[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 23, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5455-H5460]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1637
                AMERICAN OVERSEAS INTERESTS ACT OF 1995

  The committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback].
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  I just wanted to clarify one other point, if I could, of what is 
taking place here.
  There has been some discussion about Radio Free Asia, and I do not 
touch any of the funding for Radio Free Asia in the amendment that I am 
putting in front of this body.
  Furthermore, I just would point out that I think the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich] makes some good points about what has the foreign aid 
been used for, at different points in time. Is it really being used for 
foreign aid, or is it being used for some forms of corporate welfare, 
like Robert Riech, the Secretary of Labor, has talked about? I think 
there is a fair amount, and with the streamlining with this reasonable 
3-percent cut, we can hope to get back some of that.
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the gentleman from Kansas in order to bring this 
bill within the budgetary resolution so that we can move forward.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first begin my remarks by complimenting the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations for 
bringing to the floor of the House the first attempt to change the 
basic course of American foreign policy in several decades.
  H.R. 1561 does send a message that America will no longer tolerate 
nations who receive the helping hand of the United States at the same 
time they thumb their noses at our generosity by voting against us at 
the United Nations.
  That said, Mr. Chairman, the Committee on International Relations 
needs to do more. America's foreign policy structure needs to be 
overhauled immediately. The current system is a relic of the 1950's and 
1960's.
  The State Department is a labyrinth of competing and overlapping 
agencies, offices and bureaus whose redundancy and waste has hampered 
our national interest over the last 30 years. It is up to this Congress 
to abolish the residue of the cold war and
 bring the State Department in line with the diplomatic and security 
needs of the American people as we head into a new century.

  Mr. Chairman, the new Republican Congress was sent to Washington to 
get America's priorities straight. Last week we began the glide path 
toward a balanced budget. It is not an easy process.
  We will eliminate entire Cabinet departments, cut out the welfare 
programs of the 1960's, and end most Federal subsidies across the 
board.
  Each of us has heard from students, seniors, veterans, and farmers in 
our districts. Many of them are upset, and they are looking at this 
bill. They have every right to be. How can we go home and say we are 
cutting out Commerce, Energy, and Education and perhaps HUD, and 
reducing the size of every Federal department at the same time we leave 
the State Department virtually untouched? Despite what some in Foggy 
Bottom and the bureaucracy there will tell you, will, cuts that are 
proposed by the Brownback amendment are not Draconian cuts, and the 
cuts which I would suggest that we also put into the process are not 
Draconian cuts.
  According to the report the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich], delivered to the House last week, the State Department budget 
has grown from $1.7 billion in the mid-1980's to $2.6 billion this 
fiscal year 1995. The Budget Committee's review notes that the 
continued increase in State Department funding has come from the growth 
in salaries and expenses, areas that should be addressed.
  We need to wake up the State Department. We need to send the word 
that business as usual has ended.
  I am sure that some will say that any cuts in the State Department 
will hurt our fight against terrorism and out-of-control immigration. 
Such cuts will do no such thing. The way to combat terrorism and 
immigration abuses is not to spend more on bureaucrats and diplomatic 
staff, but it is to boost the morale of our foreign and domestic 
intelligence agencies, to increase the rapid response capability of our 
Armed Forces, and to lower the numbers of people who can come to this 
country at any one time.
  Mr. Chairman, the State Department employees over 33,000 people. We 
have over 300 embassies, consulates, consular agencies, and missions 
overseas.
  The committee bill folds the USIA, the ACDA, and AID into the State 
Department, and in that sense the bureaucracy will continue to grow. 
The cuts proposed by both the Committee on International Relations and 
the Clinton administration merely accept the status quo, albeit on a 
slightly smaller scale.
  As the American people said last year, the status quo is not good 
enough. America's foreign policy priorities need radical surgery. We 
can start the process by cutting the fat at Foggy Bottom.
  We need to tell the American people we are serious about cutting the 
budget and we are serious about streamlining and downsizing the bloated 
bureaucracy at the State Department.
                              {time}  1645


  amendment offered by mr. funderburk to the amendment offered by mr. 
                               brownback

  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Funderburk to the amendment 
     offered by Mr. Brownback: In the matter amending section 
     2101(a)(2) of the bill (relating to authorizations of 
     appropriations for salaries and expenses of the Department of 
     State) strike ``$355,287,000 for the fiscal year 1996'' and 
     insert ``$337,522,265 for the fiscal year 1996 and

