[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5710-H5734]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMERICAN OVERSEAS INTERESTS ACT OF 1995
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolutions 155 and 156
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. 1561.
{time} 1238
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. 1561), to consolidate the foreign affairs agencies of
the United States; to authorize appropriations for the Department of
State and related agencies for fiscal year 1996 and 1997; to
responsibly reduce the authorizations of appropriations for United
States foreign assistance programs for fiscal year 1996 and 1997, and
for other purposes, with Mr. Goodlatte in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, June
7, 1995, amendment No. 23 offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Ackerman] had been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment at
any point.
Pursuant to House Resolutions 155 and 156, 1 hour and 45 minutes
remain for consideration of amendments under the 5-minute rule.
Are there further amendments to the bill?
amendment offered by mr. gilman
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer an amendment
that has not been printed in the Record. I have consulted through staff
and the ranking minority member with regard to this amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman: In section 2644 (relating
to further steps to promote United States security and
political interests with respect to North Korea) by striking
paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
(1) action by the Government of North Korea to engage in a
North-South dialogue with the Government of the Republic of
Korea to facilitate progress toward:
(A) holding a North Korea-South Korea Summit;
(B) resuming North-South joint military discussions
regarding steps to reduce tensions between North and South
Korea;
(C) expanding trade relations between North and South
Korea;
(D) promoting freedom of travel between North and South
Korea by citizens of both North and South Korea;
(E) cooperating in science and technology, education, the
arts, health, sports, the environment, publishing,
journalism, and other fields of mutual interest;
(F) establishing postal and telecommunications services
between North and South Korea; and
(G) reconnecting railroads and roadways between North and
South Korea;
At the end of division A insert the following new title:
TITLE VI--REORGANIZATION OF UNITED STATES EXPORT PROMOTION AND TRADE
ACTIVITIES
SEC. 601. PLAN FOR REORGANIZATION OF UNITED STATES EXPORT
PROMOTION AND TRADE ACTIVITIES.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Supporting American businesses overseas and assisting
United States exporters to identify market opportunities is
of increasing importance to America's economic health and
competitiveness, and to the well-being of American workers.
(2) At least 18 different government-sponsored
organizations or agencies spending over $3,300,000,000 exist
to provide support to American exporters and international
businesses. In the past, poor coordination among these
organizations and a lack of accessibility often hindered the
effectiveness of the Government's trade promotion activities.
(3) Recent efforts to improve coordination between many of
these organizations and to increase their availability to
exporters around the country were begun through the Trade
Promotion Coordination Council. These efforts appear to have
generated some improvement in the Government's trade
promotion capabilities.
(4) Broader governmentwide reform efforts and future
funding questions currently being addressed in Congress may
affect different trade promotion organizations to varying
degrees.
(b) Report Required.--In order to fully assess the
organizational structure, capability, and spending levels of
United States Government trade promotion organizations, the
Trade Promotion Coordination Council, not later than March 1,
1996, shall submit to the Committee on International
Relations of the House of Representatives, the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate, and to other appropriate
committees of jurisdiction, a report detailing what steps are
being taken to improve accessibility and coordination among
all trade promotion organizations and agencies, what
additional measures should be taken to further improve the
efficiency of and reduce duplication among these
organizations and
agencies, and any suggested legislative actions that would
further improve the Government's export and trade
promotion activities.
(c) Content of Report.--The report required by subsection
(b) shall--
(1) identify the name, number, function, and budget of all
Government organizations or agencies with some responsibility
for supporting, advancing, or promoting international trade
or United States exports;
(2) assess the amount of exports directly generated by the
activities of each organization or agency;
(3) describe the overall impact of the Government's trade
and export promotion programs on increasing exports and
overseas market share;
(4) identify areas where increased cooperation and
interoperability would improve United States export promotion
efforts;
(5) identify areas where greater efficiencies can be
achieved through the elimination of duplication among the
organizations and agencies included in paragraph (1);
(6) identify ways to improve the audit and accountability
mechanisms for each organization or agency, with particular
emphasis on ensuring independent oversight capabilities for
each organization;
(7) assess the trade and export promotion activities of the
major trade partners and competitors of the United States,
including amounts of tied aid and export subsidization
provided by the governments of those trade partners and
competitors; and
(8) provide a plan to reorganize the United States trade
and export promotion organizations and agencies, with
legislative requirements if necessary, in order to more
efficiently promote trade, increase organizational
assessability, organize bureaucratic effort, and expend
public resources in support of American exporters and
international business.
In title XXV (relating to international organizations and
commissions) insert the following new section at the end of
chapter 1:
SEC. 2502. REPEAL OF AUTHORITY FOR PARTICIPATION BY THE
UNITED STATES IN THE INTERPARLIAMENTARY UNION.
The Act entitled ``An Act to authorize participation by the
United States in the Interparliamentary Union'', approved
June 28, 1935 (22 U.S.C. 276-276a-4) is repealed.
Strike section 3412 of the bill (relating to prohibition on
assistance to foreign governments engaged in espionage
against the United States).
Page 289, add the following after line 26 and redesignate
the succeeding chapter accordingly:
CHAPTER 8--OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION
SEC. 3275. STUDY ON OPIC PRIVATIZATION.
The President or his designee shall conduct and, not later
than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
report to the Congress on the feasibility of transferring the
activities of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to
the private sector.
SEC. 3276. PRIVATIZATION OF OPIC ACTIVITIES.
Upon completion of the report required under section 3275,
the President is authorized to sell the stock of the Overseas
Private Investment Corporation and to take other necessary
steps so that all the evidences of ownership of the
Corporation are transferred to the private sector, whether
through the sale of the Corporation's contracts, leases, or
other agreements or rights, or otherwise.
In section 2201, add the following at the end:
(c) Use of Earnings From Frozen Assets For Program.--
(1) Amounts to be made available.--Up to 2 percent of the
earnings accruing, during periods beginning October 1, 1995,
on all assets of foreign countries blocked by the President
pursuant to the International Emergency Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1701 and following) shall be available, subject to
appropriations Acts, to carry out section 36 of the State
Department Basic Authorities Act, as amended by this section,
exception that the limitation contained in subsection (d)(2)
of such [[Page H5711]] section shall not apply to amounts
made available under this paragraph.
(2) Control of funds by the President.--The President is
authorized and directed to take possession and exercise full
control of so much to the earnings described in paragraph (1)
as are made available under such paragraph.
At the end of chapter 3 of title XXII (relating to refugees
and migration) insert the following new sections:
SEC. 2256. VIETNAM POW/MIA ASYLUM PROGRAM.
(a) Asylum for Eligible Aliens.--The Attorney General shall
grant asylum in the United States to any alien described in
subsection (b), upon the application of that alien.
(b) Eligibility.--Asylum shall be granted under subsection
(a) to any alien (1) who is a national of Laos, Vietnam,
Cambodia, or Burma, and (2) who, while acting other than in
an official or unofficial capacity on behalf of any
government or agency, personally delivers into the custody of
the United States Government a living Vietnam POW/MIA (or
participates in such a delivery).
(c) Vietnam POW/MIA Defined.--
(1) For purposes of this section, the term ``Vietnam POW/
MIA'' means an individual--
(A) who is a member of a uniformed service (within the
meaning of section 101(3) of title 37, United States Code) in
a missing status (as defined in section 551(2) of such title)
as a result of the Vietnam conflict, unless it is official
determined under section 552(c) of such title that such
individual is officially absent from such individual's post
of duty without authority; or
(B) who is an employee (as defined in section 5561(2) of
title 5, United Stats Code) in a missing status (as defined
in section 5561(5) of such title) as a result of the Vietnam
conflict.
Such term does not include an individual who the Secretary of
Defense determines remained in Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia
voluntarily.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1)--
(A) the Vietnam conflict began on February 28, 1961, and
ended on May 7, 1975; and
(B) an individual in a missing status shall be considered
to be in a missing status as a result of the Vietnam conflict
if immediately before that status began the individual--
(i) was performing service in Vietnam; or
(ii) was performing service in Southeast Asia in direct
support of military operations in Vietnam.
SEC. 2257. KOREA POW/MIA ASYLUM PROGRAM.
(a) Asylum for Eligible Aliens.--The Attorney shall grant
asylum in the United States to any alien described in
subsection (b), upon the application of that alien.
(b) Eligibility.--Asylum shall be granted under subsection
(a) to any alien (1) who is a national of North Korea, South
Korea, or China and (2) who, while acting other than in an
official or unofficial capacity on behalf of any government
or agency, personally delivers into the custody of the United
States Government a living Korea POW/MIA (or participates in
such a delivery).
(c) Korea POW/MIA Defined.--
(1) For purposes of this section, the term ``Korea POW/
MIA'' means an individual--
(A) Who is a member of a uniformed service (within the
meaning of section 101(3) of title 37, United States Code) in
a missing status (as defined in section 551(2) of such title)
as a result of the Korean conflict, unless it is officially
determined under section 552(c) of such title that such
individual is officially absent from such individual's post
of duty without authority; or
(B) who is an employee (as defined in section 5561(2) of
title 5, United States Code) in a missing status (as defined
in section 5561(5) of such title) as a result of the Korean
conflict.
Such term does not include an individual who the Secretary
of Defense determines remained in North Korea, South Korea,
or China voluntarily.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1)--
(A) the Korean conflict began on June 27, 1950, and ended
on January 31, 1955; and
(B) an individual in a missing status shall be considered
to be in a missing status as a result of the Korean conflict
if immediately before that status began the individual--
(i) was performing service in the Korean peninsula; or
(ii) was performing service in Asia in direct support of
military operations in the Korean peninsula.
Strike subsection (a) of section 3421 (relating to the
repeal of section 537(h)(2) of the Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1988).
In subsection (c) of section 3421 (relating to the repeal
of the Special Foreign Assistance Act of 1986), strike
``section 1 and section 204'' and insert ``section 1, section
204, and title III of such Act''.
In section 3401 of the bill (in paragraph (1) of section
610(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as proposed to
be amended by such section 3401), insert ``or the Arms Export
Control Act'' after ``of this Act''.
Strike section 3402 of the bill and insert the following:
SEC. 3402. AUTHORITY TO MEET UNANTICIPATED CONTINGENCIES.
Paragraph (1) of section 451(a) of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2261(a)(1)) is amended by striking
``$25,000,000'' and inserting ``$50,000,000''.
Strike section 3403 of the bill and insert the following:
SEC. 3403. SPECIAL WAIVER AUTHORITY.
(a) Laws Affected.--Section 614 of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 is amended by striking subsections (a)(1) and
(a)(2) and inserting the following:
``(a) Authority To Authorize Assistance, Sales, and Other
Actions; Limitations.--(1) The President may authorize
assistance, sales, or other action under this Act, the Arms
Export Control Act, or any annual (or periodic) foreign
assistance authorization or appropriations legislation,
without regard to any of the provisions described in
subsection (b), if the President determines, and notifies in
writing the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate--
``(A) with respect to assistance or other actions under
chapter 2 or 5 of part II of this Act, or sales or other
actions under the Arms Export Control Act, that to do so is
vital to the national security interests of the United
States; and
``(B) with respect to other assistance or actions that to
do so is important to the national interests of the United
States.
``(2) The President may waive any provision described in
paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (b) that would
otherwise prohibit or restrict assistance or other action
under any provision of law not described in those paragraphs
if the President determines, and notifies in writing the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the chairman of
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, that to do
so is important to the national interests of the United
States.''.
(b) Annual Ceiling.--Section 614(a)(4)(C) of that Act is
amended by striking ``$50,000,000'' and inserting
``$75,000,000''.
(c) Laws Which May Be Waived.--Section 614 of that Act is
amended by striking subsections (b) and (c) and inserting the
following:
``(b) Laws Which May Be Waived.--The provisions referred to
in subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) are--
``(1) the provisions of this Act;
``(2) the provisions of the Arms Export Control Act;
``(3) the provisions of any annual (or periodic) foreign
assistance authorization or appropriations legislation,
including any amendment made by any such Act;
``(4) any other provision of law that restricts assistance,
sales or leases, or other action under the Acts referred to
in paragraph (1), (2), or (3); and
``(5) any law relating to receipts and credits accruing to
the United States.''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--Section 614(a)(4) of that Act
is amended--
(1) in subparagraphs (A)(ii), by striking ``or the Arms
Export Control Act''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the Arms Export
Control Act or under''.
In section 3404 of the bill (in subsections (a)(1) and (c)
of section 617 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
proposed to be amended by such section 3404), insert ``or the
Arms Export Control Act after ``under this Act'' each place
it appears.
Strike section 2601(b) (relating to visits to the United
States by officials of the Government of the Republic of
China and Taiwan) and strike the subsection designation and
heading for section 2601(a).
Strike section 505 (relating to voluntary separation
incentives) and designate the subsequent sections and amend
the table of contents accordingly).
At the end of chapter 1 of title XXVI (relating to foreign
policy provisions) add the following new section:
SEC. 2604. VERIFICATION OF MISSILE TECHNOLOGY CONTROL REGIME.
Not later than February 1, 1996, the Director of the Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency shall transmit to the Congress
a report on the capability of the United States to verify the
Missile Technology Control Regime, to include any applicable
United States policy statements, pursuant to section 87 of
the Arms Control and Disarmament Act.
At the end of section 501 (relating to reorganization
authority) insert the following new subsection:
(c) Reduction in Expenditures.--A reorganization plan
pursuant to any title of this division shall provide for a
twenty percent reduction to apply to each of the first two
fiscal years after implementation of such plan in the total
level of expenditures for the functions transferred to the
Department of State from amounts appropriated for such
transferred functions for fiscal year 1995.
