[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
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 4426.
{time} 1931
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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 103-530 offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] had been disposed of.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in that
report.
amendment offered by mr. burton of indiana
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. 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. Burton of Indiana:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
limitation on funds for south african assistance program
Sec. . Of the funds made available in this Act, the amount
that may be used to support the South African Assistance
Program shall not exceed the amount used for such purpose
during fiscal year 1994.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Burton] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a Member opposed will be
recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be
recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to hold the Federal
aid that is going to be given to the South African Government to the
level that was originally to be funded for fiscal year 1994, that being
about $99,146,000. Over the course of the next 3 to 4 years, they were
going to increase that amount from $99 million a year to as much as
$256 million a year, or over $600 million for the next 3 to 4 years.
Mr. Chairman, while the goals of the package are certainly very
commendable, there is also no question that the needs in South Africa
are very urgent. It is also obvious that the rest of Africa is looking
to South Africa to be the engine of economic growth for that continent.
All of us are gratified that apartheid had been defeated and that
South Africa has had elections. However, our assistance to South Africa
is already very generous. They are among the largest recipients of U.S.
development aid in the whole of Africa. We simply cannot afford at this
time to raid the coffers of the American taxpayers any further.
This is nothing but a political move in response to political
pressure. I dare say that the American people, including black
Americans, would be firmly opposed to increasing our assistance to
South Africa, which as I pointed out already, is very, very generous.
There are three relevant points that I want to raise: first of all,
the failure of the foreign aid in the rest of Africa; second, the fact
that South Africa is a country rich in minerals and other resources;
third, the desirability of waiting to ensure that South Africa follows
wise economic and social policies before granting it the stamp of our
approval by additional foreign aid.
Mr. Chairman, I will address each one of these issues. First, every
year, according to the Economist, donor nations dispense a total of $60
billion in aid to developing countries. Despite this generosity, and
maybe even partly because of it, African countries are mired in debt,
economic misery, and negative growth.
A 1990 World Bank report conceded that fewer than one-third of its
projects in Africa are sustainable, even after we have given all these
massive amounts of foreign aid. Nonetheless, the World Bank is ready to
lend South Africa $5 billion over 5 years. Surely they are not lacking
for willing lenders.
Second, South Africa has under its own soil the means to alleviate
the misery of its masses. It is rich in gold, diamonds, platinum, and
numerous other minerals. In fact, they have 11 minerals that are
absolutely vital to almost every country in the world, and the only
other place you can get these minerals is from the old Soviet Union.
As a matter of fact, South Africa is brimming with the very means to
create economic growth, which is the only avenue out of poverty. I am
totally in favor of massive investment in South Africa. In fact, I am
even in favor of giving tax incentives to American industry to relocate
some of their plants there to help create and stimulate economic
growth, and thus more jobs for those who are unemployed right now.
I think the potential for a healthy return is tremendous if the
government pursues wise fiscal policy over there. In fact, if I had a
lot of money, I might even consider investing some money in South
Africa myself, if we did it the right way.
My point is that the best way to help South Africa is to do so
through business arrangements, through investments. Why on earth would
we want to put South Africa on the same dole, on the same foreign aid
treadmill, that has brought nothing but misery throughout the rest of
Africa?
Many of my colleagues watched television last night and saw what has
happened in Zaire. We have sent literally hundreds of millions,
possibly billions of dollars into Zaire, and what has happened in that
country? There is massive poverty, massive inflation. The king, if you
will, of that country, President Mobutu, has 15 villas around the
world. His people are literally starving. That is the result of our
foreign aid.
Mr. Chairman, granted we had to do something there, because of the
Communist problem, the cold war in the past, but we went overboard. We
should not have. We should not go overboard right now in South Africa.
Third, even if we accept the assumption that assistance must be
delivered to South Africa, I think we need to be very careful about the
timing of that assistance. I think that any assistance ought to be
conditioned on the new South African Government following correct
economic policies, and respecting basic standards of human rights and
democracy.
If apartheid is replaced with some other form of dictatorship, it
will be a great tragedy for the South African people and the entire
African Continent.
Mr. Chairman, the ANC has not proven itself as yet to be a champion
of democratic practices. I wish the new government well, I hope they
succeed, and I hope they prove to be a blessing to the South African
people, but I am very concerned over the presence of high-ranking
officials of the Communist Party within the Cabinet, men like Joe
Modise, the Secretary of Defense, who was implicated in serious abuse
of human rights when he was the leader of Mkhonto We Sizwe, the ANC
military wing.
The issue of Communist Party members is not just an academic one, and
it is not a matter of red-baiting. Communism is a failed and
discredited ideology all over the world. It has brought untold
suffering and misery to millions all over the world. It must not be
allowed to impose its will on the people of South Africa.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, the new Government of South Africa
inherits one of the richest economies in Africa, with a sophisticated
infrastructure and tremendous mineral wealth. The potential for
economic growth in South Africa lies right underneath the soil, not in
Washington DC. I am completely for trade, investment, and business in
South Africa. I believe that is a much better choice than putting them
on the dole.
There is a lot we can do to help South Africans develop their own
resources without giving them a handout. The economic policies which
South Africa adopts will have more to do with the success of their
fragile democracy than any amount of foreign aid we can give them.
{time} 1940
Mr. Chairman, only a sound economic program will allow the South
African economy to grow, to provide jobs for the rapidly expanding
South African labor market and to ensure political stability.
Mr. Chairman, the man the ANC has put in charge of its economic
reconstruction program for the important PWV area, South Africa's
industrial heartland, is a man named Ben Turok. Turok says in his
recent book:
``A new democratic South Africa will need to defend its interests
against the predatory actions of international capital like the
International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the big powers
organized in the Group of Seven, the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade, and the rest. Their intentions,'' he went on, ``to the Third
World are clear enough: To install bourgeois democracy, compradorism
and transnational corporate power in a New World Order which
recognizes, integrates, and subordinates the Third World and the so-
called system of free world markets.''
Turok advocates ``more control over pension funds, insurance
companies and other financial institutions.''
Mr. Chairman, of the 23 Cabinet positions filled by the ANC, 11 of
the 23, almost half, are members of the South African Communist Party.
Unlike other Communist parties, the South African Communist Party has
failed to profit from the lessons of the failures and abuses of the
Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
An interview in the Johannesburg Sunday Times with the South African
Communist Party official Essop Pahad provides one illustration.
He said, ``I see myself promoting in Parliament the socialization of
the means of production, because the program of reconstruction and
development offers us the basis to do that.''
According to Mr. Pahad: ``April 27 starts the process of shifting
power away from big capital to the working class.'' He declares the
South African Communist Party to be for the moment ``at one with the
ANC on the immediate and intermediate objectives.''
Mr. Chairman, we should do everything we can to stimulate economic
growth in South Africa, but I submit to my colleagues if we talk to the
top 500 industrial companies in this country and said, ``Look, we will
create incentives for you to create plants over there to help stimulate
that economy,'' and then we could buy those minerals through those
companies relocating in South Africa, not taking jobs away from
Americans, but locating in South Africa, we could buy minerals from
them, and they could raise a lot of money through sales to the United
States and other Western countries, and that would eliminate the
necessity for the United States taxpayer to foot the bill for the new
African National Congress government.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that is a much more rational approach
than to create more dependency on the government and the taxpayers of
this country through foreign aid to a country which simply does not
need it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of a worse signal to send the entire
continent of Africa than to pass the Burton amendment pending here
tonight. That amendment will gut the planned aid program to South
Africa.
