areas, sharply declined during the period IMF structural 
adjustment programs have been implemented. The percentage of rural 
populations living below the poverty line and unemployment rates 
increased significantly in many borrowing countries including Bolivia, 
Zambia, Sri Lanka, and the Phillippines. These declines coincided with 
IMF loans and significant cuts in Government social programs on 
education, health, and housing. Numerous riots broke out in response to 
the deplorable living conditions.
  The harsh and ineffective IMF structural adjustment programs are also 
imposed in a manner antithetical to democracy. Desperately poor 
countries, who often need to borrow in order to pay interest payments 
on earlier IMF loans, have no choice but to accept the IMF's 
conditional loans. Thus, the few individuals in positions of power in 
the IMF are determining the borrowing countries' economic policies 
while the national governments--which ostensibly have the authority to 
make those decisions and are sometimes elected democratically--are held 
hostage to the IMF's whim.
  Unfortunately, the full extent of the IMF's influence cannot be 
determined because the loan negotiations and resulting structural 
adjustment policies are confidential--even after the policies are put 
in place. We should not be pouring the American taxpayers' hard earned 
money into a fund that keeps us in the dark, and thereby, takes no 
responsibility for its actions. Many supporters of the IMF, like 
Professor Jeffrey Sachs who has been intimately involved in numerous 
loan negotiations, believe disclosure is practical and would promote 
sound economic policies because it would allow scrutiny by economists 
and citizens.
  Congress has made numerous attempts to fix the abuses I have 
described by directing U.S. representatives to apply their influence 
and votes accordingly. Although the IMF has verbally agreed to make 
some changes, in practice, our demands have been ignored. The IMF needs 
to know that we mean business by not appropriating funds until after 
these serious problems have been addressed.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, before yielding back the balance of my time, 
I would like to urge a no vote on the previous question so that the 
amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], and the 
amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] may be made in 
order. I will be offering one amendment when we defeat the previous 
question and that is the amendment that has been discussed here by my 
colleagues. I urge a no vote on the previous question.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule on the Foreign Operation 
Appropriation for fiscal year 1995 because I believe it unfairly 
restricts the rights of Members, both Democrat and Republican, to fully 
debate, consider, and amend this Foreign Operations Appropriation. 
Despite the fact that the right to amend is perhaps most important on 
Appropriation bills, the Rules Committee has used its powers to squelch 
debate in this House. Like many others, I wished to offer an amendment 
to this bill, and I testified before the committee to ask that my 
amendment be made in order. I had hoped to give the American people and 
their Representatives a chance to examine and debate the level of our 
contributions to the United Nations.
  But this restrictive rule prevents me from putting this amendment to 
a vote. The heavy-handed domination of the majority prevented a 
discussion of this important issue.
  In 1993, the United States paid one-quarter of the operating expenses 
of the United Nations. The next closest contributor, Japan, paid only 
12.45 percent, or less than one-half of our expenditure. After Japan, 
the next highest contributor is Germany, which expends slightly less 
than 9 percent, or roughly one-third of what American taxpayers 
contribute.
  In exchange for these costs, the United States is allowed to host the 
United Nations in New York, and supply the vast majority of the forces 
in many U.N. peacekeeping operations. I believe these expenditures are 
too high, and it seems clear to me that we must, especially in light of 
our own budget deficit, control those costs.
  I believe we should limit our contributions to the United Nations and 
its affiliated agencies to an amount commensurate to our population. In 
other words, the ratio of U.S. contribution to U.N. budget should be 
equal to the ration between U.S. population and population represented 
by the United Nations. Not only will this help us reduce our overall 
expenditures, but will also remove the premium we pay for the 
protection of the United Nations and will bring costs into line.
  The House of Representatives ought to have the opportunity to debate 
this issue. Unfortunately, the recent trend toward more restrictive 
rules has manifested itself once again, effectively gagging Members of 
Congress and in turn gagging the American people. In the future, I 
would hope that the Rules Committee will reverse this trend. It should 
allow more amendments and consequently more debate on the important 
issues before the American people.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Torres). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 191, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 202]

                               YEAS--233

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--191

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Slattery
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Andrews (TX)
     Blackwell
     de la Garza
     Grandy
     Horn
     Ortiz
     Tucker
     Washington
     Wise

                              {time}  1521

  Messrs. FORD of Tennessee, TAUZIN, and SLATTERY changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. LIPINSKI, TRAFICANT, JEFFERSON, FLAKE, MFUME and TOWNS 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torres). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244, 
nays 181, not voting, 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 203]

                               YEAS--244

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--181

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Barcia
     Blackwell
     Grandy
     Horn
     Oxley
     Rowland
     Washington
     Williams

                              {time}  1539

  Mr. SWETT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                              {time}  1540

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torres). Pursuant to House Resolution 
443 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 4426).

                              {time}  1541


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4426) making appropriations for foreign operations, export 
financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 1995, with Mr. Richardson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 9 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this week we have begun consideration of the 13 
appropriation bills for 1995. I think it is important to place in 
context the conditions under which we are dealing with this bill.
  Discretionary appropriations now account for only about one-third of 
all Federal spending. Funding for all of the programs that are funded 
by the Committee on Appropriations will shrink relative to the size of 
the overall economy, relative to the rest of the budget, and relative 
to the inflation-adjusted cost of continuing these programs through the 
next fiscal year.
  In fiscal year 1995, we will have about $9 billion, or about 2 
percent less, than the amount needed to operate discretionary programs 
at the previous year's level. That means that for the first time in 
nearly three decades, outlays from discretionary programs will actually 
decline below previous years' levels.
  That is why we have had some of the arguments we have had here this 
afternoon. I have said many times, and I will say again, this is going 
to be the first year in the service of virtually everyone in this House 
when the primary criticism which is leveled at this committee and this 
House on appropriation bills will be because of money that we do not 
provide, rather than because of money that we do provide.
  We are operating under a situation in which spending for both defense 
and nondefense programs will decline over the next 5 years in real 
dollar terms. Outlays for defense will be somewhat above the level of a 
hard freeze, which would mean no adjustment for inflation, while 
outlays for nondefense programs will fall significantly below that 
level.
  What that means in plain language is this: In appropriated items, we 
are being asked to live with a 5-year nominal dollar freeze. That means 
that the purchasing power of every dollar that we appropriate over a 5-
year period will drop by 20 percent. There will be a real squeeze, and 
that squeeze is reflected in this bill.
  The bill which the committee is presenting today provides a total 
appropriation of $13.6 billion compared to the President's request for 
$14 billion. It is $389 million below the request. It is $205 million 
below the 602(b) allocation which we are allowed under the Budget Act, 
and it is $707 million below the total amount that Members voted for in 
last year's foreign aid bill.
  This bill continues the trend in the reduction of foreign aid which 
we have seen since 1985. This bill is 24 percent lower than it was in 
1985. I would wager there is not 1 percent of Americans who know that, 
but I repeat that: This bill is 24 percent lower than the foreign aid 
bill was in 1985. There is no appropriation bill that we will deal with 
in this year that comes anywhere near close to making that statement.
  I would also point out that in addition to the funding reductions in 
the bill, we have absolutely no, I repeat, no earmarks, and we have 
deleted more than a dozen legislative provisions.
  The administration has made clear that under the funding for this 
bill, Israel, Egypt, West Bank, and Gaza, will be funded at the 
administration-requested levels. We will be funding $900 million for 
the former Soviet Union, down from $2.5 billion provided last year, but 
at the administration's request for this year, and we will be providing 
$360 million for Eastern Europe.
  For export assistance, and this is one of the very few programs for 
which I can make this statement, for export assistance, which means in 
plain language, that the Government is assisting American companies to 
export American products, export assistance in this bill totals $884 
million, which is $3.3 million above the President's request.
  We are also providing for $19 billion in export-import loan 
guarantees. We are providing for a reduction of about $200 million for 
international financial institutions, but we still are providing 
sufficient funding to prevent further increases in arrearages which now 
are greatly in excess of three-quarters of a billion dollars. We are 
providing $790 million for the African Development Assistance Fund, 
combined with other developmental assistance that will provide an 
approximate $2 billion in deliverable assistance to Africa. We are 
providing more than $500 million for child survival, UNICEF and other 
programs, aimed at helping children, $565 million in family planning 
funds, up $59 million from last year, and I believe this bill is 
fiscally responsible and warrants the support of Members on both sides 
of the aisle.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also make quite clear that I do not believe 
there has been a single partisan consideration in this bill. The 
committee has operated in a completely bipartisan manner. There was not 
a partisan amendment offered, and I do not think you will hear any 
partisan discussion this afternoon, at least not from members of the 
committee.

  I would also say that I think Members have a right to feel good about 
what they have accomplished in this area.

                              {time}  1550

  For example, through this bill, for a number of years, Congress has 
taken the lead in supporting American assistance for child survival 
programs, including immunization against childhood diseases which kill 
millions of kids a year. Congress can legitimately take credit for the 
fact that literally millions of children are alive today who would not 
be alive without this bill.
  I would also point out that we have pulled people's chains from time 
to time, when we felt it necessary in order to enforce the view that 
taxpayers' money ought to be spent with great care.
  Members will recall, for instance, that the East European Development 
Bank became somewhat of an international scandal, because we had a 
runaway director who was turning that lending institution into a marble 
palace, ripping out marble that was not good enough for them, 
installing marble that was the duplicate of marble in Buckingham Place, 
and frequently leasing their own aircraft operation.
  What our committee did, when they would not listen to reason, we 
simply eliminated all funds for that institution. That brought about a 
rather drastic change. Among other things, it brought about the 
replacement of the director of the institution. That institution is now 
under new management. It is under new policies. It is under new 
restrictions. And, I think, we can safely say that they are on the road 
to behaving in an extremely responsible manner, which is a far cry from 
the regime that used to run that institution.
  I think we can also take credit or take pride, I should say, in the 
fact that we did the same thing with the World Bank. Last year, we were 
unhappy because the World Bank had, in my view, a runaway construction 
project. So we reacted accordingly. We pulled their chain. We cut a 
good amount from their appropriation in the rescission. That reduced 
their lending authority by over $1 billion. That drove the message 
home. They have now produced a rather forthcoming report on the entire 
episode, and that project is under new management.
  I think that record demonstrates that the committee has exercised its 
stewardship responsibilities with great care and great determination of 
both sides of the aisle. I think that care justifies the kind of 
support that the bill got last year from Members on both sides of the 
aisle
  This bill continues in that tradition. I ask Members' support for it.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation. I 
would like to thank the chairman of the full committee and subcommittee 
for working with me and the other Members in a very fair and collegial 
process. It has been a pleasure to work with him, and I agree with him. 
This has been a nonpartisan effort.
  This bill has never been popular, certainly not as long as I have 
been in the Congress. But this is a responsible bill, especially given 
the tight budgetary conditions of the current environment.
  Last year we provided $12.9 billion in the outright bill, but we also 
added $1.6 billion in the Russian supplemental so we spent $14.5 
billion overall.
  This year we are spending $13.6 billion, so that represents a 
reduction, a continuation of the downward trend of foreign aid. It is 
less than the 1994 budget authority inclusive of the Russian 
supplemental. It is less than the President's request. It is less than 
the 602(b) allocation.
  It is 24 percent, as the chairman pointed out, lower than the 1985 
peak of $19 billion. And that amounts to $25.8 billion, when adjusted 
for inflation. And yet we only have $13.5 billion in this bill.
  It provides sufficient funding levels to honor our Camp David 
commitment of Egypt and Israel and provides crucial support for the 
ongoing Middle East peace process. It provides $900 million for the New 
Independent States of the former Soviet Union. I supported that program 
in the last bill, and I support it today.
  We are expanding our exchange programs, bringing more students and 
entrepreneurs to America in exchange for Americans over there. We are 
providing technical assistance to Russia and the Independent States.
  We are providing expansion of the Peace Corps activities, law 
enforcement training to combat the growing crime problem, and we avoid 
aid given directly to the government of those countries and focus, 
rather, on assistance for the private sector development.
  I think we are moving in the right direction. In fact, the statistics 
in Russia bear me out. Nearly 70 percent of Russian small businesses 
and 40 percent of industry are now in private hands. There are 150 
million privatization vouchers which have been issued in the country, 
and progress continues despite the fact that it may often appear 
uneven.
  In other parts of the world, the bill provides $1.9 billion for 
multilateral development banks, cutting $190 million from the 
President's request. This bill fulfills our negotiated obligations and 
makes a small down payment on the arrearages. It provides full funding 
for bilateral assistance, including development assistance, sub-Saharan 
Africa, international refugees and disaster assistance. Unfortunately, 
in my view, it also cuts $75 million in economic support funds. And 
when we take that account and set it aside for Egypt and Israel, it 
allows only $324 million for the rest of the world. When we compare 
that to 1985, when the United States provided $811 million, that is a 
substantial reduction and not altogether wise.
  Also, if we take out Egypt and Israel, we will find that we only 
provide $27 million in foreign military financing grants and only $48 
million in subsidies to provide roughly $620 million in foreign 
military financing loans. Only 5 years ago we provided $1.6 billion in 
FMF grants to our other allies beside Egypt and Israel.
  By the way, I might also add, if the Beilenson amendment were to pass 
today, we would have zero military financing grants or loans, because 
all of the money would be diverted to that amendment.
  Personlly, I would like to see more funding for our strategic allies 
through ESF and FMF programs, but these are tight times.
  The bill provides $883 million in export subsidies through Export-
Import Bank, overseas private investment corporation and the Trade 
Development Administration, slightly above the President's request. And 
it maintains the Kemp-Kasten language which prevents funding for 
abortions or funding for organizations which practice coerced 
abortions.
  Finally, we adopted an amendment in our committee to expand the 
military to draw down weapons for Bosnia in the event that the United 
States unilaterally lifts the arms embargo as was advocated by the 
other body.
  The bill, in summary, continues our support for Israel and Egypt 
during the crucial time of the peace process. It continues our 
privatization and democratic efforts in the former Soviet Union. It 
provides humanitarian and refugee assistance to a turmoil-wracked 
world, and it continues the recent trend for reduced levels of foreign 
aid.
  Therefore, I can in good conscience urge my colleagues to support the 
committee work. I will, however, support some amendments, one of which 
is to reduce the global environment facility, which will come up under 
an amendment of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hall].
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  I just want to follow up very briefly on the statement that I made 
when I carried the rule just a few minutes ago.
  Child survival activities, basic education, vitamin A, micronutrients 
programs, they work. And they save millions of lives. And they do its 
very inexpensively.
  Mr. Chairman, last year the gentleman and I worked very hard to 
achieve the same numbers for child survival, basic education and 
micronutrients. One was 275. Basic education was 135, and vitamin A, 
basic nutrients, was 25 million.
  What is more, U.S. AID practically bragged in their report language, 
in their recent report to Congress, that there programs were worth 
their weight in gold.
  They surprisingly, AID, decided to hold back child survival funds in 
fiscal year 1994. They ignored the gentleman's strong support language. 
They put resources into programs that I believe stray from what real 
foreign aid should be all about.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Chairman, what I would most like to accomplish in our discussion 
here today is a commitment, a partnership to jointly monitor AID in the 
coming year to make sure that they spend the dollars the gentleman has 
provided for these extremely worthwhile programs. I want my resolve to 
be interpreted as a warning that we will not tolerate AID ignoring the 
committee's strong language that tells the agency to spend these hard-
won resources as we think they should.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would simply 
say, Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman. As he knows, we inserted 
language in our report this year that states that the committee is not 
at all pleased with the level that AID provided last year. The 
committee expects AID to be much more responsive to the recommendations 
concerning child survival this year, because we think the resource 
situation is somewhat improved.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
compliment, and certainly for his support.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Sharp].
  (Mr. SHARP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHARP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill, and in 
particular, the child survival activities as outlined by the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Hall] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].


   child survival micronutrition, and basic education speaking points

  Each and every day, 35,000 children die around the world from largely 
preventable--and I must underscore preventable--malnutrition and 
disease. Yet UNICEF's ``State of the World's 1993'' report states: ``In 
the decade ahead, a clear opportunity exists to make the breakthrough 
against what might be called the last great obscenity--the needles 
malnutrition, disease, and illiteracy that still cast a shadow over the 
lives, and the futures, of the poorest quarter of the world's 
children.''
  Representative David Obey, his subcommittee, and congressional 
leaders in the fight to end hunger and poverty such as Representative 
Tony Hall can be proud of the progress that has been made over the 
decade because of their action.
  Funding for programs such as child survival has increased from $0 in 
fiscal year 1984 to $275 million in fiscal year 1993 and child deaths 
rates have plummeted.
  In 1980, five million children died each year from six vaccine-
preventable diseases--measles, tetanus, whooping cough and three 
others--coupled with malnutrition. Now, because of the global campaign 
to immunize 80 percent of the world's children by the end of 1990, 
UNICEF--the UN Children's Fund--estimates that three million more 
children are living each year because they got their shots.
  In 1980, 4 million children were dying each year from dehydration 
brought on by diarrhea when a simple Gatorade-like solution could stop 
the dying. Now, UNICEF estimates that 1 million children are living 
each year because their parents learned to prepare this simple 
solution.
  In an effort to mobilize broad global leadership behind such 
lifesaving, affordable strategies, six heads of state called for a 
World Summit for Children. The September 1990 Summit at the United 
Nations brought together 71 heads of state and government, the largest 
gathering in history up to that time. These leaders, and ministerial 
delegations from 88 other nations, agreed to a set of year-2000 goals 
which provide a global blueprint for eliminating the worst aspects of 
poverty. They include:
  Reducing child and infant deaths by a least one third.
  Reducing maternal deaths and child malnutrition by half.
  Universal access to basic education, with at least 80 percent of 
children completing primary school.
  Universal access to safe drinking water and safe sanitation.
  Family planning education and services available to all couples.
  UNICEF estimates that two thirds of the resources to meet the World 
Summit for Children goals would come from developing nations 
themselves, with the other one third provided from the industrialized 
nations. UNICEF estimates that the industrialized nations, including 
the U.S. currently spend less than 10 percent of their bilateral 
development aid on meeting basic human needs. If that percentage were 
doubled to 20 percent, it would free up enough money to provide the 
industrialized nations' share of meeting the Summit goals.
  This year, for the first time in a decade, USAID cut funding to child 
survival programs. This cut of $40 million was below what Mr. Obey's 
subcommittee recommended and below the FY 93 levels--basic education 
was similarly cut by $30 million by USAID in 1994--in the foreign aid 
appropriations bill passed last October, Congress urged USAID to 
maintain funding levels for child survival, basic education and vitamin 
A programs. But, for the first time in many years, Congress did away 
with most earmarks, or binding funding levels for specific development 
programs, and did not require USAID to comply.
  The foreign aid appropriations bill for FY 95 once again does not 
contain earmarks. The House report for the bill states: ``The Committee 
is not pleased that AID did not meet the recommended targets in fiscal 
year 1994. The Committee has fully funded development assistance this 
year and expects AID to be responsive to the recommendations concerning 
child survival contained in this report.''
  It is clearly up to Congress to assert the priority of child 
survival, vitamin A and basic education programs, and to be vigilant in 
insuring that USAID funds these programs up to at least the level Mr. 
Obey's subcommittee recommended. And it will be up to Congress to 
increase the priority and the funding of these programs to that the 
goals of the World Summit for Children can be met and the lives of 
millions of children and women can be saved.
  As UNICEF's ``State of the World's Children 1993'' report stated, 
``If today's obvious and affordable steps are not taken to protect the 
lives and the health and the normal growth of many millions of young 
children, then this will have less to do with the lack of economic 
capacity than with the fact that the children concerned are almost 
exclusively the sons and daughters of the poor--of those who lack not 
only purchasing power, but also political influence and media 
attention. And if the resources are not to be made available, if the 
overcoming of the worst aspects of poverty, malnutrition, illiteracy 
and disease is not to be achieved in the years ahead, then let it now 
be clear that this is not because it is not a possibility, but because 
it is not a priority.''
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for 
yielding me the time and for his excellent leadership in bringing this 
bill to the floor. Mr. Livingston has been instrumental in ensuring 
that this bill is well balanced and the concerns of the minority have 
been addressed.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
for his tremendous efforts to craft a bill that, despite budgetary 
pressures, reflects our country's interests and priorities in foreign 
assistance.
  This bill is heavy on funding for items that help the poorest of the 
poor and encourage sustainable development and it is moving swiftly 
away from high levels of funding for accounts whose justifications have 
been eclipsed by the rapid changes we are seeing globally. I would like 
to highlight some elements of this change in priorities.
  One important provision in this bill that addresses post-cold-war 
realities, conditions 25 percent of Turkey's military assistance on the 
Departments of State and Defense reporting on Turkey's treatment of its 
Kurdish citizens, which account for 20 percent of its population. 
Turkey has repressed the Kurds for decades, but in the last 18 months 
the government instigated violence has reached unprecedented levels. 
Mr. Chairman, my wife, Kathryn, visited Turkey about 3 weeks ago in 
conjunction with the Congressional Human Rights Caucus and the Danielle 
Mitterand Foundation to attempt to meet with six Kurdish 
parliamentarians who were arrested and their lawyers, who were also 
arrested.
  Not only was she denied access to the parliamentarians, she was 
followed everywhere she went. While she was there, the Supergovernor of 
the 10 provinces in the southeast called her and demanded to meet with 
her on short notice. She postponed a meeting with a group of human 
rights activists to attend the meeting with the governor, who kept her 
for 3 hours. When she left the meeting she was told that one of the 
activists she was to meet with had been shot in the back of the head 
and killed in the busiest part of the central market in Diyarbarkir. In 
addition, another woman Kathryn was to have met with disappeared and 
the 18-year-old son of another activist was shot in his father's 
butcher shop.
  These incidents only bring into focus the larger picture of the 
atrocities that are being perpetrated against the Kurds in Turkey. 
Since 1984, 11,000 people have been killed in the southeast of Turkey--
the Kurdish area--but one third of them, nearly 4,000 have been killed 
in the last year, 900 Kurdish villages have been razed by the Turkish 
Army. Some were evacuated first. There are allegations that people were 
rounded up and killed in others. Nine of the Turkish Human Rights 
Association's workers have been killed in the last year and 27 of its 
57 offices have been closed. In 1992, 17 journalists and 14 
distributors of pro-Kurdish publications have been assassinated, many 
shot in the back of the head. And 40 people have died in house raids by 
the police.
  I think it is a travesty that we are providing any funds to the 
Turkish Government while it is doing such things. They clearly do not 
share our values, and they are going in the wrong direction on human 
rights. The provision in this bill conditioning part of their military 
aid sends a message, but I strongly believe we need to do more and stop 
our complicity in this situation.
  The Turks, of course, in the face of any criticism, say it is anti-
Turkish. It is not anti-Turkish. Our nations should be close friends 
and allies, but, Mr. Chairman, by their complete insensitivity to 
international norms of human rights, they make it virtually impossible, 
in the face of this ongoing, outrageous oppression.
  I will continue to encourage the subcommittee to make clear to Turkey 
that in a time of very tight budgets we simply do not have money to 
give to violators of human rights.
  I am also especially pleased with the subcommittee's emphasis on the 
Cyprus problem in this bill. This July will mark the 20th anniversary 
of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. For the last 20 years, the island 
has been separated. The separation has been enforced by 35,000 Turkish 
troops stationed in the northern third of the island. It appears that 
the last round of U.N. talks have broken down after Turkish-Cypriot 
leader Rauf Denktash refused to agree to a set of confidence-building 
measures prepared by the U.N. Language in the report accompanying this 
bill expresses the committee's exasperation with Mr. Denktash's 
continued stonewalling on finding a solution.
  I believe Turkey, the nation that divided Cyprus, is responsible for 
working actively to find a solution. To date it has done nothing to 
help resolve the situation. I am pleased that this bill conditions 25 
percent of United States military assistance to Turkey on the State 
Department and the Department of Defense reporting on Turkey's 
willingness to play a constructive role in finding a solution.
  This bill also contains a healthy increase in funds for international 
family planning. Sustainable development and the preservation of the 
environment are nearly impossible in undeveloped nations when their 
population is skyrocketing. A number of nations have annual population 
growth rates of 4 percent. In order to simply stay even economically, 
these nations have to have enormous growth rates of at least 4 percent. 
Starting from this hole, it is virtually impossible to get ahead. Even 
if these countries could achieve economic growth greater than their 
population growth, at such a high population growth rate it would 
almost certainly come at a very high environmental cost, as natural 
resources are harvested, agriculture leads to soil and water 
degradation, and factories pollute the air and water.
  This bill addresses this pressing concern and provides a nearly 15-
percent increase in population funding in the Development Assistance 
account. These funds will provide voluntary family planning services 
and education to tens of millions of couples around the globe. The bill 
also provides funds through the U.N. Fund for population activities, 
which will help the United States take a strong leadership role at the 
International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in 
September, which I and a number of other Members plan to attend.
  I am also particularly pleased that the committee funded the Global 
Environment Facility [GEF] at very close to the President's request of 
$100 million. I know that we will have an opportunity to discuss GEF at 
a later time in this debate, so I will not go on at great length now 
except to say that the GEF is essential to promoting a coordinated 
global response to threats to the environment. The GEF is the followup 
to the Earth Summit that was held in Rio in June 1992. At the Earth 
Summit and soon thereafter, many nations, including the United States, 
signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on 
Biodiversity. These treaties outline what each nation must do to 
promote biodiversity and arrest climate change. GEF is a means by which 
developing nations will finance the commitments they made at Rio.
  Also, while this bill does not earmark any funds, it does provide 
ample funding in the FMF and ESF accounts to fully meet our Nation's 
Camp David commitments and the President has indicated that these 
commitments will be met. The Middle East remains a very volatile area, 
but tremendous progress is being made toward peace. Continued strong 
support from the United States and our allies is key to achieving a 
lasting solution, and I commend the chairman for ensuring that these 
fund will be made available.
  I would also like to thank the staff for their excellent work that 
makes this bill possible. This year, subcommittee markup was pushed 
forward by a week on short notice and the staff worked exceptionally 
long hours to get this bill ready. Thank you to the subcommittee staff 
Terry Peel, Bill Schuerch, Mark Murray, Lori Maes, and Pat Summers, a 
detailee from AID, and Mike Marek. Thank you also to Tripp Funderburk, 
who did an excellent job in his first year staffing this bill for the 
ranking member, Jim Kulikowski, Bill Deere, Nancy Tippins, David Orlin, 
Carolyn Bartholomew, Nancy Alcalde, M.J. Rosenberg, and Virginia 
Johnson.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage Members to vote for this bill. As I see it, 
the United States has an historic opportunity with the end of the cold 
war to project our values of human rights, democracy, the rule of law, 
concern for the environment, and free markets to the far corners of the 
globe. This bill, which represents less than 1 percent of Federal 
spending, promotes our Nation's interests in many important areas.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lehman].
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of myself and the 
gentlemen from California, Mr. Berman and Mr. Torres, to engage in a 
colloquy with the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, language in the bill 
requires the Secretary to submit a report to the committee addressing 
the allegations of abuses of by the Turkish Armed Forces and the 
situation in Cyprus. It is my understanding that 25 percent of the 
principal amount of direct funds to Turkey will be withheld until the 
Secretary has submitted this report.
  I would ask the gentleman, Is this correct?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I had considered offering an amendment 
which would have withheld aid to Turkey for its refusal to allow 
humanitarian relief to reach Armenia. I will not offer this amendment 
today with the assurances from the gentleman that every effort will be 
made during the conference to address my concerns. Those who receive 
our assistance must share our commitment to humanitarian relief work.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
share the gentleman's concern. I want to assure the gentleman that we 
will do everything we can to review the situation in conference. It is 
a very serious situation, and I think Turkey ought to be aware of it.
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Like the gentleman from California, I am committed to ensuring that 
countries that receive U.S. assistance do not deny humanitarian aid and 
assistance to people in need. Therefore, I will join my distinguished 
colleague, the chairman, in addressing this issue during the 
conference.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentleman 
from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], a distinguished member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I will only take a few minutes to tell the gentleman 
that he and the chairman of our committee have worked diligently to 
bring this bill to the floor. I said last year on the floor of this 
House that handling the foreign operations appropriations bill is akin 
to changing a dirty diaper. It's not a pleasant job but, it's necessary 
that someone do it. Let me tell the Members, this is not a pleasant 
task, but our chairman and our ranking committee member have certainly 
done outstanding work in this regard.
  However, Mr. Chairman, the bill still does have one very serious 
flaw, in my opinion, and that serious flaw is in the aid to Russia, but 
the chairman has been very generous to me, supportive to me, in seeing 
that the House has the opportunity to debate this issue. I will be 
offering in just a few minutes an amendment to drastically reduce the 
aid to Russia, but once again, I thank the chairman for the courtesies 
he has extended to me, and the ranking Republican member, for the 
patience he has given to me.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, while this Member supports the 
Appropriations Committee's decision to increase the Trade and 
Development Agency's budget to a paltry $45 million, I believe that a 
larger increase in funding would be warranted for this agency which has 
achieved remarkable success in increasing U.S. exports through targeted 
export promotion. Secretary of State Christopher recommended funding 
TDA at $60 million for FY95 and, upon questioning, the agency's head 
indicates that TDA could productively utilize $120 million.
  One of TDA's activities is to provide grants for U.S. consultants on 
feasibility and design teams for multilateral development bank (MDB) 
projects. By promoting the use of U.S. consultants, engineers, 
architects, and other design and planning personnel, at the earliest 
stage for these projects, U.S. goods and services are more likely to 
receive the detailed design, construction, equipment, and maintenance 
and resupply business for such MDB financed development projects over 
the long term. Currently, our European competitors and Japan greatly 
outspend the United States in this ``trust fund'' game to the detriment 
of our United States exporters. Today's long-awaited General Accounting 
Office report on ``tied aid'' practices of United States competitors 
indicates that the Japanese outspend the United States by approximately 
$5 for every $1 we devote to this important purpose. Moreover, the GAO 
report dramatically reveals that our toughest competitors devote a much 
greater portion of their ``tied aid'' to lucrative capital projects in 
developing countries.