At the end of the bill, add the following:
DIVISION D--ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
TITLE XLI--UNITED STATES EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL EXCHANGE PROGRAMS
SEC. 4001. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Fulbright Academic Exchange Programs.--Notwithstanding
section 2106(3)(A), there are authorized to be appropriated
for ``Fulbright Academic Exchange Programs'', $112,484,200
for the fiscal year 1996 and $88,680,800 for the fiscal year
1997.
(b) Other Programs.--Notwithstanding section 2106(3)(F),
there are authorized to be appropriated for ``Other
Programs'', $77,265,800 for the fiscal year 1996 and
$57,341,400 for the fiscal year 1997.
In section 3231 of the bill (in section 667(a)(1) of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as proposed to be amended by
such section 3231; relating to operating expenses of the
United States Agency for International Development), strike
``$465,774,000'' and insert ``$396,770,250'' and strike
``$419,196,000'' and insert ``$396,770,250''.
[[Page H5712]]
Mr. GILMAN (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
New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, with the cooperation of the
minority, we were able to take care of the concerns of many Members by
adopting an en bloc amendment. We added provisions to this bill that
were supported on both sides, even provisions that were propounded by
members who have no intention of voting for this bill. We tried to
accommodate as many Members as we could.
There were several amendments that we could not get agreement on
however, and some matters that have come to our attention since the
time for printing amendments had expired.
Whereas yesterday we only shifted funds on one amendment, in this
package we make even more spending reductions. Some of these are minor,
such as the decision we have made to end U.S. participation in the
Interparliamentary Union. The United States pays dues of nearly $1
million per year for the IPU assessment, but participates only
minimally. The IPU has, regrettably, taken a rather arrogant attitude
toward our participation and on one relatively recent occasion
increased our assessment at a meeting where we were not represented.
Other changes involve greater amounts of money. For example, the
Manzullo amendment represents a considerable, additional cut in
cultural and educational exchanges. Mr. Manzullo has been one of the
more active members of our committee and I commend his close attention
to this program. I hope he will continue to look closely at the costs
and benefits of this program, and welcome his willingness to meet me
more than halfway in crafting a solution to the problems he sees in it.
The amendment reduces funding for these exchanges by $10 million in
each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
Another senior member of our committee has reached a compromise with
us. Mr. Roth has made modifications to his amendment, offered in
committee and preprinted in the Record, relating to a requirement that
the President's reorganization plan show reductions in transferred
functions. We have come to a compromise making that amendment
acceptable on this side.
At the request of the Committee on Intelligence, which I understand
was representing the concerns of the intelligence community of this
administration, we are deleting a provision that cuts off aid to
countries which conduct certain intelligence activities against this
country. The intelligence community felt that having to make a cutoff
could in certain cases expose its state of knowledge about the
activities of other countries and, more generally, expose intelligence
sources and methods. We reluctantly went along but will work with the
intelligence committee and the administration to see if we cannot find
another way to achieve this general goal.
We also include the Mica export promotion study language, as
modified, the McInnis language on Korea, a new Hoke amendment calling
for a report on compliance with the Missile Technology Control Regime,
a modification of the Hoke amendment on OPIC, a modification of the
Upton amendment providing for special treatment for foreign nationals
who find a live MIA from the Vietnam or Korean conflicts--something we
would all wish for. In addition, we include the Solomon amendment
providing that interest earned on certain blocked assets be used to
fund a rewards program for the arrest and conviction of international
terrorists.
In response to concerns expressed after the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight held its hearings on voluntary separation
payments, essentially contemporaneously with our consideration of this
bill in our committee, we have stricken language authorizing such
payments in this bill. I do hope and expect that as the administration
puts together its plan effectuate our reform of the foreign affairs
agencies, it will consider if voluntary separation payments are
appropriate, and if they are will work closely with our committee and
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and for my part I
will sympathetically consider their views.
In terms of technical amendments, we strike a provision that
inadvertently repealed provisions of laws under our jurisdiction
relating to international environmental programs, and another provision
that addresses administration concerns relating to the waiver and other
special authorities provisions in the bill.
Mr. Chairman, in the time remaining, I would like to make a few more
comments on the bill as a whole.
First, I want to thank my colleagues on the committee, and of the
House, on both sides of the aisle, for their cooperation as we have
moved this bill through its various stages, as well as the leadership,
committee, and personal staffs who have worked on the bill. In
addition, I would like to thank the chairman of the Committee of the
Whole for the excellent manner in which he has presided over these
extended deliberations.
Second, I want to point out that this bill has some things that
everyone likes, and some things that some of us dislike intensely. We
must look beyond to the details to the whole.
{time} 1245
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Gilman was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, what we are doing in the overall bill is
making fundamental needed reforms to the foreign policy establishment,
reforms that this House voted for with a strong vote yesterday evening,
in defeating the Ackerman amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we are cutting our budget for the international affairs
function in line with today's budget realities. We are setting forth
policies that address important foreign policy problems, from terrorism
to nuclear proliferation to the situation in Cuba.
We are doing both of these things in an effort that has earned the
backing of groups as diverse as Citizens Against Government Waste and
Americans for Tax Reform, from the Irish National Caucus and the
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations to the
Family Research Council and Phyllis Schlafley's Eagle Forum.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
And just one added note. In addition, language has been offered by
another senior member of our committee, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Burton], which is included, that would cut AID's operating expenses by
an additional 15 percent above the 10 percent reduction in the bill.
amendment offered by mr. hoyer to the amendment offered by mr. gilman
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hoyer to the amendment to the
amendment offered by Mr. Gilman:
At the end of the amendment, add the following: In title
XXVI (relating to foreign policy provisions) insert the
following at the end of chapter 1:
SEC. 2604. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA SELF-DEFENSE ACT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Bosnia
and Herzegovina Self-Defense Act''.
(b) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Serbian aggression against Bosnia and Herzegovina
continues into its third year, the violence has escalated and
become widespread, and ethnic cleansing by Serbs has been
renewed.
(2) It has been almost one year since the Bosnian
Government unconditionally, and on time, accepted the
``Contact Group'' plan, which the Serb forces have rejected.
(3) The United Nations has failed to protect its declared
safe havens from continuing and relentless Serbian
aggression, and has failed to order North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) air strikes against Serb forces in
retaliation for their attacks on Sarajevo, despite calls from
its own field commander to do so.
(4) The United Nations Security Council has not considered
a resolution providing for the multilateral termination of
the arms embargo against Bosnia and Herzegovina, which would
be the preferred course of action to allow that country to
defend itself.
(5) The United Nations Security Council has not taken
measures necessary to maintain international peace and
security in Bosnia and Herzegovina since the aggression
against that country began in April 1992. [[Page H5713]]
(6) For the reasons stated in section 520 of the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995
(Public Law 103-236), the Congress has found that continued
application of an international arms embargo to the
Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina contravenes that
Government's inherent right of individual or collective self-
defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and
therefore is inconsistent with international law.
(c) Statement of Purpose.--The Congress supports the
efforts of the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina--
(1) to defend its people and the territory of the Republic;
(2) to preserve the sovereignty, independence, and
territorial integrity of the Republic; and
(3) to bring about a peaceful, just, fair, viable, and
sustainable settlement of the conflict in Bosnia and
Herzegovina.
(d) Termination of Arms Embargo.--
(1) Termination.--The President shall terminate the United
States arms embargo of the Government of Bosnia and
Herzegovina upon receipt from that Government of a request
for assistance in exercising its right of self-defense under
Article 51 of the United States Charter.
(2) Definition.--As used in this section, the term ``United
States arms embargo of the Government of Bosnia and
Herzegovina'' means the application to the Government of
Bosnia and Herzegovina of--
(A) the policy adopted July 10, 1991, and published in the
Federal Register of July 19, 1991 (58 FR 33322) under the
heading ``Suspension of Munitions Export Licensees to
Yugoslavia''; and
(B) any similar policy applied by the United States
Government as of the date of receipt of the request described
in paragraph (1) pursuant to which approval is denied for
transfers of defense articles and defense services to the
former Yugoslavia.
(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
interpreted as authorization for deployment of United States
forces in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina for any
purpose, including training, support, or delivery of military
equipment.
Mr. HOYER (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
Maryland?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] is recognized
for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. GILMAN. As I indicated to the gentleman last night, with the
short period of time left for debate on this measure, I would think it
would be more appropriate that we take this as a freestanding bill, and
I assure the gentleman we will put this measure on at the earliest
possible date next week in our committee so that it can move to the
floor as rapidly as possible.
I think to try to compress the debate in the short period of time we
have remaining on the floor today does a disservice to this very
critical issue, and I would hope that the gentleman would consider at
this point taking the measure off the floor and taking it up in full
committee and getting it as a freestanding bill on the floor when we
would all have an opportunity to extensive debate.
Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. He and I have
discussed this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings],
who wanted to be recognized initially on the en bloc amendment.
(Mr. HASTINGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the manager's
amendment.
I oppose this amendment for three basic reasons.
First, the amendment includes bad policy language. It folds together
several amendments that were printed in the Record that individually
are objectionable.
On North Korea, OPIC, the International Parliamentary Union, U.N.
command and control--the list goes on and on--the amendment takes
United States policy in a bad direction.
Second, this amendment enables the bill manager to delete provisions
of the current bill without any debate.
These same provisions were put in the bill without discussion and
over the minority's objection.
The bill manager should have to stand up and explain to the House why
a provision like that on espionage was included in the chairman's mark
and the committee-passed bill, and why it is now being dropped.
These are not just technical corrections. They
are U-turns in the road. The bill manager should explain his
driving.
Third, I oppose this amendment on process grounds.
It contains several provisions that we start to see until yesterday,
and in three cases, provisions that we received only late last night or
early this morning: provisions on the environment, special authorities,
MTCR verification, USIA programs, and overall funding for fiscal year
1988.
These amendments were never even filed in the Congressional Record.
We haven't had adequate time to study these provisions. We don't know
what they do. We don't know their implications. We shouldn't vote for
provisions that many on both sides of the aisle have had no opportunity
to review.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment states that the arms embargo
against Bosnia and Herzegovina shall be lifted upon receiving a request
from the Bosnian Government to do so.
I suggest there is no more important issue that confronts this
country and the international community at this moment in time, in this
moment in history, than does this issue.
Last year, with bipartisan support the House voted overwhelmingly to
lift the U.N. embargo, an action designed to uphold Bosnia and
Herzegovina's inherent and recognizable right of self-defense, as
provided under article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.
Following the House vote on June 9 last year, Bosnia accepted the
contact groups, that is, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and
ourselves, plan after the group assured Bosnia that if the Serbs
refused the plan, international sanctions against Serbia would be
tightened, more efforts would be made to afford greater protection of
safe areas by the United Nations, and ultimately the arms embargo would
be lifted.
Mr. Chairman, I was at a meeting with the Bosnian President,
President Izetbegovic, and Prime Minister Haris Silajdzic, and others,
in Sarajevo, when it was announced Bosnia would accept the plan
unconditionally. That acceptance, Mr. Chairman, was met by Serbia's
ultimate rejection.
And what did the international community do? First, sanctions against
Serbia were eased and safe areas were left abandoned to the wanton
aggression of the Bosnian Serbs and, of course, Bosnia continues to
fall victim to the arms embargo.
Well, Mr. Chairman, here we are 1 year later. And what has time
brought the Bosnians? Nothing other than more deaths.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has
expired.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5
additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Maryland?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object,
we have a number of amendments that are pending, but I hope my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be concerned about the
time disbursement and the time other people are going to need to
discuss other parts of the bill. I will not object, but I hope we do
not see that go on any further.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I am going
to ask the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] if he would please
consider other Members who want to debate other important issues and
not take up a good portion of the remaining time of debate, and that is
why I asked that you withdraw the amendment and give us a freestanding
amendment, a freestanding measure later on next week, whenever we can
get it to the floor.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILMAN. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the
gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I thank my good friend.
There are a few Members on this floor for whom I have more respect. I
want to tell the gentleman, with as much respect as I can, yesterday we
[[Page H5714]] voted on an amendment. We had approximately 2\1/2\
hours, maybe longer, on the War Powers Act.
As the gentleman probably knows, I was one of the few Democrats who
voted for the Hyde amendment. So I agreed with the proposition that the
gentleman from Illinois raised. Nobody on this floor believes that if
we consider the war powers amendment next week, the week after or 4
weeks from now, it would have made a whit of difference.
This amendment, for which time was not made available and which this
Member had to go through a relatively strained parliamentary procedure
to even get considered, at a time when people are dying in hostage, in
a genocide, in a country that the international community has
recognized, that the international community has said is subject to
genocide and which this country, this country said is led by war
criminals, Mr. Milosevic, Mr. Kradajic, Mr. Miladiz in Bosnian Serbia;
our Secretary of State, Lawrence Eagleberger, under George Bush,
leveled the charge and accusation they were war criminals.
I say with all due respect and affection to my good friend from New
York, the chairman of the committee, I regret I have not had the
opportunity even to present----
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection and
just ask the sponsor of the measure to consider there are other Members
who want to be heard.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Maryland?
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, the
gentleman from Maryland has only requested the time, as I understand
it, in order to make up for the time that the gentleman yielded so
graciously to other Members, especially the gentleman from Florida, so
that he could present in timely fashion the opposition to the en bloc
amendment and, therefore, his time was used up.
I do not understand why anyone would make an objection to the
gentleman now taking the time to explain the reason for his amendment,
and so, the gentleman from Maryland, I think you have an amendment here
that is one of the most important that we have faced this whole bill,
this issue. Like you say, it is a question of genocide.