Mr. Chairman, let me explain what I mean. The South African aid
program has been planned since the election at $140 million. But
because the fiscal year is more than half over before the new program
level had been planned, the annual spending level in fiscal 1994 will
be only $80 million. That means that despite the fact that the
effective program level for the remainder of this year will be at about
$140 million, the Burton amendment, in fact, would require us to cut it
back to $80 million on an annualized basis next year.
That would do immense damage in South Africa and it would do immense
damage to American business interests. I say that because at this
point, the Export Import Bank and OPIC are expending no dollars in this
fiscal year for export guarantees to South Africa. But the Export
Import Bank is planning to finance at least $400 million in U.S.
aircraft sales and other business sales next year. OPIC is planning to
provide guarantees of $4 million to $5 million to U.S. businesses and
that in turn will mean business for the United States. TDA, the Trade
and Development Authority, which we were told here today is not doing
enough around the world, would be squeezed in trying to provide any
program at all over there next year because they are not providing one
at this moment even though they were planning to provide one next year.
Mr. Chairman, for a lot of technical reasons, I think this amendment
is ill-advised. But I think there is one overwhelming reason beyond
that why it should be defeated and defeated soundly.
Mr. Chairman, we have had 35 years of minority rule in South Africa
and now we have had a miracle. We have had a transition to a biracial
government without having a cataclysmic social explosion. We have had a
miracle in establishing a biracial government. Mr. Mandela and Mr. de
Klerk have in fact performed a service to their country that no one
would have dreamed possible just 5 years earlier. Everybody in this
Chamber who has two eyes and two ears knows that.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana on the basis of a quote he
has read from a book and on the basis of his expression of concern
about someone who is in the government says, ``Well, I've got a better
idea, we can do it a different way.''
Mr. Chairman, I have often noticed in this place that somebody has
always got a better idea. My grandfather taught me a long time ago that
generally those folks who are rowing the boat do not have time to rock
it, and those folks who are rocking the boat generally do not have time
to row it.
Mr. Chairman, what that means is that the people charged with the
responsibility in our government to help assist South Africa in moving
to a stable democratic future have laid out a course of events and we
have no moral choice in my view but to back it. We ought to back it
strongly.
I would suggest if a Member does not like some people in the South
African government, so what? There are a lot of people in the American
government I do not like, either. We have had democracy in this country
for 200 years. On a per capita basis, I will bet you we have at least
as many wackos in our own government as they do in South Africa's,
perhaps even some in this Chamber.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply suggest that before Members get into the
trap of deciding what they are going to do on a key policy question
involving the most amazing and the most thrilling move to democracy
since the fall of the Berlin Wall, before Members decide to make that
decision on the basis of what they think about a few characters on the
periphery of power in South Africa, think about how we would feel if we
were back 5 years when we expected an absolute, total explosion in that
country. Then Members would know that this amendment is ill-advised, it
is ill-targeted, it is in my view perniciously selective, and it ought
to be defeated.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin, it seems every time he
opposes someone's amendment on this side, the gentleman goes up and in
a veiled way makes some kind of attack on their intellect or their
goals or their desires. I think that that is reprehensible and I do not
think the gentleman really needs to do that. It is not necessary. The
gentleman can attack my amendment on its merits and not make these
veiled, slanderous remarks because the gentleman does not agree with
what I say.
Mr. Chairman, after having said that, these are not minority fringe
elements. Eleven of the 23 people picked by the ANC so far are members
of the South African Communist Party. They believe in collectivism.
They believe in total control of that government by the Communists.
They do not believe in free enterprise like we are talking about.
Mr. Chairman, I am saying before we start giving American taxpayers'
dollars to them, we ought to think seriously about whether or not they
are going to reform that country in a direction that we do not like.
Eleven minerals we have to have to survive as a Nation come from that
area. I would like for it to be a free market, a free, democracy-
oriented society. I do not want it controlled by the Communists or
radicals over there. I think before we start pouring American
taxpayers' dollars into that system, we ought to see what they are all
about.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Johnston], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee
on Africa.
Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, this is the first time in the history of the world
where a minority government has given up the reins to a majority of the
people without any revolution.
To the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], this is not personal but
I directly challenge his figures of 11 out of 23, using indiscriminate
numbers like that, and I challenge the gentleman's authority and ask
him to prove it.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Burton amendment
here. As a major superpower, the United States should be in the
forefront of support of democracy for this thriving free market economy
in South Africa.
{time} 1950
The present South Africa initiative is a prime example of America's
commitment to assist the incoming Government of South Africa in
reconstruction and development. This package should be supported and,
in fact, many believe, and I believe, it is not enough.
The package in its current form only calls for about $120 million in
additional expenditures over the next 3 years, and this is a modest
amount in comparison to the billions of dollars that we are giving to
the Middle East and Egypt and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet
Union.
Apartheid left a horrible legacy, and this brutal system has had a
devastating effect on 35 million black South Africans. I admit, I say
to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], this country is rich. But
the black South Africans are not rich. They are extremely poor.
Current statistics that support these dramatic needs are very
telling. More than 9 million South Africans are homeless and live in
shacks made of tin and cardboard. At least 50 percent of the general
population are unemployed. Four out of every 10 people in South Africa
are living in poverty, and more people die in infancy than graduate
from high school.
I urge my colleagues to join me and the chairman in supporting Nelson
Mandela and all of the people of South Africa who have cast aside
racism and confrontation in favor of reconciliation.
Please, vote no on the Burton amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Waters].
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rushed to the floor, because I could not
believe my ears when I heard the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] on
the floor opposing this very modest appropriation for South Africa.
First, I could not believe it, because I cannot believe that the
gentleman is fighting the old Communist battle. Communism is gone.
There is nothing to fear in South Africa, and it is unbelievable that
he would even present that kind of argument on the floor.
I do not think it is fair to identify members of the ANC who are now
in government and say somehow because they are Communists or they have
been a part of a Communist Party that they do not deserve to be funded.
I would raise the question to the gentleman about the funding request
of Russia and the fact that it just passed, and there was an attempt to
delete it, but that did not happen, and I suspect there may be still
some who came from the Communist Party in Russia. But we are, indeed,
going to fund them. I did not hear the gentleman raise that question
when that debate was on the floor.
Furthermore, let me say it is in our economic interest. If the
gentleman would check with some of his business friends, he will find
that all of them are rushing toward South Africa, because they
understand the potential for the markets there. They are trying to be
on that part of the agenda that will allow them to do the investments,
that will not only help growth in South Africa and revitalize that
economy, but will also create wealth and jobs here at home.
So I would suggest that he check with this business friends so that
he can understand what their interests are, and I think he may want to
change his arguments.
In the final analysis, I would say to my colleagues it is absolutely
immoral to talk about denying assistance to millions in South Africa
who have been marginalized and denied for so long, who have been living
under the unconscionable system of apartheid.
When you travel throughout South Africa and you see the shanties and
you see the lack of housing, the lack of water, I do not think any
human being that has any sense of fairness would want to deny us
assisting those people in trying to have a semblance of a decent
quality of life.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
The gentlewoman makes my point. American industry would like to go
over there and are going over to South Africa.