  Mr. Chairman, developing countries are expected to account for 95 
percent of the world's anticipated population increase in the next 30 
years. The TDA greatly assists U.S. exporters in competing for the vast 
and lucrative capital projects in the world's developing countries. 
Therefore, this Member believes it could best use more funding for this 
highly beneficial and important purpose. The results in U.S. business 
activities would be impressive.

                             {time}   1610

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] a member of the subcommittee.
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my chairman, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. David Obey], for the fine work he did in 
moving this bill to the floor. The gentleman and his staff do an 
incredible job and it is a pleasure and an education to work with the 
gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4426, the Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriation Bill 
for 1995.
  This is an important bill. It is not easy crafting a Foreign 
Operations bill in the 1990's. Foreign aid is never popular. And these 
are difficult economic times here in the United States. Many Americans 
feel, and feel quite legitimately, that our domestic needs must come 
first.
  And, of course, they will. That is why the amount appropriated in 
this bill is such a small percentage of Federal spending--less than 1 
percent of the budget. That means we are spending 99 percent of our 
budget for domestic needs--as we should--and just 1 percent for aid. 
This 1 percent compares to the 10 percent of the budget that was spent 
on foreign aid back in the 1950's. So the trend for foreign aid is 
down, way down. This trend is manifested in this bill, which is $389 
million below the President's request and $707 million less than the 
amount appropriated last year.
  Mr. Chairman, there are two priorities that make up the bulk of this 
bill. The first is aid to Israel and Egypt. The second is aid to the 
states of the Former Soviet Union.
  Both these priorities represent foreign policy triumphs. The Israel-
Egypt aid package is a product of the Camp David peace treaty, a 
landmark treaty brokered by President Jimmy Carter. That treaty ended 
30 years of war between Israel and Egypt. It has saved countless lives 
since 1979: Israeli lives, Arab lives, and--quite possibly--American 
lives. Viewed in the context, $5 billion dollars for Israel and Egypt, 
two-tenths of 1 percent of Federal spending, is a very good deal for 
America and the world.
  I believe that the constancy of U.S. support for Israel and Egypt, in 
successive foreign aid bills, helped make possible the Palestinian-
Israeli breakthrough that we saw on the White House lawn last 
September. The government of Israel took bold steps for peace when it 
agreed to negotiate with the PLO and agreed on a timetable toward an 
overall settlement. Israeli forces have already withdrawn from Gaza and 
Jericho as Palestinians exercise self-rule, for the first time in 
history, in those areas.
  In withdrawing from those areas, and in looking toward the 
establishment of autonomy throughout the West Bank, Israel is taking 
unprecedented risk for peace. It is only its confidence in its alliance 
with the United States that enables Israel to make these sacrifices for 
peace. That is why it is so essential that we pass this bill intact 
with the President's requested Israel-Egypt aid package. To do anything 
else would undermine Israel's confidence and would be not just a blow 
toward Israel's security but would constitute a serious assault on the 
peace process itself.
  There is another U.S. foreign policy triumph represented in our aid 
for Israel. This bill provides $80 million for the resettlement of 
Soviet and Ethiopian Jews in Israel. This country was instrumental in 
getting these people out of the Soviet Union, out of Ethiopia. So it is 
appropriate that we are helping to resettle them, particularly as anti-
semitism in Russia--encouraged by Vladimir Zhirinovsky and others of 
his ilk--is making it ever more clear that the future for Jews of the 
former Soviet Union is in Israel.
  The Russian aid component of this bill also represents a foreign 
policy triumph: our victory over the Soviet Union. During the past 40 
years we spent four trillion dollars to arm ourselves against the 
Soviet Union. That four trillion equals $80,000 from every American 
family.
  The $900 million in this bill for the republics of the former Soviet 
Union is one way to ensure that the next generation of Americans is not 
taxed $80,000 per family to subsidize a new arms race. These funds, 
which to the maximum extent possible, go to the private sector and not 
to the central government will help build democracy and free enterprise 
throughout an area that lived under the scourge of communism for 70 
years.
  Frankly, there is no alternative to providing this aid. In theory, at 
least, we can look away and pretend that Russian's problems have 
nothing to do with us. But, in fact, we all know that no nation is an 
island anymore. Our two oceans did not defend us against the horror of 
Nazism when Hitler and his cohorts stalked the planet. They did not 
insulate us from the threat of Stalinism as it threatened all free 
people everywhere. We cannot separate ourselves from the problems of 
the former Soviet Union either. Our choice is either to help now or pay 
the consequences later. I would rather pay $900 million now than 
trillions later. And that is the choice.
  There are other provisions in this bill that are of particular 
interest to me. I am especially proud of a provision which makes aid to 
the Palestinians contingent on the adherence of the PLO to commitments 
it made at the time of the September 13, PLO-Israel agreement on the 
White House lawn.
  This PLO compliance provision states that before aid is released the 
President must report that the PLO continues to adhere to its 
commitment to live in peace with Israel and reject terrorism. It must 
condemn specific terrorist attacks against Israelis and it must use its 
influence to end the Arab boycott of Israel and of firms doing business 
with Israel.
  This limitation on aid is necessary because of the continued acts of 
terrorism against Israelis since the September agreement and the 
ambivalent response to these acts by the PLO leadership. It is also 
necessary as we learn about PLO chief Arafat's most recent call, in 
Johannesburg earlier this month, for a jihad to ``liberate'' Jerusalem 
and his suggestion that, when the time is right, he will renege on his 
commitment to peaceful coexistence with Israel. This provision lets him 
know that his new relationship with the United States is contingent on 
his living up to his commitment to peace with Israel. Let there be no 
mistake. If the PLO retreats from peace, the United States Congress 
will reinstate all the previous prohibitions on any U.S. dealings with 
the PLO. We are watching carefully. The requirements in this bill are a 
demonstration of that.
  There is one provision in this bill that I am not happy with. Under 
the bill, 25 percent of direct loans to Turkey and Greece would be 
withheld until the State Department has submitted to Congress reports 
addressing human rights violations by the Turkish military, and Greek 
violations of the United Nations sanctions against Serbia.

  I am, frankly, disturbed by the false equality implied by this 
formulation. According to many independent sources, including United 
States Ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine Albright, Greece is 
in compliance with the embargo. Other independent sources report the 
same.
  On the other hand, there is no debate about Turkey's human rights 
record. One would have to look long and hard to find any independent 
human rights report that did not cite Turkey as one of the world's 
flagrant human rights abusers. One quote from the Human Rights Watch 
Report of 1994 sums it up. ``Human rights abuses in Turkey continued at 
an appalling rate in 1993. Security forces continued to shoot and kill 
civilians in house raids, and during peaceful demonstrations; brutal 
torture continued to be a routine and systematic interrogation 
technique . . . and members of the Kurdish minority in southeast Turkey 
were killed, tortured, detained and forced to abandon their villages.'' 
In short, Turkey has more than earned a cut in its U.S. aid. The 
linkage to U.S. aid to Greece is a false analogy and it is one that I, 
personally, reject.
  I am pleased that the committee report has strong language on the 
human rights violations that continue to occur in East Timor. The 
committee report makes clear that it is the intention of Congress that 
the government of Indonesia not be permitted to purchase IMET training 
for its officers. Moreover, the report states that prior to approving 
any arms sales to Indonesia, the Administration should determine 
whether the Indonesian government is in compliance with United 
Nations Security Council resolutions calling for an 
immediate Indonesian withdrawal from East Timor and self-determination 
for East Timor. This demonstrates that Congress has not forgotten East 
Timor. The occupation must end. The people of East Timor must, and 
will, determine their own fate.
  This legislation is particularly sensitive to the needs of women 
throughout the world. The following provisions demonstrate that this is 
a landmark bill in terms of encouraging the Agency for International 
Development and the State Department to give major consideration to 
women in its efforts throughout the world.
  $58 million increase in population assistance;
  First ever ``soft earmark'' of up to $20 million in aid to the Newly 
Independent States (NIS) for urgently-needed family planning assistance 
there. As you may know, there is an appalling lack of contraception in 
the NIS, which has led to reliance on abortions, which are often 
performed in unsafe conditions, as a method of family planning, and is 
responsible for almost one-third of maternal morbidity there.
  First ever report language identifying female genital mutilation as a 
significant health and human rights problem and directing AID attention 
to its serious consequences.
  First ever language acknowledging women's broader reproductive health 
needs, including the rapidly rising AIDS rate among women, and maternal 
and child health.
  Language clarifying that AID funds can be used to treat women 
suffering from septic abortions. Unfortunately, AID, which is prevented 
from funding abortions by the Helms amendment, has been reluctant to 
use its funds even to provide treatment to women who are suffering from 
medical complications as a result of incomplete or septic abortions. 
Unsafe abortion is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality, and 
this clarification may help prevent some tragic deaths or crippling 
health problems.
  Strong language urging that all development initiatives take into 
account the needs of women, and that women be involved at all levels of 
planning and implementation of population programs.
  Recommendation that the State Department appoint a senior advisor on 
women's human rights.
  In short, this is an historic bill which merits strong report. I urge 
its passage.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on both 
sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has 14\1/
2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 
16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi], a member of the subcommittee.
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
4426, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. As a Member of the 
Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I commend Chairman Obey for his 
outstanding leadership in crafting the package before us today. I also 
thank him for his commitment to shifting the focus of our foreign aid 
toward promoting sustainable development and development assistance for 
those who truly need our help. In addition, thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
for holding the human rights and international AIDS hearings. I 
appreciate your commitment to raising the visibility of these important 
issues and to implementing effective programs to address them. Finally, 
I would like to express my appreciation to the able and committed 
subcommittee staff, Terry Peel, Mark Murray, Bill Schuerch and Lori 
Maes. Their hard work makes this bill possible.
  I understand that for many of my colleagues, voting for foreign aid 
is not popular. But, it is important. Our foreign aid addresses many 
strategic, economic and humanitarian interests. Serious efforts are now 
underway to reform foreign aid programs to ensure that they are cost-
effective and more efficient. I have faith that Agency for 
International Development [AID] Director Atwood will succeed in the 
difficult chores ahead of him as he streamlines U.S. development 
programs and adapts them to today's changing world.
  The realities of the budget deficit were uppermost in our minds 
throughout each step in the process of developing this bill. The bill 
before us is $389 million below the administration's fiscal year 1995 
request, and $205 million below our subcommittee's 602(b) allocation. 
There are still many important programs which I wish we could have 
funded at higher levels, including programs to improve the global 
environment, to provide basic health and education for more people in 
the developing world, programs to increase child survival rates and 
programs for international family planning. The unfortunate reality is, 
however, there is not enough money to meet all of the needs. I believe 
this bill overall is a balanced and reasonable one which will provide 
returns to the United States in many ways. Much of our foreign aid is 
spent here at home, generating jobs.
  This year the subcommittee held a hearing on the extent and the 
impact of the international AIDS crisis. This was the first official 
Congressional hearing on international AIDS. It is clear that if we do 
not adequately fund international AIDS prevention efforts, much of our 
development assistance will be wasted.
  By the turn of the century more than 40 million men, women and 
children are projected by the World Health Organization to be infected 
by the HIV virus. Ninety percent of these infections are projected to 
be in developing countries.
  In Asia, Africa and Latin America, AIDS affects particularly men and 
women between the ages of 15 and 45. These people are the most 
productive members of any society. If we are serious about promoting 
economic growth and development around the world, we must stop AIDS 
now. As my colleagues know, this bill contains no earmarks. I am 
pleased that the report notes the committee's support that fiscal year 
1995 funding for international AIDS programs should be, at minimum, 
restored to fiscal year 1993 levels.
  I am also pleased that the Committee placed a high priority on 
environmental programs in this bill, supporting an increase in global 
expenditures from all AID funding sources for environment and energy 
activities above fiscal year 1994 levels, as well as funding for a 
number of specific environmental programs including the United Nations 
Environment Program, the Montreal Protocol Facilitation Fund, and the 
Global Warming Initiative.
  Efforts to protect and improve the global environment will not be 
successful if the global population continues to grow at its current 
rates. Access to family planning is a critical part of sustainable 
development. I am pleased that the Committee was able to recommend the 
full amount of the administration's request for Population, Development 
Assistance, which is $58 million higher than the fiscal year 1994 
level.
  The Committee took to heart the concerns of a number of the 
environmental and humanitarian groups and did not recommend the 
requested $100 million for the International Monetary Fund's Enhanced 
Structural Adjustment Facility [ESAF].
  We have recommended substantial funding for human resource 
development programs including $100 million for UNICEF, $275 million 
for child survival and $135 million for basic education. And in order 
to address one of the major global crises of our time, the Committee 
recommends $720.7 million for refugee programs including $12 million 
for refugee resettlement here in the United States.
  I am pleased that the Committee continued its emphasis on programs 
relating to Women in Development [WID], noting the substantial and 
important contributions of women to economies in the developing world 
and urging that attention be paid to the particular needs of women in 
development.
  The committee recommended an increase of $7.3 million over the 
administration's request for the Development Fund for Africa [DFA]. 
This increase is important, both to meet the growing development needs 
in sub-Saharan Africa and to contribute to the new South Africa 
initiative. Now that South Africa has acted to throw off the yoke of 
apartheid, we must help to promote peaceful change and growth.
  This bill contains the administration's request for aid for Israel 
and Egypt, which I support and includes a recommendation for $80 
million for the Refugee Assistance Program, which facilitates the 
resettlement of refugees in Israel.
  I am pleased that the committee has continued its tradition of 
supporting the 10 to 7 ratio of military aid to Turkey and Greece. The 
committee is requiring that the State Department report to Congress on 
serious allegations of a pattern of terrible human rights abuses in 
Turkey. We also continue to support the traditional funding level of 
$15 million in economic assistance for Cyprus.
  Mr. Chairman, I could go on and on about the important programs which 
will be funded through the fiscal year 1995 Foreign Operations bill. 
For the sake of time, for example, I will only touch on the critical 
nature of continuing to provide assistance to the newly independent 
states [NIS] of the former Soviet Union--funding which is in our 
national interest. I also want to mention the multilateral development 
banks, our export promotion programs like the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation [OPIC], the Export-Import Bank [EXIM bank] and 
the Trade and Development Agency [TDA]. All of these programs 
contribute to our foreign policy agenda, but I will allow others to 
elaborate on them.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the fiscal 
year 1995 Foreign Operations bill. It is a balanced and reasonable bill 
designed to address real foreign policy goals and real foreign policy 
needs.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], have made a number of 
difficult decisions in allocating scarce funds for America's foreign 
assistance program. They and the subcommittee have tried to responsibly 
divvy up a relatively small pie of available resources and make a 
number of policy determinations. I am sure it was not easy or painless.
  I for one would have been much happier if there were some changes. I 
would have liked to have seen more child survival fund dollars. The 
Child Survival Fund saves lives by funding immunizations and oral 
rehydration therapy. But I can appreciate the fact that more money for 
the Fund just could not be found.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just note parenthetically that I first offered 
as a member of the authorizing committee a $275 million earmark for the 
Child Survival Fund that was passed by the authorizing committee to the 
foreign aid bill and have for years worked to try to boost the money 
available for these low-cost health interventions which literally have 
saved millions of lives.

                              {time}  1620

  In the mid eighties I traveled to El Salvador on two separate 
occasions to participate in their countrywide vaccination days and know 
firsthand that for literally pennies per child, we can save, boost, and 
enhance the life of a child. It's truly remarkable.
  I would note at this point in the debate that later on when the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] 
comes up, money from the child survival fund and a host of other 
important programs will be lessened, will be cut, in order to provide 
more money for population control, which is already getting a $59 
million increase in this bill. Money for Israel, funds for Egypt, and 
money right across the board will be cut in order to accommodate that, 
and we are already providing in this bill $569 million.
  Mr. Chairman, let me also note that on an issue of human rights that 
is very, very important to me and to many other Members, let me point 
out to this committee that each year population control fanatics in 
China forcibly abort about 10 million children out of approximately 13 
million annual Chinese abortions. That is as many children as make up 
the entirety of the populations of both Nicaragua and El Salvador 
combined.
  Forced abortion was properly construed to be a crime against humanity 
at the Nuremberg war trials. Today it is employed unfortunately with 
chilling effectiveness and unbearable pain upon women in the People's 
Republic of China. Women in China are required to obtain a birth coupon 
before conceiving a child. Chinese women are hounded by the population 
control police, and even their menstrual cycles are publicly monitored 
as one means of insuring compliance.
  The New York Times has pointed out, in one of their exposes, that the 
authorities, when they discover an unauthorized pregnancy, an illegal 
child, that is, normally apply a daily dose of threats and browbeating. 
They wear the women down and eventually, if the woman does not succumb 
to the abortion, she is forcibly aborted by the state.
  Let me also point out that in December of 1993 the Chinese Government 
issued a draft law on eugenics which would nationalize discrimination 
against the handicapped, much of which is already in effect at the 
provincial level in China.
  In a move that is eerily reminiscent of Nazi Germany, the Chinese 
Government is implementing forced abortions against handicapped 
children and forced sterilization against parents who simply do not 
measure up in the eyes of the state. Despite all of this, Mr. Chairman, 
the United Nations Population Fund continues to provide funds, 
materiel, people on the ground and, what no money could buy, the kind 
of coverup, if you will, the kind of shield the PRC fanatics 
desperately want.
  The head of the UNFPA has said, ``China has every reason to feel 
proud of and pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its 
family planning policy.'' Dr. Sadik has said that the implementation of 
that policy and acceptance of that policy is ``purely voluntary.'' That 
is an unmitigated lie, Mr. Chairman.
  Just let me finally say that I believe it is important that the bill 
before us today maintain the Kemp-Kasten anticoercion language. This 
language, I think, will help to ensure that we do not provide financial 
assistance to any organization which supports a population control 
program that in any way promotes or fosters these kinds of crimes and 
atrocities against women.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an important bill. It has the Kemp-Kasten 
language in it. We will have to, during the course of the consideration 
on the amendments, consider the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Beilenson], and I do hope that it will be turned down. 
The kind of shameful coverup on the part of the UNFPA that I noted 
earlier is inexplicable for an international organization that is 
supposedly committed to the defense of human rights. Likewise, the 
Clinton administration's determination to embrace the UNFPA despite 
their terrible track record on China is cause for serious concern. This 
action by the administration, coupled with their absolutely 
indefensible policy regarding asylum for the victims of forced abortion 
and involuntary sterilization, raises the very real question of whether 
they are willing to countenance coercion if it serves the cause of 
population control.
  Despite the administration's strained efforts to evade the Kemp-
Kasten law's well established legal requirements, the need and the 
rationale for the law is quite clear. Likewise, the necessity for the 
administration to enforce it properly is very clear. Consider the 
following: The need for Kemp-Kasten.
  The executive branch--much more so than Congress--possesses the 
diplomatic tools to make the international factfinding, necessary under 
Kemp-Kasten, in an efficient and expeditious manner.
  Kemp-Kasten creates a precondition to dollar one going to UNFPA, 
rather than a general duty of investigation after disbursement of the 
money. Such agencies as the General Accounting Office (GAO) are 
inadequate to investigate expenditures that impact activities within a 
foreign nation.
  Because of the difficulty in Congress verifying the internal record 
keeping, accounting, and actual activities of the UNFPA, the burden of 
policing UNFPA policies is placed squarely on the executive branch. If 
the executive branch announces its intention to disburse money under 
the act to UNFPA, then it accepts the responsibility under Kemp-Kasten 
to, in good faith, interpret and enforce Kemp-Kasten. It must ensure 
that an organization does not support, or participate to any extent, in 
a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
  Mr. Chairman, Kemp-Kasten is the most practical solution Congress as 
a whole has been able to come up with to ensure that no American 
dollars go to any organization which furthers or assists a coercive 
program, such as the one in China. Kemp-Kasten, has in effect, become a 
permanent feature of foreign appropriations dealing with population 
planning, based on the collective wisdom of Congress over the last 
decade.
  There is strong evidence that the Clinton administration has not 
faithfully interpreted or applied Kemp-Kasten in the past. In fact, the 
Agency for International Development (AID) and Administrator Atwood 
invented a legal distortion of the Kemp-Kasten language that rendered 
it meaningless; that is, the requirement that Kemp-Kasten only applies 
where there is ``clear evidence * * * that UNFPA knowingly and 
intentionally provides direct funding'' for coercive abortion/
involuntary sterilization. This language does not appear in Kemp-
Kasten, and in fact, distorts its intent.
  Mr. Chairman, this Foreign Appropriations Act, particularly regarding 
population planning limitations, requires the proper coordination of 
two branches of Government: Congress has set the legal guidelines and 
restrictions for population funding overseas and has delegated the 
authority to make the necessary factfinding to the executive branch. 
The Clinton administration must, in good faith, execute the clear 
language of Kemp-Kasten. A vote for H.R. 4426, with the inclusion of 
the Kemp-Kasten language, sends a clear message to President Clinton 
that congressional concern over coercive abortion and involuntary 
sterilization in such countries as China must be taken seriously, and 
must be executed faithfully.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Flake].
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of, H.R. 4426, the Foreign 
Operations Appropriations for FY 1995. Mr. Speaker for almost 50 years 
the world has witnessed the unfortunate destruction of life and land in 
the Middle East. This conflict often centered around differences 
between the Palestinians and Israel.
  Reminiscing of the landmark Camp David Accord between Israel and 
Egypt, I would like to first congratulate the Palestinian leaders and 
the government of Israel for participation in their dramatic peace 
agreement which no doubt is of historic proportions. This agreement for 
the first time recognizes the value of self-rule for Palestinians while 
at the same time guaranteeing security for Israel. For almost a 
generation, U.S. policy has had virtually no impact on this troubled 
region. Undoubtedly, this landmark peace accord ends decades of 
violence and occupation but more importantly, it provides an 
opportunity for these countries' future to be better than their past.
  As with the new peace in the Middle East, the fall of the Soviet 
Union less than 2 years ago, and the historic recent all race elections 
in South Africa, we must take every opportunity to facilitate and 
support peace around the globe. Because of these new found efforts 
toward peace, I believe that the security assistance for Israel in FY 
1995 is well placed, along with the assistance for the former Soviet 
Republics. Equally as important, I am pleased to see an almost 8-
percent increase in overall assistance for Africa. Particularly, I am 
enthused regarding the decision to fully fund the development fund for 
Africa in FY 1995. Also, I support the Agency for International 
Development's initiative to provide $528 million between FY 1994 and FY 
1996 to promote African-American private sector development for housing 
and education in South Africa.
  I believe that we as Members of Congress would be remissed in not 
fully supporting this visionary measure which supports democracy around 
the world.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that the minority wrote some 
views in the committee report encouraging AID to develop an index of 
economic freedom, a quantitative scoring and ranking system for 
countries receiving development aid based upon their commitment to 
promoting private-sector economic growth.
  It is our thought that if we are going to continue the foreign aid 
program, the recipient countries should be attempting to help 
themselves and our aid program should encourage them to change their 
economic system so that their people can own private property and 
produce wealth and eventually wean themselves from foreign aid when 
they no longer need it.
  I encourage all of the Members to take a look at our minority views 
in the report and perhaps, in the coming months or years, we will 
expand on that index and ultimately adopt it in our foreign aid 
program.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for 
yielding me this time.
  In very tight times, this budget is as good as it can be under the 
budgetary constraints that are involved, and I think the chairman, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and the members of the 
subcommittee really should be very proud of the bill that has been put 
out and of the close working relationship under which the bill was 
created.
  This legislation represents less than 1 percent of the whole budget, 
and there are many areas in which I would be quite happy to support 
additional funds, but we just do not have additional funds available at 
this time.
  The bill is $400 million below the President's request. It is $700 
million below last year's bill, which is 5 percent below last year's 
bill. The bill, at the same time, manages to provide critical support 
for assistance in a number of places around this globe where very 
dramatic changes have occurred, Israel and the Palestinians and the 
effort going on there, South Africa, Central America, the former Soviet 
Union, and Eastern Europe. It also manages to provide basic 
humanitarian assistance and promote sustainable development which will 
help us to reduce conflict and increase markets for U.S. products.
  The bill provides the full request for Israel, for the Israel-Egypt 
peace program, for Central and Eastern Europe, the full request of the 
President for those areas, and for the aid to the newly independent 
states of the former Soviet Union.
  In fact, the bill provides, just as one example, in some critical 
areas where additional money is provided, as one example, $720 million 
for refugee assistance, which is almost $40 million above the request 
by the President even in this very tight budget, and in an area where 
we all know the needs that have shown up in Somalia and Rwanda and 
Bosnia.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to oppose 
further major cuts in the legislation.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, the foreign operations bill 
I am voting for tonight represents our Nation's awareness that we are 
not alone in this world. We have learned well the lesson from our 
isolationism in the 1930s. Besides providing humanitarian aid to 
countries that are threatened with drought or civil unrest, this bill 
provides economic aid to maintain stability in areas of potential 
unrest. Spending in this bill is over $700 million less than last year, 
reflecting the need for budget cuts, but this bill still keeps the U.S. 
as a leader in the world.
  I want to especially recognize the African nations that are making 
the difficult transition to democratic governments with market 
economies. For decades the Soviet Union tried to promote communism as 
the panacea to poverty in Africa. Now, with the Soviet influence gone, 
these countries have a chance to attain genuine freedom. This bill 
provides over $2 billion to help with this transition.
  I am disappointed to see an amendment offered to reduce financial 
assistance to South Africa. Five years ago South Africa was trapped in 
the unjust doctrine of apartheid. This year South Africa held its first 
election in which blacks were able to vote. This is a remarkable step 
forward. I feel it is imperative that the United States not abandon 
South Africa after it has achieved such a remarkable goal. The years 
ahead are not going to be easy for the new South African government. 
Our financial aid to South Africa will continue the process of 
democracy. I will vote against this amendment.
  This bill also provides $3 billion in security assistance to Israel. 
This past year has shown great progress in bringing peace to the Middle 
East. Our aid to Israel has allowed it to take the risks that come with 
peace agreements. We should encourage more negotiations and continue 
our important financial support.
  I also feel that the world bank's global environmental facility, 
while in need of operational reform, is available to play an important 
role in making sure that development projects in poor countries are 
environmentally sound. An additional $100 million in this bill is set 
aside for other environmental programs. We have seen the environmental 
destruction that occurred in Eastern Europe while it was under the 
influence of the Soviet Union, and we do not want to duplicate these 
mistakes elsewhere in the world. Poor countries are short on money and 
are certainly tempted to disregard the environment when building these 
projects. American assistance has the potential to make these countries 
environmentally responsible and prevent serious environmental problems 
later.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to see that America has continued to remain 
involved in the world even after the cold war. This bill allows us to 
keep our role as a leader in the world. I will vote in favor of it.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4426, the 
Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1995. I would 
also like to express my appreciation for the hard work of 
Representative David Obey, Chairman of the Foreign Operations 
Appropriations Subcommittee, who has brought before us a well-crafted 
bill that will help us achieve our foreign policy goals with reasonable 
levels of assistance.
  H.R. 4426 provides $13.6 billion for our foreign assistance programs, 
a modest level of aid to meet the many challenges of the post-Cold War 
world. This amount is $707 million less than the fiscal year 1994 
appropriation and $389 million less than the administration's fiscal 
year 1995 request.
  Despite these reductions, H.R. 4426 maintains the levels of the 
assistance needed to move the peace process forward in the Mideast. The 
committee report strongly recommends $3 billion in aid to Israel and 
$2.1 billion in aid to Egypt. It also supports the administration's 
request of $78 million for the West Bank and Gaza.
  We have seen significant progress in the Mideast since we last 
debated a Foreign Operations bill. A year ago today, few of us in the 
House would have thought that within a year's time Israeli Prime 
Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO leader Yassir Arafat would shake hands 
on the White House lawn. Few of us would have thought that Israel would 
withdraw from the Gaza Strip and Jericho to allow for Palestinian self-
rule of those areas. This tremendous progress is in great part 
attributable to our constant, unwavering support for Israel.
  Despite the success of the peace process, there are still those in 
the Mideast who seek to derail the peace process. Tragic acts to terror 
continue against Israelis and Palestinians. Iran and other terror 
states remain vehemently opposed to Israel's existence. And while Syria 
is currently engaged in discussions with Israel, it technically remains 
in a state or war with Israel.
  For this reason, it would be a serious mistake to cut foreign 
assistance to Israel at this critical juncture in the Mideast peace 
process. Cutting aid now would send the wrong signal to those who have 
taken the risk for peace, while bolstering the destructive aims of 
those who seek to undermine the peace process.
  Mr. Chairman, foreign aid is always a difficult vote. But we need to 
keep in mind that foreign aid is only 0.9 percent of the overall U.S. 
budget. It is a cost-effective way to strengthen our allies and secure 
our strategic national interests, without having to commit troops to 
volatile regions of the world. It also promotes democracy and open 
foreign markets to U.S. exports.
  Furthermore, 73 percent of all foreign aid dollars are spent in the 
United States--creating jobs, supporting U.S. businesses, and boosting 
the U.S. economy. In fact, over $347 million in foreign aid is spent 
every year in my home State of Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4426 will help to ensure that the U.S. meets the 
new challenges that it will encounter in the post-Cold War era. I urge 
my colleagues to support the final passage of this legislation, and to 
vote against amendments that would cut our vital foreign assistance to 
the Mideast.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support for the funding 
levels in Chairman Obey's report language for child survival programs, 
basic education and Vitamin A.
  UNICEF's ``State of the World's Children 1993'' report says some very 
important things about where our priorities should lie. I want to share 
one of its major statements:

       In the decade ahead, a clear opportunity exists to make the 
     breakthrough against what might be called the last great 
     obscenity--the needless malnutrition, disease, and illiteracy 
     that still casts a shadow over the lives, and the futures, of 
     the poorest quarter of the world's children.

  Mr. Chairman, our most important priority is our children. Right now, 
we are in the midst of voting on the fiscal year 1995 defense 
authorization. It contains funding for every exotic weapon system you 
could possibly think of and the most ironic thing about it will be the 
fact that we really have no enemy that those weapons are designed to 
kill. I do not mean that the United States has no enemies but they are 
not the ones that the defense budget will protect us against.
  The world's children, both here in the United States and abroad, need 
some of the resources that are being spent on weapon systems--to 
improve schools, decrease violence, create jobs, and housing. I look 
forward to the day that our national defense budget will address those 
real enemies. Let's do what we can through our foreign operations 
appropriation now to give every opportunity to those who deserve a 
better future.
  Ms. SHEPHERD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4426, the 
1995 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill. I commend the chairman for 
his tireless efforts to do more with less. In particular, I applaud the 
committee's commitment to Israel and to the peace process. U.S. support 
for those nations in the Middle East who have dared to break the deadly 
cycle of war and bloodshed has been essential for the spread of peace 
in the region. Israel has only been able to take the very real risks 
which have been necessary to move the peace process along because it 
knows it can count on United States support.
  When I witnessed Yitzhak Rabin and Yassir Arafat shake hands at the 
White House, I knew we had moved irrevocably into a new era. This bill 
recognizes that change with $78 million for economic development in the 
West Bank and Gaza. While the United States has funded development 
projects in the West Bank and Gaza before, this will be the first time 
that funds have gone to an independent Palestinian entity. I hope that 
this new organization will use these funds wisely for the benefit of 
the Palestinian people.
  This year, in Bosnia and Rwanda, we have seen the tragic consequences 
of ancient hatreds left to fester. However, in the transition to 
democracy in South Africa, we have also seen that those hatreds can be 
overcome. In the real world, there are no happily ever afters, no 
storybook endings. We must always fight intolerance and fanaticism. I 
am confident, however, that the Arab-Israeli conflict will become one 
of those successes when differences are buried so that peace can reign. 
Passing this bill will help make the dream of peace a reality. I urge 
your support for H.R. 4426.

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, my inclination is to back foreign aid, 
but this year I cannot because over half of it goes to programs about 
which I have great concern. First, over a quarter of the total amount 
is going to military assistance. Why? In this post-cold-war world, I 
think we need to reform that program. Over a seventh of the total 
amount goes to Egypt and Egypt is a country where female genital 
mutilation is very widespread. I'd like to see much more progress 
toward eradication before we send such sums to Egypt. The multilateral 
institutions which get so much money in this bill need a lot more 
reform and attitude adjustment before I'm willing to give them such 
sums. Without the changes, the money will not be well spent.
  We are having such trouble keeping our commitments at home. Most 
countries are judged by how they live up to their own promises first 
and when it comes to America's children, her future, we get failing 
grades. We should fund those priorities first.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this 
Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.
  I believe that Chairman Obey and his colleagues on the committee have 
crafted a good bill--a bill that advances the cause of freedom and 
democracy, and recognizes that in today's global economy, some of our 
most important foreign policies must be economic and trade policies.
  This bill is especially important because it dedicates our resources 
and our resolve to two of the most important emerging democracies on 
the face of this earth, Russia and South Africa.
  Both nations are working desperately to promote political and 
economic reform. They need our help. And with this bill, we can make 
sure they get it.
  That's why I'm surprised that the Callahan and Burton amendments 
would dramatically slash our assistance to both nations. To do so would 
be a dangerous mistake.
  Consider Russia. Some of you may remember, at the height of the Cold 
War, our debates over single weapons systems that cost more than the 
entire aid package we are offering today.
  Well, the Cold War is over. And now that Russia is inching toward the 
kind of security and stability that we paid trillions to achieve in 
decades past, how can we turn our backs in this hour of need?
  How can we ignore the risk that extremism and deprivation will turn 
back the hands of time, and bury the progress that cost us countless 
dollars and lives?
  Last month, I travelled to Russia with Members of this House, from 
both sides of the aisle--including the Minority Leader and the Minority 
Whip.
  We saw with our own eyes the progress that has been made, thanks to 
American assistance programs.
  We saw the enormous opportunities for American business, now that 
Russia has opened the floodgates of foreign investment.
  But we also saw the dangers of a country that is trembling under the 
weight of growing unemployment, exploding taxes, and eroding security 
and benefits--the consequences of a transition to capitalism that hit 
Russia like a hurricane.
  This is a crucial time for Russia, and for all the Newly Independent 
States. They need our help and support. We've got to be there for the 
long haul.
  And the price of failure would be severe, and vastly more expensive--
for Russia, for America, and for the whole family of nations.
  We must also use this bill to advance the cause of South Africa, the 
youngest of the world's democracies.
  While we all share in the job of Nelson Mandela's victory, we need 
this legislation to cement the promise of South Africa's democracy.
  The economic and humanitarian assistance in this bill--and the loan 
guarantees and assistance to American businesses, which I fought to 
expand--will help South Africa to grow and to thrive.
  It will help South Africa expand trade across its borders, and 
encourage the full participation of the people in its economic life.
  So let's stand by this appropriations bill. Let's stand by the cause 
of freedom and democracy. And let's not shrink from our commitment to 
helping the newly-freed nations of the world, and building peace and 
prosperity all around the world.
  Mr. ANDREWS of Maine. Mr. Chairman, many Americans wonder why the 
United States should be investing tax dollars overseas when there are 
so many urgent needs in our own country. This is a legitimate question 
that deserves a serious response. Clearly, the U.S. cannot be all 
things to all people. Nor should we. There are limits to the assistance 
we can and should provide. That is why, for example, I am a strong 
advocate of measures which would require our wealthy allies to pay 
their fair share for their own defense. It is also why I support the 
spending reductions in this foreign aid bill.
  Prudent foreign aid investments in targeted areas of the world, 
however, not only can contribute to peace and security while promoting 
the ideals and values that we as Americans cherish, they can also bring 
direct return to the United States. Prudent foreign aid can create 
economic opportunity, but it can also prevent the need to put our young 
people in harms way when international trouble spots erupt in conflicts 
that threaten our interests. An ounce of prevention, in the form of 
carefully considered and targeted foreign aid, can truly be worth more 
than a pound of cure. It can promote democracy and human rights, create 
economic opportunity for Americans and save lives.
  While there has been great cause for concern recently in many trouble 
spots of the world, recent dramatic developments toward peace in the 
Middle East signify an exciting step forward--a step made possible by 
U.S. support and involvement. Who could have dreamed that we would all 
witness the historic handshake between an Israeli Prime Minister and 
PLO Chairman on the lawn of the White House? The hope and promise of 
that historic moment is one of the dividends of American investment and 
involvement in key areas of the world.
  The importance of progress toward peace that has been achieved in the 
Middle East is even more poignant to me after visiting Israel and the 
West Bank last year. Looking into the eyes of Israeli soldiers in the 
West Bank and feeling the tension of those struggling in this troubled 
region of the world, it was clear to me that the status quo was 
anything but secure. I had the opportunity and privilege during my trip 
to meet with Foreign Minister Shimon Peres. I explained in our meeting 
that, as someone deeply committed to the security of Israel and to 
peace in the Middle East, I was struck by the volatility, instability 
and insecurity of the region. The Foreign Minister spoke of his deep 
commitment to peace and the need to take risks for peace. And he 
affirmed Israel's determination to move the peace process forward. He 
and his nation have made good on that promise.
  Now it is important that the U.S. move forward to help the people of 
Israel and the Palestinians achieve a lasting peace, built on trust, 
economic opportunity, and prosperity. Indeed, at this critical juncture 
in the peace process, there has never been a more important time to 
stand by our long-time ally, Israel.
  This bill represents a reduction in our foreign aid commitment. It 
reflects the need to tighten our belts as we seek to bring our Federal 
deficit under control. But it also reflects our historic commitment to 
the State of Israel and to the process of peace in the Middle East. And 
it recognizes the direct return that it provides to the people of the 
United States through economic opportunity and a more secure future.
  I urge support for this important bill.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4426, the fiscal 
year 95 foreign operations appropriations bill and especially to 
commend Chairman David Obey and our ranking Republican member Bob 
Livingston for the expeditious and bipartisan way in which this bill 
has been crafted and has been brought to us.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill itself is below our 602 b allocation. It is 
below our budget resolution. It is under the President's budget and it 
is below to the amounts provided last year. It is, as one might 
suspect, the product of many compromises. As a result it has things we 
like and some things we may not like. But our committee is charged with 
the responsibility of funding these activities and I believe the 
Members have done an excellent job.
  Our Commitment to the Middle East Peace Process is fully funded here, 
as is the commitment we make promoting the gradual transition to 
democracy and free markets in the Soviet Union. In many respects 
managing the peace is more difficult than managing a cold war budget. 
Yet our Nation is making the transition to do just that. But the 
Members of this body should realize that in addition to advancing the 
cause of peace and freedom in the world, we are funding activities that 
promote stability, encourage democratic institutions and trade with our 
trading partners. Many of the investments we make here are returned to 
us in real dollars and real jobs here at home.
  Undoubtedly this will undergo changes as it wends its way through the 
process. But on the whole it is a fair bill and I would encourage the 
Members of this House to give it their support.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
4426. This legislation, and the moneys it authorizes, can only help the 
United States continue to project a presence anywhere, anytime and 
anyhow.
  The isolationist critics of this position are shortsighted and lack 
any historical basis for their political posturing.
  All I need to do in support of this is cite some mind-numbing 
numbers: 116,000, 407,000 and 58,000. Each of these numbers represent a 
lost son or daughter due to American politicians seeking to have 
America withdraw from the international scene, shirking our 
responsibilities.
  In World War I, we lost 116,000. In World War II, we lost 407,000, 
and in Vietnam, more than 58,000.
  Mr. Chairman, how many more young lives does it take before my 
colleagues understand the consequences of their actions here today?
  Foreign aid represents less than 1 percent of the entire U.S. budget, 
and the GAO estimates that more than 72 percent of those funds are 
returned to the United States in the form of increased trade and 
cooperative programs.
  So even from a fiscal conservative perspective this is money well 
spent, and I would argue that this is really an investment, preserving 
our future and our children's futures.
  It is my sincerest hope that our grandchildren will not have to bear 
witness to another generational blood bath such as that brought on by 
World Wars I and II, and Vietnam. Our failure to support a continued 
American presence abroad is this important.
  So, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and 
help keep American leadership unquestioned and unparalleled.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time on 
this section, and I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1630

  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the pending question is the adoption of the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the reported bill.
  The Clerk will designate the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  (For the text of the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, see ensuing pages of this Record, following the 10 minutes 
of debate and the rollcall vote on this amendment.)
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
will not take the 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee substitute simply reduces the President's 
request by $389 billion in the manner described by the gentleman from 
Louisiana and myself. I think it is fiscally responsible to make this 
reduction.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge that we move to a vote as soon as possible.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. The amendment is a good one, and I support it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 426, 
noes 1, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 204]

                               AYES--426

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--1

       
     Traficant
       

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Abercrombie
     Blackwell
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Grandy
     Horn
     Inslee
     Johnson, Sam
     Slaughter
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington
     Waxman

                              {time}  1653

  So the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed 
to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute is considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of further amendment and is considered as read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 4426

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

               TITLE I--MULTILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE


                  FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT

                  International Financial Institutions


     contribution to the International bank for reconstruction and 
                              development

       For payment to the International Bank for Reconstruction 
     and Development by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the 
     United States share of the paid-in share portion of the 
     increases in capital stock for the General Capital Increase, 
     $23,009,101, to remain available until expended.


              limitation on callable capital subscriptions

       The United States Governor of the International Bank for 
     Reconstruction and Development may subscribe without fiscal 
     year limitation to the callable capital portion of the United 
     States share of increases in capital stock in an amount not 
     to exceed $743,923,914.
       For payment to the International Bank for Reconstruction 
     and Development by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the 
     United States contribution to the Global Environment Facility 
     (GEF), $98,800,000, to remain available until expended.


       CONTRIBUTION TO THE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION

       For payment to the International Development Association by 
     the Secretary of the Treasury, $1,235,000,000, for the United 
     States contribution to the replenishment, to remain available 
     until expended.


         contribution to the international finance corporation

       For payment to the International Finance Corporation by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, $68,743,028, for the United States 
     share of the increase in subscriptions to capital stock, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That of the amount 
     appropriated under this heading not more than $5,364,000 may 
     be expended for the purchase of such stock in fiscal year 
     1995.


          contribution to the inter-american development bank

       For payment to the Inter-American Development Bank by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury for the United States share of the 
     paid-in share portion of the increase in capital stock, 
     $28,111,959, and for the United States share of the increases 
     in the resources of the Fund for Special Operations, 
     $21,338,000, and for the United States share of the capital 
     stock of the Inter-American Investment Corporation, $190,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     $25,269,224 of the amount made available for the paid-in 
     share portion of the increase in capital stock, and 
     $20,317,000 of the resources of the Fund for Special 
     Operations shall be subject to the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.


              limitation on callable capital subscriptions

       The United States Governor of the Inter-American 
     Development Bank may subscribe without fiscal year limitation 
     to the callable capital portion of the United States share of 
     such capital stock in an amount not to exceed $1,594,568,180.


contribution to the enterprise for the americas multilateral investment 
                                  fund

       For payment to the Enterprise for the Americas Multilateral 
     Investment Fund by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the 
     United States contribution to the Fund to be administered by 
     the Inter-American Development Bank, $75,000,000 to remain 
     available until expended.


               contribution to the asian development fund

       For the United States contribution by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to the increases in resources of the Asian 
     Development Fund, as authorized by the Asian Development Bank 
     Act, as amended (Public Law 89-369), $167,960,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


              contribution to the african development fund

       For payment to the African Development Fund by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, $124,229,309, for the United 
     States contribution to the African Development Fund, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading, $20,000,000 shall be subject 
     to the regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.


              contribution to the african development bank

       For payment to the African Development Bank by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, for the paid-in share portion of 
     the United States share of the increase in capital stock, 
     $133,000, to remain available until expended.


              limitation on callable capital subscriptions

       The United States Governor of the African Development Bank 
     may subscribe without fiscal year limitation to the callable 
     capital portion of the United States share of such capital 
     stock in an amount not to exceed $2,002,540.


  contribution to the european bank for reconstruction and development

       For payment to the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development by the Secretary of the Treasury, $69,180,353, 
     for the United States share of the paid-in share portion of 
     the initial capital subscription, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That during fiscal year 1995 the number 
     of shares of stock purchased shall be not more than 600.


              limitation of callable capital subscriptions

       The United States Governor of the European Bank for 
     Reconstruction and Development may subscribe without fiscal 
     year limitation to the callable capital portion of the United 
     States share of such capital stock in an amount not to exceed 
     $161,420,824.


                international organizations and programs

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and of 
     section 2 of the United Nations Environment Program 
     Participation Act of 1973, $366,000,000: Provided, That none 
     of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be made 
     available for the United Nations Fund for Science and 
     Technology: Provided further, That funds appropriated under 
     this heading may be made available for the International 
     Atomic Energy Agency only if the Secretary of State 
     determines (and so reports to the Congress) that Israel is 
     not being denied its right to participate in the activities 
     of that Agency: Provided further, That of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading that are made available for 
     the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), 75 per centum 
     shall be obligated and expended no later than thirty days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act and 25 per centum 
     shall be expended within thirty days from the start of 
     UNICEF's fourth quarter of operations for 1995: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading that are made available to the United Nations 
     Population Fund (UNFPA) shall be made available for 
     activities in the People's Republic of China: Provided 
     further, That not more than $40,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading may be made available to the 
     UNFPA: Provided further, That not more than one-half of this 
     amount may be provided to UNFPA before March 1, 1995, and 
     that no later than February 15, 1995, the Secretary of State 
     shall submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations 
     indicating the amount UNFPA is budgeting for the People's 
     Republic of China in 1995: Provided further, That any amount 
     UNFPA plans to spend in the People's Republic of China in 
     1995 above $7,000,000, shall be deducted from the amount of 
     funds provided to UNFPA after March 1, 1995 pursuant to the 
     previous provisos: Provided further, That with respect to any 
     funds appropriated under this heading that are made available 
     to UNFPA, UNFPA shall be required to maintain such funds in a 
     separate account and not commingle them with any other funds: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding the fifth proviso of 
     this heading, if UNFPA decides not to initiate a new program 
     in China after its current program ends in 1995, up to an 
     additional $20,000,000 of funds appropriated under this 
     heading may be made available to UNFPA.

                TITLE II--BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE


                  FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT

       For expenses necessary to enable the President to carry out 
     the provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and for 
     other purposes, to remain available until September 30, 1995, 
     unless otherwise specified herein, as follows:

                  Agency for International Development


                      development assistance fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     sections 103 through 106 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, $811,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     1996.


                   POPULATION, DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 104(b), $450,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 1996: Provided, That none of the funds made 
     available in this Act nor any unobligated balances from prior 
     appropriations may be made available to any organization or 
     program which, as determined by the President of the United 
     States, supports or participates in the management of a 
     program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds made available under 
     this heading may be used to pay for the performance of 
     abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or 
     coerce any person to practice abortions; and that in order to 
     reduce reliance on abortion in developing nations, funds 
     shall be available only to voluntary family planning projects 
     which offer, either directly or through referral to, or 
     information about access to, a broad range of family planning 
     methods and services: Provided further, That in awarding 
     grants for natural family planning under section 104 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 no applicant shall be 
     discriminated against because of such applicant's religious 
     or conscientious commitment to offer only natural family 
     planning; and, additionally, all such applicants shall comply 
     with the requirements of the previous proviso: Provided 
     further, That nothing in this subsection shall be construed 
     to alter any existing statutory prohibitions against abortion 
     under section 104 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.


                      development fund for africa

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     chapter 10 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $790,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1996: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by this Act to 
     carry out chapters 1 and 10 of part I of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 shall be transferred to the Government 
     of Zaire: Provided further, That funds appropriated under 
     this heading which are made available for activities 
     supported by the Southern Africa Development Community shall 
     be made available notwithstanding section 512 of this Act and 
     section 620(q) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.


                  PRIVATE AND VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this Act for development assistance may be made available 
     to any United States private and voluntary organization, 
     except any cooperative development organization, which 
     obtains less than 20 per centum of its total annual funding 
     for international activities from sources other than the 
     United States Government: Provided, That the requirements of 
     the provisions of section 123(g) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 and the provisions on private and voluntary 
     organizations in title II of the ``Foreign Assistance and 
     Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1985'' (as enacted in 
     Public Law 98-473) shall be superseded by the provisions of 
     this section.


                   INTERNATIONAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE

       For necessary expenses for international disaster relief, 
     rehabilitation, and reconstruction assistance pursuant to 
     section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 
     amended, $169,998,000 to remain available until expended.


                           debt restructuring

       For the cost, as defined in section 13201 of the Budget 
     Enforcement Act of 1990, of modifying direct loans and loan 
     guarantees, as the President may determine, for which funds 
     have been appropriated or otherwise made available for 
     programs within the International Affairs Budget Function 
     150, $7,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That it is the sense of the Congress that a program 
     should be developed to undertake direct buy backs of 
     bilateral debt from eligible poor and lower-middle income 
     countries with local currency offsets to fund development and 
     environmental activities, provided that such a program would 
     have no budgetary impact. The Administration should consider 
     how creative use of the sale of impaired Third World debts 
     might be used to lower debt overhangs and generate local 
     currencies for development and environmental activities.


         micro and small enterprise development program account

       For the subsidy cost of direct loans and loan guarantees, 
     $1,500,000, as authorized by section 108 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, as amended: Provided, That such costs 
     shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974. In addition, for administrative expenses 
     to carry out programs under this heading, $500,000, all of 
     which may be transferred to and merged with the appropriation 
     for operating expenses of the Agency for International 
     Development.


                    HOUSING GUARANTY PROGRAM ACCOUNT

       For the subsidy cost, as defined in section 13201 of the 
     Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, of guaranteed loans 
     authorized by sections 221 and 222 of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961, $19,300,000: Provided, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize loan principal, 100 percent of which 
     shall be guaranteed, pursuant to the authority of such 
     sections: Provided further, That the President shall enter 
     into commitments to guarantee such loans in the full amount 
     provided under this heading, subject to the availability of 
     qualified applicants for such guarantees. In addition, for 
     administrative expenses to carry out guaranteed loan 
     programs, $8,000,000, all of which may be transferred to and 
     merged with the appropriation for Operating Expenses of the 
     Agency for International Development: Provided further, That 
     commitments to guarantee loans under this heading may be 
     entered into notwithstanding the second and third sentences 
     of section 222(a) and, with regard to programs for Eastern 
     Europe and programs for the benefit of South Africans 
     disadvantaged by apartheid, section 223(j) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading shall be obligated 
     except through the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.


     PAYMENT TO THE FOREIGN SERVICE RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY FUND

       For payment to the ``Foreign Service Retirement and 
     Disability Fund'', as authorized by the Foreign Service Act 
     of 1980, $45,118,000.


     OPERATING EXPENSES OF THE AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 667, $517,500,000: Provided, That of this amount not 
     more than $900,000 may be made available to pay for printing 
     costs.