You know, we had a holocaust at one time in this world. Many people
at that time said, ``Never again, never again.'' But we are witnessing
it today. We witnessed it for 3 years, and we have stood back and we
have done nothing.
We are saying we do not want to do anything. We want to let it go on,
just let them be killed, because they are not Americans, they are way
over there in Bosnia.
So I think that the gentleman has a very good amendment, and I hope
that the House will adopt his amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for not objecting.
Mr. Chairman, here we are 1 year later, and what has time brought the
Bosnians?
All of us know: Further deaths, further ethnic cleansing, further
disruption to the democratically elected government.
{time} 1300
For the aggressors however, Mr. Chairman, they just dug their
trenches a little deeper. And the Bosnian Serbs upped the ante by
taking more than 370 U.N. troops hostage. They released some, but they
still hold others, and then, on last Friday they shot down a U.S. F-16
fighter. Thank God that he has now been retrieved. We thank the
technology that allowed him to get out of that plane and to let us know
where he was.
But, Mr. Chairman, let us be clear.
It is not just UNPROFOR that is being held hostage but the United
Nations and NATO itself. A test of wills has been going on now for 3
years between the Bosnian Serbs, Milosevic, and the United Nations and
NATO. The Serbs have won every time. And the world's most powerful
collective institution is being rendered helpless.
On several occasions, we have witnessed Bosnia's aggressors stay
their assaults at the prospect that Bosnia would be aided by the
international community. But each time, Mr. Chairman, they have
returned even more bold and resolute to try to finish their crime, the
annihilation of an independent democratic, internationally recognized
Bosnia, when the international community has failed to act decisively.
The taking of UNPROFOR hostages is but the latest example of such
boldness and of such contempt for the international community's lack of
resolve.
Mr. Chairman, we in America have serious national interests in
helping the people of Bosnia, which I think it very important to point
out consists of Moslems, Croats, and Serbs.
First, this is a recognized member state of the United Nations. We
have an interest as we did with Kuwait in seeing that it is not
destroyed.
Second, we have an interest in stopping a genocide. Surely we do not
want history to show that within years of one genocide we stood idly by
while it was committed in Europe again?
Third, we have an interest in international norms and laws being
upheld and ultimately respected. If not, why should any nation seek
help from an international community that espouses rule by law yet
acknowledges and ultimately respects rule by force.
Fourth, we have an interest in making sure that the carnage of Bosnia
does not spread to other nations with the real possibility of pitting
NATO allies against each other.
I think it is also useful, Mr. Chairman, for us to take a moment to
recall the actions that led up to the crisis with which we are now
concerned. Those actions included:
First, the increasingly bold and unrelenting Serb violations of a
heavy weapon exclusion zone;
Second, the shelling of Sarajevo;
Third, the carrying off with artillery pieces and a mortar out of a
U.N.-NATO impoundment depot, and
Fourth, the ignoring of a U.N.-NATO ultimatum.
It was only then that NATO conducted an air raid. The Serbs
retaliated by shelling 5 ``safe-areas'' in Bosnia killing 76 people.
That triggered a second NATO strike on other pale ammunition dumps. The
Serb response was to seize hundreds of members of U.N. peace-keeping
forces and then to shoot down a United States fighter enforcing the no-
fly zone.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that what we are encountering is
similar to a scene dating back to the 1930's when another dictator
sought to carve up a neighboring country in the name of ethnic unity.
It occurred in Munich in 1938. It is appeasement.
At the outset of the crisis in Czechoslovakia one European leader
remarked and I wish that everybody would listen to this, ``How
horrible, fantastic incredible it is that we should be digging trenches
and tying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a faraway country
between people of whom we know nothing.''
All of us, and particularly our fathers, and many who serve in this
room, learned the lessons of that negligence.
Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that this House will repeat its message of
1993-94 and say that we are going to allow the Bosnians to have the
right and ability to defend themselves from terrorists.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
(Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me just say
that I have a first degree amendment, and I ask for a division of the
question on the last part of Mr. Gilman's amendment regarding AID and
O&E cuts.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will divide the question at the appropriate
time.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. This is going to be a very confusing period as
we discuss and debate the chairman's mark because we are going to be
talking about several different issues, and I would just like to point
out that the gentleman's amendment is likely to pass. I voted for it, I
believe, the last time. I think it will pass this time. Unfortunately
this issue was not brought before the committee. Otherwise it probably
would have been a part of the [[Page H5715]] entire debate, and it
probably would have passed anyhow, and so I am just a little
disappointed that this could not have been brought up as a separate
issue. I do not have the time to yield, but I just say, I wish this
wasn't in the mix right now because it is going to confuse a lot of
people who are paying attention to the debate.
I had an amendment which was a freestanding amendment which is now
part of the chairman's mark which will be voted on separately, which is
confusing, which would cut the AID operating expenses. And AID last
year got $517.5 million to run its operation. This year it was
increased to $529 million. The chairman's mark reduced that down to
$465 or $466 million, and what my amendment does is reduce it further,
down to about $400 million.
Now the reason that I propose this amendment is because $400 million
is more than enough money for the operating expenses of AID. We cut our
staff here in the Congress by a third. What we are asking with my
amendment is for AID to cut their staffs and their operating expenses
by less than a fourth, and we think that is reasonable thing to do. If
we can do it by a third, they can sure do it by less than a fourth.
Now I would also like to point out that AID has adopted the practice
in my view of wasting money. I want to quote to my colleagues, and I
hope they will pay particular attention to this if I might have
everybody's attention. This is a memo that was sent out by the
leadership of AID to many of their offices around the world. And I
quote, I want to quote from, this interoffice memo which went around
the world to many AID offices, and this is a quote from Sally Shelton,
senior staffer at AID. She said:
Larry Burn, assistant administrator from management at AID,
announced that AID was 62 percent through the fiscal year and
we have 38 percent of the dollar volume of procurement
actions completed. We need to do, and that means spend, we
need to do $1.9 billion in the next 5 months.
Burn also said, ``There are large pockets of money in the
field, so let's get moving.''
So here was AID two-thirds of the way through their year saying they
had only spent one-third of their budget so let us get on with spending
more money so we can ask for more in the coming year.
This is a perfect example of bureaucrats trying to spend money as
fast as they possibly can, even more than they should, so they can ask
for more money in the next fiscal year.
In addition to that, there are some other items of waste that I would
like to point out where AID is concerned:
In El Salvador, AID-sponsored economists helped organize a
socialistic land reform program in the early 1980s that
nationalized land holdings, banks and private export
companies. After the U.S. had spent billions in El Salvador,
former President Alfredo Cristiani commented that millions
more would be needed ``just to correct the damage done by
U.S. assistance in nationalizing the economy.''
So what AID did, the President down there said, was something that
hurt them rather than help, and they spent millions and millions of
dollars to do that.
After the Sandinistas lost the 1990 election, more than $1
billion in direct and indirect U.S. aid flooded Nicaragua.
Hundreds of millions of U.S. tax dollars were lost bailing
out a corrupt banking system largely controlled by Sandinista
bureaucrats and loan officers. Even today, this fiasco
threatens Nicaragua's democracy.
In Burundi they spent $7 million to buy a 1,000-acre farm to raise
improved corn seed variety. This farm cost the American taxpayer $7,000
an acre, and I want to tell my colleagues, in Burundi you can get it
for practically nothing, which is an outrageously expensive price to
pay for an acre of farmland on which you are growing corn.
The project turned out to be a complete disaster because AID located
the farm near the President of Burundi's home village even though this
was an area of the country with the worst soil. They were simply trying
to placate the President's whimsical desire to have a fancy foreign aid
project in his home village. Then it turned out after this $7 million
investment that there were no improved varieties of corn seed to be
grown in Burundi because the ag research had never been done and I can
go on and on and on.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed
for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me just say that AID, like every agency of
Government, needs to be fiscally responsible. We have a huge national
debt, we have huge deficits, and this House and the Senate are trying
our dead level best to get control of runaway Government spending.
Here is an agency that has wasted money. I was a senior Republican on
Africa for 10 years. I can tell my colleagues they wasted money in many
countries over there. Some of the projects were good, but much of the
money was wasted, and here we have, as I said before, a memo going out
by the leadership in that agency saying that we have to spend money as
fast as we possibly can because we are two-thirds of the way through
our fiscal year and we have only spent one-third of our budget.
We need to send a message to AID. We cut back Congress by a third as
far as our staffs were concerned. They can stand a 20- to 25-percent
cut.
This is a good amendment which will save the taxpayers $65 million,
and once again I would like to say I am very sorry that this was
incorporated into this debate that is taking place right now on Bosnia.
That should be a separate debate at a separate time. Unfortunately this
is not the case.
So, I hope my colleagues, when we get to this first degree amendment
which will be voted on separately later on, will see fit to support it
because it is going to save the taxpayers $65 million, it is going to
downsize one of the biggest bureaucracies in Washington, and it would
not hurt our foreign aid program one whit, and with that I would like
to add also that there have been all kinds of atrocities in India that
AID has seen fit to continue to support through our developmental
assistance over there even though the Congress in the past has voted to
cut that money off. AID, 2 years ago we were going to cut $4 million in
developmental assistance to India. AID overruled the elected Members of
Congress and went ahead and sent that money, and that is another reason
they need to receive a very strong message.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the
gentleman:
You argue that this amendment would save money. Am I correct that AID
would have to lay off at least half of their employees, and would that
not be very costly in terms of retirement and all of the buyout
benefits that come along with that in addition to the number of
agencies that would be----
Mr. BURTON Of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just
say when we downsize Government there are going to be short-range
problems, but long-term, long-term major cash savings, and I believe
this amendment long term will save a great deal, more than the $65
million that it will save initially, and I think that this is something
the American people want us to do. They want to see us economizing
Government and not continue to see runaway costs which have bankrupted
this Nation, and so I think this amendment is a good one, and I hope my
colleagues will see fit to vote for it.
Burton Amendment Cuts Aid to India
Washington, DC.--Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), Chairman of the
Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, today won approval of an
amendment to the foreign aid bill which would dramatically
cut aid to India and other countries that consistently oppose
U.S. interests at the U.N.
By including developmental assistance to the list of aid
programs which would be denied these countries, Burton's
amendment puts some real teeth into the foreign aid bill. The
bill, as reported by the International Relations Committee,
ties U.S. economic assistance directly to the voting patterns
of other countries at the U.N. If a country votes against the
U.S. more than 75% of the time, it would be ineligible for
economic support funds, International Military and Education
Training (IMET) funds, and Foreign Military Financing, three
relatively modest programs. The Burton Amendment adds
Development Assistance, which is a more substantial program,
to the list. For example, India which has voted against the
U.S. more than any other country, from 81% to 95% of the time
would lose $70.4 million in developmental assistance and
$364,000 in IMET funds next year alone.
``This is American taxpayers' money we are talking about
here. There is no reason [[Page H5716]] for us to be giving
American money to countries who do not support our policies.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect countries who
receive our assistance to vote with us 25% of the time. Most
countries who do not support the U.S. in the U.N. are noted
human rights violators, such as Cuba, Sudan, North Korea,
Iran, and India. We should not be supporting countries like
this,'' said Burton after the debate.
Burton has been a consistent critic of India's human rights
record, speaking frequently about torture and extrajudicial
killings of Sikhs in Punjab, Muslims in Kashmir, and
Christians in Nagaland. During debate today, he spoke
passionately on the House floor about India's long record of
abuses.
All major human rights groups have condemned India as one
of the most notorious human rights violators in the world. It
is no surprise that India almost always votes against the
U.S. at the U.N. According to Asia Watch, ``Virtually
everyone detained in Punjab is tortured.'' Amnesty
International says, ``Torture (in Punjab and Kashmir) and ill
treatment is widespread and in some cases systematic,
resulting in scores of deaths in police custody.'' Even our
own State Department reported, ``Over 41,000 cash bounties
were paid to police in Punjab for extrajudicial killings of
Sikhs between 1991 and 1993.'' This month in Kashmir, Indian
troops burned to the ground a centuries-old mosque and
hundreds of Muslim homes in the neighborhoods surrounding it.
``It is absolutely grotesque and inhumane to torture human
beings in any way, but the government of India makes it a
routine practice. There are certain standards to which we
should hold countries who receive U.S. aid, and India is no
exception. I believe we should cut ALL aid to India until
they quit their murderous reign of terror in Punjab and
Kashmir, and start supporting U.S. policies at the U.N.,''
said a determined Burton.
The foreign aid bill does not cut money from humanitarian
food aid, international narcotics control, or antiterrorism
programs, even in countries which are effected by the
substantial cuts.
human rights in india at a glance
Disregard for Religious Sites and Figures
May 1995--Indian troops in Kashmir burn to the ground the
centuries-old walnut wood mosque in Charar-e-Sharies, along
with hundreds of homes around it.
December 1992--Hindu mobs destroy the historic Babri Mosque
in Ayodhya as Indian troops stand by and watch.
December 1992--Gurdev Singh Kaonke, one of the most revered
leaders of the Sikh religion, is arrested, tortured and
killed in police custody.
June 1984--Indian soldiers launch an all out attack on the
Golden Temple in Amritsar, the holiest shrine of the Sikh
religion. 38 other temples throughout Punjab are attacked,
killing thousands of Sikhs.
What Human Rights Groups Say
Asia Watch: ``Virtually everyone detained in Punjab is
tortured.''
Amnesty International: ``Torture (in Punjab and Kashmir)
and illtreatment is wide-spread and in some cases systematic,
resulting in scores of deaths in police custody.''
State Department Human Rights Report (1994): Over 41,000
cash bounties were paid to police in Punjab for extrajudicial
killings of Sikhs between 1991 and 1993.