All I am saying is rather than send American taxpayers' dollars over
there, let us send American industry over there and let them mine these
natural resources and send them back here to the United States of
America. That is the way to build that economy.
they have a great industrial base. I have been there. I did not read
it in a book. I have been there, and we do not need to be sending
American taxpayers' dollars over there to the tune of $600 million over
the next 3 or 4 years.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Ms. McKinney].
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in strong opposition to the
amendment to restrict United States assistance to South Africa to the
fiscal year 1994 level.
The President announced the administrations's intention to increase
direct assistance to South Africa to $143 million to support that
country's transition to nonracial democratic rule.
Mr. Chairman, the increase the President requested is moderate when
we compare it to the amount provided to other countries.
This bill provides a total of $900 million for the former republic of
the Soviet Union.
It recommends a total of $3 billion to Israel; $1.2 billion in
economic support funds, and $1.8 billion for military financing grants.
The bill recommends $2.1 billion to Egypt.
The least we can do Mr. Chairman, is support the amount recommended
by the President to support this historical transition from apartheid
to nonracial democratic rule.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my dear colleagues to vote against this most
mischievous amendment.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am an Irishman, the only Irishman to
fly the Irish flag, I think, in the House of Representatives, but I
voted against the aid going to Ireland for the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] that was not allowed on the floor.
When we talk about Russia, I agree, they are building four Typhoon-
class subs, costing about $9 billion a year to build them, and we are
sending them money. I think we ought to eliminate that, too.
The capitalist way to do things though is, for example, in South
Africa, there are only two places in the world we can get titanium. One
is South Africa, and the other is Ukraine. I would rather spend $600
million buying titanium and other minerals and putting them to work
rather than just giving them the aid. That is called trade.
I think that I am happy that democracy is going forward over there. I
hope it works. But I would rather set up policies to where we trade for
it or we work for it instead of just giving it to them.
I think we would all be much better off even in our own country
working in that direction also.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise in opposition to the amendment.
You know, we like to throw around terms like world leadership and
superpower. We ought to ask what that really means in a postwar
context.
It seems to me if it means anything, it means being a reliable ally
and friend to those countries that adopt and implement our policies
such as is the case in South Africa. We have models for this policy:
Israel, Russia, Egypt, all instances in which we said to those
countries that support democracy, we will assist you.
My colleagues on the other side say do not give aid, give trade. I am
suggesting that in order to have trade, we have to have stability.
This aid will help us achieve stability, because the new regime is
under tremendous pressures from the previously disenfranchised
majority. There is a need for infrastructure. There is tremendous
poverty. If we are to have stability, we need this financial aid.
It is time we have a mature policy in the post cold war, to support
our friends and to set an example that we are, in fact, the leader, and
that means providing leadership in real, not rhetorical, terms. It is
not enough to just say adopt democracy. We have to actively assist
democracy.
This financial aid will accomplish that goal and will enable South
Africa to prosper.
I urge the defeat of the amendment.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
There is an old Chinese proverb that says if you give a person a
fish, you feed him for a day; if you teach him to fish, you feed them
for their entire lifetime.
{time} 2000
And it seems to me that welfare, whether it is here or around the
world, creates a dependency on our Government and it does not create a
desire for people to stand on their own two feet. I would much rather
help South Africa with mineral development and industrial development
instead of giving them money that is not going to solve their problems.
We have done that in Zaire. We saw last night on television where
President Mobutu raped the country and has 15 villas. That is not the
answer. The answer is to help them by industrial development and trade.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Owens].
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to appeal to the gentleman from
Indiana and other Members of the party of Lincoln to act in the spirit
of Abraham Lincoln. We have a situation here unprecedented in the
history of the world, where there has been a peaceful transfer of
power. South Africa is rich enough to take care of itself. It will do
so eventually. We are at a critical transition period, a very explosive
situation exists where 36 million people have been denied the fruits of
the country are waiting, anticipating. If you do not give them help
over this transition period, you are going to help to strike a match
that will explode the whole situation. That is a revolution that was
made by the white businessmen acting in concert with black
revolutionaries. This is a peaceful transition that will go forward and
produce a great market for American products, a great market for
American business, if it is peaceful, if it is orderly. If it explodes,
however, into chaos because they cannot stand the pressures because we
did not help with the transition, all would be lost.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment on the floor. We
just saw a transformation of history with the 1994 elections in South
Africa. They were the first free and full and open elections in South
Africa. It is the first time they have had a majority rule, an
opportunity for that in the country. They need time to prove
themselves. We should not be cutting their progress off at the knees.
Mr. Callahan passed in the full committee an amendment which makes
clear that this aid in this bill is transitional, it is not an
entitlement. This is a first step, an expression of support by the
United States of America that free and fair and open elections in South
Africa should be the wave of the future.
The Burton amendment would limit and deprive OPIC and TDA from
encouraging private investment. It should be defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has the right
to close.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
First of all, I wish the Government of South Africa the very best. I
want them to succeed. It want there to be a peaceful transition. I wish
Nelson Mandela and his entire Government Mr. de Kerk, the vest best.
However, creating a dependency on outside entities is not the
solution to that country's problems. I have been there. I know they
have a great industrial base. I know they are a very, very mineral-rich
country, probably one of the richest in the world. They have billions,
probably trillions of dollars in minerals.
You do them no favor by giving them the dole. The better way to solve
this problem is to create tax incentives and tax breaks for industries
in various countries to go over there and mine those minerals and
create jobs that will put those unemployed people to work, that will
teach them useful skills and help them to stand on their own two feet.
Simply giving them taxpayer dollars from American taxpayers, from the
largess of this country, is not the answer. Now, many have said,
``Well, if we do not give them this money, there is going to be a
revolution over there.'' If my amendment passes, they will say, ``Oh,
my gosh, Burton is responsible for a bloody revolution in South
Africa.'' I do not believe that is the case at all.
I believe that if we help them develop an industrial base and mine
those minerals and have good trade relationships, we will do much more
long term for South Africa and for democracy over there than we will
ever do by giving them American taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings].
(Mr. HASTINGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in vigorous opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, for years most Members of this body worked to eradicate
the racist apartheid government of South Africa. With the recent
democratically-held elections we have seen our dreams realized. It is
now incumbent upon us to keep our pledge to the people of South Africa
and help them all reach the standards of equality and prosperity that
they deserve.
With rich natural resources, a developed infrastructure,
sophisticated banking structure, trained managers and cheap
electricity, South Africa is positioned to play a leading and
constructive role in the region. In 1989 South Africa accounted for
76.7 percent of the total GDP of the southern African region. The
success of the region might very well depend on the success of this one
nation.
I am outraged at the attempt by the gentleman from Indiana to cut aid
to this nation just as they have elected a democratic, representative
government. I can see no justification for this step and encourage all
Members of this body to oppose his amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York, Mr. Engel.
(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I also rise in vigorous opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to the Burton amendment
which would cut funding for South Africa.
For years, Members of Congress came to the floor of the House of
Representatives demanding an end to Apartheid. The sanctions we enacted
were overwhelmingly successful in bringing the racist regime to its
knees. Now, more than ever we must support the South African people in
their effort to establish a non-racial democracy based on the principle
of one-person, one vote.