 OPERATING EXPENSES OF THE AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE 
                          OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 667, $39,118,000, which sum shall be available for 
     the Office of the Inspector General of the Agency for 
     International Development.


                         ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     chapter 4 of part II, $2,339,000,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 1996: Provided, That any funds 
     appropriated under this heading that are made available for 
     Israel shall be made available on a grant basis as a cash 
     transfer and shall be disbursed within thirty days of 
     enactment of this Act or by October 31, 1994, whichever is 
     later: Provided further, That any funds appropriated under 
     this heading that are made available for Egypt shall be 
     provided on a grant basis, of which sum cash transfer 
     assistance may be provided with the understanding that Egypt 
     will undertake significant economic reforms which are 
     additional to those which were undertaken in previous fiscal 
     years: Provided further, That in exercising the authority to 
     provide cash transfer assistance for Israel and Egypt, the 
     President shall ensure that the level of such assistance does 
     not cause an adverse impact on the total level of nonmilitary 
     exports from the United States to each such country: Provided 
     further, That it is the sense of the Congress that the 
     recommended levels of assistance for Egypt and Israel are 
     based in great measure upon their continued participation in 
     the Camp David Accords and upon the Egyptian-Israeli peace 
     treaty: Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading shall be made available for Zaire.


                     international fund for ireland

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of part 
     I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, up to $19,600,000, 
     which shall be available for the United States contribution 
     to the International Fund for Ireland and shall be made 
     available in accordance with the provisions of the Anglo-
     Irish Agreement Support Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-415): 
     Provided, That such amount shall be expended at the minimum 
     rate necessary to make timely payment for projects and 
     activities: Provided further, That funds made available under 
     this heading shall remain available until expended.


          assistance for eastern europe and the baltic states

       (a) For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Support for East 
     European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989, $360,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended, which shall be available, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, for economic 
     assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States.
       (b) Funds appropriated under this heading or in prior 
     appropriations Acts that are or have been made available for 
     an Enterprise Fund may be deposited by such Fund in interest-
     bearing accounts prior to the Fund's disbursement of such 
     funds for program purposes. The Fund may retain for such 
     program purposes any interest earned on such deposits without 
     returning such interest to the Treasury of the United States 
     and without further appropriation by the Congress. Funds made 
     available for Enterprise Funds shall be expended at the 
     minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for projects 
     and activities.
       (c) Funds appropriated under this heading shall be 
     considered to be economic assistance under the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 for purposes of making available the 
     administrative authorities contained in that Act for the use 
     of economic assistance.


  assistance for the new independent states of the former soviet union

       (a) For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     chapter 11 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     and the FREEDOM Support Act, for assistance for the new 
     independent states of the former Soviet Union and for related 
     programs, $900,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the provisions of 498B(j) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 shall apply to funds appropriated by 
     this paragraph.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated under this heading shall 
     be transferred to the Government of Russia--
       (1) unless that Government is making progress in 
     implementing comprehensive economic reforms based on market 
     principles, private ownership, negotiating repayment of 
     commercial debt, respect for commercial contracts, and 
     equitable treatment of foreign private investment; and
       (2) if that Government applies or transfers United States 
     assistance to any entity for the purpose of expropriating or 
     seizing ownership or control of assets, investments, or 
     ventures.
       (c) Funds may be furnished without regard to subsection (b) 
     if the President determines that to do so is in the national 
     interest.
       (d) None of the funds appropriated under this heading shall 
     be made available to any government of the new independent 
     states of the former Soviet Union if that government directs 
     any action in violation of the territorial integrity or 
     national sovereignty of any other new independent state, such 
     as those violations included in Principle Six of the Helsinki 
     Final Act: Provided, That such funds may be made available 
     without regard to the restriction in this subsection if the 
     President determines that to do so is in the national 
     interest of the United States: Provided further, That the 
     restriction of this subsection shall not apply to the use of 
     such funds for the provision of assistance for purposes of 
     humanitarian, disaster and refugee relief: Provided further, 
     That thirty days after the date of enactment of this Act, and 
     then annually thereafter, the Secretary of State shall report 
     to the Committees on Appropriations on steps taken by the 
     governments of the new independent states concerning 
     violations referred to in this subsection: Provided further, 
     That in preparing this report the Secretary shall consult 
     with the United States Representative to the Conference on 
     Security and Cooperation in Europe.
       (e) None of the funds appropriated under this heading for 
     the new independent states of the former Soviet Union shall 
     be made available for any state to enhance its military 
     capability: Provided, That this restriction does not apply to 
     demilitarization, defense conversion or non-proliferation 
     programs, or programs to support troop withdrawal including 
     through the support of an officer resettlement program, and 
     technical assistance for the housing sector.
       (f) Funds appropriated under this heading shall be subject 
     to the regular reprogramming procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       (g) Funds appropriated under this heading may be made 
     available for assistance for Mongolia.
       (h) Funds made available in this Act for assistance to the 
     New Independent States of the former Soviet Union shall be 
     provided to the maximum extent feasible through the private 
     sector, including private voluntary organizations and 
     nongovernmental organizations functioning in the New 
     Independent States.

                          Independent Agencies


                     african development foundation

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of title 
     V of the International Security and Development Cooperation 
     Act of 1980, Public Law 96-533, and to make such contracts 
     and commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations, as 
     provided by section 9104, title 31, United States Code, 
     $16,905,000: Provided, That, when, with the permission of the 
     President of the Foundation, funds made available to a 
     grantee under this heading are invested pending disbursement, 
     the resulting interest is not required to be deposited in the 
     United States Treasury if the grantee uses the resulting 
     interest for the purpose for which the grant was made: 
     Provided further, That this provision applies with respect to 
     both interest earned before and interest earned after the 
     enactment of this provision: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 505(a)(2) of the African Development 
     Foundation Act, in exceptional circumstances the board of 
     directors of the Foundation may waive the dollar limitation 
     contained in that section with respect to a project: Provided 
     further, That the Foundation shall provide a report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations after each time such waiver 
     authority is exercised.


                       INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION

       For expenses necessary to carry out the functions of the 
     Inter-American Foundation in accordance with the provisions 
     of section 401 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1969, and to 
     make such contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal 
     year limitations, as provided by section 9104, title 31, 
     United States Code, $30,960,000.


                              PEACE CORPS

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Peace Corps Act (75 Stat. 612), $219,745,000, including the 
     purchase of not to exceed five passenger motor vehicles for 
     administrative purposes for use outside of the United States: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading shall be used to pay for abortions: Provided further, 
     That funds appropriated under this heading shall remain 
     available until September 30, 1996.

                          Department of State


                    INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 481 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $100,000,000.


                    MIGRATION AND REFUGEE ASSISTANCE

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to 
     enable the Secretary of State to provide, as authorized by 
     law, a contribution to the International Committee of the Red 
     Cross and assistance to refugees, including contributions to 
     the Intergovernmental Committee for Migration and the United 
     Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; salaries and expenses 
     of personnel and dependents as authorized by the Foreign 
     Service Act of 1980; allowances as authorized by sections 
     5921 through 5925 of title 5, United States Code; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; and services as authorized by 
     section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, $670,688,000: 
     Provided, That not more than $11,500,000 of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be available for the 
     administrative expenses of the Office of Refugee Programs of 
     the Department of State.


                    refugee resettlement assistance

       For necessary expenses for the targeted assistance program 
     authorized by title IV of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     and section 501 of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 
     1980 and administered by the Office of Refugee Resettlement 
     of the Department of Health and Human Services, in addition 
     to amounts otherwise available for such purposes, 
     $12,000,000.


     united states emergency refugee and migration assistance fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 2(c) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 
     1962, as amended (22 U.S.C. 260(c)), $50,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the funds made 
     available under this heading are appropriated notwithstanding 
     the provisions contained in section 2(c)(2) of the Migration 
     and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 which would limit the 
     amount of funds which could be appropriated for this purpose.


                       ANTI-TERRORISM ASSISTANCE

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     chapter 8 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $15,244,000.


                 nonproliferation and disarmament fund

       For necessary expenses for a ``Nonproliferation and 
     Disarmament Fund'', $10,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, to promote bilateral and multilateral activities: 
     Provided, That such funds may be used pursuant to the 
     authorities contained in section 504 of the FREEDOM Support 
     Act: Provided further, That such funds may also be used for 
     such countries other than the new independent states of the 
     former Soviet Union and international organizations when it 
     is in the national security interest of the United States to 
     do so: Provided further, That funds appropriated under this 
     heading may be made available notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law: Provided further, That funds appropriated 
     under this heading shall be subject to the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.

                     TITLE III--MILITARY ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


             INTERNATIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION AND TRAINING

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 541 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $25,500,000: Provided, That up to $300,000 of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading may be made available for 
     grant financed military education and training for any 
     country whose annual per capita GNP exceeds $2,349 on the 
     condition that that country agrees to fund from its own 
     resources the transportation cost and living allowances of 
     its students: Provided further, That the civilian personnel 
     for whom military education and training may be provided 
     under this heading may also include members of national 
     legislatures who are responsible for the oversight and 
     management of the military: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds appropriated under this heading shall be available 
     for Indonesia and Zaire: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds appropriated by this Act shall be used to facilitate 
     the provision of IMET to Indonesia: Provided further, That a 
     report is to be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations 
     addressing how the proposed School of the Americas IMET 
     program will contribute to the promotion of human rights, 
     respect for civilian authority and the rule of law, the 
     establishment of legitimate judicial mechanisms for the 
     military, and achieving the goal of right sizing military 
     forces.
       For necessary expenses, for the military-to-military 
     contact program of the Department of Defense, $12,000,000, to 
     be made available only for activities for East European 
     countries and the Baltic States.


                   foreign military financing program

       For expenses necessary for grants to enable the President 
     to carry out the provisions of section 23 of the Arms Export 
     Control Act, $3,149,279,000: Provided, That funds 
     appropriated by this paragraph that are made available for 
     Israel and Egypt shall be available only as grants: Provided 
     further, That the funds appropriated by this paragraph that 
     are made available for Israel shall be disbursed within 
     thirty days of enactment of this Act or by October 31, 1994, 
     whichever is later: Provided further, That funds made 
     available under this paragraph shall be nonrepayable 
     notwithstanding any requirement in section 23 of the Arms 
     Export Control Act.
       For the cost, as defined in section 13201 of the Budget 
     Enforcement Act of 1990, of direct loans authorized by 
     section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act as follows: cost of 
     direct loans, $47,917,000: Provided, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal 
     amount of direct loans of not to exceed $619,650,000: 
     Provided further, That the rate of interest charged on such 
     loans shall be not less than the current average market yield 
     on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of 
     comparable maturities: Provided further, That the principal 
     amount of direct loans for Greece and Turkey shall be made 
     available according to a 7 to 10 ratio: Provided further, 
     That 25 percent of the principal amount of direct loans for 
     Turkey shall be withheld until the Secretary of State, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Defense, has submitted to 
     the Committees on Appropriations a report addressing, among 
     other things, the allegations of abuses against civilians by 
     the Turkish armed forces and the situation in Cyprus, and a 
     separate notification has been submitted at least 15 days 
     prior to the obligation of such funds: Provided further, That 
     25 percent of the principal amount of direct loans for Greece 
     shall be withheld until the Secretary of State has submitted 
     to the Committees on Appropriations a report on the 
     allegations of Greek violations of the United Nations 
     sanctions against Serbia and of the United Nations Charter, 
     and a separate notification has been submitted at least 15 
     days prior to the obligation of such funds.
       None of the funds made available under this heading shall 
     be available to finance the procurement of defense articles, 
     defense services, or design and construction services that 
     are not sold by the United States Government under the Arms 
     Export Control Act unless the foreign country proposing to 
     make such procurements has first signed an agreement with the 
     United States Government specifying the conditions under 
     which such procurements may be financed with such funds: 
     Provided, That all country and funding level increases in 
     allocations shall be submitted through the regular 
     notification procedures of section 515 of this Act: Provided 
     further, That funds made available under this heading shall 
     be obligated upon apportionment in accordance with paragraph 
     (5)(C) of title 31, United States Code, section 1501(a): 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading shall be available for Zaire, Sudan, Liberia, 
     Guatemala, Peru, and Malawi: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds appropriated under this heading may be made 
     available for Colombia or Bolivia until the Secretary of 
     State certifies that such funds will not be used by such 
     country for purposes other than counter-narcotics activities: 
     Provided further, That not more than $100,000,000 of the 
     funds made available under this heading shall be available 
     for use in financing the procurement of defense articles, 
     defense services, or design and construction services that 
     are not sold by the United States Government under the Arms 
     Export Control Act to countries other than Israel and Egypt: 
     Provided further, That only those countries for which 
     assistance was justified for the ``Foreign Military Sales 
     Financing Program'' in the fiscal year 1989 congressional 
     presentation for security assistance programs may utilize 
     funds made available under this heading for procurement of 
     defense articles, defense services or design and construction 
     services that are not sold by the United States Government 
     under the Arms Export Control Act: Provided further, That, 
     subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations, funds made available under this 
     heading for the cost of direct loans may also be used to 
     supplement the funds available under this heading for 
     necessary expenses for grants if countries specified under 
     this heading as eligible for such direct loans decline to 
     utilize such loans: Provided further, That funds appropriated 
     under this heading shall be expended at the minimum rate 
     necessary to make timely payment for defense articles and 
     services: Provided further, That the Department of Defense 
     shall conduct during the current fiscal year nonreimbursable 
     audits of private firms whose contracts are made directly 
     with foreign governments and are financed with funds made 
     available under this heading (as well as subcontractors 
     thereunder) as requested by the Defense Security Assistance 
     Agency: Provided further, That not more than $22,150,000 of 
     the funds appropriated under this heading may be obligated 
     for necessary expenses, including the purchase of passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only for use outside of the 
     United States, for the general costs of administering 
     military assistance and sales: Provided further, That not 
     more than $335,000,000 of funds realized pursuant to section 
     21(e)(1)(A) of the Arms Export Control Act may be obligated 
     for expenses incurred by the Department of Defense during the 
     fiscal year 1994 pursuant to section 43(b) of the Arms Export 
     Control Act, except that this limitation may be exceeded only 
     through the regular notification procedures of the Committees 
     on Appropriations: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading, and no employee of the 
     Defense Security Assistance Agency, may be used to facilitate 
     the transport of aircraft to commercial arms sales shows.


                        PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 551 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $75,000,000.

                      TITLE IV--EXPORT ASSISTANCE


                EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

       The Export-Import Bank of the United States is authorized 
     to make such expenditures within the limits of funds and 
     borrowing authority available to such corporation, and in 
     accordance with law, and to make such contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations, as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as may be necessary in carrying out the program for the 
     current fiscal year for such corporation: Provided, That none 
     of the funds available during the current fiscal year may be 
     used to make expenditures, contracts, or commitments for the 
     export of nuclear equipment, fuel, or technology to any 
     country other than a nuclear-weapon State as defined in 
     article IX of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear 
     Weapons eligible to receive economic or military assistance 
     under this Act that has detonated a nuclear explosive after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.


                         subsidy appropriation

       For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, insurance, 
     and tied-aid grants as authorized by section 10 of the 
     Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended, $792,653,000 to 
     remain available until September 30, 1996: Provided, That 
     such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall 
     be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974: Provided further, That these funds are available to 
     subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans, and tied-aid grants, and total loan principal, 
     any part of which is to be guaranteed, including insurance, 
     of not to exceed $19,000,000,000: Provided further, That such 
     sums shall remain available until 2010 for the disbursement 
     of direct loans, loan guarantees, insurance and tied-aid 
     grants obligated in fiscal years 1995 and 1996: Provided 
     further, That up to $100,000,000 of funds appropriated by 
     this paragraph shall remain available until expended and may 
     be used for tied-aid grant purposes: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds appropriated by this paragraph may be used 
     for tied-aid credits or grants except through the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated by this paragraph 
     are made available notwithstanding section 2(b)(2) of the 
     Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, in connection with the 
     purchase or lease of any product by any East European 
     country, any Baltic State, or any agency or national thereof.


                        ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

       For administrative expenses to carry out the direct and 
     guaranteed loan and insurance programs (to be computed on an 
     accrual basis), including hire of passenger motor vehicles 
     and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to 
     exceed $20,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses for members of the Board of Directors, $44,550,000: 
     Provided, That necessary expenses (including special services 
     performed on a contract or fee basis, but not including other 
     personal services) in connection with the collection of 
     moneys owed the Export-Import Bank, repossession or sale of 
     pledged collateral or other assets acquired by the Export-
     Import Bank in satisfaction of moneys owed the Export-Import 
     Bank, or the investigation or appraisal of any property, or 
     the evaluation of the legal or technical aspects of any 
     transaction for which an application for a loan, guarantee or 
     insurance commitment has been made, shall be considered 
     nonadministrative expenses for the purposes of this heading.


                OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION

                            program account

       For the subsidy cost as defined in section 13201 of the 
     Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, of direct and guaranteed 
     loans authorized by section 234 of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961, as follows: cost of direct and guaranteed loans, 
     $23,296,000. In addition, for administrative expenses to 
     carry out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, 
     $7,933,000: Provided, That the funds provided in this 
     paragraph shall be available for and apply to costs, direct 
     loan obligations and loan guaranty commitments incurred or 
     made during the period from October 1, 1994 through September 
     30, 1996: Provided further, That such sums are to remain 
     available through fiscal year 2003 for the disbursement of 
     direct and guaranteed loans obligated in fiscal year 1995, 
     and through 2004 for the disbursement of direct and 
     guaranteed loans obligated in fiscal year 1996.
       The Overseas Private Investment Corporation is authorized 
     to make, without regard to fiscal year limitations, as 
     provided by 31 U.S.C. 9104, such noncredit expenditures and 
     commitments within the limits of funds available to it and in 
     accordance with law (including an amount for official 
     reception and representation expenses which shall not exceed 
     $35,000) as may be necessary.

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                      TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 661 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $44,986,000.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS


             OBLIGATIONS DURING LAST MONTH OF AVAILABILITY

       Sec. 501. Except for the appropriations entitled 
     ``International Disaster Assistance'', and ``United States 
     Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund'', not more 
     than 15 per centum of any appropriation item made available 
     by this Act shall be obligated during the last month of 
     availability.


     PROHIBITION OF BILATERAL FUNDING FOR INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL 
                              INSTITUTIONS

       Sec. 502. None of the funds contained in title II of this 
     Act may be used to carry out the provisions of section 209(d) 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.


                    LIMITATION ON RESIDENCE EXPENSES

       Sec. 503. Of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act, not to exceed $126,500 shall be for 
     official residence expenses of the Agency for International 
     Development during the current fiscal year: Provided, That 
     appropriate steps shall be taken to assure that, to the 
     maximum extent possible, United States-owned foreign 
     currencies are utilized in lieu of dollars.


                         LIMITATION ON EXPENSES

       Sec. 504. Of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act, not to exceed $5,000 shall be for 
     entertainment expenses of the Agency for International 
     Development during the current fiscal year.


               LIMITATION ON REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCES

       Sec. 505. Of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act, not to exceed $95,000 shall be 
     available for representation allowances for the Agency for 
     International Development during the current fiscal year: 
     Provided, That appropriate steps shall be taken to assure 
     that, to the maximum extent possible, United States-owned 
     foreign currencies are utilized in lieu of dollars: Provided 
     further, That of the funds made available by this Act for 
     general costs of administering military assistance and sales 
     under the heading ``Foreign Military Financing Program'', not 
     to exceed $2,000 shall be available for entertainment 
     expenses and not to exceed $50,000 shall be available for 
     representation allowances: Provided further, That of the 
     funds made available by this Act under the heading 
     ``International Military Education and Training'', not to 
     exceed $50,000 shall be available for entertainment 
     allowances: Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available by this Act for the Inter-American Foundation, not 
     to exceed $2,000 shall be available for entertainment and 
     representation allowances: Provided further, That of the 
     funds made available by this Act for the Peace Corps, not to 
     exceed a total of $4,000 shall be available for entertainment 
     expenses: Provided further, That of the funds made available 
     by this Act under the heading ``Trade and Development 
     Agency'', not to exceed $2,000 shall be available for 
     representation and entertainment allowances.


                 PROHIBITION ON FINANCING NUCLEAR GOODS

       Sec. 506. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     (other than funds for ``International Organizations and 
     Programs'') pursuant to this Act, for carrying out the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, may be used, except for 
     purposes of nuclear safety, to finance the export of nuclear 
     equipment, fuel, or technology.


        PROHIBITION AGAINST DIRECT FUNDING FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES

       Sec. 507. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended 
     to finance directly any assistance or reparations to Cuba, 
     Iraq, Libya, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Iran, Serbia, 
     Sudan, or Syria: Provided, That for purposes of this section, 
     the prohibition on obligations or expenditures shall include 
     direct loans, credits, insurance and guarantees of the 
     Export-Import Bank or its agents.


                             MILITARY COUPS

       Sec. 508. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended 
     to finance directly any assistance to any country whose duly 
     elected Head of Government is deposed by military coup or 
     decree: Provided, That assistance may be resumed to such 
     country if the President determines and reports to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that subsequent to the 
     termination of assistance a democratically elected government 
     has taken office.


                       TRANSFERS BETWEEN ACCOUNTS

       Sec. 509. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated under an appropriation account to which they 
     were not appropriated, unless the President, prior to the 
     exercise of any authority contained in the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 to transfer funds, consults with and provides a 
     written policy justification to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate: Provided, That the exercise of such authority shall 
     be subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.


                  DEOBLIGATION/REOBLIGATION AUTHORITY

       Sec. 510. (a) Amounts certified pursuant to section 1311 of 
     the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1955, as having been 
     obligated against appropriations heretofore made under the 
     authority of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for the same 
     general purpose as any of the headings under the ``Agency for 
     International Development'' are, if deobligated, hereby 
     continued available for the same period as the respective 
     appropriations under such headings or until September 30, 
     1995, whichever is later, and for the same general purpose, 
     and for countries within the same region as originally 
     obligated: Provided, That the Appropriations Committees of 
     both Houses of the Congress are notified fifteen days in 
     advance of the deobligation and reobligation of such funds in 
     accordance with regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.
       (b) Obligated balances of funds appropriated to carry out 
     section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act as of the end of 
     the fiscal year immediately preceding the current fiscal year 
     are, if deobligated, hereby continued available during the 
     current fiscal year for the same purpose under any authority 
     applicable to such appropriations under this Act: Provided, 
     That the authority of this subsection may not be used in 
     fiscal year 1995.


                         availability of funds

       Sec. 511. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation after the 
     expiration of the current fiscal year unless expressly so 
     provided in this Act: Provided, That funds appropriated for 
     the purposes of chapters 1 and 8 of part I, section 667, and 
     chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     as amended, shall remain available until expended if such 
     funds are initially obligated before the expiration of their 
     respective periods of availability contained in this Act: 
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of this Act, any funds made available for the purposes of 
     chapter 1 of part I and chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 which are allocated or obligated for 
     cash disbursements in order to address balance of payments or 
     economic policy reform objectives, shall remain available 
     until expended: Provided further, That the report required by 
     section 653(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall 
     designate for each country, to the extent known at the time 
     of submission of such report, those funds allocated for cash 
     disbursement for balance of payment and economic policy 
     reform purposes.


            LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE TO COUNTRIES IN DEFAULT

       Sec. 512. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used to furnish assistance to any country which 
     is in default during a period in excess of one calendar year 
     in payment to the United States of principal or interest on 
     any loan made to such country by the United States pursuant 
     to a program for which funds are appropriated under this Act: 
     Provided, That this section and section 620(q) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 shall not apply to funds made 
     available in this Act or during the current fiscal year for 
     Nicaragua, and for any narcotics-related assistance for 
     Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru authorized by the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 or the Arms Export Control Act.


                           COMMERCE AND TRADE

       Sec. 513. (a) None of the funds appropriated or made 
     available pursuant to this Act for direct assistance and none 
     of the funds otherwise made available pursuant to this Act to 
     the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation shall be obligated or expended to finance any 
     loan, any assistance or any other financial commitments for 
     establishing or expanding production of any commodity for 
     export by any country other than the United States, if the 
     commodity is likely to be in surplus on world markets at the 
     time the resulting productive capacity is expected to become 
     operative and if the assistance will cause substantial injury 
     to United States producers of the same, similar, or competing 
     commodity: Provided, That such prohibition shall not apply to 
     the Export-Import Bank if in the judgment of its Board of 
     Directors the benefits to industry and employment in the 
     United States are likely to outweigh the injury to United 
     States producers of the same, similar, or competing 
     commodity.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated by this or any other Act 
     to carry out chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 shall be available for any testing or breeding 
     feasibility study, variety improvement or introduction, 
     consultancy, publication, conference, or training in 
     connection with the growth or production in a foreign country 
     of an agricultural commodity for export which would compete 
     with a similar commodity grown or produced in the United 
     States: Provided, That this subsection shall not prohibit--
       (1) activities designed to increase food security in 
     developing countries where such activities will not have a 
     significant impact in the export of agricultural commodities 
     of the United States; or
       (2) research activities intended primarily to benefit 
     American producers.
       (c) None of the funds provided in this Act to the Agency 
     for International Development, other than funds made 
     available to carry out Caribbean Basin Initiative programs 
     under the Tariff Schedules of the United States, section 1202 
     of title 19, United States Code, schedule 8, part I, subpart 
     B, item 807.00, shall be obligated or expended--
       (1) to procure directly feasibility studies or 
     prefeasibility studies for, or project profiles of potential 
     investment in, the manufacture, for export to the United 
     States or to third country markets in direct competition with 
     United States exports, of import-sensitive articles as 
     defined by section 503(c)(1) (A) and (E) of the Tariff Act of 
     1930 (19 U.S.C. 2463(c)(1) (A) and (E)); or
       (2) to assist directly in the establishment of facilities 
     specifically designed for the manufacture, for export to the 
     United States or to third country markets in direct 
     competition with United States exports, of import-sensitive 
     articles as defined in section 503(c)(1) (A) and (E) of the 
     Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 2463(c)(1) (A) and (E)).


                          SURPLUS COMMODITIES

       Sec. 514. The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the 
     United States Executive Directors of the International Bank 
     for Reconstruction and Development, the International 
     Development Association, the International Finance 
     Corporation, the Inter-American Development Bank, the 
     International Monetary Fund, the Asian Development Bank, the 
     Inter-American Investment Corporation, the European Bank for 
     Reconstruction and Development, the African Development Bank, 
     and the African Development Fund to use the voice and vote of 
     the United States to oppose any assistance by these 
     institutions, using funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act, for the production or extraction of any 
     commodity or mineral for export, if it is in surplus on world 
     markets and if the assistance will cause substantial injury 
     to United States producers of the same, similar, or competing 
     commodity.