Graphic Examples of Torture and Murder, Punjab and Kashmir
Extrajudicial murders of Sikh youth are a common
occurrence. Between 1986 and 1994, 6,017 unidentified Sikh
victims of Indian police were cremated in the District of
Amritsar alone. There are 13 districts in Punjab. It has been
estimated that security forces have had over 25,000
unidentified Sikhs cremated or dumped in rivers during this
period.
In January 1995, the water level of the Sirhind Canal was
lowered for repair work. One dozen bodies of young Sikh
torture victims were found at the bottom of just one short
section of the canal with their hands and feet bound. There
are hundreds of miles of canals throughout the province.
In January 1993, Indian paramilitary forces in Kashmir
burnt to death at least 65 Kashmiri civilians in the town of
Sopore. Soldiers deliberately set fire to five separate areas
of the town. They also dragged shopkeepers out of their shops
and shot them in the streets. The torching of entire Kashmiri
villages by Indian forces is a common tactic.
In 1994, Sikh activist Kanwar Singh Dhami was imprisoned
along with his pregnant wife and son. He and his wife were
tortured in front of each other. When the police were unable
to extract an untrue confession from Mr. Dhami, they hung his
wife up by her heels (she was six months pregnant) forcing
her to have a miscarriage.
In Amritsar district in 1993, Indian police brought a Sikh
youth they had tortured and thought was dead to the hospital
for an autopsy. After the police left, the doctors discovered
that the young man was miraculously still alive and revived
him. The police returned several hours later after hearing
that the man was alive. They took him out of the hospital,
killed him again, and brought him back to the same hospital
for his autopsy.
don't support indian tyranny with american tax dollars--vote for the
burton amendment to cut aid to india
Here are some relevant facts about India and Indian-
occupied Khalistan:
India votes against the United States at the United Nations
84 percent of the time, more than any other U.S. aid
recipient.
India is helping Iran build up it military arsenal.
Human Rights Violations
Indian newspapers recently reported that 25,000 Sikhs were
either cremated as ``unclaimed bodies.'' or thrown in canals
and rivers.
The White Paper on State Terrorism in Punjab cites S.S.
Ray, Indian Ambassador to the U.S., as the ``butcher of
Bengal'' and the ``butcher of Punjab.''
Over 41,000 cash bounties were paid to police officers for
killing Sikhs, according to the US State Dept.
Over 120,000 Sikhs killed since 1984.
Over 150,000 Christians killed since 1947. Over 43,000
Kashmiri Muslims killed since 1988.
Tens of thousands more languish in Indian prisons without
charge or trial.
Amnesty International reports hundreds of Sikhs have
disappeared.
Asia Watch reports ``virtually everyone detained in Punjab
is tortured.''
Police operate over 200 torture centers (police stations)
in Punjab, Khalistan.
Police routinely pick up Sikh youths and demand ransom of
tens of thousands of rupees for their safe release.
Otherwise, the youths are tortured and killed.
Sikhs who die of torture are listed as being killed in an
``encounter'' with the police.
Despite the recent repeal of TADA, the other ``Black
Laws'', giving the regime sweeping powers to detain anyone
for any reason and kill Sikhs without fear of persecution,
remain on the books.
India has not allowed Amnesty International to conduct an
independent human-rights investigation in Punjab, Khalistan,
since 1978.
India recently attacked an ancient mosque in Kashmir which
houses the mausoleum of the venerated Sheik Nooruddin Wali.
In December 1992, Hindus destroyed the Babri mosque in
Ayodhya.
In June 1984, India attacked the Golden Temple in Amristar,
the holiest shrine of the Sikh Nation.
The Chicago Tribune reports that a nun was stabbed 36 times
by right-wing Hindu fundamentalists. By these actions, India
displays its religious intolerance.
The Indian newspaper Hitavada reported in November that the
late Governor of Punjab, Surendra Nath, was paid $1.5 billion
by the Indian regime to foment terrorism in Punjab,
Khalistan, and in Kashmir.
The State Department says that the human-rights situation
is getting worse.
India's Nuclear Threat to World Peace
India has recently announced successful tests of the Akash
antiballistic missile, India's equivalent of the Patriot.
India has deployed Prithvi missiles, which have a range of
250 kilometers, on the Pakistani border and has successfully
tested other missiles like Agni, Thrishul, etc.
Last year, India launched the Polar Satellite Launch
Vehicle, which can be made to carry nuclear warheads.
India spends over 20% of its research and development
budget on the development of nuclear weapons. Only 2% goes to
education and health.
Khalistan's Right to Self-Determination
No Sikh has ever signed the Indian constitution.
The Sikh leadership declared Khalistan independent on
October 7, 1987.
The movement to liberate Khalistan is peaceful, democratic,
and nonviolent.
Former Member of Parliament Simranjit Singh Mann has been
held in a windowless cell for four months for the ``crime''
of speaking out for Khalistan.
The Supreme Court of India ruled that asking for Khalistan
is not a crime.
According to India Abroad, 96 percent of the Sikhs in
Punjab, Khalistan did not vote in India's February 1992
elections there.
India has 500,000 troops in Punjab, occupied Khalistan,
alone--more than Britain had in the entire subcontinent
during its rule.
Khalistan, Kashmir, and Nagaland continue to be denied
their right to self-determination.
India has 18 official languages. It is a polyglot like the
former Soviet Union. It is not one country.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, let me first of all say that I oppose the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. I think it is very
shortsighted, but I want to address the issue that my friend, the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], mentioned with respect to Bosnia.
Mr. Chairman, after 3 years of all out war in Bosnia, and more than
200,000 people killed and 16,000 children slaughtered, and after 2
million people have been left homeless, and countless tens of thousands
of women and girls have been raped, we are once again on this floor
today debating whether or not the United States of America should take
action in Bosnia.
{time} 1315
Once again, Mr. Chairman, there are those who say we cannot lift the
arms [[Page H5717]] embargo because it will involve us directly in the
war. But let us be honest, Mr. Chairman. We are already involved in
this war. By keeping this embargo in place for so long, not only have
we denied the Bosnian people the very weapons they need to personally
defend themselves, we have helped tilt the balance of the war in favor
of Serbian aggression. In doing so, we have become unwitting
accomplices to a mass genocide of more than 200,000 people.
Mr. Chairman, there can be no more excuses, there can be no more
second guessing. It is time that we lift this embargo once and for all.
Now, over the past 3 years we have seen two dozen cease-fires come
and go. We have seen the peace process start, stall, countless times.
We have watched Serbs break agreement after agreement after agreement.
We have seen NATO warnings issued and ignored. And the one constant
through it all has been the absolute unwillingness of the West to take
meaningful steps to stop the slaughter in Bosnia.
The greatest sin, Mr. Chairman, is not that we simply turned our
backs. The greatest sin in Bosnia is that time and time again we have
raised the hopes of the Bosnian people that the cavalry was on its way,
and time and again we have not delivered.
Mr. Chairman, the people of Bosnia deserve better than this. If we
are not going to stop the slaughter, if we are not going to strike back
at the Serbs, if we are not going to defend Bosnia, then we should keep
United States troops out and we should lift the arms embargo right
away. If we are not going to defend Bosnia, then we have no right to
continue to deny them the right to defend themselves.
By passing this amendment today, we will simply extend to the Bosnian
people the right which is guaranteed to every other sovereign nation
under the U.N. charter, and that is the right of self-defense, and even
the more fundamental right to self-determination.
To those who would argue and say that lifting the embargo will
disrupt the peace process. I say what peace process? There is no peace
process to keep in Bosnia right now. Lifting the arms embargo will no
weaken the peace process, it will strengthen it. The reason peace talks
have failed the past 3 years is because the Serbs have no reason to
negotiate. They faced no real opposition on the battlefield, although
the Bosnian Moslems are waging a heroic battle with limited means. But
they face no real opposition and they have no incentive to stay at the
negotiating table as a result of that.
Only when the Serbs are certain that the Bosnians can defend
themselves will they realize that further aggression will really get
them nowhere, and only then, Mr. Chairman, will we have a real chance
for peace in Bosnia.
Mr. Chairman, if we had been courageous in our approach on this most
difficult issue from the very beginning at the beginning of this
decade, we would not be in this situation we are in today. The very
least we can do today is to lift the arms embargo, because if we do not
lift this embargo and at least let the people of Bosnia defend
themselves, then the blood of Bosnia is not just on the hands of the
Serbs, but is on all of us.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I would like to real briefly ask
one question: If the Bosnia amendment passes, as I believe it will,
will the gentleman from Michigan vote for the bill?
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there are too many
other things in the bill I will not support.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. What is the purpose of the debate?
Mr. BONIOR. The purpose is to get out to the American people that
what we are doing in Bosnia is not in the best interests of peace in
Europe, Bosnia, or international relations with the United States. It
seems to me that we cannot stand by and watch as 200,000 people be made
homeless, as 16,000 children are slaughtered, and tens of thousands of
countless women are raped.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior]
has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Burton of Indiana, and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Bonior was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. BONIOR. We have an obligation, and the purpose seems to me, as my
friend from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has stated, is to let these people
defend themselves.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield
further, I want to make the point that we on the Committee on
International Operations agreed to give the gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. Hoyer] a freestanding hearing next week on his bill, which
probably would have passed and been brought to the floor and passed.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I have heard that
argument three times on the floor. The problem with that argument, I
say to my friend from Indiana, is this: That while the committee may do
that, while the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] may be in favor of
doing that, the majority leader on the other side of the aisle is
opposed to what we are going here. It is my opinion that would not see
the light of day.
Mr. BURTON. If the gentleman will yield further, the fact of the
matter is if you vote against it after the amendment passes, you have
not accomplished a thing, whereas if you waited and brought the bill up
as a freestanding bill, it would pass.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I could not
live with myself and continue to serve in the Congress if I did not
speak on this amendment. I would not deserve to have the right to serve
in this body.
I have visited Yugoslavia three times. The first time with the
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Chris Smith, who will speak in support
of it. We were in Vukovar when the Serbs were bombing Vukovar, and we
went down in the cellars and saw the people who told us that their
families had been slaughtered. Slaughtered. They had no weapons to
defend themselves. Now Vukovar will go down in the history of
Yugoslavia as a place that will be like somewhere unbelievable in their
history.
Second, we went back one other time on a CSCE trip. We went into
Mostar. In east Mostar the Croats and then the Serbs have been bombing
and bombing. Here is a picture of a young lady, if the cameras and
Members can pick it up, that will show that she was in a hospital, with
no medicine, nothing at all to take care of her.
We were in a prison camp run by the Serbs. The Moslems used to go
around like this with their heads down, and they could not come up and
look you in the eye. If they did, they hollered at them, they shouted
at them. That will stick in my mind forever.
I have seen these things. It is not something I read about in the
Washington Post or the Times. This is not something that I saw on Peter
Jennings. This is something I saw with my own eyes.
Now, the close is this: We do not want to send American troops there.
I do not want to send American troops there. I do not believe there are
many people here who want to send American troops there. So if you are
not going to send American troops, should you not give the Bosnians,
the Moslems, and also the Croats the opportunity to defend themselves?
Their moms and dads are being killed.
Imagine, put yourself in their role. There you are in a little
village of east Mostar. The murderers are coming in. Your wife is in
the basement, your children are down in the basement, maybe your mom
is, and you cannot defend yourself. You know NATO is not coming in. You
do not want the United States to send troops in. All you want is for
the arms embargo to be lifted, whereby you can defend yourself.
I have been in the Holocaust Museum over Christmas. I took my family.
We saw the letters where during World War II people said no, these
things were not happening. Believe me slaughter and genocide are
occurring.
The gentleman from Michigan mentioned rape. We had hearings in the
Helsinki Commission that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] can
talk about, 20,000 women have been raped.
This is a good amendment. It is a good amendment on this bill. It is
a good amendment on any bill. It is an amendment that will send a
message, [[Page H5718]] so when they listen on their little crystal
radio sets tonight or tomorrow, they will hear that the U.S. Congress
has voted to lift the arms embargo, to stand with them. If this
amendment passes, believe me, I do not know how I am going to vote on
this bill. I am going back and forth. But if this amendment passes,
boy, I will support this bill with greater vigor.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted the gentleman to yield to
compliment him on his statement and associate myself with the comments
that he has made. I enjoyed my service on the CSCE with him. We had
been to Yugoslavia and seen firsthand. It is interesting to point out
as we are debating the issue here, the Prime Minister of Bosnia is
testifying before the Helsinki Commission as to the necessity to remove
the arms embargo now. By enforcing the arms embargo, we are violating
international law. We must give the people the right to defend
themselves. I compliment the gentleman on his statement.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say first of all that I appreciate the
frustration that lives at the basis of the comments of many of my
colleagues who favor the Hoyer amendment. I do not favor it and am
going to state the case against it. But I fully understand the
frustrations involved. Let me give you several reasons why I think
lifting this embargo at this time is a very dangerous move.
First of all, we are at an extremely delicate time. We have 150
hostages being held, the war is intensifying in Bosnia, the war is
threatened to be broadened in Croatia, and it is at an extremely
delicate point. This vote in this House is going to be construed as a
vote to intensify the war. I think the proponents of the war do not
really deny that. 150 hostages' lives are on the line, and we vote in
this House to intensify the war. Think of that for a moment.
Now, second, there is no doubt what follows after we vote to lift, if
we did lift unilaterally. And what follows is an Americanization of the
war. A unilateral lifting of the embargo will put 25,000 American
troops into Bosnia. There is not any doubt about that. Our allies, who
are now conducting UNPROFOR, have made it very clear to use they are
pulling out, and the President of the United States has said when
UNPROFOR pulls out, we are going to go in. And we are going to go in.