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Funderburk] is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reduces the bill's 
authorization level for State Department salaries and expenses for 5 
percent for the fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. Chairman, I feel that since we are asking the American people to 
cut the rate of growth and to cut in actual expenditures across the 
board, that the Gilman and the Brownback bills and amendments have cut 
USIA, ACDA, and AID drastically but have only asked for a very minimal 
cut of 1 or 2 percent in the State Department. The State Department 
should not be sacrosanct, and I feel, having worked in the State 
Department as a U.S. Ambassador overseas for 4 years, that there is a 
lot of waste and that we have too much money being spent in that area, 
in the modern age of high technology and instant communications, and 
what we have had and what we have seen there in the last few years is 
that, while other Government agencies and programs are being cut back 
or using a reasonable measure of trying to cut wasteful expenditures, 
we have actually had an increase in the building of consulates in 
countries where we really have no major problems and an increase in the 
building of embassies, and the salaries have been increasing at too 
high a level.
  Now most of the people in this country are being asked to tighten 
their [[Page H5456]] belts, those of us in Congress are going to either 
freeze or reduce our own salaries, and I think the very least we can do 
is ask for an additional 5-percent cut in State Department salaries and 
operating expenses, and that is why I propose this amendment to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback].
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I would like to ask the gentleman on my time a question, if I might, 
the gentleman from North Carolina. Might I ask?
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Yes, please.
  Mr. BERMAN. Go through this one more time with me:
  The Brownback amendment, which cuts--the bill, as we know, cuts 
essentially the Foreign Affairs Committee or the Committee on 
International Relations' share of $2 billion from existing levels. The 
Brownback amendment cuts an additional $450 to $480 million from 1997 
levels. The gentleman's amendment would cut first how much more in each 
fiscal year, 1996 and 1997?
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Well, only in the year 1996 we are asking for a 5-
percent cut which would be 17.7 additional--$17.7 million. Now the 
Brownback amendment cuts across the board. This one is only in State 
Department salaries and operating expenses.
  Mr. BERMAN. So, on top of--on top of what the committee cut the 
gentleman is cutting an additional 5 percent in operating expenses for 
State Department operations.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. And salaries; that is correct.
  Mr. BERMAN. One other question.
  I am confused by the gentleman's comment that AID and ACDA and USIA 
have taken their share of cuts, but the State Department has not. I 
thought this bill said there is no more ACDA, USIA, and AID. They are 
all going to be lumped into the State Department. The authorization is 
going to be for a new expanded, consolidated State Department, and 
these cuts are all going to impact on what will become the new State 
Department. So I am not clear what the gentleman means by 
disproportionate cuts in agencies that will no longer exist if this 
bill passes.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. They are not immediately done away with, and 
obviously we have, for example, a 26-percent cut in the actual funding, 
the actual expenditure, for USIA. That is my understanding.
  To give the gentleman an example----
  Mr. BERMAN. Reclaiming my time, I just say very quickly it is 
probably not going to have much meaning in all this thing. I had the 
privilege of chairing the subcommittee that authorized State Department 
functions for 4 years, the last 2 years of the Bush administration and 
the first 2 years of Clinton. We made cuts in operating expenses in the 
State over and over again. As I indicated earlier, the 150 functions 
had the most dramatic cuts of any----
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. The gentleman is talking about cuts in the rate of 
projected growth spending probably as opposed to real cuts----
  Mr. BERMAN. That is true, and we gave salary across-the-board pay 
increases. We did not select out State Department and say, ``You won't 
get the salaries.''
  So the cuts were felt in those departments, and this just adds to 
what I think is the dramatic slashes of the bill as compounded by the 
even more dramatic slashes of the Brownback amendment.
  Now on top of that we have----
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. I think most Americans would find this a very minimal 
cut and very reasonable cut.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Funderburk second amendment 
basically and point out that what this does is the proposal that I am 
putting forward in fiscal year 1997, it would do it in fiscal year 1996 
and making those reductions in fiscal year 1996.
  The other things that I would like to point out were that the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Funderburk] can also properly be 
responded to and called Ambassador Funderburk. He was Ambassador to 
Romania. I do not know how many other people we have in this body that 
have been Ambassador, and have worked inside the State Department and 
been able to see the sorts of things that he has and the operations 
within the State Department. He comes with great credentials in that 
particular area and one that can say: ``Look, folks, this is something 
that we can get done. This is something we are pushing to do in FY 97. 
I think it's reasonable to be able to do it in FY 96.''
  Now, as far as these are totally irresponsible, it is the sort of 
things we cannot do, we cannot make these sorts of things happen, I 
would point out again that this is we are talking about a 5-percent cut 
at a time when we are nearly $5 trillion in the hole. We have got to 
make these sorts of decisions, these sorts of reductions, if we are 
ever going to get to a balanced budget by 2002, and, if this is not 
reasonable, I am not sure what is, nor in what other functions we might 
look, that we would ask our own people at home to be making these sorts 
of reductions in the foreign affairs area.
  So, with those points, Mr. Chairman, I would rise in support of this 
secondary amendment.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we are all familiar with the human emotion that some 
people have that when someone is down, they come and kick them again, 
kick them again. It is called bullying in most circles, and it has been 
going on toward Federal employees for the last several months. Here we 
have an example at the State Department, people who work very hard, 
people who have to have specialized training, go to the Foreign Service 
school, have devoted their careers to peace and diplomacy, and now we 
have a bill that substantially cuts personnel, and their compensation, 
and their ability to operate. We have another amendment on the floor 
just to show the American people we are going to kick them again for 
good measure, and now we have a secondary amendment that says, ``Let's 
kick them a third time.''
  Mr. Chairman, it is not based upon any kind of analysis of how the 
State Department might better operate, how we might better ensure the 
spread of democratic values, the preservation of human rights, the 
development of free-enterprise markets for our businesses in the United 
States. Those are all the objectives of State Department personnel. 
They are really the principles upon which this country was founded. The 
people in the State Department believe very strongly in those 
principles.
  Why are we doing this? It is not based upon any kind of organization 
analysis. We are doing it to punish people in the State Department 
because they fit into the larger context. They are part of the Federal 
bureaucracy.
  We did a little analysis and found that the Federal bureaucracy has 
been used in derogatory terms 388 times since January. That cannot be 
any accident, and it is no accident that at every opportunity some 
people are going to try to gain political benefit among their 
constituencies by kicking Federal employees when they are already down, 
and that is what this amendment is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, it is disappointing. I know that it is what a lot of 
people out there would like. But it is going to hurt us.
  As my colleagues know, there is a book that has been written by 
Secretary McNamara, and there have been any number of books written 
about the tragedy of Vietnam. As my colleagues know, when the decisions
 were being made to get into Vietnam, the person who had been the desk 
officer who knew the most about Vietnam was selling refrigerators and 
air conditioners in New York City because he had been a victim of the 
McCarthy purge. The State Department has been kicked as a scapegoat in 
previous years, particularly during the 1950's, and it cost us. To some 
extent it cost us 58,000 lives in Vietnam. It is going to cost us in 
terms of democratic values.