                       NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

       Sec. 515. For the purposes of providing the Executive 
     Branch with the necessary administrative flexibility, none of 
     the funds made available under this Act for ``Development 
     Assistance Fund'', ``Population, Development Assistance'', 
     ``Development Fund for Africa'', ``International 
     organizations and programs'', ``Trade and Development 
     Agency'', ``International narcotics control'', ``Assistance 
     for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States'', ``Assistance for 
     the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'', 
     ``Economic Support Fund'', ``Peacekeeping operations'', 
     ``Operating expenses of the Agency for International 
     Development'', ``Operating expenses of the Agency for 
     International Development Office of Inspector General'', 
     ``Anti-terrorism assistance'', ``Foreign Military Financing 
     Program'', ``International military education and training'' 
     (including the military-to-military contact program), 
     ``Inter-American Foundation'', ``African Development 
     Foundation'', ``Peace Corps'', or ``Migration and refugee 
     assistance'', shall be available for obligation for 
     activities, programs, projects, type of materiel assistance, 
     countries, or other operation not justified or in excess of 
     the amount justified to the Appropriations Committees for 
     obligation under any of these specific headings unless the 
     Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress are 
     previously notified fifteen days in advance: Provided, That 
     the President shall not enter into any commitment of funds 
     appropriated for the purposes of section 23 of the Arms 
     Export Control Act for the provision of major defense 
     equipment, other than conventional ammunition, or other major 
     defense items defined to be aircraft, ships, missiles, or 
     combat vehicles, not previously justified to Congress or 20 
     per centum in excess of the quantities justified to Congress 
     unless the Committees on Appropriations are notified fifteen 
     days in advance of such commitment: Provided further, That 
     this section shall not apply to any reprogramming for an 
     activity, program, or project under chapter 1 of part I of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 of less than 20 per centum 
     of the amount previously justified to the Congress for 
     obligation for such activity, program, or project for the 
     current fiscal year: Provided further, That the requirements 
     of this section or any similar provision of this Act 
     requiring notification in accordance with the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations 
     may be waived if failure to do so would pose a substantial 
     risk to human health or welfare: Provided further, That in 
     case of any such waiver, notification to the Congress, or the 
     appropriate congressional committees, shall be provided as 
     early as practicable, but in no event later than three days 
     after taking the action to which such notification 
     requirement was applicable, in the context of the 
     circumstances necessitating such waiver: Provided further, 
     That any notification provided pursuant to such a waiver 
     shall contain an explanation of the emergency circumstances.
       Drawdowns made pursuant to section 506(a)(2) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 shall be subject to the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.


limitation on availability of funds for international organizations and 
                                programs

       Sec. 516. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     of this Act, none of the funds provided for ``International 
     Organizations and Programs'' shall be available for the 
     United States proportionate share, in accordance with section 
     307(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, for any 
     programs identified in section 307, or for Libya, Iran, or, 
     at the discretion of the President, Communist countries 
     listed in section 620(f) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, as amended: Provided, That, subject to the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations, 
     funds appropriated under this Act or any previously enacted 
     Act making appropriations for foreign operations, export 
     financing, and related programs, which are returned or not 
     made available for organizations and programs because of the 
     implementation of this section or any similar provision of 
     law, shall remain available for obligation through September 
     30, 1996.
       (b) The United States shall not make any voluntary or 
     assessed contribution--
       (1) to any affiliated organization of the United Nations 
     which grants full membership as a state to any organization 
     or group that does not have the internationally recognized 
     attributes of statehood, or
       (2) to the United Nations, if the United Nations grants 
     full membership as a state in the United Nations to any 
     organization or group that does not have the internationally 
     recognized attributes of statehood,
     during any period in which such membership is effective.


              ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND ASSISTANCE FOR ISRAEL

       Sec. 517. The Congress finds that progress on the peace 
     process in the Middle East is vitally important to United 
     States security interests in the region. The Congress 
     recognizes that, in fulfilling its obligations under the 
     Treaty of Peace Between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the 
     State of Israel, done at Washington on March 26, 1979, Israel 
     incurred severe economic burdens. Furthermore, the Congress 
     recognizes that an economically and militarily secure Israel 
     serves the security interests of the United States, for a 
     secure Israel is an Israel which has the incentive and 
     confidence to continue pursuing the peace process. Therefore, 
     the Congress declares that it is the policy and the intention 
     of the United States that the funds provided in annual 
     appropriations for the Economic Support Fund which are 
     allocated to Israel shall not be less than the annual debt 
     repayment (interest and principal) from Israel to the United 
     States Government in recognition that such a principle serves 
     United States interests in the region.


     PROHIBITION CONCERNING ABORTIONS AND INVOLUNTARY STERILIZATION

       Sec. 518. None of the funds made available to carry out 
     part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, may 
     be used to pay for the performance of abortions as a method 
     of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to 
     practice abortions. None of the funds made available to carry 
     out part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 
     may be used to pay for the performance of involuntary 
     sterilization as a method of family planning or to coerce or 
     provide any financial incentive to any person to undergo 
     sterilizations. None of the funds made available to carry out 
     part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, may 
     be used to pay for any biomedical research which relates in 
     whole or in part, to methods of, or the performance of, 
     abortions or involuntary sterilization as a means of family 
     planning. None of the funds made available to carry out part 
     I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, may be 
     obligated or expended for any country or organization if the 
     President certifies that the use of these funds by any such 
     country or organization would violate any of the above 
     provisions related to abortions and involuntary 
     sterilizations. The Congress reaffirms its commitments to 
     Population, Development Assistance and to the need for 
     informed voluntary family planning.


                         reporting requirement

       Sec. 519. The President shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations the reports required by section 25(a)(1) of 
     the Arms Export Control Act.


                   special notification requirements

       Sec. 520. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     be obligated or expended for Colombia, El Salvador, 
     Guatemala, Haiti, Indonesia, Liberia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, 
     Peru, Rwanda, Sudan, or Zaire except as provided through the 
     regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations: Provided, That this section shall not apply 
     to funds appropriated by this Act to carry out the provisions 
     of chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     that are made available for El Salvador and Nicaragua.


              DEFINITION OF PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

       Sec. 521. For the purpose of this Act, ``program, project, 
     and activity'' shall be defined at the Appropriations Act 
     account level and shall include all Appropriations and 
     Authorizations Acts earmarks, ceilings, and limitations with 
     the exception that for the following accounts: Economic 
     Support Fund and Foreign Military Financing Program, 
     ``program, project, and activity'' shall also be considered 
     to include country, regional, and central program level 
     funding within each such account; for the development 
     assistance accounts of the Agency for International 
     Development ``program, project, and activity'' shall also be 
     considered to include central program level funding, either 
     as (1) justified to the Congress, or (2) allocated by the 
     executive branch in accordance with a report, to be provided 
     to the Committees on Appropriations within thirty days of 
     enactment of this Act, as required by section 653(a) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.


          family planning, child survival and aids activities

       Sec. 522. Up to $8,000,000 of the funds made available by 
     this Act for assistance for family planning, health, child 
     survival, and AIDS, may be used to reimburse United States 
     Government agencies, agencies of State governments, 
     institutions of higher learning, and private and voluntary 
     organizations for the full cost of individuals (including for 
     the personal services of such individuals) detailed or 
     assigned to, or contracted by, as the case may be, the Agency 
     for International Development for the purpose of carrying out 
     family planning activities, child survival activities and 
     activities relating to research on, and the treatment and 
     control of, acquired immune deficiency syndrome in developing 
     countries: Provided, That such individuals shall not be 
     included within any personnel ceiling applicable to any 
     United States Government agency during the period of detail 
     or assignment: Provided further, That funds appropriated by 
     this Act that are made available for child survival 
     activities or activities relating to research on, and the 
     treatment and control of, acquired immune deficiency syndrome 
     may be made available notwithstanding any provision of law 
     that restricts assistance to foreign countries: Provided 
     further, That funds appropriated by this Act that are made 
     available for family planning activities may be made 
     available notwithstanding section 512 of this Act and section 
     620(q) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.


       prohibition against indirect funding to certain countries

       Sec. 523. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated to finance 
     indirectly any assistance or reparations to Cuba, Iraq, 
     Libya, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Iran, Syria, North 
     Korea, People's Republic of China, or Laos unless the 
     President of the United States certifies that the withholding 
     of these funds is contrary to the national interest of the 
     United States.


                           RECIPROCAL LEASING

       Sec. 524. Section 61(a) of the Arms Export Control Act is 
     amended by striking out ``1994'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``1995''.


                NOTIFICATION ON EXCESS DEFENSE EQUIPMENT

       Sec. 525. Prior to providing excess Department of Defense 
     articles in accordance with section 516(a) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, the Department of Defense shall 
     notify the Committees on Appropriations to the same extent 
     and under the same conditions as are other committees 
     pursuant to subsection (c) of that section: Provided, That 
     before issuing a letter of offer to sell excess defense 
     articles under the Arms Export Control Act, the Department of 
     Defense shall notify the Committees on Appropriations in 
     accordance with the regular notification procedures of such 
     Committees: Provided further, That such Committees shall also 
     be informed of the original acquisition cost of such defense 
     articles.


                       authorization requirement

       Sec. 526. Funds appropriated by this Act may be obligated 
     and expended subject to section 10 of Public Law 91-672 and 
     section 15 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 
     1956.


                            DEPLETED URANIUM

       Sec. 527. None of the funds provided in this or any other 
     Act may be made available to facilitate in any way the sale 
     of M-833 antitank shells or any comparable antitank shells 
     containing a depleted uranium penetrating component to any 
     country other than (1) countries which are members of NATO, 
     (2) countries which have been designated as a major non-NATO 
     ally for purposes of section 1105 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987 or, (3) Taiwan: 
     Provided, That funds may be made available to facilitate the 
     sale of such shells notwithstanding the limitations of this 
     section if the President determines that to do so is in the 
     national security interest of the United States.


   OPPOSITION TO ASSISTANCE TO TERRORIST COUNTRIES BY INTERNATIONAL 
                         FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

       Sec. 528. (a) Instructions for United States Executive 
     Directors.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the 
     United States Executive Director of each international 
     financial institution designated in subsection (b), and the 
     Administrator of the Agency for International Development 
     shall instruct the United States Executive Director of the 
     International Fund for Agriculture Development, to use the 
     voice and vote of the United States to oppose any loan or 
     other use of the funds of the respective institution to or 
     for a country for which the Secretary of State has made a 
     determination under section 6(j) of the Export Administration 
     Act of 1979.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``international financial institution'' includes--
       (1) the International Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development, the International Development Association, and 
     the International Monetary Fund; and
       (2) wherever applicable, the Inter-American Development 
     Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the African Development 
     Bank, the African Development Fund, and the European Bank for 
     Reconstruction and Development.


       Prohibition on Bilateral Assistance to Terrorist Countries

       Sec. 529. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds appropriated for bilateral assistance under any heading 
     of this Act and funds appropriated under any such heading in 
     a provision of law enacted prior to enactment of this Act, 
     shall not be made available to any country which the 
     President determines--
       (1) grants sanctuary from prosecution to any individual or 
     group which has committed an act of international terrorism, 
     or
       (2) otherwise supports international terrorism.
       (b) The President may waive the application of subsection 
     (a) to a country if the President determines that national 
     security or humanitarian reasons justify such waiver. The 
     President shall publish each waiver in the Federal Register 
     and, at least fifteen days before the waiver takes effect, 
     shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of the waiver 
     (including the justification for the waiver) in accordance 
     with the regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.


                 commercial leasing of defense articles

       Sec. 530. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
     subject to the regular notification requirements of the 
     Committees on Appropriations, the authority of section 23(a) 
     of the Arms Export Control Act may be used to provide 
     financing to Israel and Egypt and NATO and major non-NATO 
     allies for the procurement by leasing (including leasing with 
     an option to purchase) of defense articles from United States 
     commercial suppliers, not including Major Defense Equipment 
     (other than helicopters and other types of aircraft having 
     possible civilian application), if the President determines 
     that there are compelling foreign policy or national security 
     reasons for those defense articles being provided by 
     commercial lease rather than by government-to-government sale 
     under such Act.


                         competitive insurance

       Sec. 531. All Agency for International Development 
     contracts and solicitations, and subcontracts entered into 
     under such contracts, shall include a clause requiring that 
     United States marine insurance companies have a fair 
     opportunity to bid for marine insurance when such insurance 
     is necessary or appropriate.


                  stingers in the persian gulf region

       Sec. 532. Except as provided in section 581 of the Foreign 
     Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 1990, the United States may not sell or 
     otherwise make available any Stingers to any country 
     bordering the Persian Gulf under the Arms Export Control Act 
     or chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961.


  prohibition on leveraging and diversion of united states assistance

       Sec. 533. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     may be provided to any foreign government (including any 
     instrumentality or agency thereof), foreign person, or United 
     States person in exchange for that foreign government or 
     person undertaking any action which is, if carried out by the 
     United States Government, a United States official or 
     employee, expressly prohibited by a provision of United 
     States law.
       (b) For the purposes of this section the term ``funds 
     appropriated by this Act'' includes only (1) assistance of 
     any kind under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; and (2) 
     credits, and guaranties under the Arms Export Control Act.
       (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit--
       (1) the ability of the President, the Vice President, or 
     any official or employee of the United States to make 
     statements or otherwise express their views to any party on 
     any subject;
       (2) the ability of an official or employee of the United 
     States to express the policies of the President; or
       (3) the ability of an official or employee of the United 
     States to communicate with any foreign country government, 
     group or individual, either directly or through a third 
     party, with respect to the prohibitions of this section 
     including the reasons for such prohibitions, and the actions, 
     terms, or conditions which might lead to the removal of the 
     prohibitions of this section.


                          debt-for-development

       Sec. 534. In order to enhance the continued participation 
     of nongovernmental organizations in economic assistance 
     activities under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     including endowments, debt-for-development and debt-for-
     nature exchanges, a nongovernmental organization which is a 
     grantee or contractor of the Agency for International 
     Development may place in interest bearing accounts funds made 
     available under this Act or prior Acts or local currencies 
     which accrue to that organization as a result of economic 
     assistance provided under the heading ``Agency for 
     International Development'' and any interest earned on such 
     investment may be for the purpose for which the assistance 
     was provided to that organization.


                         location of stockpiles

       Sec. 535. Section 514(b)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 is amended by striking out ``$200,000,000 for 
     stockpiles in Israel for fiscal year 1994'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``a total of $200,000,000 for stockpiles in 
     Israel for fiscal years 1994 and 1995, up to $40,000,000 may 
     be made available for stockpiles in the Republic of Korea, 
     and up to $10,000,000 may be made available for stockpiles in 
     Thailand for fiscal year 1995''.


                           separate accounts

       Sec. 536. (a) Separate Accounts for Local Currencies.--(1) 
     If assistance is furnished to the government of a foreign 
     country under chapters 1 and 10 of part I (including the 
     Philippines Multilateral Assistance Initiative) or chapter 4 
     of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 under 
     agreements which result in the generation of local currencies 
     of that country, the Administrator of the Agency for 
     International Development shall--
       (A) require that local currencies be deposited in a 
     separate account established by that government;
       (B) enter into an agreement with that government which sets 
     forth--
       (i) the amount of the local currencies to be generated, and
       (ii) the terms and conditions under which the currencies so 
     deposited may be utilized, consistent with this section; and
       (C) establish by agreement with that government the 
     responsibilities of the Agency for International Development 
     and that government to monitor and account for deposits into 
     and disbursements from the separate account.
       (2) Uses of Local Currencies.--As may be agreed upon with 
     the foreign government, local currencies deposited in a 
     separate account pursuant to subsection (a), or an equivalent 
     amount of local currencies, shall be used only--
       (A) to carry out chapters 1 or 10 of part I or chapter 4 of 
     part II (as the case may be), for such purposes as--
       (i) project and sector assistance activities, or
       (ii) debt and deficit financing; or
       (B) for the administrative requirements of the United 
     States Government.
       (3) Programming Accountability.--The Agency for 
     International Development shall take all appropriate steps to 
     ensure that the equivalent of the local currencies disbursed 
     pursuant to subsection (a)(2)(A) from the separate account 
     established pursuant to subsection (a)(1) are used for the 
     purposes agreed upon pursuant to subsection (a)(2).
       (4) Termination of Assistance Programs.--Upon termination 
     of assistance to a country under chapters 1 or 10 of part I 
     or chapter 4 of part II (as the case may be), any 
     unencumbered balances of funds which remain in a separate 
     account established pursuant to subsection (a) shall be 
     disposed of for such purposes as may be agreed to by the 
     government of that country and the United States Government.
       (5) Conforming Amendments.--The provisions of this 
     subsection shall supersede the tenth and eleventh provisos 
     contained under the heading ``Sub-Saharan Africa, Development 
     Assistance'' as included in the Foreign Operations, Export 
     Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1989 and 
     sections 531(d) and 609 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961.
       (b) Separate Accounts for Cash Transfers.--(1) If 
     assistance is made available to the government of a foreign 
     country, under chapters 1 or 10 of part I (including the 
     Philippines Multilateral Assistance Initiative) or chapter 4 
     of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as cash 
     transfer assistance or as nonproject sector assistance, that 
     country shall be required to maintain such funds in a 
     separate account and not commingle them with any other funds.
       (2) Applicability of Other Provisions of Law.--Such funds 
     may be obligated and expended notwithstanding provisions of 
     law which are inconsistent with the nature of this assistance 
     including provisions which are referenced in the Joint 
     Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference 
     accompanying House Joint Resolution 648 (H. Report No. 98-
     1159).
       (3) Notification.--At least fifteen days prior to 
     obligating any such cash transfer or nonproject sector 
     assistance, the President shall submit a notification through 
     the regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations, which shall include a detailed description of 
     how the funds proposed to be made available will be used, 
     with a discussion of the United States interests that will be 
     served by the assistance (including, as appropriate, a 
     description of the economic policy reforms that will be 
     promoted by such assistance).
       (4) Exemption.--Nonproject sector assistance funds may be 
     exempt from the requirements of subsection (b)(1) only 
     through the notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.


  compensation for united states executive directors to international 
                         financial institutions

       Sec. 537. (a) No funds appropriated by this Act may be made 
     as payment to any international financial institution while 
     the United States Executive Director to such institution is 
     compensated by the institution at a rate which, together with 
     whatever compensation such Director receives from the United 
     States, is in excess of the rate provided for an individual 
     occupying a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule 
     under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, or while 
     any alternate United States Director to such institution is 
     compensated by the institution at a rate in excess of the 
     rate provided for an individual occupying a position at level 
     V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (b) For purposes of this section, ``international financial 
     institutions'' are: the International Bank for Reconstruction 
     and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the 
     Asian Development Bank, the Asian Development Fund, the 
     African Development Bank, the African Development Fund, the 
     International Monetary Fund, and the European Bank for 
     Reconstruction and Development.


         Compliance With United Nations Sanctions Against Iraq

       Sec. 538. (a) Denial of Assistance.--None of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act 
     to carry out the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (including 
     title IV of chapter 2 of part I, relating to the Overseas 
     Private Investment Corporation) or the Arms Export Control 
     Act may be used to provide assistance to any country that is 
     not in compliance with the United Nations Security Council 
     sanctions against Iraq unless the President determines and so 
     certifies to the Congress that--
       (1) such assistance is in the national interest of the 
     United States;
       (2) such assistance will directly benefit the needy people 
     in that country; or
       (3) the assistance to be provided will be humanitarian 
     assistance for foreign nationals who have fled Iraq and 
     Kuwait.
       (b) Import Sanctions.--If the President considers that the 
     taking of such action would promote the effectiveness of the 
     economic sanctions of the United Nations and the United 
     States imposed with respect to Iraq, and is consistent with 
     the national interest, the President may prohibit, for such a 
     period of time as he considers appropriate, the importation 
     into the United States of any or all products of any foreign 
     country that has not prohibited--
       (1) the importation of products of Iraq into its customs 
     territory, and
       (2) the export of its products to Iraq.


                       pow/mia military drawdown

       Sec. 539. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the President may direct the drawdown, without reimbursement 
     by the recipient, of defense articles from the stocks of the 
     Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of 
     Defense, and military education and training, of an aggregate 
     value not to exceed $15,000,000 in fiscal year 1995, as may 
     be necessary to carry out subsection (b).
       (b) Such defense articles, services and training may be 
     provided to Cambodia and Laos, under subsection (a) as the 
     President determines are necessary to support efforts to 
     locate and repatriate members of the United States Armed 
     Forces and civilians employed directly or indirectly by the 
     United States Government who remain unaccounted for from the 
     Vietnam War, and to ensure the safety of United States 
     Government personnel engaged in such cooperative efforts and 
     to support United States Department of Defense-sponsored 
     humanitarian projects associated with the POW/MIA efforts. 
     Any aircraft shall be provided under this section only to 
     Laos and only on a lease or loan basis, but may be provided 
     at no cost notwithstanding section 61 of the Arms Export 
     Control Act and may be maintained with defense articles, 
     services and training provided under this section.
       (c) The President shall, within sixty days of the end of 
     any fiscal year in which the authority of subsection (a) is 
     exercised, submit a report to the Congress which identifies 
     the articles, services, and training drawn down under this 
     section.
       (d) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     President such sums as may be necessary to reimburse the 
     applicable appropriation, fund, or account for defense 
     articles, defense services, and military education and 
     training provided under this section.


                 mediterranean excess defense articles

       Sec. 540. During fiscal year 1995, the provisions of 
     section 573(e) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, 
     and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1990, shall be 
     applicable, for the period specified therein, to excess 
     defense articles made available under sections 516 and 519 of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.


                     priority delivery of equipment

       Sec. 541. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     delivery of excess defense articles that are to be 
     transferred on a grant basis under section 516 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act to NATO allies and to major non-NATO allies on 
     the southern and southeastern flank of NATO shall be given 
     priority to the maximum extent feasible over the delivery of 
     such excess defense articles to other countries.


                            israel drawdown

       Sec. 542. Section 599B(a) of the Foreign Operations, Export 
     Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1991 (as 
     amended by Public Law 102-145, as amended, and Public Law 
     102-391), is further amended--
       (a) by striking out ``fiscal year 1994'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``fiscal year 1995'';
       (b) by striking out ``Appropriations Act, 1994'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``Appropriations Act, 1995''; and
       (c) by striking out ``$700,000,000'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``$775,000,000''.


                          cash flow financing

       Sec. 543. For each country that has been approved for cash 
     flow financing (as defined in section 25(d) of the Arms 
     Export Control Act, as added by section 112(b) of Public Law 
     99-83) under the Foreign Military Financing Program, any 
     Letter of Offer and Acceptance or other purchase agreement, 
     or any amendment thereto, for a procurement in excess of 
     $100,000,000 that is to be financed in whole or in part with 
     funds made available under this Act shall be submitted 
     through the regular notification procedures to the Committees 
     on Appropriations.


authorities for the peace corps, the inter-american foundation and the 
                     african development foundation

       Sec. 544. Unless expressly provided to the contrary, 
     provisions of this or any other Act, including provisions 
     contained in prior Acts authorizing or making appropriations 
     for foreign operations, export financing, and related 
     programs, shall not be construed to prohibit activities 
     authorized by or conducted under the Peace Corps Act, the 
     Inter-American Foundation Act, or the African Development 
     Foundation Act. The appropriate agency shall promptly report 
     to the Committees on Appropriations whenever it is conducting 
     activities or is proposing to conduct activities in a country 
     for which assistance is prohibited.


                  impact on jobs in the United States

       Sec. 545. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     obligated or expended to provide--
       (a) any financial incentive to a business enterprise 
     currently located in the United States for the purpose of 
     inducing such an enterprise to relocate outside the United 
     States if such incentive or inducement is likely to reduce 
     the number of employees of such business enterprise in the 
     United States because United States production is being 
     replaced by such enterprise outside the United States;
       (b) assistance for the purpose of establishing or 
     developing in a foreign country any export processing zone or 
     designated area in which the tax, tariff, labor, environment, 
     and safety laws of that country do not apply, in part or in 
     whole, to activities carried out within that zone or area, 
     unless the President determines and certifies that such 
     assistance is not likely to cause a loss of jobs within the 
     United States; or
       (c) assistance for any project or activity that contributes 
     to the violation of internationally recognized workers 
     rights, as defined in section 502(a)(4) of the Trade Act of 
     1974, of workers in the recipient country, including any 
     designated zone or area in that country: Provided, That in 
     recognition that the application of this subsection should be 
     commensurate with the level of development of the recipient 
     country and sector, the provisions of this subsection shall 
     not preclude assistance for the informal sector in such 
     country, micro and small-scale enterprise, and smallholder 
     agriculture.


                 authority to assist bosnia-hercegovina

       Sec. 546. (a) Congress finds as follows:
       (1) The United Nations has imposed an embargo on the 
     transfer of arms to any country on the territory of the 
     former Yugoslavia.
       (2) The federated states of Serbia and Montenegro have a 
     large supply of military equipment and ammunition and the 
     Serbian forces fighting the government of Bosnia-Hercegovina 
     have more than one thousand battle tanks, armored vehicles, 
     and artillery pieces.
       (3) Because the United Nations arms embargo is serving to 
     sustain the military advantage of the aggressor, the United 
     Nations should exempt the government of Bosnia-Hercegovina 
     from its embargo.
       (b) Pursuant to a lifting of the United Nations arms 
     embargo, or to a unilateral lifting of the arms embargo by 
     the President of the United States, against Bosnia-
     Hercegovina, the President is authorized to transfer to the 
     government of that nation, without reimbursement, defense 
     articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense of an 
     aggregate value not to exceed $50,000,000 in fiscal year 
     1995: Provided, That the President certifies in a timely 
     fashion to the Congress that--
       (1) the transfer of such articles would assist that nation 
     in self-defense and thereby promote the security and 
     stability of the region; and
       (2) United States allies are prepared to join in such a 
     military assistance effort.
       (c) Within 60 days of any transfer under the authority 
     provided in subsection (b), and every 60 days thereafter, the 
     President shall report in writing to the Speaker of the House 
     of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the 
     Senate concerning the articles transferred and the 
     disposition thereof.
       (d) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     President such sums as may be necessary to reimburse the 
     applicable appropriation, fund, or account for defense 
     articles provided under this section.
       (e) If the President determines that doing so will 
     contribute to a just resolution of charges regarding genocide 
     or other violations of international law in the former 
     Yugoslavia, the authority of section 552(c) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, may be used to provide up 
     to $25,000,000 of commodities and services to the United 
     Nations War Crimes Tribunal, without regard to the ceiling 
     limitation contained in paragraph (2) thereof: Provided, That 
     the determination required under this subsection shall be in 
     lieu of any determinations otherwise required under section 
     552(c).