We have the commitment. There is no doubt about that commitment.
So the impact of lifting the embargo is 25,000 American troops go
into Bosnia. We then will become responsible for humanitarian services.
We will become responsible for protecting the Bosnian civilians. That
is the result, and it is not in doubt. Lift the embargo unilaterally
and we are committed to go in. The British and the French and all the
others pull out. We are sitting there, we have got to protect the
Bosnian civilians, we have got to deliver the humanitarian services.
Next: Nobody addresses the financial consequences of this. The
Defense Department has said that if you are going to level the playing
field it is going to take $1 billion by conservation estimates. People
just ignore that. We are going to have to supply those arms. The
Bosnian Government cannot pay for it. Nobody is talking about stepping
up here to the bar and putting $1 billion on the line, but that is the
consequence of a unilateral lift.
Nobody talks about the problems of delivery. How do you get these
arms in? In order for the arms to go in, they have got to go, if they
go by land or sea, through Croatia or through Serbia. How does that
happen? They are going to have something to say about it, and they are
probably going to take a good many of the arms. If you do it by air,
all the airfields are in range of the Serbian gunners. So the problem
of delivery is a serious one.
Likewise, the problems of training. These are big guns. That is what
the Bosnians need. They do not know how to use these weapons. Who is
going to teach them? We are going to have to teach them. Where are you
going to teach them? You are going to teach them on the ground, in
Bosnia. American troops in Bosnia on the ground training them.
Now, another problem with this is the impact on our allies. None of
our allies support a unilateral lift of the embargo so far as I know,
save one, Turkey. The United Kingdom is against it, France is against
it, Canada is against it, the Netherlands is against it, Germany is
against it, Spain is against it, Belgium is against it, Denmark is
against it. They are all against it, and they are the ones that have
troops on the ground whose lives will be at risk when we unilaterally
lift the embargo.
We see the unilateral lifting of the embargo as a kind of risk-free
solution. It will solve the war. We will not injure any Americans. But,
my friends, that is not what is going to be what happens. We are going
to have troops on the ground, and enormous strains will develop between
the United States and its allies in NATO. I do not know of any expert,
military or diplomatic, who favors a unilateral lift of the embargo.
{time} 1330
I have listened to testimony on this and briefings over and over
again. Talk to our Pentagon people; talk to our diplomats. They will
tell you that the result of lifting this embargo unilaterally is to put
Americans right in the hottest war in the world today. It is a very,
very unwise move.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
To say that the debate on the floor is somewhat discombobulated on
this particular amendment I think would be an understatement. We have
three amendments here. We have the Hoyer amendment, the Burton
amendment and the manager's amendment.
Let me just say that I think the Hoyer amendment is a good amendment.
I do not agree that if we lift the embargo we are putting in American
troops. I think that is really stretching the argument. I think the
reason that we have to lift the embargo is because we have to allow
people to defend themselves and basically that is what I see this
amendment doing.
But there is another provision here that we are debating. That is the
Burton amendment. I want to look at the facts of that amendment,
because it is extremely important to this House. But before I do, my
friend here has been waiting to say a word.
Mr. CREMEANS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROTH. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. CREMEANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the foreign aid package
we have before us today. This is a good bill, and I congratulate the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and his committee for their hard
work on this legislation.
We have made and we are going to make a lot of tough choices on the
road to balancing the Federal budget. I could not go home to southern
Ohio and explain budget reductions that affect the people there without
first cutting the funds we have sent abroad. This is a good bill.
I support the foreign aid package we have before us today. This is a
good bill and I congratulate Chairman Gilman and his committee for
their hard work on this legislation.
We have made, and are going to make, a lot of tough choices on the
road to balancing the Federal budget. I could not go home to southern
Ohio and explain budget reductions that effect the people there,
without first cutting the funds we send abroad. This is a good bill.
I would however like to say that I understand that in a post-cold-war
era, Radio Free Europe should and must be cut back. But I strongly
oppose its outright elimination. The committee bill cuts the program
from $230 million a year to $75 million a year. That's a 70-percent
cut. It's worth saving, and $75 million will keep it alive.
I've been to Eastern Europe and I've heard the broadcasts. In some
countries its still the only independent, uncensored news available.
Former Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick said, ``I think it is an
important mistake to eliminate U.S. support for the freedom radios.
They are the best purveyors of the message of freedom, the cheapest,
safest, and most effective instrument of foreign policy.'' I could not
agree with her more.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his contribution,
and reclaim the balance of my time.
Let us look at the facts behind the Burton amendment, because this is
a [[Page H5719]] key amendment to this bill. Over the past 10 years,
AID has become a bloated bureaucracy by anyone's estimation, including
GAO and every other agency that has ever looked at what goes on in AID,
including this Congress. In 1985, their programs cost $9.8 billion.
That was 10 years ago. Today these programs are down to $7.5 billion.
That is a $2.3 billion drop. That is a 23 percent reduction in what
AID's programs are costing.
But look at what is happening to administrative costs. That is what
the Burton amendment is addressing. The AID bureaucracy has received an
increase in salary, travel, office supplies by some 41 percent. In
1985, we were spending $393 million in administrative costs. Now they
are receiving $556 million. That is an increase of 41 percent in their
administrative costs. That is what we mean by bloated bureaucracy. The
programs go down but the agency's costs for salaries and travel go up
by 41 percent.
What the Burton amendment does is cut it down, not by 41 percent, but
by 25 percent. And that is certainly going in the right direction.
AID is a smaller agency in programs but costs 40 percent more to run.
That is why this is such an important amendment. I am asking Members to
vote for it.
This is the right amendment. This issue of what it costs to run this
agency is a classic picture of an inefficient bureaucracy, or a
bureaucracy run amok. The AID bureaucracy is asking this year, with all
the increases they got in administrative costs, they are asking for
$11.5 million more so they can all fly first class around the country
and around the world.
It is time that we cut back on the administrative costs. This
committee bill that we have before us makes a modest cut of 10 percent
for the next 2 years. What the Burton amendment is saying is to cut it
back by 25 percent. Remember, they have a 41-percent operating cost
increase, while the programs have dropped by 23 percent. So it is a
huge increase, even with the Burton amendment.
There is a huge amount, $556 million. If you cut it by $90 million,
you are still at $466 million. In 1985, when this agency was spending
$2 billion more and had many more programs, they were spending on
administration costs $393 million. So we still see increases for
administration, while we have seen cutbacks in the programs by $2
billion.
It does not make sense, does it? That is why this particular
amendment is a good amendment. This amendment is only a modest
reduction. If you are interested in putting the taxpayers first, if you
want to cut waste and if you believe in shrinking the bureaucracy, then
this vote on the Burton amendment is a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROTH. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman know of any State
Department employee who flies first class, who has flown first class in
a commercial airline in this administration?
Mr. ROTH. I will not name any by name. I am more responsible than
that. But call down at the State Department. They will probably give
you an entire list.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, no one flies first class.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment incorporates a
provision which I had filed as a separate amendment. Let me commend
Chairman Gilman for including this provision.
My amendment injects some real savings into the reorganization plan.
It requires that a 20-percent reduction be made in the functions that
are folded into the State Department.
This reduction would be in effect for at least 2 fiscal years.
This provision insures that we will get savings from this
reorganization, when it occurs in 1998 and 1999.
Without this provision, we are not assured of any savings.
This provision rectifies that problem and improves the bill.
Let me also take this opportunity to describe a provision which was
incorporated in the en bloc amendment, adopted last night. This
provision, which I had filed as a separate amendment, requires an
annual assessment of the impact of U.S. foreign policy on our trade
posture and our competitive position in global markets. In 1988,
Congress enacted a similar requirement, as part of the Trade Act,
however the provision ``sunsetted'' last year and is no longer in
effect.
My amendment expands on that 1988 law, by requiring that we look at
our overall competitive position.
This amendment is important because we in the Congress must begin
considering how our foreign policy affects our ability to compete.
In today's world, our national security depends as much on our
economic strength as on our military might. In our Subcommittee on
International Economic Policy, we will use this report as the basis for
increased oversight on how foreign policy affects trade.
Finally, let me register my concern over another provision--which
authorizes the President to sell off the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation.
My understanding is that this does not in any way require the sale--
it merely authorizes it.
Last year, Congress reauthorized OPIC for 2 years.
Our Subcommittee on Economic Policy is scheduled to consider OPIC
next year. OPIC has $10 billion outstanding in loans, guarantees and
insurance policies. Most of these commitments are for 20 years, and the
Government cannot cancel them without jeopardizing the full faith and
credit of the United States.
Against these liabilities, OPIC has $2.3 billion in reserves--on
deposit in the U.S. Treasury.
OPIC pays for itself, and it even makes money--last year earning $161
million. Even though OPIC is subject to annual appropriations, it does
not use any taxpayer money.
In effect, the Appropriations Committee controls how OPIC uses its
own money. The Reagan administration studied whether OPIC could be
privatized--most recently in 1987--and the conclusion at the time was
that no one in the private sector would buy it.
It may be time to study this again, but we must not pre-judge the
feasibility of making this sale.
This provision should not be taken by anyone as a congressional
policy. The truth is, we simply do not know yet what the impact would
be of selling OPIC. Therefore, this provision is included in the
manager's amendment with this understanding.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, we are actually debating three amendments,
and I would like to speak on all three.
First of all, with regard to the Burton amendment to cut AID, I
strongly, strongly oppose it. Cutting AID any further, and we are
cutting it enough in this bill, would in my opinion render AID much
less effective. It would be simply a matter of being penny wise and
pound foolish. If we are going to lead in the world, then we have to
have a strong AID program. So I oppose the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Burton].
The chairman's amendment, the manager's amendment, I oppose that as
well, primarily because in the amendment we are withdrawing from the
Inter-Parliamentary Union. Let me tell Members what that means.
I want to read the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Gilman] with regard to the Inter-Parliamentary Union. It says the act
entitled An Act to Authorize Participation by the United States in the
Inter-Parliamentary Union approved June 28, 1935 is repealed.
Now, we have participated in the Inter-Parliamentary Union for 60
years. The Inter-Parliamentary Union is a group of parliaments from all
over the world, 135 countries, which get together to discuss
parliamentary democracy and other concerns around the world.
Is this the time that we ought to be withdrawing from such an
organization? To me, as so much else in this bill, this amendment is
yet another indication of the dangerous and growing isolationist wave
engulfing the Republican Party. The United States is the leader of the
Free World and we ought to lead.
The IPU is the only global international parliamentary organization
to which the U.S. Congress belongs. We have forums who meet on NATO and
CSCE, colleagues, but the IPU is the only parliamentary organization in
which we have a chance to meet with members of the Middle East,
including Israel, Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
And like most international parliamentary organizations, the great
utility of the IPU lies not in its resolutions or debates but in the
forum it provides for Members of Congress to interact and make direct
contacts with [[Page H5720]] prominent parliamentarians from around the
world. From personal experience, I have been to IPU meetings, and what
we get in interchange of ideas and talking is certainly an enhancement
of democracy.
This summer the United Nations is celebrating its 50th anniversary,
and in New York City there will be commemorations and celebrations, and
the IPU is taking the lead. Is this the year the United States ought to
withdraw from the Inter-Parliamentary Union when we are celebrating our
own country, the establishment of the United Nations and the
establishment of the victory in World War II over fascism and the
establishment of democracy, when countries are knocking down the door
to try to be more democratic and emulate the United States? We are
going to withdraw from the world. We are going to pull away. I can
think of nothing that is really more ridiculous.
One hundred thirty-five countries participate. The United States is
now going to join Upper Volta or some other country in not
participating. We really ought to wake up. It may sound good but it is
not something that is in the best interests of this country. So I am
opposed to the chairman's, the manager's amendment.
I want to speak briefly on the Hoyer amendment and Bosnia. There are
some of us who for the past 3 years
have been arguing for a lifting of the arms embargo. Every time we get
to the floor and we are able to bring forward some kind of resolution,
we are always hearing the argument that we should not get involved.
What has happened every time we plead? A year passes by, months pass
by, more people are killed, more people are raped, more injustice has
been heaped upon genocide, heaped upon a people. And yet the world
wrings its hands.
In my opinion, we ought to get the British and the French and
everybody else out of there and let the Bosnians defend themselves.
That is all they are asking. They are asking not for American troops.
They are asking for the arms to defend themselves. How can we just sit
by and allow genocide to happen again on the continent of Europe? I do
not understand it.
Diplomatic niceties are passed; 3 years ago, they passed. We said
this 3 years, 2 years ago, last year and now, and nothing has happened.
And if the events of the past several weeks have taught us nothing, I
do not know how we ever learned from history.
The Serbs are arrogant. They thumb their nose; they care not about
what the international community thinks. They have made a shambles out
of NATO. They have made us look like fools. They have made our allies
look like fools. Yet we stand by and say, no, no, no, we do not want to
give the Bosnian Moslems a chance to defend themselves. Is it because
they are Moslems? They are people. Give them the chance to defend
themselves. That is all they are asking, and I commend the gentleman
from Maryland for his amendment.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Burton]. He is a valued member of our committee.
He is the chair of our Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and has
been performing an important function in that area. I regret that I
cannot support his amendment. The bill before us already cuts AID
operating expenses by $52 million in fiscal year 1996 and another $98
million in fiscal year 1997.
The cuts in the bill already forces reductions in over 1,000 AID
employees. This amendment is somewhat like firing the assembly line
workers when the cars are only half built. Personnel reductions, if
they are to improve efficiency, must be done in a deliberate and a
planned manner.