Having just returned from South Africa and having witnessed the
inauguration of Nelson Mandela as that country's first black President,
I firmly believe that American support for democracy and a free-market
economy in South Africa is absolutely critical. With its extensive
national wealth, not only in physical terms, but in a hard-working,
diverse people, South Africa will soon play a positive role driving
regional economic growth.
Furthermore, with our shared values, the United States and South
Africa will work hand-in-hand to solve the transnational problems
facing Africa, including over-population, conflict resolution, and
hunger.
The money we seek to invest in South Africa is small compared to our
European and Middle Eastern foreign aid programs. It will be critical
to help the majority of South Africans deal with the problems they face
now: poor education, insufficient housing, and high unemployment.
Mr. Chairman, we must not desert South Africa now that it has made
the critical choice in favor of democracy. I urge my colleagues to
oppose the Burton amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
majority leader, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Gephardt.
Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I hope the Members will reject
this amendment and understand tonight that we have an opportunity here
to confirm and advance the cause of democracy and freedom in this great
country. All of us are thrilled to see Nelson Mandela walk free, and we
thrilled to an even greater height when we saw him inaugurated as
president of his country.
Think back 20 years ago, think if communism has triumphed in South
Africa; Mr. Brezhnev, who was then the head of the Soviet Empire, would
have been into South Africa with money and assistance and aid to try to
prop up communism and make it work. And he would have been pleased to
do it.
Democracy won in South Africa, and now we have the opportunity to
underpin and aid and abet that democracy by helping American businesses
go to South Africa and to build that economy.
That is what we can do tonight. This is not a giveaway. This is not
throwing money at someone. This is helping build this economy.
What a magnificent opportunity this is. We have won in South Africa,
democracy has won, freedom has won, and now we as a people, believing
in those values and principles, have the chance to stand behind it and
help our businesses do it.
A few years ago we said to our businesses, ``Don't go to South
Africa, because there is no freedom and democracy.'' Tonight we can
say, ``Yes, there is freedom and democracy, and we urge you to go, and
we stand behind you to go.''
Mr. Chairman, I urge a vote against this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Burton].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 103,
noes 321, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 206]
AYES--103
Allard
Andrews (NJ)
Archer
Armey
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bilirakis
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Canady
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Everett
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Fowler
Goodlatte
Grams
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hefley
Herger
Hoekstra
Hoke
Hunter
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Kim
Kingston
Kyl
Lewis (FL)
Linder
Machtley
Manzullo
McCandless
McCollum
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moorhead
Myers
Nussle
Packard
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Quillen
Ramstad
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Schaefer
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Stearns
Stump
Talent
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (WY)
Walker
Weldon
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--321
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus (AL)
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentley
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Bliley
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Castle
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Darden
de la Garza
de Lugo (VI)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Fish
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gallo
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Glickman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Huffington
Hughes
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inslee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Livingston
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCrery
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Michel
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
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)
Pickett
Pickle
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Ravenel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Ridge
Roemer
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Santorum
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Saxton
Schenk
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Shays
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (NJ)
Snowe
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Sundquist
Swett
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Underwood (GU)
Unsoeld
Upton
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--14
Blackwell
Dooley
Faleomavaega (AS)
Ford (MI)
Grandy
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Horn
McCurdy
McDade
Moran
Spence
Washington
Whitten
{time} 2028
Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mr. GALLEGLY, and Mrs. LOWEY changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. THOMAS of Wyoming, BATEMAN, and McCANDLESS, and Mrs. FOWLER
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Chairman, during the debate and vote on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] I was
unavoidably detained and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would
have been recorded as voting against the Burton amendment.
{time} 2030
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7, printed
in House Report 103-530.
amendment offered by mr. beilenson
Mr. BEILENSON. 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. Beilenson: At the end of the bill,
insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the
following new section:
certain reductions for additional population development assistance
funding
Sec. 569. (a) Reductions.--Each amount appropriated or
otherwise made available by this Act is hereby reduced by .75
percent.
(b) Additional Population Development Assistance Funding.--
The amount otherwise provided by title II for ``Population,
Development Assistance'' is hereby increased by $100,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Beilenson] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a member
opposed, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be recognized for
15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson].
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering addresses
the most fundamental challenge facing current and future generations:
the alarming rate of human population growth, which underlies virtually
every environmental, developmental, and national security problem
facing the world today.
This amendment increases voluntary family planning assistance by $100
million, and pays for the increase through a three-quarters of one
percent across-the-board cut in all other foreign assistance provided
by the bill. This increase will bring the U.S. international population
contribution to $669 million for fiscal year 1995--a significant step
closer to achieving the funding levels called for in the 1989 Amsterdam
Declaration, the multinational plan for making voluntary family
planning assistance available universally by the year 2000.
I would like to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and
the members of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee for providing a
total of $569 million in fiscal year 1995 for population programs,
which is a $59 million increase over the amount appropriated for fiscal
year 1994. In each of the last four years, thanks to the subcommittee's
leadership on this issue, the U.S. has increased its contributions to
international population programs, and that is particularly significant
in a time when the subcommittee has been under tight spending
constraints. However, while the funding level in H.R. 4266 is a step in
the right direction, it is less than three-quarters of the amount
needed for the United States to do its fair share to achieve universal
access to family planning by the year 2000, an objective this nation
agreed to in the 1989 Amsterdam agreement, and an objective which the
Clinton administration has endorsed. This amendment brings us
significantly closer to achieving this important goal.
The harsh fact is that unless the population growth of developing
nations is slowed, none of the other forms of aid we are voting for in
this bill will have any real or lasting value or effect: so long as
current population trends continue, the billions of foreign aid dollars
we spend each year in an effort to alleviate poverty and stimulate
economic growth in the Third World are simply being wasted. Our
generosity will always remain several steps behind the growing number
of mouths to feed, and hands to employ.
The world's population now exceeds 5.6 billion people, and it is
growing by almost 100 million people every year. Every day--every
single day--there are 260,000 more people on the earth than there were
the day before. Day after day--inexorably, unendingly, relentlessly--
more than a quarter of a million people are added to the population: a
quarter of a million more people to provide shelter, jobs, health care,
and drinking water for, a quarter of a million more mouths to feed and
children to educate.
Nearly 95 percent of this increase is occurring in developing
countries--countries which cannot begin to adequately take care of
their existing populations, where there are already too few jobs,
inadequate schools, inadequate health care, inadequate amounts of food
and, usually, very little, if any, individual freedom.
Future prospects, moreover, are even more staggering. The United
Nations estimates that without a substantial decline in the fertility
rate, the earth's population will almost double to more than 10 billion
by the year 2024. Even if fertility drops from the current 3.3 children
per woman to 2.8 children in 2025--quite a significant reduction--world
population would still grow to 12.5 billion by the year 2050. And, if
effective action is not taken within this decade--as today's three
billion children in the developing world reach their child-bearing
years--the Earth's population could nearly quadruple to over 19 billion
people by the end of the next century.
This rapid growth underlies virtually every environmental,
developmental, and national security problem facing the world today.
The impact of overpopulation, combined with unsustainable patterns of
consumption, is evident in mounting signs of stress on the world's
environment. Under conditions of rapid population growth, renewable
resources are being used faster than they can be replaced.