  We are trying to spread throughout the world in terms of development 
of free-enterprise markets. We are trying to create in terms of 
protecting the human rights of people who live in oppressed societies 
throughout the world. [[Page H5457]] Those are the people who will pay 
for this kind of piling-on, bullying tactic against Federal employees 
who work within the State Department.
  There is no loss; in fact, there is a lot of political gain, for 
people who offer these kinds of amendments, but they are not 
constructive amendments. They are destructive amendments, and I would 
urge my colleagues to vote against this particularly destructive 
amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to speak out very vociferously against these 
amendments, which I think are ill-timed and, frankly, poorly thought 
out. The bill in my opinion devastates American programs abroad. The 
United States is not only the leader of the free world, but the leader 
of the world, and what are we doing in this bill? We are stepping back 
and taking back our leadership, and we are saying to other countries, 
``We really don't care what goes on.''
  Mr. Chairman, these amendments would make the bill even worse by 
further cutting back. I know it may be good politics to say to the 
folks back home, ``Gee, I'm cutting back on this unpopular foreign aid 
program.'' But in reality I think it does our Government a great 
disservice and it does our country a great disservice.
  Foreign policy for years has always been bipartisan. That has been 
the strength, in my opinion, of American foreign policy. During the 
Persian Gulf war I was one of a handful of Democrats to break with my 
party and supported President Bush in sending troops to the Persian 
Gulf. I did so not because the President was a Republican and I was a 
Democrat. I did so because he was the President and I felt that what he 
was saying was right. It was being conducted in the best way in terms 
of bipartisan foreign policy. In my opinion this bill is not and these 
amendments are not even more so.
  We traveled, some of us, to foreign countries, or we meet some 
people, foreign dignitaries, here in Washington. Last November a group 
of us on the Subcommittee on Africa visited West Africa, met with 
officials, leaders, of five countries. They pleaded with us for 
American assistance and helping democracy take root, and we are not 
talking about large sums of money here. A little bit of money goes such 
a long way.

