[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.

                          ____________________