Each year, for example, the world's farmers try to feed 100 million
more people on 24 billion fewer tons of topsoil. Overcropping,
overgrazing, and poor land management practices which have beset ever
more populous countries have resulted in progressive salinization or
desertification of large tracts of formerly productive land. Despite
major gains in agricultural productivity, if current trends in resource
use and population growth continue, by the year 2010 per capita
availability of cropland will drop by 21 percent; per capita rangeland
by 22 percent; and per capita forests by 30 percent. Without a major
conservation effort to stop this degradation, developing countries
could experience an almost 30 percent decline in agricultural
productivity by the end of the next century.
In much of the developing world, high birth rates, caused in great
part by the lack of access of women to basic reproductive health
services and information, are contributing to intractable poverty,
malnutrition, widespread unemployment, and the rapid spread of disease.
Rural peoples fleeing the progressive impoverishment of the countryside
have also put heavy, often intolerable strains on urban environments.
By the year 2000, 18 of the 20 largest cities will be in the developing
world, and as these cities mushroom in size, they are creating serious
problems for which there are no simple or affordable solutions.
Population growth is outstripping the capacity of many nations to
make even modest gains in economic development. In the next 15 years,
developing nations will need to create jobs for 700 million new
workers, which is more than currently exist in all of the
industrialized nations of the world combined.
Everywhere you look, the prospects are staggering. Consider, for
instance, a nation like Bangladesh. With a population of 125 million
(about half that of the entire United States) jammed into an area the
size of Wisconsin, Bangladesh would have little hope of climbing out of
its desperate state of severe poverty and underdevelopment even if its
population remained stable. But it's going to get much worse: in less
than 30 years, Bangladesh is projected to add another 85 million
people.
Bangladesh is only one example. No continent remains untouched by
this explosion. Three months ago, the U.S. Census Bureau published its
best analysis of what the population of various countries would be 25
years from now. Let me give you some of those figures:
Egypt, which adds one million people every 8 months, will grow from
59 million to 97 million;
Nigeria from 98 million to 215 million;
Ethiopia from 58 million to 124 million;
Somalia from 6\1/2\ million to 12 million;
Iraq from 19 million to 46 million;
India from 920 million to 1.3 billion;
Pakistan from 128 million to 251 million;
Kenya from 28 to 44 million;
Mexico from 92 million to 136 million; and
Zaire from 42 million to 92 million.
And on, and on, and on.
{time} 2040
Every impoverished, hopeless, and desperate country in the world will
see its population double, or more, in the next 25 to 30 years.
Overpopulation, however, is not a problem for lesser developed
countries only. Rapid population growth in already overcrowded and
underdeveloped areas of the world has given rise to an unprecedented
pressure to migrate, as workers seek decent, and more hopeful lives for
themselves and their families. According to a recent report by the
United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA], over 100 million people, or
nearly 2 percent of the world's population, are international migrants,
and countless others are refugees within their own countries. Many of
the world's industrialized nations are now straining to absorb huge
numbers of people, and in the future, as shortages of jobs and living
space in urban areas, and resources such as water, agricultural land,
and new places to dispose of waste grow even more acute, there will be
even greater pressure to emigrate.
As Ambassador Richard Gardner has written, nobody
Has the slightest idea of how to provide adequate food,
housing, health care, education, and gainful employment to
such exploding numbers of people, especially as they crowd
into the mega-cities of the Third World like Mexico City,
Cairo and Calcutta.
The growing numbers of desperate poor will only accelerate
the ferocious assault on the world's environment now under
way in Africa, Asia and Latin America . . . Can anyone doubt
that even if these growth figures are realized, our children
and grandchildren will witness unprecedented misery,
worldwide violence, and a tidal wave of unwanted immigration
throughout the world?
We know what is required to defuse the population explosion:
universal access to affordable, quality family planning services--as
well as more economic development and better education and employment
opportunities for women in the developing world.
Hundreds of millions of people throughout the world would use family
planning assistance if it were available to them. A recent Demographic
and Health Surveys study indicates that in most developing countries
more than half of the married women do not want any more children, and
tens of millions more would like to delay subsequent births. But at
least 200 million married women are not using contraception, largely
due to lack of availability, even though they wish to avoid pregnancy.
The hopeful news in that family planning programs have been
remarkably successful worldwide. In general, average fertility falls by
about one birth for every 15 percentage-point increase in the number of
married couples using contraception. Since the early 1960's,
contraceptive use worldwide has gone up from roughly 10 percent of
couples to over 50 percent today. And over the same period, the number
of births per woman dropped from 6 to 3.3, almost half the fertility of
just one generation ago.
Education and access to contraception also has a positive effect on
both infant and women's mortality rates. Worldwide, the combination of
better birth spacing and the elimination of births to adolescents could
avoid at least three million infant deaths a year, or 20 percent of the
estimated 15 million deaths a year to children under five. Moreover,
adequate family planning would reduce the enormous number of deaths
from pregnancy-related problems, which the World Health Organization
estimates to be the cause of between 20 percent and 45 percent of all
deaths among women ages 15-49 in the developing world.
Time is of the essence. How quickly we provide worldwide access to
family planning is crucial. Like compound interest applied to financial
savings, high fertility rates produce ever-growing future populations.
Let me give you two examples. If a woman bears three children instead
of six, and her children and grandchildren do likewise, she will have
27 great-grandchildren rather than 216. If Nigeria, which now has 98
million people, reaches replacement fertility by 2010 rather than 2040,
as currently projected, its eventual population would be 341 million,
rather than 617 million.
So, what we achieve in the way of making family planning services
available in this decade will determine whether world population
stabilizes at double today's level or at triple that level--or more.
The model for achieving universal access to voluntary family planning
by the year 2000, and the stabilization of population at the earliest
feasible date, is the 1989 Amsterdam Declaration, a practical blueprint
issued by the 80 governments--including the United States--that
participated in the United Nations Amsterdam Forum on Population. That
plan is based on studies which indicate that if quality contraceptive
information and supplies were readily available, about 75 percent of
reproductive-age couples in most countries would use them, compared
with just over 50 percent today. At the 75 percent level of
contraceptive use, people tend to have an average of just over two
children per couple, which results in replacement-level fertility.
The Amsterdam plan calls on industrialized countries to incrementally
increase population funding to $4 billion by the year 2000. Fully
funding our share of the plan next year would require raising that
amount to $800 million, or to put it another way, the United States
could be doing its fair share to make family planning services
available universally by devoting a mere .05 percent--five hundredths
of 1 percent--of total Federal expenditures to international family
planning programs. While this amendment does not raise total spending
to the level called for by the Amsterdam plan, it does bring us
significantly closer to achieving this important goal.
This will be an historic year for global population concerns. In
September, political leaders and other decision makers from more than
190 countries will convene in Cairo for the International Conference on
Population and Development [ICPD], which will seek to forge a new
international consensus on the importance of slowing population growth.
By increasing funding levels this year, Congress would underscore to
the international community the seriousness and commitment with which
the U.S. approaches the population issue.
Combating rapid population growth is the most humane, farsighted, and
economically effective effort we can undertake. An increase in funding
now will save many times this expense in future U.S. foreign
assistance, will greatly reduce human suffering, and will promote
global peace and security.
Our Nation's interest is clear. Slowing population growth is
fundamental to everything else we do to improve living conditions
abroad and to protect our own national interests. Our failure to
address this problem adequately will mean that most of our efforts to
promote peace, security, and the well-being of people around the world,
now and in the future, will continue to be wasted.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, when I look at the gentleman from California [Mr.