                              {time}  1700

  We defeated the Soviet Union in the cold war, and now are we going to 
throw it all away? Are we going to say that we do not care if these 
countries all across the Earth have democratic values or democracy in 
governments or parliamentary governments? Are we now going to say we do 
not care? That is the effect of the cuts in this bill.
  I just think it is a terrible, terrible thing to want to get up and 
say well, let us cut it all back, let us not even have any more. It may 
play great again to the folks back home, but in reality I believe it is 
one of the most destructive things that we in Congress could do.
  Let us look at the effect of this. The effect of this proposal, 
cutting $227 in fiscal year 1996 and $625 million in fiscal year 1997 
from the President's request, on top of the committee cut of $38 
million, will absolutely devastate the Department's ability to carry 
out U.S. foreign policy. Four years of steep cost cutting has left the 
State Department where nearly all the funding is spent just to support 
basic operations. An additional reduction in 1996 alone would shut down 
160 overseas posts and radically reduce presence at those
 remaining U.S. missions. It would close half of the domestic passport 
agencies. It would eliminate 5,700 positions, including 3,500 
Americans. It would stop plant infrastructure investments that are 
essential to restructuring and streamlining both overseas and 
headquarters operations.

  Are we to strip ourselves so bare that we can no longer effectively 
carry on foreign policy? Are we going to strip ourselves so bare we are 
now going to say America does not care what goes on in the rest of the 
world? Surely what happens in this ever-shrinking globe will affect us 
here back home.
  So I would urge defeat of these amendments. I think they are very, 
very shortsighted, and very, very destructive.
  I also do not think it is right to keep beating up on Federal 
workers, frankly, as the majority here, the Republicans, have been 
doing all session long. People are working hard at their jobs. They 
earn their money. They work hard. They took employment with the Federal 
Government knowing what the benefits were. For us now to simply cut 
them I think is absolutely ridiculous, unfair, demoralizing, and not 
something that ought to be done.
  Again, foreign policy ought to be bipartisan. People who say that 
America is the strength of the world ought to put their money where 
their mouth is or else there is no way we can conduct foreign policy.
  Foreign aid is 1 percent of the budget of the United States; 1 
percent. It is the lowest in terms of gross domestic product of any 
democracy in the West. We are something like 25th. We are behind a 
country like Ireland and all the Western democracies in terms of what 
we contribute in gross domestic product for foreign aid. This is 
shameful for us to think that we can cut it even further. I urge my 
colleagues to defeat these amendments. They are terrible for America 
and ill-thought.


modification offered by mr. funderburk to the amendment offered by mr. 
          funderburk to the amendment offered by mr. brownback