                          special authorities

       Sec. 547. (a) Funds appropriated in title II of this Act 
     that are made available for Haiti, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and 
     Cambodia, and for victims of war, displaced children, 
     displaced Burmese, humanitarian assistance for Romania, and 
     humanitarian assistance for the peoples of Bosnia-
     Hercegovina, Croatia, and Kosova, may be made available 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law: Provided, That 
     any such funds that are made available for Cambodia shall be 
     subject to the provisions of section 531(e) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 and section 906 of the International 
     Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1985: Provided 
     further, That the President shall terminate assistance to any 
     Cambodian organization that he determines is cooperating, 
     tactically or strategically, with the Khmer Rouge in their 
     military operations.
       (b) Funds appropriated by this Act to carry out the 
     provisions of sections 103 through 106 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 may be used, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, for the purpose of supporting tropical 
     forestry and energy programs aimed at reducing emissions of 
     greenhouse gases with regard to the key countries in which 
     deforestation and energy policy would make a significant 
     contribution to global warming: Provided, That such 
     assistance shall be subject to sections 116, 502B, and 620A 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
       (c) During fiscal year 1995, the President may use up to 
     $50,000,000 under the authority of section 451 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, notwithstanding the funding ceiling 
     contained in subsection (a) of that section.
       (d) The Agency for International Development may employ 
     personal services contractors, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, for the purpose of administering programs 
     for the West Bank and Gaza.


        policy on terminating the arab league boycott of israel

       Sec. 548. (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) since 1948 the Arab countries have maintained a primary 
     boycott against Israel, refusing to do business with Israel;
       (2) since the early 1950s the Arab League has maintained a 
     secondary and tertiary boycott against American and other 
     companies that have commercial ties with Israel;
       (3) the boycott seeks to coerce American firms by 
     blacklisting those that do business with Israel and harm 
     America's competitiveness;
       (4) the United States has a longstanding policy opposing 
     the Arab League boycott and United States law prohibits 
     American firms from providing information to Arab countries 
     to demonstrate compliance with the boycott;
       (5) with real progress being made in the Middle East peace 
     process and the serious confidence-building measures taken by 
     the State of Israel an end to the Arab boycott of Israel and 
     of American companies that have commercial ties with Israel 
     is long overdue and would represent a significant confidence-
     building measure; and
       (6) in the interest of Middle East peace and free commerce, 
     the President must take more concrete steps to press the Arab 
     states to end their practice of blacklisting and boycotting 
     American companies that have trade ties with Israel.
       (b) Policy.--It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the Arab League countries should immediately and 
     publicly renounce the primary boycott of Israel and the 
     secondary and tertiary boycott of American firms that have 
     commercial ties with Israel and
       (2) the President should--
       (A) take more concrete steps to encourage vigorously Arab 
     League countries to renounce publicly the primary boycotts of 
     Israel and the secondary and tertiary boycotts of American 
     firms that have commercial relations with Israel as a 
     confidence-building measure;
       (B) take into consideration the participation of any 
     recipient country in the primary boycott of Israel and the 
     secondary and tertiary boycotts of American firms that have 
     commercial relations with Israel when determining whether to 
     sell weapons to said country;
       (C) report to Congress on the specific steps being taken by 
     the President to bring about a public renunciation of the 
     Arab primary boycott of Israel and the secondary and tertiary 
     boycotts of American firms that have commercial relations 
     with Israel; and
       (D) encourage the allies and trading partners of the United 
     States to enact laws prohibiting businesses from complying 
     with the boycott and penalizing businesses that do comply.


                       ANTI-NARCOTICS ACTIVITIES

       Sec. 549. (a) Of the funds appropriated by this Act under 
     the heading ``Economic Support Fund'', assistance may be 
     provided to strengthen the administration of justice in 
     countries in Latin America and the Caribbean in accordance 
     with the provisions of section 534 of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961, except that programs to enhance protection of 
     participants in judicial cases may be conducted 
     notwithstanding section 660 of that Act.
       (b) Funds made available pursuant to this section may be 
     made available notwithstanding the third sentence of section 
     534(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Funds made 
     available pursuant to subsection (a)(1) for Bolivia, Colombia 
     and Peru and subsection (a)(2) may be made available 
     notwithstanding section 534(c) and the second sentence of 
     section 534(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.


                       ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSISTANCE

       Sec. 550. (a) Assistance Through Nongovernmental 
     Organizations.--Restrictions contained in this or any other 
     Act with respect to assistance for a country shall not be 
     construed to restrict assistance in support of programs of 
     nongovernmental organizations from funds appropriated by this 
     Act to carry out the provisions of chapters 1 and 10 of part 
     I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: Provided, That the 
     President shall take into consideration, in any case in which 
     a restriction on assistance would be applicable but for this 
     subsection, whether assistance in support of programs of 
     nongovernmental organizations is in the national interest of 
     the United States: Provided further, That before using the 
     authority of this subsection to furnish assistance in support 
     of programs of nongovernmental organizations, the President 
     shall notify the Committees on Appropriations under the 
     regular notification procedures of those committees, 
     including a description of the program to be assisted, the 
     assistance to be provided, and the reasons for furnishing 
     such assistance: Provided further, That nothing in this 
     subsection shall be construed to alter any existing statutory 
     prohibitions against abortion or involuntary sterilizations 
     contained in this or any other Act.
       (b) Public Law 480.--During fiscal year 1995, restrictions 
     contained in this or any other Act with respect to assistance 
     for a country shall not be construed to restrict assistance 
     under titles I and II of the Agricultural Trade Development 
     and Assistance Act of 1954: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated to carry out title I of such Act and made 
     available pursuant to this subsection may be obligated or 
     expended except as provided through the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.
       (c) Exception.--This section shall not apply--
       (1) with respect to section 529 of this Act or any 
     comparable provision of law prohibiting assistance to 
     countries that support international terrorism; or
       (2) with respect to section 116 of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 or any comparable provision of law prohibiting 
     assistance to countries that violate internationally 
     recognized human rights.


                                EARMARKS

       Sec. 551. (a) Funds appropriated by this Act which are 
     earmarked may be reprogrammed for other programs within the 
     same account notwithstanding the earmark if compliance with 
     the earmark is made impossible by operation of any provision 
     of this or any other Act or, with respect to a country with 
     which the United States has an agreement providing the United 
     States with base rights or base access in that country, if 
     the President determines that the recipient for which funds 
     are earmarked has significantly reduced its military or 
     economic cooperation with the United States since enactment 
     of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 1991; however, before exercising 
     the authority of this subsection with regard to a base rights 
     or base access country which has significantly reduced its 
     military or economic cooperation with the United States, the 
     President shall consult with, and shall provide a written 
     policy justification to the Committees on Appropriations: 
     Provided, That any such reprogramming shall be subject to the 
     regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations: Provided further, That assistance that is 
     reprogrammed pursuant to this subsection shall be made 
     available under the same terms and conditions as originally 
     provided.
       (b) In addition to the authority contained in subsection 
     (a), the original period of availability of funds 
     appropriated by this Act and administered by the Agency for 
     International Development that are earmarked for particular 
     programs or activities by this or any other Act shall be 
     extended for an additional fiscal year if the Administrator 
     of such agency determines and reports promptly to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that the termination of 
     assistance to a country or a significant change in 
     circumstances makes it unlikely that such earmarked funds can 
     be obligated during the original period of availability: 
     Provided, That such earmarked funds that are continued 
     available for an additional fiscal year shall be obligated 
     only for the purpose of such earmark.


                         CEILINGS AND EARMARKS

       Sec. 552. Ceilings and earmarks contained in this Act shall 
     not be applicable to funds or authorities appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by any subsequent Act unless such 
     Act specifically so directs.


                        EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES

       Sec. 553. The authority of section 519 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, may be used in fiscal 
     year 1994 to provide nonlethal excess defense articles to 
     countries for which United States foreign assistance has been 
     requested and for which receipt of such articles was 
     separately justified for the fiscal year, without regard to 
     the restrictions in subsection (a) of section 519.


                 PROHIBITION ON PUBLICITY OR PROPAGANDA

       Sec. 554. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within 
     the United States not authorized before the date of enactment 
     of this Act by the Congress.


                       DISADVANTAGED ENTERPRISES

       Sec. 555. (a) Except to the extent that the Administrator 
     of the Agency for International Development determines 
     otherwise, not less than 10 percent of the aggregate amount 
     made available for the current fiscal year for the 
     ``Development Assistance Fund'', ``Population, Development 
     Assistance'', and the ``Development Fund for Africa'' shall 
     be made available only for activities of United States 
     organizations and individuals that are--
       (1) business concerns owned and controlled by socially and 
     economically disadvantaged individuals,
       (2) historically black colleges and universities,
       (3) colleges and universities having a student body in 
     which more than 40 per centum of the students are Hispanic 
     American, and
       (4) private voluntary organizations which are controlled by 
     individuals who are socially and economically disadvantaged.
       (b)(1) In addition to other actions taken to carry out this 
     section, the actions described in paragraphs (2) through (5) 
     shall be taken with respect to development assistance and 
     assistance for sub-Saharan Africa for the current fiscal 
     year.
       (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in order to 
     achieve the goals of this section, the Administrator--
       (A) to the maximum extent practicable, shall utilize the 
     authority of section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 637(a));
       (B) to the maximum extent practicable, shall enter into 
     contracts with small business concerns owned and controlled 
     by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, and 
     organizations contained in paragraphs (2) through (4) of 
     subsection (a)--
       (i) using less than full and open competitive procedures 
     under such terms and conditions as the Administrator deems 
     appropriate, and
       (ii) using an administrative system for justifications and 
     approvals that, in the Administrator's discretion, may best 
     achieve the purpose of this section; and
       (C) shall issue regulations to require that any contract in 
     excess of $500,000 contain a provision requiring that no less 
     than 10 per centum of the dollar value of the contract be 
     subcontracted to entities described in subsection (a), 
     except--
       (i) to the extent the Administrator determines otherwise on 
     a case-by-case or category-of-contract basis; and
       (ii) this subparagraph does not apply to any prime 
     contractor that is an entity described in subsection (a).
       (3) Each person with contracting authority who is attached 
     to the Agency's headquarters in Washington, as well as all 
     Agency missions and regional offices, shall notify the 
     Agency's Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business 
     Utilization at least seven business days before advertising a 
     contract in excess of $100,000, except to the extent that the 
     Administrator determines otherwise on a case-by-case or 
     category-of-contract basis.
       (4) The Administrator shall include, as part of the 
     performance evaluation of any mission director of the agency, 
     the mission director's efforts to carry out this section.
       (5) The Administrator shall submit to the Congress annual 
     reports on the implementation of this section. Each such 
     report shall specify the number and dollar value or amount 
     (as the case may be) of prime contracts, subcontracts, 
     grants, and cooperative agreements awarded to entities 
     described in subsection (a) during the preceding fiscal year.
       (c) As used in this section, the term ``socially and 
     economically disadvantaged individuals'' has the same meaning 
     that term is given for purposes of section 8(d) of the Small 
     Business Act, except that the term includes women.


                       USE OF AMERICAN RESOURCES

       Sec. 556. To the maximum extent possible, assistance 
     provided under this Act should make full use of American 
     resources, including commodities, products, and services.


                limitations on assistance for nicaragua

       Sec. 557. (a) Funds appropriated by this Act under the 
     heading ``Economic Support Fund'' may only be made available 
     to the Government of Nicaragua upon the notification, in 
     writing, by the Secretary of State to the appropriate 
     committees that he has determined that significant and 
     tangible progress is being made by the Government of 
     Nicaragua toward--
       (1) the prosecution of any individual identified as part of 
     a terrorist/kidnapping ring by the investigation of issues 
     raised by the discovery, after the May 23 explosion in 
     Managua, of weapons caches, false passports, identity papers 
     and other documents, suggesting the existence of such a ring, 
     including all government officials (including any members of 
     the armed forces or security forces);
       (2) the resolution of expropriation claims and the 
     effective compensation of legitimate claims;
       (3) the timely implementation of recommendations made by 
     the Tripartite Commission as it undertakes to review and 
     identify those responsible for gross human rights violations, 
     including the expeditious prosecution of individuals 
     identified by the commission in connection with such 
     violations;
       (4) the enactment into law of legislation to reform the 
     Nicaraguan military and security forces in order to guarantee 
     civilian control over the armed forces;
       (5) the establishment of civilian control over the police, 
     and the independence of the police from the military; and
       (6) the effective reform of the Nicaraguan judicial system.
       (b) The notification pursuant to subsection (a) above shall 
     include a detailed listing of the tangible evidence that 
     forms the basis for such determination.
       (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``appropriate 
     committees'' means the Committees on Foreign Relations and 
     Appropriations of the Senate and Committees on Foreign 
     Affairs and Appropriations of the House of Representatives.


           prohibition of payments to united nations members

       Sec. 558. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act for carrying out the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961, may be used to pay in whole or in part any 
     assessments, arrearages, or dues of any member of the United 
     Nations.


                          consulting services

       Sec. 559. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures 
     are a matter of public record and available for public 
     inspection, except where otherwise provided under existing 
     law, or under existing Executive order pursuant to existing 
     law.


             private voluntary organizations--documentation

       Sec. 560. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act shall be available to a private 
     voluntary organization which fails to provide upon timely 
     request any document, file, or record necessary to the 
     auditing requirements of the Agency for International 
     Development, nor shall any of the funds appropriated by this 
     Act be made available to any private voluntary organization 
     which is not registered with the Agency for International 
     Development.


                  special debt relief for the poorest

       Sec. 561. (a)(1) Authority To Reduce Debt.--The President 
     may reduce amounts owed to the United States (or any agency 
     of the United States) by an eligible country as a result of--
       (A) guarantees issued under sections 221 and 222 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; or
       (B) credits extended or guarantees issued under the Arms 
     Export Control Act.
       (2) Limitations.--
       (A) The authority provided by paragraph (1) may be 
     exercised only to implement multilateral official debt relief 
     and referendum agreements, commonly referred to as ``Paris 
     Club Agreed Minutes''.
       (B) The authority provided by paragraph (1) may be 
     exercised only in such amounts or to such extent as is 
     provided in advance by appropriations Acts.
       (C) The authority provided by paragraph (1) may be 
     exercised only with respect to countries with heavy debt 
     burdens that are eligible to borrow from the International 
     Development Association, but not from the International Bank 
     for Reconstruction and Development, commonly referred to as 
     ``IDA-only'' countries.
       (3) Conditions.--The authority provided by paragraph (1) 
     may be exercised only with respect to a country whose 
     government--
       (A) does not have an excessive level of military 
     expenditures;
       (B) has not repeatedly provided support for acts of 
     international terrorism;
       (C) is not failing to cooperate on international narcotics 
     control matters; and
       (D) (including its military or other security forces) does 
     not engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of 
     internationally recognized human rights.
       (4) Availability of Funds.--The authority provided by 
     paragraph (1) may be used only with regard to funds 
     appropriated by this Act under the heading ``Debt 
     Restructuring''.
       (5) Certain Prohibitions Inapplicable.--A reduction of debt 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not be considered assistance 
     for purposes of any provision of law limiting assistance to a 
     country.


                               guarantees

       Sec. 562. Section 251(b)(2)(G) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by striking 
     ``1994'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``1994 and 1995'' in 
     both places that this appears.


  PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS THAT EXPORT LETHAL 
   MILITARY EQUIPMENT TO COUNTRIES SUPPORTING INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM

       Sec. 563. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be available to any foreign 
     government which provides lethal military equipment to a 
     country the government of which the Secretary of State has 
     determined is a terrorist government for purposes of section 
     40(d) of the Arms Export Control Act. The prohibition under 
     this section with respect to a foreign government shall 
     terminate 12 months after that government ceases to provide 
     such military equipment. This section applies with respect to 
     lethal military equipment provided under a contract entered 
     into after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Assistance restricted by subsection (a) or any other 
     similar provision of law, may be furnished if the President 
     determines that furnishing such assistance is important to 
     the national interests of the United States.
       (c) Whenever the waiver of subsection (b) is exercised, the 
     President shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report with respect to the furnishing of such 
     assistance. Any such report shall include a detailed 
     explanation of the assistance to be provided, including the 
     estimated dollar amount of such assistance, and an 
     explanation of how the assistance furthers United States 
     national interests.


 withholding of assistance for parking fines owed by foreign countries

       Sec. 564. (a) In General.--Of the funds made available for 
     a foreign country under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961, an amount equivalent to 110 percent of the total 
     unpaid fully adjudicated parking fines and penalties owed to 
     the District of Columbia by such country as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act shall be withheld from obligation for 
     such country until the Secretary of State certifies and 
     reports in writing to the appropriate congressional 
     committees that such fines and penalties are fully paid to 
     the government of the District of Columbia.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee 
     on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.


    limitation on assistance for the plo for the west bank and gaza

       Sec. 565. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     obligated for assistance for the Palestine Liberation 
     Organization for the West Bank and Gaza unless the President 
     has exercised the authority under section 583(a) of the 
     Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1994 (part E of title V 
     of Public Law 103-236) or any other legislation to suspend or 
     make inapplicable section 307 of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 and that suspension is still in effect: Provided, 
     That if the President fails to make the certification under 
     section 583(b)(2) of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act 
     or to suspend the prohibition under other legislation, funds 
     appropriated by this Act may not be obligated for assistance 
     for the Palestine Liberation Organization for the West Bank 
     and Gaza unless the President determines that it is in the 
     national interest to do so and so reports to the Congress.


                         procurement reduction

       Sec. 566. (a) Of the budgetary resources available to the 
     Agency for International Development during fiscal year 1995, 
     $1,598,000 are permanently canceled.
       (b) The Administrator of the Agency for International 
     Development shall allocate the amount of budgetary resources 
     canceled among the Agency's accounts available for 
     procurement and procurement-related expenses. Amounts 
     available for procurement and procurement-related expenses in 
     each such account shall be reduced by the amount allocated to 
     such account.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the definition of 
     ``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of 
     acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of 
     determining a need for a product or services and ending with 
     contract completion and closeout, as specified in section 
     403(a)(2) of title 41, United States Code.


           implementation of wapenhans report recommendations

       Sec. 567. Funds appropriated by title I of this Act under 
     the headings ``Contribution to the International Bank for 
     Reconstruction and Development'', ``Contribution to the 
     International Development Association'', and ``Contribution 
     to the International Finance Corporation'' shall not be 
     available for payment to any such institution unless the 
     Secretary of the Treasury (1) determines that the 
     recommendations contained in the report entitled Report of 
     the Portfolio Management Task Force (commonly referred to as 
     the ``Wapenhans Report'') continue to be implemented, and (2) 
     reports that determination to the Committee on Appropriations 
     and the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate.


                  restrictions on assistance to russia

       Sec. 568. (a) Restriction.--None of the funds appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by this Act may be obligated for 
     assistance for the Government of Russia after December 31, 
     1994, unless it has been made known to the President that all 
     armed forces of Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent 
     States have been removed from all Baltic countries or that 
     the status of those armed forces have been otherwise resolved 
     by mutual agreement of the parties.
       (b) Exemption.--Subsection (a) does not apply to assistance 
     that involves the provision of student exchange programs, 
     food, clothing, medicine, or other humanitarian assistance or 
     to housing assistance for officers of the armed forces of 
     Russia or the Commonwealth of Independent States who are 
     removed from the territory of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
       (c) Waiver.--Subsection (a) does not apply if after 
     December 31, 1994, the President determines that the 
     provision of funds to the Government of Russia is in the 
     national interest.
       This Act may be cited as the ``Foreign Operations, Export 
     Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1995''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, no further amendment shall be in 
order except those amendments printed in House Report 103-530. The 
amendments may be considered in the order printed, may be offered only 
by the Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the report, 
and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
  Debate time for each amendment shall be equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time 
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
for a recorded vote on any amendment made in order by the resolution.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less 
than 5 minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any 
postponed question that immediately follows another vote by electronic 
device without intervening business, provided that the time for voting 
by electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not 
be less than 15 minutes.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 103-530, the amendment to be offered by the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan] or the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] or 
their designee, debatable for not to exceed 30 minutes.


                   amendment offered by mr. callahan

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Callahan: Page 32, line 1, strike 
     ``$900,000,000'' and insert ``$552,000,000''; line 4, before 
     the period insert ``: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds appropriated by this paragraph may be made available 
     for programs in Russia, other than humanitarian assistance 
     programs''; strike lines 5 through 19; line 20, strike 
     ``(d)'' and insert ``(b)''; page 33, line 16, strike ``(e)'' 
     and insert ``(c)''; page 34, line 1, strike ``(f)'' and 
     insert ``(d)''; line 4, strike ``(g)'' and insert ``(e)''; 
     and line 6, strike ``(h)'' and insert ``(f)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will reduce United States assistance to 
Russia. The bill includes $900 million for Russia and the other new 
independent states of the former Soviet Union. My amendment cuts $348 
million in aid to Russia from the bill. It does not reduce funding for 
the other 11 new independent states, and it leaves intact $42 million 
in humanitarian aid to Russia.
  I appreciate the fine work of the chairman of the committee in 
putting this bill together, and I thank him for the courtesies he has 
extended to me during this process. While we do not agree on the 
subject of aid to Russia, the chairman has been exceptionally 
cooperative and fair, and I have the deepest respect for him. I would 
also commend the fine work of the capable ranking minority member, the 
gentleman from Louisiana.
  A year ago when this bill was debated, I offered an amendment to cut 
aid to Russia. Having failed, I hoped to find that after a year 
Americans' tax dollars were having a meaningful impact on the 
development of democracy there. Unfortunately, little, if any, progress 
has been made.
  This time last year, economic reformists were prominent in the Moscow 
Government. Today they are gone. Boris Yeltsin's position seems tenuous 
and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's popularity is reason for serious concern.

                              {time}  1700

  I am also troubled by Russia's failure to fully comply with 
provisions of the Freedom Support Act and last year's Foreign 
Operations Appropriations Act. The most troublesome areas are continued 
arms sales to Iran, missile sales to India, and failure to commit to 
withdraw troops from Estonia. I am pleased that the chairman addressed 
this last issue in the committee report, and I appreciate the continued 
condition on aid in the bill. At the very least, we must maintain 
restrictions on American generosity, but we must also insist that the 
administration not dismiss violations of these conditions which we 
imposed.

  We must also question the progress of economic reforms in Russia. 
Impressive statistics are cited regarding the privatization of 
industries in Russia, but many charge that these industries in truth 
remain a part of the country's ingrained bureaucratic structure. There 
is considerable evidence that organized crime has infiltrated into many 
privatized industries and that it is practicing extortion against 
virtually every business in Russia. It is difficult to see where the 
average citizen here in the United States has benefited by trying to 
help to promote democracy and private enterprise. A new large U.S. 
companies have done well through contracts under the NIS program. 
Regrettably, many more have been squeezed out either by our own red 
tape or by prohibitive taxes or other Russian bureaucratic impediments.
  Mr. Chairman, it is in our best interest to promote democracy in 
Russia. We desire that this former adversary become our ally. However, 
we can not fail to strongly insist that Russia adhere to principles 
that the American people demand. We can not overlook even minor 
indiscretions. Withholding further non-humanitarian aid until Russia is 
unambiguously in compliance with United States law is an effective way 
to make this impression. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to listen very closely to this 
debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in profound disagreement with the Callahan 
amendment. Let me first of all explain what it does. Out of the $900 
million the administration requested for the former Soviet Union this 
year, and keep in mind, $2.5 billion was provided last year so this is 
already a major reduction, but out of the $900 million the 
administration has requested, 390 million is planned for Russia. The 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] proposes to eliminate all of the 
aid to Russia except the humanitarian assistance. That is an 89-percent 
reduction of the funds planned for Russia.
  It would eliminate every dollar of the money which is meant to help 
democratize the political system in Russia, and it would eliminate 
every dollar which is aimed to help Russians privatize their economy.
  I think that amendment is profoundly not in the national interest of 
the United States. I respect the motivation of the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan]. He has been consistent in his desire to cut aid 
to Russia. Last year, he offered his amendment to cut in committee and 
on the floor. It failed by a vote of 140 to 289 on the floor. It was a 
bipartisan rejection, because there are good bipartisan reasons to 
continue this assistance.
  The gentleman says that we have seen little progress in the Soviet 
Union in the past year. I would simply suggest that after 70 years of 
Marxist rule, it is progress when we see mere survival for the 
reformers. What do we expect? How rapidly do we expect a country which 
has never known democracy to suddenly achieve it? We have to be 
realists in this world. To try to focus our attention on reality, let 
me give my colleagues some numbers.
  Just a few short years ago, we were facing 4,258,000 Soviet military 
personnel. Today, there are 2,400,000 Russians in uniform. In 1989, 
there were 160,000 troops in the Baltics. Now, there are 10,000. There 
were 35,000 troops in Lithuania. Today there are none stationed there.
  In Poland, there were 40,000 troops; in Hungary, 65,000 troops; in 
Czechoslovakia, 75,000 Russian troops. Today there are none.
  I asked the Library of Congress a while back to tell me what it cost 
American society in terms of all the dollars we had appropriated since 
the beginning of the cold war in order for America to finally win that 
cold war. When they gave me the numbers, I was shocked. I took those 
numbers and I divided them by the total number of American taxpaying 
families to come up with the total cost per family to win the cold war. 
Do you know what it was? $80,000 per taxpaying family. That is what it 
cost us to win the cold war.
  We are now being told that we should not provide this minimal 
assistance to the Soviet Union. I would point out that the assistance 
that we are providing is less than the cost of one aircraft carrier. I 
would also point out that we have saved $234 billion in defense 
expenditures that Ronald Reagan was planning to ask us to spend from 
fiscal years 1990 to 1995. We did not have to spend those funds because 
of the collapse of the Soviet Union. We have saved $234 billion.
  Members are complaining about how tight the budget is this year. How 
tight do they think it would be if we were spending at the level we 
were spending before the Soviet Union collapsed? I would suggest quite 
a bit tighter than it is today. It seems to me that we have had every 
taxpaying family invest a tremendous amount of their income in order to 
win the cold war. Now, what we are simply trying to do is to secure 
that victory by assisting the reform elements in Russia and in other 
former republics of the Soviet Union to move along bit by bit, inch by 
inch, in dragging their societies out of the Marxist era into an era 
which, at least, in some ways resembles an open, democratic system with 
a private market economic system.

  I think we know what the arguments are, and I do not think we need to 
belabor them. But, I simply want to leave my colleagues with the 
statement of Richard Nixon, whose funeral the Nation experienced just 2 
weeks ago. This is what the former President said:

       Russia will inevitably be strong again. The only question 
     is whether a strong Russia will be a friend or an adversary 
     of the West. We must do everything in our power to ensure the 
     former rather than the latter. The most dangerous mistake we 
     could make would be to ignore our differences or attempt to 
     drown them in champagne and vodka toasts at feel-good 
     summits. The second most dangerous mistake would be to 
     neglect our responsibility for assisting Russia in its 
     transition to freedom or arrogantly to scold or punish it for 
     every foreign or domestic policy transgression as though it 
     were an international problem child.

  Then President Nixon went on to say this:

       No other single factor will have a greater political impact 
     on the world in this century than whether political and 
     economic freedom take root and thrive in Russia and the other 
     former Communist nations. Today's generation of American 
     leaders will be judged primarily by whether they did 
     everything possible to bring about this outcome. If they 
     fail, the cost to their successors will be unimaginably high.

                              {time}  1710

  Nixon then went on to say:

       This is the time for the West to become a more active 
     participant in Russia's success, not a passive observer of 
     its failure.