Beilenson], I am reminded of Will Rogers' comment when he said, ``When
two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary.'' That is
the way I feel about the gentleman from California. He and I agree a
very high percentage of the time, but I am simply pained to say that
tonight I cannot agree with him, even though I respect and agree with
his expressed concerns about the need for greater funding for this
program.
The fact is that we have made population programs one of the top
priorities in this bill already. In 1989, we were providing $198
million for this program. Last year we were providing $392 million.
That represents a very large increase over such a short period of time.
Last year we were providing $392 million, and the bill provides $450
million, which is a 15 percent increase.
The gentleman wants to provide an additional $100 million, and I
sympathize with his efforts, but the problem is that when he finances
the cut, he has to cut a number of other programs which are, in my
view, equally worthy, and in fact, the effect of the amendment winds up
also reducing resources available for population programs in the United
Nations programs and in Africa. It also cuts other humanitarian
programs. I just do not think it is advisable to do that.
Mr. Chairman, I would point out that no population program, no family
planning program, is going to be successful until we elevate the power
and the role and the say of women in 3rd world societies, because that
is the key, at least one of the keys, in achieving effective population
growth reductions.
There is also another, I think, particularly troubling aspect of the
amendment. I want to make clear this amendment does not in any way
touch aid, either economic or military, to Egypt or Israel, but it does
leave us in the peculiar position on the military aid portion of the
bill. For instance, it does leave us in the peculiar position of having
only $4 million left in the entire bill for the rest of the world once
aid has been provided for Israel and Egypt. That is clearly an
untenable position. I do not think that anyone would suggest otherwise.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is right in his concern. I respect his
passion. I respect his commitment. I think he does a great public
service when he takes the floor to spell out the fact that we are
inadequately supporting this program, but that is the case with an
awful lot of other programs as well.
It is part of the price we pay for the budget squeeze which is going
to squeeze the purchasing power of every discretionary dollar in the
budget by 20 percent over the next five years. It is a price I hate to
have to see us pay, but we have no choice but to pay it. That is why
even the major population groups in the country are opposed to the
Beilenson amendment.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute, Population Action International, and
Planned Parenthood Federation of America all say in a letter, ``It is
important to remember that the Foreign Operations Subcommittee has
treated population assistance very well in its bill relative to most
other sustainable development programs.''
They say in another paragraph, ``Most of our organizations have been
participating in coalition efforts to protect funding for sustainable
development programs. In the spirit of cooperation and common purpose
with our coalition partners, we cannot support your amendment,
especially if the increase for population is funded by reductions in
other sustainable development programs.''
Mr. Chairman, I would urge rejection of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston], the ranking Republican.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I like, respect, and admire the
gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], but I must oppose his
amendment. In 1992 this House gave $246 million to this account. In
1993 they gave $350 million, a 42 percent increase; in 1994, $392
million, a 12 percent increase. In 1995 we proposed $450 million,
another 15 percent increase over last year, and the gentleman proposes
another $100 million.
Mr. Chairman, in a time of declining foreign aid budgets year after
year after year, this account is going up astronomically. These are
tremendous increases. When we add the money that we are already
applying to population control, consider the fact that in the
development fund for Africa, 10 percent of $784 million or $78 million
is also going to similar programs.
Consider also that the UNFHA applies $40 million, not to mention all
of the money that the World Bank applies to this type of assistance.
That is $568 million currently in this year's bill, plus the World
Bank, going to this account.
The developed countries last year, according to Global Monitor, May,
1994, developed countries gave approximately $755 million in 1991 for
population activities in the developing world. Overall, 10 countries
accounted for 96 percent of all such donor contributions. The United
States contributed nearly half. How much do we have to contribute?
{time} 2050
Mr. Chairman, I would like also to point out a letter to the same
periodical from a Peruvian woman who says:
I am a Peruvian health worker in one of the poor areas of
Lima. Here in Peru, we women greatly value the family and
love our children, but economic conditions make it difficult
to raise and nurture our family in even a minimal way. The
deplorable economic condition is our real problem. We don't
need birth control, we need an end to our poverty.
At times I view with sadness the fact that many women bring
their children with an injury or a burn to health centers
that don't even have gauze or antiseptics but the shelves are
filled with birth control pills. I think that if the United
States or any other economically developed country wants to
help us, before offering birth control, it should think about
what we want and need. Our country needs technical and
economic assistance to make progress.
Mr. Chairman, I could not say it any better.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York [Mrs. Lowey].
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to oppose the Beilenson
amendment because though I appreciate the long history of hard work by
the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] on this critical issue,
this amendment would upset the delicate balance we have sought to
achieve in the foreign operations appropriations bill. Under Chairman
Obey's leadership, we have made a significant commitment to critical
population assistance while working within extremely tight budget
constraints to create a bill that responsibly deals with our
commitments in the developing world.
This amendment--as well intentioned as it is--would threaten the
carefully crafted bipartisan agreement that has brought this bill to
the floor. While .75 percent sounds minimal, in a bill where we have
worked hard to make real cuts even in very small accounts the impact
can be severe.
Indeed, the committee has worked hard to craft a bill that contains a
large increase in population assistance--$58 million over fiscal year
1994 funding. These funds will reduce infant mortality, improve women's
lives, and help stabilize exponential population growth which threatens
the ability of developing nations to move forward. Surveys show that
more than 500 million married women worldwide want contraceptive
methods but cannot obtain them. The Worldwatch Institute reports that a
mere $1.50 invested per woman per year would enable most nations to
reduce maternal deaths by more than 60 percent. Clearly, we can and
must do more to support these efforts--and this bill is an important
step.
In addition, I am particularly proud that the report for this bill
includes for the first time ever a direction that up to $20 million in
aid to the newly independent states be spent for urgently needed family
planning assistance there. This is a sensible and humane response to
the appalling lack of contraception in the NIS, which has led to
reliance on abortions, often performed in unsafe conditions, as a
method of family planning. This is just one example of how other
accounts in this bill--not just that designated for population--are
helping with this critical need.
Mr. Chairman, this bill contains a strong, increased commitment to
population assistance, and while I deeply appreciate Congressman
Beilenson's long history of hard work on this critical issue, I urge my
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], a member of the subcommittee.
(Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from California for
the intent of his amendment. He speaks the truth. No one has been more
forthright or a stronger leader on this most vital issue than my friend
and colleague from California. I believe, as he does, that voluntary
family planning is the highest global priority. The closing comments of
the gentleman from Louisiana almost lead me to support the amendment.
Rampant population growth undermines economic gains in developing
countries, puts pressure on the environment and food production and
delivery systems, and can destabilize entire regions.
The United States made a commitment to providing the resources to
help other nations stabilize the world's population in the early part
of the coming century. At the Amsterdam Conference in 1991, the U.S.
delegation signed a document pledging to work toward providing our fair
share of the funds necessary to meet this goal. This year our share
would be about $800 million. By 2000, we should be providing a billion
dollars to population programs.
The gentleman from California, and many other Members, including
myself, have worked with Mr. Obey and other members of the subcommittee
to try to meet this funding goal. Given the tremendous budgetary
pressures we face, I believe we have made very good progress in
increasing funding for voluntary family planning. Funding for the
population account has increased 50 percent in the past 4 years while
many other accounts have been declining. In addition, we are again
providing funds to UNFPA, which works in many nations that AID does
not, dedicating nearly $80 million in Subsaharan African assistance to
population programs, and AID is considering expanding its small
voluntary family planning program in the former Soviet Union. All told,
this bill provides nearly $600 million for population programs.