  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Chairman, I offer a modification to my amendment 
to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback], 
and I ask unanimous consent that the modification be accepted.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification offered by Mr. Funderburk to the amendment 
     offered by Mr. Funderburk to the amendment offered by Mr. 
     Brownback: Strike ``for the fiscal year 1996'' both places it 
     appears.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would do 
so pending an explanation by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Funderburk].
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Chairman, it was shown to me there was a 
typographical mistake, and the wrong year was entered into the 
amendment sent to the desk.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, to make a change in a year is not 
necessarily correcting a typographical mistake.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. That had to fit the figures that we had. I just did 
not change the year.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Once again, we hear these prophets of doom because we are making a 
draconian cut in a department, the State Department. This is a 5 
percent cut, \1/20\th of their budget. We cut the congressional staffs 
here by a third, 33 percent.
  For people to tell the American taxpayers that we cannot cut this 
agency by 5 percent I think is giving them the wrong information. There 
is not any Government agency in the United States that cannot be cut at 
least 5 percent, including the State Department. When you are talking 
about making hard choices to get to a balanced budget, it seems to me 
that the State Department can take their share of the burden as well as 
any agency in the government. A 5-percent cut is certainly not 
draconian.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to introduce this amendment to 
get the attention of the State Department, for one thing. There are a 
lot of very good people who work at the State Department. But at the 
same time, I think we need an America desk at the State Department. 
Maybe we can talk about that at some later point.
  But we have asked a lot of people in this country to make some 
sacrifices, and the State Department was really making very few 
compared to other agencies under the foreign aid bill and 
[[Page H5458]] the Overseas Interests Act. So I think this is a very 
minimal cut, and this is not a severe or draconian cut. I think the 
American people have sent us here after November 8th to actually do 
this.
  So we are trying to put some reason into bloated government, waste in 
government, and the just never ending process of growth. We are living 
in a high tech age, and communications can zip around the world 
instantly. Of course we all know that we need a Foreign Service and we 
need a State Department. You need the personal contact. But I think in 
terms of the growth of consulates and embassies and salaries and 
operating expenses, it has gotten out of hand and we need to rein it 
back in.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just 
end by saying we are concerned about Federal employees. We have some 
great people working for the Federal Government. But we have great 
people working in the private sector, too. When General Motors and 
Chrysler and other major companies across this country start feeling 
the financial pinch, they have to downsize and economize in order to 
keep their companies afloat.
  The difference is the Federal Government does not have to answer to 
anybody because we can deficit spend. As we deficit spend, we create a 
terrible problem for the future generations of this country. So just 
like the private sector, Government has to downsize. For the State 
Department to cut 5 percent is not too much to ask.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will make this very brief. I rise in support of the 
Funderburk amendment. Let me just note that this is not, with all due 
respect to my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Moran, who characterized 
this as kicking Federal employees while they are down, this is not 
kicking Federal employees while they are down.
  The people that work at the State Department have our deepest respect 
and they have a very difficult job. To characterize it as kicking 
Federal employees while they are down is wrong, just as if I would say 
well, the Democrats have been kicking the American taxpayers around all 
of these years and the taxpayers are down, yet you are kicking them 
while we are trying to help them up. That is not really an appropriate 
analysis, just as I do not think the proper analysis is kicking Federal 
employees while they are down.
  We are trying, as we have said over and over again, to make do with a 
bad situation. We are headed toward economic oblivion with this budget 
that is totally not only out of balance, but is leading us to an 
economic catastrophe unless we do something. So we are trying to be 
effective, make things more effective, to downsize the government that 
exists.
  The Funderburk amendment is a fine amendment. All it does is say we 
are going to kick in this 5-percent reduction in the State Department a 
year earlier than what we had in and what was presented to us in the 
budget before.
  Now, we are in the post-cold-war world. Can we absorb a 5-percent 
decrease in the State Department budget a year earlier? But of course 
we can. The fact is that since the cold war is over, perhaps we do not 
need the same presence that we had and that we needed 10 years ago and 
20 years ago.
  Furthermore, technology, the communications technology that has just 
exploded in the last 10 years, perhaps makes it less important that we 
have the same number of people stationed overseas and working for the 
State Department that we had 10 years ago.
  In fact, the author of this amendment, Mr. Funderburk, was an 
American ambassador for 4 years. He understands the necessities of what 
is needed overseas. Now with increased technological capabilities, the 
end of the cold war, Mr. Funderburk
 was in Romania, I believe, perhaps we do not need that same type of 
staff in Romania that we needed before. He understands that.