  Mr. Chairman, we need to do more than provide lectures to the Soviet 
Union. We need to provide genuine help. This is a minimal level of 
assistance to the reform efforts in the Soviet Union. It is, without 
question, in the interest of every American family who wants to avoid 
war.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to reject the Callahan amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, it is nice to hear the other side finally 
heaping praise on Ronald Reagan for bringing down the Iron Curtain, for 
putting an end to communism in Central and Eastern Europe.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this new entitlement program, 
because that is exactly what it is turning out to be. Mr. Chairman, it 
is high time that we rethink this so-called strategic partnership with 
Russia, and cutting this wasteful aid program is the place to start.
  Let me outline four general reasons why I think the gentleman from 
Alabama is correct in offering this amendment.
  First, foreign aid is simply not the answer to the complex problems 
of Russia today.
  Anybody who has ever been to Moscow knows that.
  Mr. Chairman, if and when Russia solves its problems, it will be the 
accomplishment of the Russian people, not the United States taxpayer 
bailing them out.
  Mr. Chairman, nowhere in this bill does it say where our tax dollars 
for the former Soviet Union are going. Are the Members not concerned 
about that?
  So we can only assume it will be the same black hole as last year, 
into programs like loans for state-owned industries run by the 
Government, those former Communists still running those state-owned 
Government agencies that are totally divorced from Russia's real 
problems.
  Second, Mr. Chairman, there is no economic reform in Russia to 
support. The reformers have lost.
  Nobody is more disappointed about that than I am, but it is a fact.
  Russia is now run by those who have been aptly described as ``red 
economic managers.'' In other words, the same old former Communists.
  So let's stop pretending that there is still a comprehensive reform 
effort in Russia. There is not.
  Instead we need to heed the lessons of Poland in the 1970's, when the 
West dumped billions of dollars in that unreformed socialist economy, 
all to no avail, and it failed miserably.
  Third, in the past year, Russian foreign policy has become 
increasingly aggressive.
  Russia halted troop pullouts from the Baltics in November and 
injected new conditions into the negotiating process, totally reneging 
on their word and the condition for the loan that we gave them last 
year.
  Then there is the forgotten country called Moldova, where Russia 
maintains 7,000 heavily armed troops. They were supposed to be out of 
there a year ago? Why are they not out?
  Russia has ensnared Georgia, economically reabsorbed Belarus, and 
employed economic warfare against Ukraine and Kazakhstan.
  Mr. Chairman, the idea of subsidizing Russia as she reasserts her 
imperial weight should be repugnant to this body.
  Which brings me to my fourth reason, Mr. Chairman.
  And that is the desperate need for this Congress to induce a 
reorientation of our current policy in Eurasia.
  The administration's policy in that part of the world is dangerously 
over-dependent on this so-called partnership with Russia.
  And it is a failed policy, wasting hundreds of millions of American 
taxpayer dollars.
  Meanwhile, we have left Russia's neighbors dangerously exposed.
  Mr. Chairman, certain things that ought to be done, like expanding 
NATO to the former Warsaw Pact countries cannot be done by this 
Congress. That has to be done by an act of the President.
  But what Congress can do is turn off the aid spigot to send the 
message to Moscow that we don't approve of this return to communism and 
a roguish expansionist attitude.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the ranking Republican on the subcommittee.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am as much a cold warrior of the old 
days as the gentleman that just spoke, but I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, my friend, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] 
means well, but when he says there is no progress in Russia, my 
goodness. Just in the last eight months they have adopted a new 
constitution, they have had parliamentary elections, they have a brand 
new legislative body which is operating fairly rapidly, perhaps at 
least as rapidly as this body.
  They have over half the work force in private hands. Inflation is 
staying down. Ten percent a month is a lot, but good grief, compared to 
other nations around the world they are looking good. They have 
established stock markets, and their people are actively trading these 
stock holdings.
  This amendment would cut precisely the kind of aid that is necessary 
to help the Russians privatize their economy and democratize their 
government, and get them in a peaceful mode so they dismantle their 
missiles, and not destroy the whole world with nuclear holocaust.
  To say we do not want to spend $900 million to do this is foolish. 
Last year it was $2.5 billion, so the amount is going down; Mr. 
Chairman, and it is not an entitlement program. The money is seed for a 
burned-out forest in Russia where there is nothing but ashes after 70 
years of ruin and mayhem, yet all of a sudden we see entrepreneurs 
cropping up. Their little sprouts go up through the ash in Russia, 
where entrepreneurial spirit and private enterprise, never existed 
before. We have it there now.
  If we turn our backs on the improvements that have been made in that 
country in the last 3 years, we will be making a drastic mistake. Our 
aid is not going to prop up the government in Russia, it is going to 
help Russia develop free markets. We provide technical assistance to 
the privatization program. It is driving the force for economic reform 
in Russia.
  Nearly 70 percent of Russian small businesses and 40 percent of 
Russian industry is in private hands. Continuing assistance in 
privatization is the core of AID's program in Russia.
  In the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
made the point that our aid will not do anything because Russia does 
not have a commercial law system or judicial system to protect United 
States businesses or Russian businesses. He is right, but that is why 
United States aid is working for legal reform in commercial law and for 
changes in the Russian tax structure.
  Of the $900 million in this total bill, $575 million is going to 
market economy activities, primarily privatization activities.
  Mr. Chairman, I might add that this amendment stops us in our tracks. 
The cold war ended 3 years ago. We cannot expect miracles since then. I 
tell the Members, if this amendment passes, we will not get one. What 
we will be doing is rolling the dice, and they can come up snake eyes, 
in which case we will be risking cataclysm. The cold war could start 
all over, and the Iron Curtain, the risk of a very hot war, and 
everything that the gentleman that just spoke has railed against for 
the last 30 years could be upon us with far worse implications.
  This is a bad amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kyl].
  (Mr. KYL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Callahan amendment. 
I wish it were as simple as the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] said. The fact 
is, American dollars will not a democracy make, as much as we would 
wish it so. In fact, if it were so, I would happily support it.
  Sending more aid to Russia is not only a waste of American taxpayer 
dollars, but actually undermines in part the democratic reform process 
that we all share as a strategic goal.
  First on the issue of waste, it is not just my conclusion Mr. 
Chairman, that United States taxpayer dollars are being wasted in 
Russia. This is also the conclusion of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee.
  According to a congressional report issued by the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee Chairman Claiborne Pell 2 months ago, ``There are 
major problems in the management of the Russian assistance program,'' 
exactly what we are talking about right now.
  The report, for example, concludes, and again I am quoting, that:

       It does not appear that the average citizen, let alone the 
     vast majority of citizens who live thousands of miles away 
     from these urban areas, is even aware of or affected by 
     international assistance or the reform that it is supposed to 
     foster.

  What is even more disturbing, however, is that the report concludes 
that ``because the American foreign aid program in Russia is so large, 
there is a substantial problem of corruption, favoritism, and abuse,'' 
so there are some very serious problems with the existing foreign aid 
program we have already set up.
  Second, Members need to be aware that the Russian Government is 
actually taxing a substantial portion of the aid which we have 
earmarked for Russia. According to a May 1994, New York Times article, 
the Russian Government has discovered a way to convert Eximbank loans 
into direct grants for their own government bureaucracy. All Eximbank 
loans for the United States Government slated for the Russian energy 
sector are being taxed by Russia's central government at a rate of 20 
percent off the top.

                              {time}  1720

  Mr. Chairman, while you and I may think we voted for a lending 
program to support United States exports, the Russians are using these 
loans to fill their own coffers for purposes completely unrelated to 
the loans. In addition to the 20 percent off the top, there is an 
additional 3 percent tax assessed on the value of U.S. equipment being 
supplied. Needless to say, U.S. Exim Bank officials are quite upset 
with this development because it would potentially undermine their 
entire lending program.
  I think, Mr. Chairman, that we need to send Russia a very clear and 
unequivocal message here today. Let us place a hold on further United 
States aid to Russia till this skimming scheme has been stopped in its 
tracks.
  Finally, we cannot continue to appropriate hundreds of millions of 
more dollars in all good conscience in a pipeline that is already 
overloaded. Since 1991, the United States has pledged $17.3 billion in 
grants and credit guarantees to Russia. We have no good numbers on 
exactly how much of that total has actually gone to Russia. However, 
according to congressional research, of the $2.2 billion appropriated 
in the 1993 supplemental, only $200 million has been obligated.
  Mr. Chairman, finally since last year, we have unfortunately seen a 
fundamental shift in the direction of reform. Almost all of the reform-
minded officials have left President Yeltsin's cabinet. On April 8 this 
year, Yeltin's chief spokesman told reporters that Russia's romantic 
embrace with the West is over. Instead, and I am quoting, he said:

       Russia increasingly sees itself as a great power which has 
     its own strategic military and political interests different 
     from those of the United States and Europe. It has started 
     saying this loudly.

  Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksander Pano warned on March 29 
that Russia would assist North Korea in the event of ``unprovoked 
aggression.''
  On April 5, President Boris Yeltsin issued a directive endorsing a 
Defense Ministry proposal to allow Moscow to establish military bases 
``on the territory of CIS and Latvia to ensure the security of the 
Russian Federation and the above named nations, as well as to test new 
weapons and military machinery.''
  Russia is blatantly violating several solemn international treaty 
obligations. According to NATO and U.S. officials, for example, Moscow 
has redeployed its troops withdrawn from Central Europe to the St. 
Petersburg and Caucasus regions exceeding the 1995 troop levels set by 
the CFE Treaty.
  And, according the Washington Post and London Times, United States 
and British officials have also concluded that ``there is still an 
offensive biological weapons program underway'' in Russia in violation 
of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention.
  That things are not going in the right direction for Russia is not 
just the opinion of this Member of Congress. In the current issue of 
Foreign Affairs, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski writes: ``Regrettably, the 
imperialist impulse [in Russia] remains strong and even appear to be 
strengthening.''
  My friend from Louisiana points to the strides in privatization that 
have occurred as evidence that reform is on track. Ten percent--but a 
start. Fine, but did U.S. aid have anything to do with that? And, 
second, we are getting more and more reports that even here, the 
privatization process has been corrupted by Russian organized crime. 
Last month on April 20, CIA Director Jim Woolsey had this to say to the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

       According to the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, 
     there are roughly 5,700 organized crime groups in Russia, 
     with an additional 1,000 in the former Soviet republics.
       ``A recent report prepared by President Yeltsin's staff 
     concluded that 70 to 80 percent of privatized enterprises and 
     commercial banks have been victims of extortion [by organized 
     crime].''
       ``Criminal groups are also targeting the financial sector 
     where economic reforms have led to explosions in the number 
     of banks, in the complexity of their transactions, and in the 
     geographic scope of their activities . . . [T]hese banks have 
     become a particular target for money-laundering schemes. 
     Indeed, links have been forged between Russian and Italian 
     organized crime groups to move money through the Russian 
     banking system. In addition to taking advantage of these 
     banks, organized crime groups have set up front companies 
     throughout eastern Europe and Russia.''
       The power of Russian organized crime is largely due to 
     their ties to corrupt government officials. Criminal groups 
     may be spending as much as 30 to 50 percent of their profits 
     trying to buy off well-connected government officials 
     including Customs, militia, and police officials.


                                summary

  In sum, this is not the time to be sending more foreign aid to 
Russia. We have already appropriated more than the system can bear and 
the results have been disappointing. I am not convinced that one more 
dollar, much less hundreds of millions, will be well-spent in our 
campaign to reform the former Soviet Union. I recommend supporting the 
Callahan amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Callahan/Solomon 
amendment to cut U.S. assistance to the New Independent States of the 
Former Soviet Union by nearly 50 percent and to prohibit U.S. aid to 
Russia for anything but humanitarian purposes.
  This is a dangerous and ill-advised initiative.
  Let me address three issues.


                      I. U.S. Interests in Russia

  First, U.S. assistance to Russia continues to be in the U.S. national 
interest.
  Russia is in the process of a massive political and economic 
transformation. The outcome of this process will have a direct impact 
on the security of the United States.
  The success of reform in Russia would mean: a reduced nuclear threat; 
reduced U.S. defense spending; a more stable Europe and peaceful world; 
and, lucrative access to Russia's vast natural resources and huge 
market.
  U.S. support for this reform process is making an important 
contribution. Pulling out now would aid those such as Zhirinovsky and 
other extremists who want to see Russia return to the old system and 
the old way of doing business. This would be a disaster not only for 
Russia and its neighbors, but for U.S. and Western interests.
  President Yeltsin and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin have stayed the 
course of reform in Russia. To cut off aid at this time would send 
precisely the wrong signal to all parties: it would undermine President 
Yeltsin, Prime Minister Chernomyrdin and the reformers who support 
them; it would embolden nationalists and extremists in Russia who argue 
that Russia cannot maintain constructive relations with the United 
States; and, it would harm United States-Russian relations.


                 ii. the progress of the reform process

  Second, while there is much still to be done, Russia has made 
important and, in some areas, impressive progress. Gains are being made 
in nearly every area, and U.S. support is helping to make a difference.
  In the area of economic reform: The central elements of Soviet 
socialism--central planning and central distribution of industrial 
material--has ended; ninety percent of all prices have been freed from 
government control; over 70,000 small businesses have been privatized, 
together with 10,000 medium and large enterprises; more than 50 percent 
of the GNP of Russia is now derived from private, not government, 
sources; with our help, the Russian banking system is being transformed 
to operate in, and support, a market economy.
  In the area of political reform: The Russian people have been to the 
polls no less than three times since April 1991. Russia now has a 
freely elected Constitution, Parliament and President.
  The long term process of building national political parties is 
underway.
  In stark contrast to the dark days of the past, the Russian people 
now enjoy a relatively free media.
  U.S. assistance is critical in changing Russian laws, regulations and 
policies and building the institutions necessary for a democratic and 
market society.
  We can have no illusions. This will be the long and difficult 
transformation. There will be fits and starts in the reform process. 
The important thing is that Russia continues to move in the right 
direction--the direction of true political and economic reform. The 
U.S. should continue to provide assistance to Russia so long as these 
reforms continue.


              iii. implications for u.s.-russia relations

  Third, termination of all but humanitarian aid to Russia will 
undermine U.S.-Russian relations at a time when this relationship has 
been evolving in a positive direction: Russian troops will be out of 
Germany, Latvia and Estonia by August 31st; in Bosnia, Nagorno-Karabakh 
and elsewhere, we are trying to work together to find solutions to 
difficult regional conflicts; Russia has just indicated its willingness 
to join the Partnership for Peace. This is a significant step toward 
closer cooperation between NATO and Russia on European security issues; 
there has been important bilateral progress with Russia on de-
nuclearization, notably the January Tri-Partite Agreement between 
Russia, Ukraine and the U.S.; Russian cooperation will be critical in 
support of U.S. non-proliferation objectives in Asia and the Middle 
East in particular; finally, continued Russian cooperation with U.S. 
efforts to promote a comprehensive peace in the Middle East is crucial 
to further progress in this important area.


                             iv. conclusion

  I appreciate that there may come a time when assistance to Russia no 
longer serves U.S. interests--if reform goes backward, and if Russia 
pursues Soviet-style foreign, domestic and economic policies. But we 
are not at that point.
  There is no sound reason to take the drastic step recommended in this 
amendment at this time. I continue to believe that the risk of 
assistance to Russia is still a risk worth taking.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time we have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 2 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton, who is incidentally a member of the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Get this: $16.3 billion has been authorized and appropriated for the 
former Soviet Union. That is $16,300,000,000 since 1992 and 1993; $2.3 
billion last year. $900 million this year.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin said, ``Well, it was $2.5 billion last 
year, we're going in the right direction, we reduced it to $900 
million, and this is absolutely essential if we're going to have 
democracy and free enterprise in Russia.''
  Mr. Chairman, we do not create free enterprise by giving people 
money. We create free enterprise by encouraging business and industry 
to go over there and teach them how free enterprise works, to create 
jobs through industrial growth.
  Mr. Chairman, we had an opportunity to do that last year. One of the 
most mineral-rich countries in the world is Russia and the former 
Soviet Union. They have every kind of mineral one can think of, that we 
have to have to survive as a Nation. In fact, 11 minerals that we have 
to have to survive as a Nation come from only two parts of the world, 
the southern part of Africa and Russia.
  We should have cut a business deal with them to buy things, to send 
industry over there to create jobs and to mine these products, these 
minerals, so that they will have ongoing economic growth and we will 
get something for our taxpayers' dollars, we will get something in 
return. Instead, we are pouring money down a rat hole and what has not 
been mentioned here is much of this money, it is believed, is going 
into Swiss bank accounts. Corrupt politicians in the Soviet Union are 
shoveling that money into these bank accounts for their own use down 
the road.
  Mr. Chairman, all parts of the world face this kind of problem. Last 
night on television, there was an expose on Zaire and President Mobutu. 
He has taken millions of American taxpayers' dollars, bought 15 houses 
around the world, actually castles around the world, and we paid for 
it.
  I submit to Members that much of the money we are sending to the 
Soviet Union is going for the same purpose, for corrupt politicians' 
use down the road. If we really want to solve the problems of the 
Soviet Union and create free enterprise and long-term democratic 
growth, then what we should do is cut a business deal with them and buy 
minerals and send American industry over there to develop jobs and 
economic growth.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio, Mr. Traficant.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote for the Callahan 
amendment. I think the gentleman from Wisconsin, Chairman Obey, does 
about as good a job as anyone in the House, no offense. But let me see 
if I have figured this out.
  We give money to Russia. Russia takes the money and they bribe 
Aldrich Ames. Aldrich Ames, the CIA agent, gives top-level secrets to 
Russia. We finance CIA treason, buying of our top military secrets with 
my constituents' hard-earned tax dollars and yours.
  Mr. Chairman, that is why I am going to vote for Callahan. I think 
enough is enough. We are trying to help democracy. It looks to me what 
we are trying to help democracy in Russia, Russia is trying to screw up 
some democracy in America. Beam me up. It does not add up, folks.
  I say yes to Callahan. You keep your bribe money, make it Russian 
bribe money, and the tax dollars in America will stay in America, build 
some roads and bridges and help perhaps with some schools for our kids.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all I could not agree more with the points 
that all of the opponents of this measure came forth with. Yes, Russia 
does need help, but my colleagues are missing the point. The point is, 
can we afford to give Russia this money? Can we not afford to reduce 
our deficit by $348 million?
  Mr. Chairman, I have two kids at Auburn University, a great 
university. If they came home to me and said, ``Dad, I need a new 
Mercedes,'' I am sure they could give 50 reasons why I ought to buy 
them a Mercedes, but there is one good reason, Mr. Chairman, why I 
cannot: Because I do not have the money.
  They would say, ``Dad, you can borrow the money'' such as we would 
have to do here. Maybe I would borrow the money, but if I did, I would 
put restrictions on that and say if you did not make passing grades I 
was going to take the car away; if you got caught speeding, I was going 
to take the car away.
  The Chairman said we must be realistic. Let me tell Members what 
realistic is, it is recognizing that we are going to have to go to 
Japan and borrow this money to give it to Russia. Yes, it will help 
Russia; yes, Russia needs help; yes, we are going to leave $42 million 
in humanitarian aid to help Russia. But we ought not go to Japan or 
France or any other nation and borrow another $348 million when we 
cannot afford it.

                              {time}  1730

  That is the issue. The issue is not whether or not Russia wants it. 
The issue is not whether or not Russia can use it. The issue is whether 
or not we can better use it in this country.
  I urge you to support the Callahan amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know quite where to start in correcting the 
misstatements that have been made on the floor, but let me simply 
correct one of them in the limited time.
  One of the speakers suggested that Exim loans are going to be taxed 
by the Soviet Government. The Eximbank heard that statement on 
television and just called me and assured me that most definitely was 
not the case. The gentleman quoted the article correctly. The fact is 
that article is wrong.
  In response to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], who is 
concerned about the money we have to borrow, let me ask this: How much 
money are we going to have to borrow if Mr. Zhirinovsky and his friends 
win the power struggle in the Soviet Union and we have to start 
spending $30 billion, $40 billion, $50 billion or more a year in our 
defense budget? The answer is we will have to borrow all of it. That is 
the answer.
  This reminds me of World War I. After World War I, Germany was in a 
state of collapse. The Weimar Republic was in a state of economic 
turmoil. The West sat idly by. A fellow by the name of Hitler came to 
power. The result? ``Only'' 50 million people died worldwide. ``Only'' 
about 500,000 Americans died, because we let a critical situation get 
out of hand.
  I would suggest to you there is a lot about the Soviet aid program 
that I do not like. But, the fact is most of this money, by far the 
largest amount of it, is not even seen by the Russian Government. It 
goes through private voluntary organizations. It goes to American 
business groups and volunteer organizations that provide precisely the 
kind of advice on democratization and privatization which the gentleman 
says he wants.
  I would suggest to you that if we do not do everything within our 
power to assist the reformers in the Soviet Union, our children will 
never forgive us.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
my colleague the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]. His amendment 
is essential to our continued cooperative counternarcotics efforts in 
Colombia and Bolivia. I commend him for his leadership on the question 
of support for our international counternarcotics programs.
  Both Colombia and Bolivia have shown courage in the struggle against 
the scourge of illicit drugs. The traffickers have responded with 
assassinations and bribery. We cannot appear to cut off Colombia and 
Bolivia; it is not in our interest to surrender the Andes to the 
traffickers.
  My concern with the section as it stands before us is that it 
requires the Secretary of State to prove a negative. We ought not to 
tie the Administration's hands in providing military assistance to 
these key nations. Most of this aid goes to Colombian and Bolivian law 
enforcement elements to battle the illegal drug trade. Mr. Solomon's 
amendment helps continue this struggle.
  Lest we forget, the Colombians, with U.S. assistance, broke up the 
violent Medellin cartel and have taken steps against the Cali cartel. 
This same courageous nation with our assistance helped to bring Pablo 
Escobar, a notorious trafficker and murderer to his final end. Bolivia 
has made gains against the traffickers, as well. I urge the adoption of 
Mr. Solomon's amendment as a symbol of our continued engagement in the 
war against the illegal drug trade.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan]
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 144, 
noes 286, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 205]

                               AYES--144

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Chapman
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Duncan
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Kyl
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Lewis (FL)
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mfume
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Packard
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sanders
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Traficant
     Valentine
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--286

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Blackwell
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Grandy
     Horn
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Washington
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1757

  Miss COLLINS of Michigan, Ms. CANTWELL, and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland 
changed their votes from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas and Mr. EWING changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 103-350, the amendment to be offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], or his designee, debatable for not to exceed 10 
minutes.


                    amendment offered by mr. kasich

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kasich: Page 103, after line 14, 
     insert the following new section:

     ADDITIONAL LIMITATION ON FUNDS TO ENSURE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
                   WAPENHANS REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

       Sec. 569. (a) Limitation on Amounts Available Before April 
     1, 1995.--If amounts appropriated by title I become available 
     pursuant to section 567--
       (1) not more than $30,000,000 shall be available for 
     obligation before April 1, 1995, for ``Contribution to the 
     International Bank for Reconstruction and Development'' for 
     payment for contribution to the Global Environment Facility;
       (2) not more than $1,024,332,000 shall be available for 
     obligation before April 1, 1995, for ``Contribution to the 
     International Development Association''; and
       (3) not more than $35,761,500 shall be available for 
     obligation before April 1, 1995, for ``Contribution to the 
     International Finance Corporation''.
       (b) Requirements for Availability of Additional Amounts.--
     No amount in excess of any sum specified in subsection (a) 
     with respect to an account or activity shall become available 
     on or after April 1, 1995, unless the Secretary of the 
     Treasury--
       (1) determines that the recommendations contained in the 
     report entitled Report of the Portfolio Management Task Force 
     (commonly referred to as the ``Wapenhans Report'') continue 
     to be implemented as of such date;
       (2) reports such determination to the Committee on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on Banking, Finance and 
     Urban Affairs of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate; and
       (3) complies with the regular notification procedures of 
     the Committees on Appropriations.