I am torn, because I am second to only my friend from California,
perhaps, in the House in my desire to see us meet the Amsterdam funding
levels. But I believe we have done the best we can for population in
this bill given the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation and other
priorities that must be funded in this bill. I must also say that the
chairman has been tremendously accommodating and deserves a great share
of credit for the increase in resources for these worthwhile programs.
The intent of the amendment is pure and admirable. I vote for it in
my heart. Nevertheless, I am troubled by the affect of reducing other
accounts further to bolster voluntary family planning. I would urge the
gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by
my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson].
In bringing the foreign operations bill to the floor today, both the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and the gentleman from Louisiana
[Mr. Livingston] have worked hard to assure that at least modest
funding would be available for a myriad of important humanitarian,
environmental and peace promoting activities. I do not agree with many
of the allocations, but I respect the sincerity of the authors of this
bill.
Mr. Chairman, ironically one of the most controversial programs
funded by U.S. taxpayers is actually slated to get a hefty increase in
this bill. Total population control spending increases by 15 percent to
a whopping $569 million in fiscal year 1995.
Yet for some, a 15-percent increase still is not enough, even when
other, more worthy programs are either straight-lined or cut.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Beilenson's amendment takes a
whack out of the U.N. children's fund, Middle East peace efforts, the
Peace Corps, the fund for Ireland, which like other programs is already
below the President's request, the nonproliferation and disarmament
fund, refugee assistance, international narcotics control,
peacekeeping, aid to Israel, Egypt and El Salvador, and the African
Development Foundation.
As incredible as it sounds, even assistance for the world's children
will be cut to accommodate population control.
The child survival fund is one of the most remarkable humanitarian
initiatives ever launched by the U.S. Congress.
I am very proud of the fact that when President Reagan's budget
zeroed it out in the mid-1980s, I offered the amendment and doubled its
funding. I have worked to enhance and expand this fund for years.
Mr. Chairman, last June I authored an amendment to the Foreign
Assistance Act that passed the House to earmark $275 million for the
child survival fund.
Despite the fact that the child survival fund and UNICEF's
immunization and oral rehydration therapy programs have saved millions
of kids from the agony of polio and other diseases and will save
countless others from tetanus and psoriasis in the future, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] proposes to take some of that
vital money away from the children to expand population control.
Mr. Chairman, finally let me remind Members that ever since Mr.
Clinton reversed the Mexico City policy of the Reagan/Bush era, the
U.S. Agency for International Development has poured and is pouring
hundreds of millions of dollars into the coffers of NGO's that use
their funds to aggressively promote abortion as a method of birth
control. One of their goals are the approximately 100 sovereign nations
around the world, especially in Latin America, South America and Africa
that have laws that protect the lives of unborn children.
Mr. Chairman, the $100 million contained in the Beilenson amendment
would go to groups that want to change all that.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that they do not deserve it.
Reject the Beilenson amendment.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, yes, obviously many of the comments made
by my friends and colleagues who seem to be supportive of the idea but
cannot bring themselves to vote for it, most of what they have said is
quite true. It does cut other programs, it does cut programs in Africa,
the African Development Bank. It does cut programs in the World Bank.
It cuts those programs by three-fourths of 1 percent. It cuts them by
three-fourths of 1 percent. I think they can afford to be cut that
much.
Mr. Chairman, we spoke about Africa. Let me tell Members two things
about Africa: Every 3 weeks, there are 1 million additional people in
Africa over what there were 3 weeks earlier. In 25 years, not 50 years,
not 100 years, in 25 years, the population of Africa will have more
than doubled.
Mr. Chairman, we can fritter away our monies to the African
Development Bank or we can make family planning help available to the
hundreds of millions of couples in Africa and other continents and in
other nations around the world who want it.
Yes, the committee has done a wonderful job. I spent 2 of my first 10
minutes commending the gentleman from Wisconsin and his colleagues on
his subcommittee. They have raised the spending, the appropriations for
this most important area a great deal in the last 3 or 4 years. I
commend them on that. But my argument is that unless we do more, all of
the rest of the good things that that committee proposes and that we
support them in is eventually utterly futile.
Mr. Chairman, if we do not solve this problem, the rest is money
wasted. This amendment is an effort to deal more seriously even than we
have in the past with what I and many others believe is perhaps the
most immensely fundamental and important issue which faces this entire
planet.
As I told my colleagues before, we will have more than 100 million
additional people by the end of 1 year from now.
At this moment, more than 5.6 billion people share our planet. By
this time tomorrow, another quarter of a million will be added to that
number.
Ninety-five percent of the newcomers will be born in the developing
world. Many of them will die in childhood of malnutrition or disease,
and most of the rest will live out their lives in countries that cannot
adequately feed and shelter the people they already have.
By the year 2020, the world's already strained and overexploited
resources will have to sustain life for more than 8 billion people--an
increase of 2\1/2\ billion, most of them desperately poor, in just 25
years.
The harsh fact is that without a decrease in population growth rates,
the outlook is bleak, both for developing countries and for our ability
to provide them any real, sustainable help.
So long as current population trends continue, the billions of
foreign-aid dollars we spend each year in an effort to alleviate
poverty and stimulate economic growth in the Third World are simply
being wasted; our generosity will always remain several steps behind
the growing number of mouths to feed, and hands to employ.
No matter how much aid is given by the United States, and others, the
truth of the matter is that developing countries cannot solve their
economic problems without first solving their population problems. The
reason is obvious: In most Third World countries today, populations are
growing faster than the ability to provide food, shelter, health care,
education, and jobs.
If these countries cannot adequately meet the basic needs of their
own people now, surely they will be less able to do so in 25 years,
when their populations will have doubled. By then they will be much
worse off, even after the expenditure of billions of dollars in
economic assistance in the meantime by us and others.
This inevitable reality of population growth is so simple and so
inescapable that our failure to recognize it is striking. Yet we
mindlessly go about our business, throwing away billions of well-
intended foreign-aid dollars on aid that is not doing the supposed
beneficiaries any real or lasting good.
Hundreds of millions of people throughout the world would welcome
greater family planning assistance. Surveys indicate that half of the
married women in developing countries do not want any more children;
millions more would like to delay subsequent births.
Providing greater amounts of family planning aid would be, without
question, the most constructive, cost-effective and humanitarian
contribution we could make to help developing countries achieve
economic and political self-sufficiency, and to better the quality of
life of people around the world.
We would be sending a needed message to the entire world that all of
us--rich and poor nations alike--are careening toward immense and
irreversible human and environmental tragedy that can be averted only
if we immediately get serious about slowing our planet's burgeoning
population growth.
{time} 2100
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the
chairman of the subcommittee, for yielding me this time.
The gentleman from California has been a leader in the fight for a
sensible population policy at the State and national levels. But I
disagree with him as to methods in this case.
He correctly says that if we do not encourage population control,
other parts of foreign aid do not work well. But the reverse is also
true, and it may be the converse or the obverse, and I never know which
is which of those: the opposite, that is, for population control, for
birth control to work well, it cannot be done in isolation.