While I strongly am in favor of reducing the budget and did so in the
bill, the cuts outlined here would devastate our programs while saving
only a small amount.
The amendment does not make exceptions for staff supporting Russian
disarmament programs, disaster relief or aid to starving people.
Accordingly, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Burton amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston], chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. First of all, I
would like to say that I support the Hoyer Amendment. I applaud the
gentleman for offering it, and I support it wholeheartedly.
As much as I would like to support my friend from Indiana, and I
appreciate his intent to downsize our foreign aid programs, and I share
that intent. His amendment unfortunately is just too extreme. The
Burton amendment would cut 25 percent from the operating expenses of
AID. A cut of that magnitude would almost certainly result in a
shutdown of the agency by next summer or perhaps earlier. That means
the child survival programs, disaster assistance and food aid program
would be halted before the end of the year.
Shutting down operations would not allow AID to oversee and implement
the $8 billion in funds obligated but not yet expended. It could lead
to tremendous waste and abuse, which is exactly what the gentleman from
Indiana does not want to happen.
The agency has already made major cuts in its staffing. The 8,750 on-
board work force level planned for October 1, 1996 is 18 percent below
the level at the end of fiscal year 1993.
More personnel cuts can and will be made, but such cuts need to be
made and they will be made.
Whatever one thinks of foreign aid, it would be irresponsible to
force such a draconian cut in the personnel account of this agency. We
have a responsibility to the taxpayers to ensure that the funds we
appropriate for the government programs are properly disbursed and that
adequate oversight is provided. I believe no matter how well-
intentioned, this amendment is shortsighted and counterproductive and I
urge the defeat of the Burton amendment.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Burton
amendment.
{time} 1345
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to the Burton
amendment. While I have the utmost respect for my colleague on the
International Relations Committee, and I believe that his amendment is
truly well-intentioned, I think the amendment is short-sighted
and counter-productive. Rather than streamline AID, the Burton
amendment will undermine its ability to implement the activities that
we in Congress have authorized. It will also destroy the reforms that
AID has already implemented toward cost-cutting and program
effectiveness.
In 1992, President George Bush appointed George Ferris to head a
Commission on the Management of AID. It was Ferris, a Republican
appointee, who said, ``We know of no other agency that has increased
its effectiveness to the degree that Brian Atwood has brought change
and reform in AID. * * * What has been accomplished at AID should serve
as an example for other departments and agencies of the Federal
Government.''
If I understand my colleague from Indiana, these cuts will save the
taxpayers money without harming our foreign policy and development
goals. I disagree. To accommodate such drastic cuts, AID would have to
lay off almost one-half of its direct-hire staff in the next year,
which would force the agency to spend most of its remaining resources
in contract termination costs, lease buyouts, transportation home for
personnel, and on mandatory retirement and separation benefits which
would have to be paid under the Foreign Service and Civil Service Acts.
By mandating such drastic cuts in such a short time frame, this
amendment would actually add millions of dollars to the cost of
streamlining and downsizing our foreign aid programs. These cuts would
force the agency to close down more than 20 overseas missions in
addition to the 25 that they have already begun to close. This would
force us to make impossible choices. Will we support new democracies or
child survival programs? Foreign aid used to be writing checks to
governments. But in recent years we have weaned ourselves off of direct
payments, and have focused on helping [[Page H5721]] nations develop
from the grassroots up. This policy shift was, correctly, mandated by
Congress. I believe that most AID programs are an effective use of a
very small amount of our taxpayers dollars. AID-backed training
programs can stabilize new democracies in Latin America, and prevent
famines in Africa. These are honorable goals which we must support.
Therefore, I oppose the Burton amendment.
Mr. Chairman, in my remaining time I wish to make an admission. That
is that, No. 1, I supported the measure by my friend, the gentleman
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], last year, and I feel that it has great
currency this year. However, the ranking member of this committee has
very carefully pinpointed those areas of vital concern that all of us
here should have. It is not that we do not recognize the horror and
destruction that is going on in Bosnia. It is that there is at this
time an increase in the UNPROFOR troops in that area. In addition
thereto, the United Nations has ongoing discussions with all of our
allies in that locale.
The day before yesterday the Prime Minister of Hungary visited this
august body, and some of us who met with him are mindful of his
entreaty that we not do anything to exacerbate conditions there.
Mr. Chairman, I understand where the gentleman from Maryland is
coming from, and all of my colleagues and I stand with him and take no
back seat to any Member in this House in being diametrically opposed to
the continuing slaughter going on in Bosnia. However, we need a careful
and reasoned approach, and not just something thrown together in just a
few minutes in order for us to be able to arrive at such conclusions as
we help our administration, that we help our allies, and that we help
ourselves come to an understanding.
There are no good solutions in Bosnia. I defy any man or woman of
this House to come forward and say that they have the answer, and
anyone that did have the answer would want to utilize it most
immediately.
Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the manager's bill, I urge defeat of
the foreign aid bill, I urge the defeat of the bill of the gentleman
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], and the defeat of the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Burton].
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the American Overseas Interest Act
and the manager's amendment to this bill. In the midst of the dire
fiscal situation in which our Nation now exists, this bill, and in
particular, this amendment that I helped craft, begin to set a course
in the right direction--to cut back spending and address the problems
that come with a $200 billion deficit and steadily expanding national
debt.
This Nation is drowning in a sea of red ink. Each day we are passing
on to the next generation a growing $4.8 trillion national debt. Last
November, the American people spoke in clear terms that passing on
massive bills to our children and grandchildren is simply not
acceptable. This new Congress heard their voices and during the first
100 days we passed legislation that represented a change from business
as usual--an end to the tax-and-spend policies of the past.
The American Overseas Interest Act continues this trend to cut back
on Government spending. This bill eliminates three agencies and
consolidates their operations into the State Department, eliminating
4,000 positions over 2 years. This bill saves the American taxpayer $21
billion over 7 years--a cut of between 15 and 20 percent from current
levels--and conforms to the budget requirement that balances the
Federal budget in 7 years. This is the first authorization bill we have
had of this nature in 10 years. This bill cuts $2.1 billion over fiscal
year 1996 and fiscal year 1997, and continues to reduce spending in
subsequent years.
Clearly we are on the right track to reduce spending.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support the manager's amendment, because
it goes further and explores areas where additional cuts have to be
made. My amendment, which is part of the manager's amendment, says
``Let us take a look at all programs,'' including the cultural and
educational exchange programs, the vast majority of which are
worthwhile.
However, Mr. Chairman, the issue is not one of merit but of cost. Can
we afford current spending levels, given the massive debt this Nation
has incurred?
As a part of this amendment, I have proposed additional reductions in
the U.S. Information Agency cultural and educational programs.
Specifically, we would save the American taxpayer an additional $10
million in fiscal year 1996 and another $10--half coming from Fulbright
scholarships and half from the other exchanges. The effects of these
savings would be to reduce spending on these accounts by 27 percent in
fiscal year 1996 and 44 percent in fiscal year 1997 from the fiscal
year 1995 levels.
Mr. Chairman, these are reasonable reductions and ones arrived at
with the cooperation of the distinguished chairman of the committee,
Mr. Gilman, whose assistance I greatly appreciate. I am pleased to see
that this Congress takes seriously its mandate from the American people
that massive debt is unacceptable, that passing the buck on to future
generations must stop and that Government spending must be brought
under control and reduced. This bill and this amendment contribute to
this effort, and I urge my colleagues to support passage of both.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment has a number of serious
defects, and it would take more time than remains in this debate to
address all of them.
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to address what is referred to as the
Hoke amendment, which would end OPIC. OPIC, which is an organization,
is not the one associated with oil control but the one that helps
American companies take advantage of opportunities overseas. OMB has
found that the transfer of OPIC reserves would be substantially
affecting our budget situation. There is an $2.4 billion outlay that
would be at risk. There is $146 million in income from the reserves
that are presently used in the 150 activities. The Federal budget would
also lose future cash flows from insurance premiums of $40 billion a
year.
What would that do, Mr. Chairman? What it would do is endanger what
has been $40 billion of American exports. Not only does OPIC make money
for the American taxpayer, but it helps produce thousands of jobs here
in the United States. It seems to me unbelievable that someone would
want to cripple an agency that produces revenue for the taxpayers and
produces jobs for Americans and business opportunity for American
companies.
In 1994 alone, Mr. Chairman, OPIC supported investments in projects
that will result in over $5.5 billion in the first 5 years of the
projects' operation, and will generate approximately 18,000 American
jobs. OPIC generates overseas investments, which in turn generate trade
and opportunity for American companies.
When we see the Japanese restricting American trade, we understand
why they are doing it. They are doing it because it is to their
advantage, so when they stop American agricultural products from going
to Japan, they are going to protect Japanese agriculture.
When they stop American auto parts from going to Japan, they are
doing it to stop Americans from making the auto parts that go into
Japanese cars, because they want to make them in Japan.
Why on Earth, Mr. Chairman, would anybody in this institution want to
cripple an agency that makes profit for the taxpayers and creates jobs
at home and business opportunities for American companies? If Members
vote for the manager's amendment, they are endangering thousands of
American jobs and the budget, because nowhere in the amendment of the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke], which is now part of the manager's
amendment, do they explain how they will replace the millions of
dollars that OPIC now generates for the Treasury.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues, for a host of
reasons, to vote against the manager's amendment. When other countries
do us harm in trade and take away American trading opportunities, we
know why they are doing it. They are doing it to help themselves. Why
somebody would take an American agency that [[Page H5722]] helps
American jobs and American workers and the American taxpayers and try
to destroy it is counterintuitive to our own self-interest,
and I would hope that people would recognize this and will vote against
the manager's amendment.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, let me bring up a few facts. I would like to speak to
the amendment of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. It has been
stated that the former Yugoslavia is a European problem, and that the
Europeans cannot handle it; that in the estimation of many, Europe has
not been willing to commit either the resources economically or
militarily to solve it.
I spoke recently with Dr. Kissinger. He said, and I quote, ``The only
way for the war to expand to Greece and to other countries is if the
major powers would have direct involvement to lift the embargo.'' Two
weeks ago I had dinner with Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, ``Cap''
Weinberger, and John Sununu. They said that the President's lack of
foreign policy in this particular area makes it even more dangerous for
us to get involved in risky amendments. I look at Russia's involvement
or willingness to become involved in this conflict. I look why Greece
supports the Serbians; because they were in World War II, and it was
the Croatians who fought with Nazi Germany. The head of the Moslems
trained with Qadhafi in Libya with Moslem terrorists. Yet, on the other
side, the Serbians and the Croatians both have former, and I quote,
used loosely, former Communist leaders. Therefore, the whole area is
awry. For us to get involved in that civil war and possibly jump in is
dangerous, I think, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I voted yesterday against my own leadership on the War
Powers Act, because I did not think we had enough time to look at it. I
thought it was not responsible. I do not think the War Powers Act
works, but we need to adjust it. I voted against my own leadership on
that principle.
{time} 1400
I would say to my friend from Maryland, on the same principle, I
oppose the gentleman's amendment.
If we give arms to the other side, I think we invite direct input
from the Russians and their intervention. I look at the Pentagon, and I
know most of the generals and the admirals by first names, and I talk
to them. It is wrong, in their opinion, for us to get involved and lift
the arms embargo.
No one wants to raise the embargoes other than those that generally
have not been directly involved in combat. For us to decrease our own
military size, to put and risk our own troops in harm's way, our men
and women, and then to lift an embargo, would further throw kerosene on
that fire.
My job in the Seventh Fleet was to employ war-fighting both Allied
and U.S. troops in and out of countries. Seventeen weeks ago in the
Christian Science Monitor I published an article that said if you bomb,
the Serbs are going to retaliate. They are going to bomb Moslems and
they are going to bomb Croatians and they are going to kill a lot of
civilians. They are going to capture our peacekeepers, tie them to the
primary targets, and then move their weapons.
Yet yesterday I heard Secretary Perry say we knew that; we knew the
risk, and we consider it a success. Well, after that when they chained
them, they shut down, the Serbians are still bombing, they are still
gunning, but yet 70 are dead.
I would ask my friend from Maryland, if you want to sit in on
hearings, I will bring in those admirals and those generals, and I
would just ask the gentlemen from Maryland to sit down and listen to
the dangers involved in this particular amendment. I understand the
good intentions of the gentleman from Maryland, but in my humble
opinion, it is wrong, and I oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, speaking of behaving responsibly, would the
gentleman explain what he is talking about, about a Moslem leader
training with Qaddafi? I know that not to be the case. I do not know
who it is you could possibly be referring to.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to provide the entire
dossier on the gentleman, and I will provide it to him immediately.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the manager's amendment. Is it
really too much to expect the largest economic and military power in
the world to spend almost 1 percent of its budget on developing market
opportunities overseas, in promoting democracy, in protecting human
rights? The vast majority of the American people have no idea how
little we spend on foreign aid.
Now we have a manager's amendment that picked up all these little
piles of amendments that were rejected by a committee that reported out
a very extreme bill, they were rejected in committee, and now to get
enough votes we throw them all into one package. Talk about a package
that stinks, and that is entirely counter to the direction in which
this country has gone from the days of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry
Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and all the way up through Ronald Reagan and
President Bush.
You look at the Burton amendment. The Bush and Baker administration
established these overseas missions in the New Independent States. The
Burton amendment requires that we gut them. In fact, you have heard
from the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the chairman
of the Committee on International Relations on how bad the Burton
amendment is.