                                  1800

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Kasich, is recognized for 
5 minutes. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be recognized 
for five minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich].
  The CHAIRMAN. the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] is recognized for 
6 minutes.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today with some good 
news and some real accomplishment for people who have been concerned 
about having their tax dollars used efficiently and effectively, 
especially in the area of foreign aid.
  You might remember that for about the three or four years, I have 
been, along with our former colleague John Miller, offering a number of 
amendments, a series of reforms, designed to clean up the operation of 
the World Bank.
  Last year we fought the recapitalization or the increased 
capitalization of the World Bank, and we came within a very few votes 
of being able to win that fight. And I believe as a result of 
consistent efforts and constant pressure being applied to the World 
Bank institutions, we were able to actually achieve the level of reform 
we wanted to get.
  You might remember that last year I was able to report that a task 
force that the president of the World Bank had appointed, in 
collaboration with the General Accounting Office, determined that the 
operation of the World Bank had poor project design, inadequate 
management, poor implementation, a culture that rewarded new loans and 
not effective management of existing programs, basically that the World 
Bank was broke, that the system of managing the operation of the World 
Bank was not working, and so, therefore, I came to the House floor with 
an amendment to eliminate all this increased funding for the World 
Bank.
  Now, in a nutshell, the World Bank, along with these other 
multinational banking institutions, their purpose is essentially to 
provide economic growth for poor nations in this world. And I want to 
say to my colleagues that we honestly cannot prove, there is no 
institution in our government and no formula anywhere else that exists 
that I know on the face of the earth that can show us that the efforts 
that these international lending institutions have made to try to 
rescue people from poverty are yielding any real success.
  Today I called General Boucher of the GAO and I said, the GAO has 
done fine work in terms of monitoring the operation of the World Bank, 
and a lot of the international financial aid institutions. But we need 
to develop a way to measure whether the money we are sending really is 
making a difference.
  Now, what we recommended last year to try to develop some reasonable 
reforms in the operation of the World Bank, we cited a number of 
things: Declining loan performance. In other words, the loans that were 
going out, the projects that were being built, they simply were not 
meeting the mark. They were not meeting the standards, the internal 
standards, that the World Bank set for itself. And what we argued for 
was to create an independent IG to review all loans. And what we got in 
the new policy being advocated by the House and by the Secretary of the 
Treasury, who has assured me they are going to have speedy and 
effective implementation of these programs, is the creation of an 
independent inspection panel.
  So last year we said that we wanted to create an independent IG. The 
new policy will create an independent inspection panel to make sure 
that the loans that we make meet their own internal standards and in 
fact will contribute to the elimination of poverty and the development 
of economies in the countries that we make loans to.
  We said there was a problem of secrecy. In many countries around the 
world, these projects get presented to people and for example, in the 
country of India, in regard to a major dam project, we have displaced 
more independent Indians who live in the area of the dam project. The 
Indian people knew nothing about this. It has created tremendous chaos, 
environmental problems. The Friends of the Earth, they are as concerned 
about this as I have been.
  So what we argued is that whenever any of these projects are to 
begin, we ought to coordinate them with outside groups and have project 
disclosure.
  What do we have in this reform proposal being adopted today? The 
establishment of a public information center. It expands technical and 
environmental assessments so we can make sure, believe it or not, that 
the monies going to the projects, the people it is going to affect, are 
informed, and that it makes rational sense.
  We also argued last year that the administrative costs of the World 
Bank were out of control, rising at an annual rate of 12 to 15 percent. 
We suggested we severely limit the growth of the World Bank 
administrative costs. Where are we this year? The prescribed goal for 
the reforms, no real growth in administrative costs between 1995 and 
1997. Pretty darn good.
  Then we argued about the extensive first class travel, a bunch of 
international bureaucrats flying all over the world and living high on 
the hog. In a nutshell, what we did was say no more first class travel, 
recommended economy class, and that is precisely what we are going to 
get in these reforms.
  Let me say in a nutshell, we are not just trusting them. We have 
constructed fences that say no money will flow to the World Bank until 
the Secretary of the Treasury certifies that these reforms are in 
place.
  Then this amendment that I am currently offering fences additional 
money, which means that next April, halfway through the fiscal year, 
the Secretary of the Treasury must come back one more time and certify 
to the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs and the 
Committee on Appropriations that we in fact are having these reforms 
carried out by this international institution.
  Let me say that the GAO review of the World Bank says the World Bank 
reforms are underway, but it is too early to determine their impact. 
The bottom line is, if these reforms are enacted, along with continued 
efforts to try to measure a standard in terms of progress in the poor 
nations of the world and whether these reforms are working, we have 
made great progress for the taxpayers of this country.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and his 
staff for working with us. I know the gentleman had the same attitude 
about cleaning up the problem at the World Bank. I think we are making 
some great strides and we are doing it together. I appreciate the 
gentleman for his time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I support the Kasich amendment. 
I think the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] does as well.
  Let me simply say, I think we need to recognize that an awful lot of 
people have been involved in the reform of these institutions. I would 
say, frankly, that the process began with the Bush Administration in 
1991 and 1992, when they dealt with IDA negotiations and pushed for 
reforms during those negotiations. We also had the Wapenhans report 
which was, I think we should remember, asked for by Mr. Preston, the 
bank president himself. And, we have had a variety of actions taken by 
the Congress dealing not only with the World Bank and IDA, but with the 
European Development Bank, which we discussed earlier today.
  I would simply say that I think the Kasich amendment is a 
constructive amendment. It continues pressure on the bank to implement 
reforms, without putting the U.S. further in arrears. That, in my view, 
is the way to do it. I think we have had bipartisan pressure on the 
institutions for a number of years to try to reform the way they do 
business, and accompanied with some chain pulling along the way, I 
think we have largely been successful so far.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just want to add that I appreciate and support the gentleman's 
amendment. It enlarges upon an amendment we introduced before the full 
committee which originally asked the responsible institutions to review 
the Wapenhans criteria by October 1st of this current year. The 
amendment of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] provides for an 
ongoing review of compliance with that criteria. I think it is well put 
and I support it vigorously.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the authorizing 
subcommittee, I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] 
for his work. He has been persistent in this effort.
  As the chairman said, many other people are involved in the past two 
administrations, but this gentleman has worked diligently at this 
effort, and I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  The Wapenhans report does not directly relate to the ICC entirely, 
but I think it is highly appropriate to condition it on progress. 
Certainly it relates to IDA. I commend the chairman and the ranking 
member of the committee, too, for working with Treasury and the 
authorizing committee in this effort, but especially the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member believes that it is important 
that the World Bank continue to implement various management and other 
reforms to improve the quality of projects of the World Bank as the 
Kasich amendment proposes. A process of reform has been adopted by the 
World Bank executive board and is being implemented by the management 
as a result of the so-called ``Wapenhans'' internal quality assessment 
report commissioned by the World Bank President in 1992. The parts of 
the World Bank addressed by the Wapenhans evaluation included the 
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the 
International Development Association [IDA]. The Kasich amendment 
appropriately limits the U.S. contribution to IDA to last year's level 
until the Secretary of the Treasury certifies that these reforms are 
continuing to be implemented. The amendment makes a similar limitation 
on contributions to two other institutions which were not specifically 
addressed by the Wapenhans report and indeed, in the case of the Global 
Environment Facility, are now independent of the World Bank as a result 
of the recently-completed negotiation. This Member votes that the 
amendment covers the IFC and GEF, two institutions which are not 
directly the subject of the Wapenhans assessment. Nevertheless, this 
Member urges support of the Kasich amendment.

                              {time}  1810

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I think it is 
essential for us to keep the pressure on these institutions to live in 
the real world. I also think it is essential that we continue 
congressional support for these institutions, because they are the main 
method by which we leverage American tax dollars and bring other 
countries in the world into the process so that we do not get stuck 
with the lion's share of the tab for assisting the Third World with its 
development problems.
  I appreciate the cooperative attitude of the gentleman from Ohio, and 
I urge support of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 3, printed 
in House Report 103-530, the amendment to be offered by the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. DeLay] or his designee, debatable for not to exceed 10 
minutes.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DeLay. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. DeLay. Mr. Chairman, I thought the procedure was going to be that 
we would offer my amendment, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
would offer an amendment to my amendment, and then we would split 10 
minutes apiece.
  The CHAIRMAN. That is the Chair's understanding, once the amendments 
are offered.


                     amendment offered by mr. delay

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. DeLay: Page 18, line 21 strike 
     ``$98,800,000'' and insert ``$30,000,000''.


  amendment offered by mr. obey to the amendment offered by mr. delay

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment to the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment to the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey to the amendment offered by 
     Mr. DeLay: Strike the number ``$30,000,000'' where it appears 
     in the amendment and insert in place thereof ``$88,800,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will divide the time between the two Members. 
Each Member will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for his cooperation in this effort.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is quite simple. It would bring the 
funding level for the Global Environment Facility, a program controlled 
by the World Bank, down to the level of $30 million. The suggested 
funding in the foreign operations bill is $98.8 million or an 
unsupportable $68.8 million increase.
  Run by the World Bank, the GEF has received about $1 billion since 
its inception in 1991 as a pilot project and its performance to date 
has been nothing short of dismal.
  Complaints have abounded--not only from countries that have 
contributed to the GEF but even from environmental groups regarding the 
GEF's activities. These complaints prompted a internal evaluation 
completed last year which produced a scathing review of its 
performance. I would like to summarize some of those findings:
  The report concludes that the GEF lacks a coordinated strategy to 
carry out global environmental protection programs and pays 
insufficient attention to project quality. The GEF's operations are 
dysfunctional and its accountability ill-defined.
  According to the report, the premise of the GEF's mandate--putting 
emphasis on global environmental problems over local problems--is a 
serious weakness. The World Bank's ongoing projects are evicting 
roughly 2 million of the world's poor from their homes and lands. The 
GEF claims it is reforming these abuses by involving local citizens in 
the decisionmaking process. The GEF report called that claim a ``biased 
exaggeration, if not falsification.'' Over half of the GEF's projects 
to date have in fact led to conflicts over forced resettlement of 
displaced local people.
  According to the Environmental Defense Fund, ``80 percent of GEF 
investment projects re components of much larger World Bank loans, 
which are often at odds with global environmental goals.'' The report 
concludes that the World Bank controls the lion's share of the GEF's 
resources to make its regular projects look greener and to ``mitigate 
criticism alleging World Bank insensitivity to environmental 
concerns.''
  I could go on and on.
  I'm pleased to say that until recently, no taxpayer dollars had 
actually been spent on this program. In the fiscal year 1993 Foreign 
Operations bill, $30 million was appropriated but never released to 
GEF. It was instead passed on to AID. Just this past Friday, however, 
the $30 million approved in the fiscal year 1994 bill was released to 
GEF by the administration.
  Despite the objections of some environmental groups, the 
Administration believes that GEF has progressed in making some reforms 
and where they haven't yet developed reforms they are in the process of 
developing them. Considering the well-documented failure of this 
organization, it should go without saying that we should not put 
taxpayer dollars at risk until we are absolutely certain that whatever 
reforms are necessary have been completely implemented and have been 
demonstrated to be successful. It seems that this administration 
decision to release the GEF funds is just an effort to appear green.
  According to the Environmental Defense Fund, the restricting process 
has been very superficial. In commenting on the GEF report, the 
Environmental Defense Fund states:

       The report is right on target because it recommends that no 
     further money be allocated to GEF projects before key reforms 
     are, [and I emphasize] in place.

  Promises are not enough.
  Probe International in Canada, a group that has monitored the GEF for 
3 years, states:

       For the industrialized countries to renew their funding to 
     GEF given its disgraceful track record and the absence of a 
     worthy mandate or an accountable structure would be the 
     height of irresponsibility.

  Despite such obvious reasons to be extremely careful with whatever 
funding we give to the GEF, the administration pledged in March to send 
a total of $430 million to the GEF over 4 years based on a meeting in 
Geneva regarding the GEF's restructuring. According to the 
Environmental Defense Fund, however, ``The GEF restructuring did not 
deal with issues that are critical to ensure that the permanent GEF is 
a transparent and accountable entity [and] decisions on fundamental 
questions, which should have become an integral part of the founding 
document of the permanent GEF, have simply been postponed.''
  Mr. Chairman, this program is not authorized and as far as I am 
aware, only one hearing has been held in the House regarding this 
program. To reward the GEF's incompetence by more than tripling the 
U.S. contribution is an outrageous abuse of the taxpayers' dollars. 
Frankly, I'm not convinced that we should continue to approve any 
appropriation level.
  If we're not going to eliminate the U.S. contribution to GEF 
completely, then at the very least we should hold the GEF appropriation 
to last year's level. I would urge my colleagues to approve this 
amendment.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to compliment the gentleman 
on his amendment. What some of the environmentalists call this whole 
effort of GEF is what they call ``green wash'' rather than a white 
wash, ``green wash,'' because they have not been happy with a lot of 
the impact of the environmental programs.
  I will tell the gentleman that all the reforms that we called for in 
the previous amendment would apply to the GEF. But frankly, the fact 
that it is not authorized and the fact that its increase has exploded, 
I think, is not justified nor warranted at this point. I think the 
gentleman offers a constructive amendment and hope it will pass.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his input.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Global Environmental Facility was created to help Third World 
countries take into account the effects of their development activities 
on the worldwide ecosystem. It was created to focus the world's efforts 
on preventing climate change, on preventing environmental degradation 
and preventing ozone depletion.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] has cited a 1993 report which 
raises questions about the operation of the GEF. I do not challenge 
that report in any way.
  What I think the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] has not mentioned, 
however, is that the Administration used that report as the basis for 
our negotiating position with some 73 other countries and secured the 
changes which that report suggested as part of the negotiating process.
  The administration, in negotiations, assured that there would, in 
fact, be independence from the World Bank. They assured that the United 
States would be in a strong position to stop bad loans. And they 
assured a much greater degree of fiscal responsibility by scaling back 
the size of that facility from the proposed $4 billion to $2 billion.

                              {time}  1820

  The United States did not sign on until it won what it wanted to win 
in that negotiating process. Now we have an international agreement 
between 73 nations, including the United States. If this institution is 
to be kept on the right path, it is important that our participation be 
comprehensive and be aggressive in shaping the agenda of that 
institution so that it becomes a combined agenda, a worldwide agenda, 
rather than just the agenda of the underdeveloped recipients of some of 
this aid.
  Mr. Chairman, environmental groups, many of them, had considerable 
concern about the operation last year, but they are fully supportive 
now, organizations such as the Natural Resource Defense Council, the 
Nature Conservancy, and the World Wildlife Fund. Therefore, in my view, 
the administration has already taken the steps necessary to respond to 
the report that the gentleman mentions.
  Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, I recognize that there is probably 
considerable value in continuing to fire a shot across their bow so 
that they understand that the Congress will be watching closely as we 
move through the next year in evaluating how that agency proceeds under 
the new international agreement. That is why I have offered my 
amendment, to make a $10 million reduction in the amount we have 
provided.
  It is, in my view, the minimum amount which is necessary to maintain 
sufficient American leverage in that institution and see to it that it 
follows an agenda which we feel is responsible, and follows management 
practices which we think can be defended.
  I think the administration has made a good deal of progress in 
assuring that some of the management practices which we have been 
concerned about in the past are in fact a thing of the past.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], 
as I did the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], that our 
committee will continue to very closely monitor the activities and the 
management practices of that agency, of that facility, and we will most 
certainly be holding hearings specifically focused on the degree to 
which the facility is in fact following the recommendations laid out in 
the report mentioned by the gentleman from Texas, and used by the 
administration in their negotiating posture earlier this year.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that it is legitimate to 
have a disagreement about the techniques to maintain American leverage. 
I think that the proposal I suggest is more effective.
  If we renege on the contribution which this country pledged to make, 
we virtually vitiate the ability of the administration to provide 
leadership in that institution. That is precisely what we do not want 
to do if we want to see to it that they stick to the kind of practices 
that we think are defensible.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge support for the substitute amendment, and 
thank the gentleman from Texas for making the points he has made this 
afternoon.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLay amendment with some 
concern about the Obey substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, it is hard to convince anyone who has lived in the 
Northeast this last winter that there is really any such thing as 
global warming. It may exist, but I tell the Members that they sure 
could not find it with all the snow and ice we experienced over the 
last several months.
  Even so, Mr. Chairman, if we are going to investigate and/or treat 
global warming, we have a responsibility to see to it that the money is 
well spent, we are not throwing our money away.
  Two years ago, we appropriated $30 million for this program. Last 
year we appropriated another $30 million for the program. This year 
they are calling for $100 million, and $100 million again for 3 other 
years after that. If precedent is prologue, then we know this is an 
entitlement which will work its way into American life.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of criticisms of this program, and yet 
the Secretary of the Treasury, in response to those criticisms only the 
day after the markup, provided us a certification that ``there are 
clear procedures ensuring public availability of documentary 
information on all facility projects, and associated projects of the 
global environmental facility-implementing agencies.''
  He says that they ``have developed or are in the process of 
developing clear procedures, ensuring that the affected peoples and 
recipient countries are consulted in all aspects of identification, 
preparation, and implementation of facility projects and associated 
projects of facility-implementing agencies.''
  Yet on April 14, 1994, before the Subcommittee on International 
Development, Finance, Trade and Monetary Policy of the Committee on 
Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, Mr. Donald Goldberg of the Center 
for International Environmental Law testified that ``Oversight and 
review mechanisms need to be put in place before the global 
environmental facility is implemented.''
  Furthermore, on that same day, before the same committee, Mr. David 
W. Reed of the World Wildlife Fund made the following statements. He 
said, ``The GEF will have little impact in reforming the prevailing 
development strategies that underlie a broader pattern of environmental 
decline.''

  He goes on to say, ``The reason the GEF, as presently conceived, is 
unlikely to make a decisive contribution to promoting sustainable 
development strategies is threefold:
  ``No. 1, the GEF has conceived of its environmental objectives as 
distinct from the economic development strategies promoted by the 
implementing agencies and recipient governments; No. 2, the GEF has 
demonstrated little willingness to evaluate its investment experience 
from the perspective of reforming prevailing development strategies; 
and, No. 3, the GEF has not established mechanisms through which its 
experience can be integrated into the operations either of the three 
implementing agencies or of the other developing agencies.''
  He says, ``Moreover, it is clear that while there may be high caliber 
projects in the Pilot Phase GEF Portfolio, there is no overall 
strategic vision which unifies its investment program.''
  This fellow goes on to say that ``there is no clear statement of 
objectives against which the actual contributions of the Pilot Phase 
investments can be assessed in the long run. As a consequence, a very 
high degree of uncertainty obscures the long-term impacts and 
contributions of the GEF.''
  These are leaders in the environmental community. They are saying 
that the GEF has not done its job. It seems to me that we ought to be 
very, very careful before we start committing $400 million more of 
taxpayers' funds to a rather dubious proposition.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter to me from Lloyd 
Bentsen of May 20, 1994:

                                   Department of the Treasury,

                                     Washington, DC, May 20, 1994.
     Hon. David R. Obey,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Pursuant to Title I of the FY 94 Foreign 
     Operations Appropriations Act, Public Law 103-87, I have 
     determined that the Global Environment Facility (the 
     ``Facility'') implementing agencies have:
       (1) established a clear procedures ensuring public 
     availability of documentary information on all Facility 
     projects and associated projected of the Facility 
     implementing agency; and
       (2) have developed or are in the process of developing 
     clear procedures ensuring that affected peoples in recipient 
     countries are consulted on all aspects of identification, 
     preparation, and implementation of Facility projects and 
     associated projects of the Facility implementing agencies.
       Payment of the $30 million appropriated to Treasury for the 
     U.S. contribution to the Facility will be made to the 
     International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for the 
     account of the restructured Facility.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Lloyd Bentsen.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that the gentleman just quoted a 
letter from the World Wildlife Fund. I am in receipt of a letter from 
that same organization dated today which indicates their support for 
the exact amount of funding that we have provided in this bill for all 
of the institutions, including the facility now under debate, so it is 
obvious they recognize considerable progress has been made. I think the 
record needs to show that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter], a distinguished member of the subcommittee.
  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, GEF is an easy target for Members to focus on, but I am 
concerned that most of the Members do not know about the bipartisan 
U.S. effort behind its development, or even know what it really does.
  The GEF was created largely at U.S. insistence as a mechanism for 
making resources available to developing nations to meet their 
commitments, the commitments we urged on them under the Biodiversity 
Convention and the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Its genesis 
is bipartisan.
  President Bush's Treasury Department insisted on it, and oversaw its 
creation after the Earth Summit in 1992, and President Clinton's 
Treasury Department has worked to fine tune it.
  The administrators of GEF have worked with the United States in good 
faith and met every demand for accountability that Republican and 
Democratic administrations have made of it, and we have made many.
  As many Members know, the Treasury Department certified on Friday 
that GEF had met all of the criteria set out in the fiscal year 1994 
foreign operations bill: more accountability to participating 
governments, requirements for public information disclosure, and a more 
democratic decision making process.

                              {time}  1830

  So that GEF is a facility that we insisted on be separated from the 
World Bank and be accountable and be transparent and now after 3 years 
in a pilot status where no U.S. money was spent on it at all, we have 
it in the shape we want it.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been an effort of both the Bush administration 
and the Clinton administration and it would be disastrous now if after 
urging the GEF be formed, after insisting on structures and processes 
that make it accountable and transparent, the U.S. would pull back and 
renege on the funding. We are at a critical juncture in our leadership 
in the world on so many issues, Mr. Chairman, on population, on human 
rights, on women's rights, and on sustainable development, and our 
credibility very frankly is at stake. We have played hard ball with the 
GEF for the three pilot years, it has responded.
  Mr. Chairman, the environmental community supports GEF, does not 
oppose it. Yes, they have seen problems but they have seen them being 
corrected. The funding for FEG is in our Nation's best interest and I 
urge Members to oppose the DeLay amendment and support the Obey 
amendment.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, just 
to say when one gets a memo from the Environmental Defense Fund that 
says that the GEF restructuring which has just concluded in Geneva did 
not deal with issues that are critical to ensure that the permanent GEF 
is a transparent and accountable entity does not in my mind signal that 
the Environmental Defense Fund is in support of what has been happening 
in GEF.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the administration might have made a better 
deal and we are trying to correct this deal. I think that we do not go 
into a deal that has a lot of questions into the deal and triple their 
money. We find out if the deal is going to work, if the restructuring 
is going to work, if the reforms that have been negotiated, all in good 
faith, are actually going to work.
  I understand in negotiating with the chairman that the chairman will 
go back and in conference if they have not shown some progress in the 
reforms that have been negotiated, that the chairman will accept my 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, in comity, I will accept the chairman's amendment to my 
amendment that cuts $10 million and sends a very real message that GEF 
ought to be getting its act together.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I am glad to yield to the chairman if he agrees with my 
assessment of our negotiations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that certainly this 
gentleman has absolutely no compulsion to fund any institution which is 
wasting taxpayers' money, and I can assure Members that if we are not 
satisfied that the facility is performing up to par that we will indeed 
try to pull the chain in conference.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I know and have every confidence that the 
chairman does not like to waste taxpayers' money. I appreciate his 
participation in this. Therefore, I accept the chairman's amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to hear the 
accommodation between the distinguished Member from Texas and the 
chairman of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in opposition to the DeLay amendment 
to reduce to $30 million the FY95 contribution to the Global 
Environment Facility--the ``GEF''--a special multilateral fund for 
helping developing countries bear the extra costs of choosing the most 
globally beneficial design of development projects that affect four 
critical environmental areas: biodiversity, climate change, pollution 
of international waters, and ozone depletion.
  The United States never contributed to the pilot phase of the GEF 
during the last 3 years because we, the Congress and the 
administration, were insisting that it be restructured in certain 
important ways. The negotiation to create the permanent GEF has just 
been completed. The U.S. won agreement on all of our key restructuring 
proposals: public access to project information, involvement of 
nongovernmental groups and local communities in project preparation and 
execution, an independent secretariat, and providing the governing 
council on which our government sits with the authority to approve or 
reject GEF policies and projects. The FY95 contribution in this bill 
would be the planned first year installment of the U.S. contribution to 
the new restructured permanent GEF.
  Yet there are still many operational issues to be decided as the new 
Council and the new GEF begin operations. The first year, when detailed 
policies and operational procedures are being adopted, is when the U.S. 
must be strongest and most vigilant to make sure that agreements made 
in principle during the negotiations are carried out in practice. If 
the U.S. is reluctant from the outset to back up fully its hard-won 
negotiating position by making the contributions it has tentatively 
pledged, it undoubtedly will undermine U.S. influence in the most 
critical year of the new GEF's operations. This is the reason that this 
Member will reluctantly oppose the amendment of the gentleman from 
Texas. It remains to be seen how effective the new GEF will be, but our 
government should at least have as strong a hand as possible to shape 
events that may well determine the operation of the principal financing 
mechanism for the new global conventions on climate change, 
biodiversity, and other environmental policies.
  I urge the Members to support the Obey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment Number 5 
printed in House Report 103-530, to be offered by the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon] or his designee, debatable for not to exceed 10 
minutes.


                    amendment offered by mr. solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: On page 41, line 23, 
     strike ``Provided'' and all that follows through 
     ``activities'' on page 42 line 2 and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading may be made available for Colombia or Bolivia 
     until the Secretary of State certifies that such funds will 
     be used by such country primarily for 
     counternarcotics activities''
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] will be recognized for 5 minutes and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment as a way of clearing up a 
perceived ambiguity in the bill.
  As the bill is presently worded, lifting the conditional prohibition 
on military aid to Bolivia and Colombia would require a certification 
that looks too much like having to prove a negative.
  Before the aid could go forward, the Secretary of State would be 
required to certify that these two countries will not use the aid for 
something other than the control of narcotics.
  My amendment would be less stringent and less ambiguous.
  It would permit military aid to go to Bolivia and Colombia if the 
Secretary of State certifies that the aid will be used primarily for 
counternarcotics activities.
  This revised language is less patronizing and should provide a more 
positive and plausible context in which our diplomats and others can 
pursue their contacts with these governments and their militaries.
  Mr. Chairman, we have to work closely with our hemispheric neighbors 
in getting the flow of illegal drugs under control, and we have to do 
so without being patronizing or paternalistic.
  Yes, it is true that many South American countries have had problems 
in defining and maintaining the proper relationship between the 
military forces and civil society--but that should not deter them or us 
from doing what we have to do together.
  Finally, I would just observe that both Bolivia and Colombia have 
come a long way in recent years.
  In 1982, Bolivia made a successful transition to civilian democratic 
rule after decades of political instability and military interference 
in civil affairs.
  Bolivia has also made astonishing economic progress in the past 12 
years, finally getting a handle on the hyperinflation and other 
problems that had bedeviled the country for years.
  Colombia has a longer history of stability and democracy than does 
Bolivia.
  But it was not too long ago that Colombia was beleaguered--the 
capital city was under siege; government buildings were being seized by 
rebels; half the supreme court had been killed in a bombing; and many 
other senior officials--including several presidential candidates--had 
been assassinated.
  Mr. Chairman, Colombia has shown great courage in facing down narco-
terrorism and dealing with other problems.
  We need to work with all of these friendly countries, because the 
drug problem is so much greater than any one country--ourselves 
included--can handle.
  Mr. Chairman, I would certainly thank the chairman of the full 
Committee on Appropriations for his help in helping me to craft this 
revised version of the amendment. I appreciate his support.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana, my 
very good friend, and the ranking member of the subcommittee dealing 
with this subject.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to join with the gentleman and support his 
amendment. I think it is a very fine amendment. It recognizes the 
tremendous sacrifices that the people of Colombia and Bolivia are going 
through right now in an effort to get a hold of the very real problems 
posed to them by the narco-terrorists. I agree with the gentleman and 
support his amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank the gentleman. The 
gentleman from Louisiana has been one of the real leaders in helping to 
bring about real democracy in Central and South America and we all 
appreciate his fine work.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1840

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the situation we face here is that the committee 
included the language in the bill requiring that no military assistance 
be made available to Bolivia or Colombia until the Secretary of State 
certified none of these funds were being used for other than 
counternarcotics purposes.
  The committee, I think, had every right to be concerned about what 
was happening in Colombia and Bolivia, because a number of allegations 
of misuse of American-supplied equipment have arisen, particularly with 
respect to Colombia. The GAO has, in fact, documented that the United 
States has very ineffective end-use monitoring mechanisms in place in 
Colombia, and there can be no question that there have been 
considerable violations of human rights in that country. So that is why 
the committee made the original recommendation it did.
  However, we have also been asked to recognize that the Colombian 
military recently reorganized by disbanding military units involved 
strictly in counternarcotics activities, because the judgment of the 
Colombian Government was that it was creating more problems and 
actually hurting the counternarcotics effort to have units organized 
exclusively for that purpose, and, in fact, making them more 
susceptible to infiltration by those who are trafficking in narcotics.
  So the Solomon amendment is an effort to try to balance concerns, and 
I am willing to accept it on a 1-year basis. But, I need to make very 
clear that I am deeply suspicious that a year from now we will still 
see substantial human rights violations in both countries by the 
military, and I want to make clear that I think the administration has 
an obligation to support an effort to totally cut off funds if we do 
not see substantial improvement in the way the military is used so that 
we are not continually embarrassed by the use of forces supplied and 
trained by America in a way which, in fact, impinges upon human rights 
which, as a country, we are supposed to value.
  With that understanding, I would accept the gentleman's amendment and 
ask that he be flexible next year in accepting our effort to shut this 
off entirely if we do not have maximum and provable improvement.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, let me just say I fully agree with the 
gentleman. I think the President, any President, has that obligation to 
see human rights are improved in those two countries.
  We have a similar situation coming up very shortly when we consider 
the most-favored-nation treatment of China. The President has the same 
obligation there to see that significant improvement is made, and I 
hope it is made in all three countries, Bolivia, Colombia, and China.
  I thank the gentleman for his support.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Obey) having assumed the chair, Mr. Richardson, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4426) 
making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and 
related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, had 
come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________