  Furthermore, the most important thing we are talking about, instead 
of saying we are attacking Federal employees, what we are really trying 
to do here is say that we need productivity increases in the Federal 
Government, just like we have had in the private sector. During the 
1980's what happened was the private sector learned, our private 
businesses learned, if they were going to compete and could do a good 
job, they were going to have to become more productive. They actually 
downsized their work force and, lo and behold, some of our companies 
found that by downsizing and not spending so much on upper echelon 
management and employees at higher levels, what happened was they 
actually increased productivity and their companies are operating more 
efficiently.
  Well, Government can do that. We should expect the same thing from 
Government that we had in the private sector. Furthermore, we have also 
asked other areas in the Federal Government, and we are asking that in 
our budget, to decrease in the amount of money they spend. It is not, 
it is not then some sort of an assault on people working for the State 
Department to suggest that they have to be part of this downsizing of 
Government, increase in productivity as well. That is what this is all 
about.
  I applaud the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Funderburk] and I 
know that every time that we try to have a responsible and minor 
reduction, that we are going to be attacked as if it is some sort of a 
malicious intent involved. But I applaud the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Funderburk] and I applaud the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Gilman] for the great leadership that they have really shown at a 
time when we have to decrease the size of the budget. It is a very 
difficult thing to do and maintain the civility and mutual respect we 
should have here.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware, with all this talk 
of downsizing, that we hear about the downsizing efforts that worked, 
but the majority of corporations who have downsized in fact have 
failed? Their product, the quality of their product, has been reduced 
as well as their profits? I just mention that. The downsizing by itself 
is not necessarily the ultimate objective.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am not sure 
about the gentleman's figures. It could be true. All I know is spending 
money for management is not the best thing at certain times. We here 
have cut our budgets for our committee staffs by one-third, and I would 
be willing to bet that in the end our Congress is going to be more 
effective because of that, and we have the same right to expect that 
same type of increase in productivity from the other Federal Government 
agencies and departments.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me speak very briefly to my colleague from 
California on the remarks that he made. There are human faces on these 
people that are working for the State Department, and there is a 
critical need in order that we maintain a continuum throughout the 
world in the various diplomatic and consulate missions that are 
ongoing. Therefore, the downsizing in my opinion should not be 
analogized to private downsizing.
  I am not so certain, based on the lack of service that I receive in 
the various institutions that I do business with, that downsizing is 
good. In that sense, and to answer my colleague, the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton], who spoke earlier about us cutting one-third of 
the staff here, I think that that was a mistake, too, because it has 
not produced any greater efficiency. It has produced greater stresses 
and greater problems overall in terms of the overall product.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my very good friend from Florida.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment was proposed without having done the 
analysis necessary to determine the ramifications of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would shut down 160 overseas posts and 
radically reduce the presence at the remaining missions overseas. It 
would close half of the 14 domestic passport [[Page H5459]] agencies. 
It would eliminate 5,700 positions, including 3,500 Americans and 2,200 
Foreign Service nationals, and it would stop the investments that have 
been made to restructure and streamline both the overseas and the 
headquarters operations.
                              {time}  1715

  The State Department tells us that this funding level, which is $227 
million below the President's request, which was already a cut, and it 
is $625 million below the President's request for fiscal year 1997, 
would completely undermine the Department of State's ability to field a 
comprehensive overseas diplomatic platform for other Government 
agencies.
  And anyone that has been overseas knows how many other Government 
agencies are dependent upon State Department funding and could only be 
viewed by our allies as well as our adversaries as signalling a 
dramatic retreat by the world's last remaining superpower.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the direction that we have been going for the 
last few months, and I know that many times we do not let the facts 
stand in our way. But these are facts that we need to be aware of 
before we take such destructive action as is envisioned by this 
amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the maker 
of the amendment, as he has proposed it, has any analysis been done 
with reference to cutting the Fulbright scholarships and cutting funds 
for arms control verification? I just would be interested to know if 
the offeror of this amendment has any analysis on the Fulbright 
scholarships?
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman mean how this 
amendment would affect the Fulbright scholarships?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I know that it would cut $20 
million. But what about the good that the Fulbright scholarships have 
done? What about the good that arms verification has done? Is the 
gentleman saying that there is no good that has been done in these 
matters?
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, my amendment does not address that question.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. The gentleman cuts the money?
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Chairman, no. We are cutting salaries and 
operating expenses for the State Department.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. But the underlying amendment addresses the 
subject.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. The gentleman is referring to the Brownback 
amendment, yes, sir.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, if I could address the gentleman, the sponsor of this 
most recent amendment and assure him that I share his intent to 
downsize the overall scale of the foreign aid effort. But I would also 
like to point out to the gentleman that when we consider the Brownback 
amendment, which already brings us down to the budget levels, if we act 
in haste, we may be stepping beyond our ability to downsize our efforts 
in an organized fashion.
  I would like to take a look at what the gentleman has proposed. I 
would like to examine it within the 1996 appropriations process as well 
as the 1997 appropriations process. I would like to work with the 
gentleman, if I could, towards effecting the changes that he might like 
to see accomplished. If we could do that, I would ask that the 
gentleman consider withdrawing his amendment at this time and work with 
me on the appropriations process and that ultimately we may be able to 
effect the changes that he seeks here today.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Chairman, after consultation with the 
appropriations chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], 
I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The amendment, as modified, to the amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I now address myself to the amendment of the gentleman from Kansas 
[Mr. Brownback], and I will be very brief.
  I would like to point out some rhetoric that preceded the voice of 
sanity of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] that came forth 
just then. The gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], and the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Funderburk], were both in the Reagan 
administration. During those 8 years, I do not recall at any time that 
the request made by the Reagan administration for the State Department 
was reduced below what their requests were.
  As the saying goes, foreign policy stops at the shores of the United 
States. I think that is being violated in its worst here.
  The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] gets up and says, can the 
State Department take a 5-percent cut. And the rhetoric says, of 
course, it can. Why cannot the Defense Department take a 5-percent cut? 
Why cannot all the road projects that still remain in the budget take a 
5-percent cut?
  Do a little mathematics. Five percent of $250 billion is $12.5 
billion. A 5-percent cut of the Defense Department would just about 
underwrite all the State Department's requirements. So I just say that 
there is a time in which we cannot continue to cut foreign policy here 
and remind my colleagues on the other side, Mr. Chairman, that there 
are four Senators down the hall that are running for President of the 
United States, all of whom think that they are going to be the next 
President. What you are doing to them, if for some strange reason, an 
aberration of the American public, they should win, any one of them 
would have to come back to this body and ask for supplemental 
appropriations in order to conduct foreign policy. You do not mind 
inflicting that upon a Democratic administration, but I ask you, in all 
good conscience, if you had, if President Bush had won reelection, 
whether you would be doing this to his administration? I seriously 
doubt it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 276, 
noes 134, not voting 24, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 348]