I trust that people will recognize that that Burton amendment
actually prevents us from accomplishing any of the programs we are
talking about, eliminates the Micro Enterprise Program for all intents
and purposes, eliminates our child survival programs, eliminates the
ability to do anything more than simply write checks to foreign
nations.
That is not what this Congress has voted to do in the past. They
voted to give more responsibility to our international executive
establishment so that we could be audited and we would be accountable
for what we spend. The Burton amendment prevents us from being able to
do that.
The Manzullo amendment, gutting the exchange programs. Anwar Sadat,
F.W. DeKlerk, can you put a price tag on the value of leaders like
that? And they were major participants in our USIA exchange programs.
I could go down the list of these amendments. Most Members have no
idea what they do. We were only
just shown what they did a couple of hours ago. They are wrong, they
are bad, they are inconsistent with foreign policy that has been
established decades ago by both Republican and Democratic
administrations.
Now I would like to address the Hoyer amendment. The reason why this
amendment is appropriate is that the arms embargo was never intended to
apply to Bosnia. It was intended to apply when there was conflict
between Serbia and Slovenia and then Croatia, and Slovenia and Croatia
had the capacity, the access to arms. Bosnia never did. They never had
the arms, they never had the capability for manufacturing weapons, so
they have had to sit back while an aggressor came in and slaughtered
them.
People who would suggest that this is a civil war are simply wrong.
This is not any civil war. The reality is that it is a war that was
directed, conducted, initiated by Serbia to create a greater Serbia.
No Bosnians have ever bent a blade of grass in Serbia, and we have a
multiethnic democracy. It is not just a Moslem state as many would
suggest. The head right now happens to be Moslem. The Ambassador to the
United States is Jewish. The leadership of the Government is a
combination of Croatians and Serbians and Moslems.
They want to live together. That is why they are a threat to fascists
like Milosevic and others. They do no want that to happen. They do not
want a country like Bosnia to survive.
The United Nations comes in, the United Nations has a mission. Not to
do right, not to ensure justice is done, but to sit back and
essentially observe. We created safe areas. How safe is anyone living
in those safe areas? We have deserted them. They have been shelled.
People have been killed. [[Page H5723]]
We have more than 2 million refugees throughout Europe. We have had
about 40,000 women deliberately raped as a strategy, a tactic of war.
We have over 100,000 people who have been slaughtered, defenseless to
defend themselves.
I think we ought to lift the arms embargo, but I think we ought to do
more than that. I think we ought to protect a sovereign nation. We
ought to stand up for the integrity of territorial borders. That is the
problem.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to address the House for
1 further minute, because the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] asked
for 3 minutes, we gave him the 3 minutes out of deference, I think
maybe a third of that time. We would ask that we have that extra time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would have
to object. We only have 15 minutes left for the full debate. We have a
number of Members who wish to speak. As much as I admire the gentleman,
I am going to ask him to please refrain.
Mr. MORAN. I defer to the judgment and leadership of the chairman of
the Committee on International Relations.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Burton amendment and rise to
also support the Mica amendment which is part of this package.
Let me tell my colleagues, I have seen AID firsthand in dozens of
countries around the world and AID is a wasteful and ineffective
bureaucracy. It should be abolished as it exists or dramatically
modified.
AID represents a post-World War II mentality. It has become an
international welfare system that creates dependency and fails to help
our U.S. trade activities. It often does very little to assist
countries in need to help themselves.
Let me tell Members some examples. After spending billions of dollars
to free Haiti with a military force and having spent over $1 billion in
United States economic assistance, including $600,000 in AID grants,
what has happened?
Here is the AID plan for Haiti. The cornerstone of this AID plan is
25,000 Haitians collecting garbage, 2,400 feeding stations, millions
for election supervision, millions for judicial training, and almost
nothing, a couple of pages, for creating permanent jobs.
Even teenagers with whom I met just recently in Port-au-Prince who
serve in our military, these are teenage soldiers of our force. This is
what one of them handed me, this note. He did not sign it but he says,
``Port-au-Prince is secured. There is no need for United States
presence in Haiti. I believe a lot of the money spent here should go to
problems in the United States. This is a waste of taxpayers' money.''
This is what our teenaged soldiers who observe the process there say.
Last summer I went to Bratislava in Slovakia and found that we only
had one part-time commercial officer from Vienna coming once a week to
help our United States trade agencies in this emerging nation. On the
other hand, the AID office in Bratislava--now get this--has more
employees than our Embassy.
We spend millions of taxpayer dollars in this country, for example,
to set up a banking system and provide enterprise funds. Then we let
other countries get the contracts for this business.
The President, an American citizen, of the Slovak American Chamber of
Commerce told me, and let me quote what he said. He said, ``We spend
$200 to give away $1.''
My colleagues, we are the laughingstock of the emerging nations.
When I visited recently our Embassy in Moscow, we had only four full-
time commercial officers. In contrast, AID had an entire building with
hundreds of employees.
I took in the private sector one of the first trade missions to
Lithuania and every Lithuanian from the lowest official to the highest
said, ``Trade, not aid.'' Then I returned to the United States, turned
on the TV and saw our transport delivering humanitarian aid to the
Soviet Union, the former Soviet Union, Russia. A couple of nights later
I turned on the same newscast and there was the largest trade show in
the history of Moscow, sponsored by the Japanese. Counting full-time
employees and individuals serving under personal service contracts, AID
has over 9,000 employees, more than our Embassies.
This amendment only cuts 25 percent from their funds. The entire U.S.
foreign commercial service office only has 896 people working abroad.
We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars with few positive
results.
AID is an outdated, overrated giveaway program. We should be focusing
our efforts on increasing and improving trade activities as I have in
my amendment. Trade rather than temporary aid will raise the fortune
and opportunities and jobs for all people.
I do not oppose all foreign aid and I resent President Clinton's
statement that we are isolationists.
Let me tell Members, there are still billions in this bill for aid.
Americans are the most compassionate people in the world. But let me
tell you, ladies and gentlemen, they are not the dumbest. If the
Clinton administration were around when they had outhouses, they would
be opposed to bringing the plumbing inside.
I do not oppose again all aid. Look at Japan. They tie trade to aid.
Look at our successes where we provide trade and business opportunities
rather than a temporary handout. Finally, look at even the earliest
Biblical lessons that teach a man how to fish.
People in Grenada may need sidewalks. I need sidewalks for the people
in my district. People in Port-au-Prince may need their garbage
collected, but, my colleagues, in my district, I only have the people
in my district and the taxpayers to pay for their trash collections.
Quite frankly, both I and my constituents believe there can be a
better way. Let us revise AID.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, there is such limited time, I ask unanimous
consent that additional speakers be limited to 3 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object,
and I will not object, may I ask how much time is left?
The CHAIRMAN. Approximately 10 minutes, until 2:25.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Then I would object, Mr. Chairman, because
we have two additional speakers.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we have more
than two additional speakers. I am trying to give everyone the
opportunity to speak. That is why I am asking consent to agree to a
limitation of time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object,
I ask unanimous consent that we have 10 additional minutes for this
debate. I think it is important that Members who want to speak get an
opportunity to speak.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the rule calls
for a 2:25 limitation.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would point out that the rule does not
provide for a unanimous-consent request to extend the time beyond that
provided in the rule.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I object to the unanimous-
consent request.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Burton amendment to cut the
operating expenses of the U.S. Agency for International Development,
the implementing arm of our Nation's concern for children around the
world.
It is really ironic that a Member who has seen with his own eyes the
suffering of African children would propose such a cruel amendment.
This amendment will gut programs of child survival and feeding
programs for young children, because there will be insufficient staff
to carry out the very programs for which we are authorizing funds. What
kind of a business are we running when we commit products to save
lives, but do not have the cooks and truck drivers to get the food to
the needy consumers? [[Page H5724]]
I know from past discussions of this subject in the International
Relations Committee that Mr. Burton somehow feels that our overseas
staff is too large. Yet, in the last 2 years under the effective
leadership of AID Administrator Brian Atwood we have already reduced
total staff while at the same time have added 24 AID missions in
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. AID has even responded to
assisting in the peace process by implementing new programs in the West
Bank and Gaza, bringing the results of peace to the people there.
Amazingly, Mr. Burton seems to have a problem with an agency that is
trying to turn around the management mistakes of the past
administration when 87 percent of the money was spent in the last
quarter.
How can any business operate this way and provide timely service to
the people America wants to help? This is why we need to keep the AID
budget for staff and operations on a sufficient level.
I further find this amendment ironic on the month of the African
child, which we celebrate on June 16 in commemoration of the South
African children that lost their lives in Soweto.
Let us save the children.
Vote against the Burton amendment.
{time} 1415
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise to support the amendment of my colleague and good friend from
Maryland, Mr. Hoyer. I believe we are debating a simple proposition
today. There have to be consequences of aggression. There have to be
consequences of aggression. It is not enough to stand on this floor and
bemoan the rapes and bemoan the genocide and then not do anything.
I think we all agree we do not want to see U.S. troops actively
engaged, but it seems to me that we do have to level the playing field,
we do have to allow the victims of aggression the opportunity to
protect themselves.
When there are consequences of aggression, when the victim has an
opportunity to respond, you have a climate in which peace negotiations
can take place because now the aggressor has a reason to negotiate for
peace because he suffers some casualties and he suffers some hardships.
In the absence of these consequences, in the absence of weapons to
defend oneself, there are no consequences, and the aggression
continues.
I believe that people should be cautious and I am not unmindful of
the caution cited by the ranking member. But it is clear to me that
this lifting of the arms embargo need not be immediate. We can have an
orderly withdrawal of U.N. peacekeepers. There is no peace to keep. We
can protect them, have them move out, and then lift the arms embargo
and enable the people who are the victims of the genocide we bemoan and
the victims of the rapes we bemoan to defend themselves in the only way
they can, and that is with weapons.
If we truly believe that we should exert leadership in the world, if
we truly believe as the only superpower we have a responsibility not to
allow another Holocaust, it seems to me that we ought to take the only
logical step remaining, and that is to lift the embargo following the
withdrawal of U.N. peacekeepers and allow the victims of this savagery
to defend themselves.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hoyer amendment. Through
vacillation, indecision, incoherence, and incompetence, the Clinton
administration has allowed the situation in Bosnia to go from bad to
worse. And let us not forget that the previous administration was in
office when the arms embargo was imposed. During those years I was
equally vociferous in my opposition to the imposition of the arms
embargo.
Beyond the deepening humanitarian disaster, 200,000 civilian killed
while half of the population have been forced to become refugees--the
worst humanitarian crisis in Europe since World War II. There have been
over 20,000 rapes. The United Nations and NATO have found themselves
very much undermined through this process. But the loss of life
obviously is our overriding concern.
As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I just left a hearing where
Bosnian Prime Minister Haris Silajdzic made a very, very convincing and
compelling case to lift the arms embargo. He has done this before with
equal eloquence, but some of his comments
today should be heard by every Member of this Chamber and every
American. He said, ``We face extinction; our people are dying, each and
every day,'' while the United Nations and NATO, but especially the
United Nations, talks about more talks with people like Milosevic and
others who are war criminals, and frankly thugs.
Developments on the ground in Bosnia underscore the utter failure of
the international community to come to terms with the armed aggression
and genocide that has been perpetrated by the Bosnian Serbs against the
people of Bosnia.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, we hear over and over again that we do not
want to see escalation of the fighting in Bosnia. Nobody wants to see
that, but there are an estimated 200,000 Bosnian government forces who
want to take up arms, but there is only one rifle for every three
soldiers. They cannot defend themselves. Mr. Speaker, everybody should
remember and be mindful of the fact that when the breakup of the former
Yugoslavia occurred, the military capability and the might of
Yugoslavia fell into hands of the Serbs, placing the Bosnians and the
Croats at a great disadvantage. When an arms embargo was imposed, one
side had all the guns, all the MiG's, all the heavy artillery and the
tanks; the other side had nothing but broom handles and sticks. Again,
that is why the continued imposition of the arms embargo is so immoral.
Dr. Silajdzic said, and I thought it was very well taken, that the
arms embargo is illegal, immoral, and after 3 years it is inhumane. The
policy of containment has done nothing to stop armed aggression and
genocide. The arms embargo has rewarded aggression.
And let me make another point that I think is very important. The
Prime Minister said again today as he has said before, as President
Izetbegovic has stressed, the Bosnians do not want American troops,
they do not want British troops, they do not want French troops. They
want to exercise their right to defend themselves, as any sovereign
nation would want, especially in the face of aggression and genocide.
On the U.N. rapid reaction force, he said it is a more robust status
quo. The U.N. peacekeepers are not even safe and they have the modest
ability to defend themselves, but certainly the civilians who are
killed each and every day by sniper fire and shelling are anything but
safe.
The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] mentioned earlier, that he and
I have been to that part of the world--we have seen the devastation. We
were in Vukovar together. Shortly thereafter, we met with Milosevic,
who denied that attacks in the city had resumed. We saw Serb MiG's fly
over Vukovar with our own eyes, yet he denied it. We saw the tanks and
devastation and that has continued year in and year out, and we have
done nothing to stop it. There is bipartisan support for this effort to
lift the arms embargo. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and I
and others have had hearings, we have looked in the eyes of the women
raped as a part of this genocide, and we were absolutely moved to
tears. It is unconscionable that we will not allow Bosnia--a sovereign
state--to defend itself. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the Hoyer
amendment in keeping with Bosnia's inherent right to self defense under
the U.N. Charter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from
Nebraska.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to extend his remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Burton
amendment to make further cuts in AID.
If we adopt this amendment, we should forget about child survival
programs, [[Page H5725]] microenterprise support and democracy
promotion programs that are authorized in this bill.