There is increasing evidence of what is commonsense true, one of the
best things you can do to help curtail population growth is to improve
the status of women in the society. Women who are kept literally
ignorant, women who are given no real job opportunities, women whose
lives are not going to mean very much because of a variety of economic
conditions and social mores are much less likely to be interested in
and cooperative with a family planning program. So it is certainly the
case we need to do family planning as this appropriation does, but it
is also the case that, and we are now beginning, through the efforts of
many Members, to get the multinational banks and others to pay more
attention to such important issues as improving the status of women.
If you do not put a great deal of attention on improvements in the
educational and occupational opportunities of women, if you do not
break through, in many societies, the kind of oppression that women are
faced with, then birth control efforts will not work very well. Because
physical availability alone and even information about how to use
techniques does not work until and unless there is some kind of broader
predisposition toward it, and that comes in part with an improvement in
their status.
It is also the case that there are other important programs. The
gentleman from California reminded me of the important work of the
refugee situation. Tragically the world today is faced with a grave
increase in refugees. Cutting anything out of the refugee account seems
to me to be an error.
So I agree that we should be focusing on population control, and I
think one of the advantages of the new administration is that it has
reversed some policies that interfered with that. I think the
subcommittee bill reflects that.
I think it would be a mistake to try and take it out of context, and
we are already grievously underfunding a whole range of accounts.
The tragedy here is there is too little money available here for all
of these programs. I do not think we can overcome that by beggaring
some of them to fund this account, and I think we will best achieve the
goal of a sensible population policy by doing these in a balanced way.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Beilenson].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 54,
noes 371, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 207]
AYES--54
Abercrombie
Allard
Beilenson
Boehlert
Bonior
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
DeFazio
Derrick
Edwards (CA)
English
Eshoo
Farr
Fawell
Filner
Gilchrest
Gordon
Hamburg
Hoagland
Inslee
Jacobs
Kopetski
Kreidler
Lambert
Leach
Lloyd
McDermott
McKinney
Meyers
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moran
Morella
Neal (NC)
Pastor
Payne (VA)
Price (NC)
Rostenkowski
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Sharp
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Strickland
Studds
Swift
Synar
Valentine
Velazquez
Waters
NOES--371
Ackerman
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
Bentley
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (FL)
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
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (TN)
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gallo
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Glickman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Huffington
Hughes
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
LaFalce
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lazio
Lehman
Levin
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCloskey
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Norton (DC)
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pickle
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Ravenel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Ridge
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sangmeister
Santorum
Sarpalius
Saxton
Schaefer
Schenk
Schiff
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Shepherd
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slattery
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Stump
Stupak
Sundquist
Swett
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Upton
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Watt
Waxman
Weldon
Wheat
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--13
Blackwell
Dingell
Faleomavaega (AS)
Fazio
Fish
Ford (MI)
Grandy
Horn
McDade
Murphy
Underwood (GU)
Washington
Whitten
{time} 2124
Mr. DOOLITTLE and Mr. TOWNS changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii and Mr. ABERCROMBIE 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. 8 printed
in House Report 103-530.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] rise?
amendment offered by mr. traficant
Mr. TRAFICANT. 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. Traficant: At the end of the bill,
insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the
following new section:
PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS
Sec. . (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the
Congress that, to the greatest extent practicable all
equipment and products purchased with funds made available in
this Act should be American-made.
(b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance
to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using
funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal
agency shall provide, to the greatest extent practicable, to
such entity a notice describing the statement made in
subsection (a) by the Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]
will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, American tax dollars go to foreign
countries. This amendment says, when they do not produce a product in
their own country, the Congress of the United States encourages them to
buy American made products by Americans who pay taxes who provide money
for this foreign aid.
Mr. Chairman, the modest measure would also give a notice to that
effect, and perhaps, maybe we might get a few American jobs out of the
bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of saving time I would simply
like to say we have no objection. I do have a short comment I want to
make on my time, but we have no objection on this side. We will accept
the amendment.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. LIVINGSTON Mr. Chairman, we have read the gentleman's amendment.
We think it is a good amendment, we support it and have no objection to
it.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, We can get out of
here very quickly. Before we rise, I simply want to thank the staff for
the work they have done on the bill: Terry Peel, the Staff Director;
Mark Murray, Bill Scheurch, Lori Maes, Pat Summers from AID; the
minority staff, Jim Kulikowski who represents the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade]; Trip Funderburk, the valuable staff
assistant for the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]; from the
administration, Bob Lester from AID, Carol Schwab from State, and most
especially Mike Marek who has served me on this bill for 17 years and
who will shortly be leaving for a different job. I am going to miss him
very much, I know the committee is going to miss him very much, and I
would have been remiss in my duty if I did not make full recognition of
the service he has done for the House over these past 17 years.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Obey] for yielding to me. I would just like to add my own mega-
dittos and say that the staff has been tremendously helpful to both
sides of the aisle. We could not have gotten through all of this bill
as quickly as we did today without their magnificent help, and I
appreciate their assistance.
{time} 2130
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
McNulty) 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,
pursuant to House Resolution 443, he reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Callahan
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Callahan moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 4426, to the
Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report back
the same to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
On page 32, line 1, strike ``$900,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$875,500,000''; and
On page 36, line 5, strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``115,000,000''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan],
will be recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey], will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan.]
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is to provide
an additional $15 million for the International Narcotics Program, and
to offset the addition by reducing the aid to the former Soviet Union,
Russia. This motion goes a little ways toward what the Gilman-Rangel-
Oxley amendment would have done, had it been made in order. It restores
$15 million of the administration's requested $52 million budget
increases.
Mr. Speaker, some would argue that the International Narcotics
Program is not as effective as it should be, but I would argue that
neither is the program aid for Russia.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that on this side we
have no objection. We accept the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was agreed to.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House, I
report the bill, H.R. 4426, back to the House with an amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment:
On page 32, line 1, strike ``$900,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$875,500,000''; and
On page 36, line 5, strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$115,000,000''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken my electronic device, and there were--ayes 337,
noes 87, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 208]
AYES--337
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus (AL)
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentley
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burton
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Castle
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Dornan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (TN)
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gallo
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Glickman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Grams
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hastert
Hastings
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Huffington
Hughes
Hunter
Hutto
Hyde
Inhofe
Inslee
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
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 (GA)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKinney
McMillan
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Michel
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pickle
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Ramstad
Rangel
Ravenel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Ridge
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sangmeister
Santorum
Sawyer
Saxton
Schenk
Schiff
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Shaw
Shays
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (NJ)
Snowe
Spratt
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Sundquist
Swett
Swift
Synar
Talent
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Unsoeld
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Walsh
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--87
Applegate
Archer
Armey
Baker (CA)
Barrett (NE)
Barton
Bonilla
Brooks
Bunning
Buyer
Callahan
Canady
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Crane
Crapo
DeFazio
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
Everett
Fields (TX)
Gallegly
Gekas
Goodling
Goss
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hutchinson
Inglis
Jacobs
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Lewis (FL)
Lloyd
McCandless
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Neal (NC)
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Petri
Pombo
Quillen
Rahall
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Sanders
Sarpalius
Schaefer
Schroeder
Sensenbrenner
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Spence
Stark
Stearns
Stump
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Traficant
Valentine
Volkmer
Walker
Weldon
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Blackwell
Fish
Ford (MI)
Grandy
Horn
McDade
Murphy
Washington
Whitten
{time} 2153
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________