                               AYES--276

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo [[Page H5460]] 
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--134

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Davis
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     LaFalce
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Andrews
     Becerra
     Calvert
     Clay
     Coburn
     Cubin
     de la Garza
     Dooley
     Fazio
     Hansen
     Hoke
     Horn
     Jefferson
     Kleczka
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Meyers
     Owens
     Peterson (FL)
     Reynolds
     Rogers
     Saxton
     Torkildsen
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1742

  Messrs. KLINK, POMEROY, RAHALL, SPRATT, and GORDON changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
               amendment offered by mr. burton of indiana

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 10.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana: In paragraph 
     (3) of section 3417(d) (relating to prohibition on assistance 
     to countries that consistently oppose the United States 
     position in the United Nations General Assembly), insert 
     after the matter preceding subparagraph (A) the following new 
     subparagraph (and redesignate subsequent subparagraphs 
     accordingly):
       (A) chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (relating to development assistance),

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.


       modification to amendment offered by mr. burton of indiana

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
modify the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment, as modified.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana: 
     In lieu of the matter proposed in the amendment, insert the 
     following: In paragraph (3) of section 3417(d) (relating to 
     prohibition on assistance to countries that consistently 
     opposed the United States position in the United Nations 
     General Assembly), insert after the matter after subparagraph 
     (C) the following new subparagraph:
       (D) chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (relating to development assistance), except that such 
     term shall not include assistance under chapter 1 of part I 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 in the case of 
     countries that voted in the United Nations General Assembly 
     on less than 50 percent of the recorded plenary votes.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we have 
had a chance to look at the perfecting language, and we have no 
objection, so I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment will be considered 
modified.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment just brings into 
accord with the rest of the bill the requirement that countries getting 
developmental assistance from the United States should vote with the 
United States in the United Nations at least 25 percent of the time. We 
think it is a good amendment, it is consistent with the bill, and we 
urge everyone to vote for it.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, we have had a chance to take a look at 
the bill, and have had discussions with the gentleman from Indiana. We 
think he is on the right track, and we have no objections to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered 
by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Herger) having assumed the chair, Mr. Goodlatte, 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. 1561) to 
consolidate the foreign affairs agencies of the United States; to 
authorize appropriations for the Department of State and related 
agencies for fiscal years 1996 and 1997; to responsibly reduce the 
authorizations of appropriations for United States foreign assistance 
programs for fiscal years 1996 and 1997, and for other purposes, had 
come to no resolution thereon.


                          ____________________