This amendment will make it almost impossible for AID to implement
these and other activities that don't simply involve writing checks to
foreign governments, but involve serious work of program design
implementation and oversight.
To accommodate such drastic cuts, AID would have to lay off nearly
one-third of its direct-hire staff in the next year, throwing its
operations into chaos.
In addition, the costs associated with the mandatory retirement and
separation benefits which would have to be paid to those employees
under the Foreign Service and Civil Service Acts would be enormous.
The Burton rapid cutback would entail termination costs in excess of
$100 million in fiscal year 1996, which could not be borne by the
reduced operating expenses account. These costs include severance for
U.S. and foreign national direct-hire and PSC employees, contract
termination costs, lease buyouts and transportation for American
employees returning from overseas.
AID would also have to close down between 15 and 20 overseas missions
in addition to the 25 it is already closing down.
This would compel the United States to make impossible choices about
ending support for countries in which we have real interests and which
are going through tough democratic and market reforms.
While there may be some merit to streamlining the AID presence
overseas, this kind of draconian cut would merely ensure that the
assistance we are authorizing in this bill is not spent wisely or
effectively.
This cut would also mean that AID would have to stop its development
and acquisition of new technologies that are designed to make the
delivery of assistance more efficient and cost-effective--technologies
which we in Congress have been pushing them to develop and use over
many years.
Shutting down all overseas operations and terminating all of the
Agency's employees would leave no capacity to oversee the
implementation of the $8 billion in funds obligated but not yet
expended in the Agency's pipeline.
The fiscal year 1996 budget request for operating expenses represents
less than 7 percent of the Agency's overall appropriation request of
$7.56 billion for fiscal year 1996, an extremely low overhead rate by
any standard.
Mr. Chairman, the bill already meets the category of AIP funding of
$25 million in fiscal year 1996 and $55 million in fiscal year 1997.
The Burton amendment would approximately cut a further $70 million in
fiscal year 1996 and $25 million in fiscal year 1997. The distinguished
chairman and ranking minority member of the International Relations
Committee have already spoken against this amendment, as has the
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Livingston.
I strongly urge Members to approve the Burton amendment.
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to correct the mischaracterization of
the OPIC amendment that I have. It calls for a privatization
feasibility study. It was mischaracterized by the gentleman from
Connecticut as being the elimination of OPIC. It is not. It does
authorize the President to sell OPIC's stock. It does not direct him to
do so. It calls for a feasibility study and its adoption will assist
the Internnational Relations Committee in its upcoming review.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]
has expired.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
proceed for 1 additional minute.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] is
recognized for the 2 remaining minutes under the rule.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hoyer amendment
and in deep opposition to the Burton amendment and in opposition to the
manager's amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. He is very gentlemanly to do that.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to use my time to say that this is a bad
amendment, referring to the Hoyer amendment, to an already terrible
bill. It is going to waste $16 billion American dollars, money we have
to borrow in order to give away to rich countries like Israel and
Egypt.
But worse than that, the Hoyer amendment would call for the wasting
of American lives. Testimony before the Committee on Armed Services
coming from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell,
says you cannot just give people surface-to-air missiles. You cannot
just give people heavy artillery. You have to send people over there
first to deliver it and then to train them to use it, and that means
putting American service personnel on the ground in the Bosnia, which
is going to lead to the loss of American lives in a 700-year-old war.
Those who think that the Moslems from the Middle East are going to
stand by once we lift the embargo or the Russians are going to stand by
once we lift the embargo and not help the Croatians are absolutely
crazy.
Where is the rush to squander American lives?
Yesterday this Congress did the right thing in voting not to get rid
of the War Powers Act and voting not to give President Clinton more
power to send American kids off to get killed. If you are so anxious to
go help the Moslems or the Croatians or the Serbs, put down your
briefcase, pick up a gun, and go have a lot of fun. But do not send
American troops off to do what you will not do. Do you squander their
lives for a hopeless war in a part of the world where we do not belong.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I will vote for the Gilman amendment for one
reason and one reason only: The Gilman amendment includes the Hoyer
amendment which would lift the U.N. arms embargo against Bosnia and
Herzegovina and allow that nation to defend itself.
There are several provisions of the Gilman amendment that are
troubling to me. I support the continuation of the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation, which the Gilman amendment would privatize. I
support the work of the Agency for International Development and
strongly disagree with the Gilman amendment's reductions in personnel
at AID.
But I have been to Bosnia. I have seen the slaughter of the people
there. I have been huddled with those people in basements which were
their only sanctuary after their city was shelled. The Bosnian Serbs
are maiming and killing innocent people and the arms embargo continues
to tie the hands of the people of Bosnia in their efforts at self-
defense.
The Hoyer amendment, I believe, can help to bring the war in Bosnia
more quickly to an end. The Hoyer amendment will let the people of
Bosnia know that the United States Congress stands with them.
For that reason and that reason alone, I vote today for the Gilman
amendment which includes the Hoyer amendment to give the people of
Bosnia their right to self-defense.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment offered by Mr. Manzullo because further reductions in funding
for cultural exchange programs would cripple the country's ability to
build a meaningful dialog with new democracies around the world.
As the United States scales back abroad, USIA-supported exchange
programs have become vital to our national security. In the past, the
exchange programs encouraged greatness in the lives of modern, global
leaders like F.W. DeKlerk and Anwar Sadat. Today, in a fractured world,
these programs are a beacon to young leaders searching for practical
policies that have been tested over time.
We must make long-term efforts to promote, first, civil societies,
second, open economies, third, respect for human rights and fourth,
peaceful resolution of conflict.
Let me tell you about an exchange program that works. In
Jacksonville, FL, the chamber of commerce with its 5,000 members, has
jointly developed a leadership program with the Czech Ministry of
Industry and Trade. The program has become national in scope as Czech
future leaders come to America to learn about democracy and trade. This
successful hands on program involves local participation and should be
replicated rather than destroyed. Many Czech participants have written
letters telling how their internship changed their life by opening
doors they did not know existed.
This is a win/win situation for Jacksonville and other cities that
have entered into USIA-supported exchange programs. Today Jacksonville
is reaching out to the world because it knows it must in order to grow
and not stagnate in the 21st century. [[Page H5726]]
I support USIA-supported exchange programs because I know that our
Nation must not stagnate in the 21st century.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment to
unilaterally lift the arms embargo on the Bosnian Government.
I take this position very reluctantly. But I have to say that I
believe that voting for this action today would be a grave mistake.
Some of our most important allies have put their forces in harm's way
to try to bring about a halt in the fighting and to safeguard the
civilian population in Bosnia. True, they have not been completely
successful. But compared to the carnage and atrocities that occurred in
Bosnia prior to the deployment of U.N. forces, the situation is more
than a modest improvement. And our allies have just taken further
action to introduce additional forces for a rapid deployment force to
enhance the prospects of peace enforcement and to open supply lines to
civilian populations.
If we lift the arms embargo we will pull the rug out from under our
allies and invite the Serbian forces, which have been the aggressors in
this conflict and have been responsible for utterly abhorrent
atrocities and human rights violations, to renew completely unbridled
hostilities. We will endanger the lives of UNPROFOR troops who today
remain in illegal Serbian custody. And we will put the forces of our
allies who are on the ground today in even greater danger than they
currently find themselves.
Our allies with troops on the ground have said they will withdraw
from Bosnia if we lift the embargo. Our President has already pledged
that he would support this withdrawal with the deployment of U.S.
ground troops. So make no mistake about it--if we lift the embargo now
we will absolutely compel the introduction of U.S. ground forces to
extricate UNPROFOR troops.
I might add that if anyone here thinks the Serbs will wait until the
embargo is lifted, the Bosnian Moslems rearm, and the Bosnian Moslems
train in the effective use of the new weapons they receive before the
Serbs resume further offensive actions, including the full-scale
shelling of civilian populations, they are sadly mistaken. The Serbs
will initiate mass shelling immediately. Thousands more civilians will
be killed or wounded.
We should wait to see how the latest European initiative introducing
troops into Bosnia fares before we ruin its chances for success. I know
the situation in Bosnia is tragic. Last year some 3,000 people were
killed in Bosnia as a consequence of the fighting there. But this is
nothing compared to the number that would die if the fighting proceeds
without check.
If our allies give up on this situation, if they conclude that there
is no further utility in trying to intervene on the side of peace and
they choose to withdraw their forces, then we should indeed lift the
embargo. But doing so before that time would be premature. It will
result in further terrible loss of life. And it surely will suck U.S.
ground troops into this conflict and involve our Nation in a war it
does not want to be in.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
amendment being offered by Mr. Gilman.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would further cut funding for one of the
most successful programs our Nation operates--the Sister Cities
Program, as well as other important cultural exchange programs.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower founded the Sister Cities Program
almost 40 years ago, and now Sister Cities is the largest citizen
exchange organization in the world. There are more than 1,000 U.S.
cities in partnership with over 1,900 international cities in 120
countries.
As a former member of the board of directors of Sister Cities. I have
seen first hand the benefits that the program brings.
My own city of San Jose, CA, has built strong relationships with such
cities as Okayama, Japan, and Dublin, Ireland.
When the San Francisco Bay Area suffered the Loma Prieta earthquake
in 1989, the citizens of San Jose, Costa Rica, another of our Sister
Cities, generously sent supplies and aid for the relief centers.
The Sister Cities Program, Mr. Chairman, brings people of different
nations together in friendship and understanding. It builds
relationships that strengthen the bonds between the United States and
the other nations of the world.
Mr. Chairman, as we seek to reduce the Federal budget deficit, we
must do so responsibly. In cutting funding for cultural exchange
programs like Sister Cities, this amendment goes far beyond what is
reasonable and will cripple programs that are of very great importance.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Gilman amendment.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, today, we have the welcome news of
Capt. Scott O'Grady's rescue by U.S. Marines in northern Bosnia. Having
survived the trauma of being shot down by hostile forces is testimony
to Captain O'Grady's courage and determination. This mission was a
combination of Semper Fidelis and the luck of the Irish.
As a Member of this body and because of my own Croatian heritage,
Bosnia is a major concern. I continue to pray for the quickest
possible--and least bloody--resolution to the crisis in the Balkans.
Let me make firm by belief that there must be no large-scale
commitment of American troops in Bosnia.
The need, Mr. Chairman is to lift the arms embargo immediately. What
many fail to see is that by not lifting the embargo, the
internationally recognized state of Bosnia cannot effectively defend
itself. We must not be a party to preventing fearless people from
resisting naked aggression. The aggressive conduct of the Bosnian Serbs
can and will be met--and punished--by those who want to defend
themselves.
If the international community will not help, it must not hinder.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of a provision in
the fiscal year 1996 American Overseas Act [H.R. 1561], related to
unresolved commercial claims between United States nationals and the
Government of Saudi Arabia.
This section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export and Control Act to require
congressional oversight and scrutiny of all arms sales to the
Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia until such time as the
Secretary of State certifies and reports to Congress that the unpaid
claims of American companies described in the June 30, 1993 report by
the Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 9140(c) of the Department
of Defense Appropriation Act, 1993, Public Law 102-396; 106 Stat. 1939,
including the additional claims noticed by the Department of Commerce
on page 2 of the report, have been resolved satisfactorily.
For more than 2 years now, Gibbs & Hill, Inc., has been waiting for
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to honor commitments to it and to our
Government to favorably resolve its $43.4 million debt owed to it by
the Saudi Arabian Government. The claim is one of the long outstanding
claims designated for resolution by the Saudi Arabian Government, by
its Embassy here in Washington, under the special claims process which
was originated by this body following hearings on May 9, 1992 on the
commercial abuses of American companies by the Kingdom.
As recently as 3 weeks ago, United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia,
Raymond Mabus, advised Members of Congress and the company that he had
been assured by a member of the Saudi Royal Court, on the authority of
the King, that the Kingdom was soon to pay the claim. Despite this
assurance, the Saudi Arabian Embassy here in Washington continues its
efforts to delay, obfuscate, and avoid payment of the debt. This
outrageous situation cannot be allowed to continue. This section will
show the Congress intends to stress upon the Saudi Arabian Government
that the claims issue must be successfully concluded through the
payment of this last remaining claim.
The claim of Gibbs & Hill dates back more than a decade. In 1978,
Gibbs & Hill went to Saudi Arabia to provide its engineering expertise
to the Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu in connection with the
design and construction of the Yanbu industrial city. Gibbs & Hill was
hired by the Royal Commission to help design the desalination and
related facilities which are a major component of this industrial
complex. The Royal Commission required significant additional services
of Gibbs & Hill to perform the work, committing to compensate Gibbs &
Hill for the added services, benefiting from the work performed, and
highly praising Gibbs & Hill's work product, but the Royal Commission
refused to pay. Gibbs & Hill's attempts to seek redress through the
Kingdom's court system was useless, as the court merely upheld the
wrongful acts of another agency of the Kingdom. Gibbs & Hill was
decimated by the financial losses suffered on this project as a result
of the commercial abuses of the Kingdom.
We have an opportunity now to bring the special claims process to a
successful conclusion through the full and prompt resolution of the
Gibbs & Hill claim. This is a stated policy objective of our Nation,
which is currently supported by some 50 Members of Congress and
Senators from both sides of the aisle. This section will ensure that in
the future, American companies are protected from the type of
commercial abuses suffered by Gibbs & Hill at the hands of the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for consideration of amendments under this
rule has expired.
parliamentary inquiries
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
[[Page H5727]]
Mr. HOYER. To understand the parliamentary situation at this point in
time, am I correct that the Gilman en bloc amendment will be voted on
after the Hoyer amendment as a secondary amendment which will be voted
upon first; then is it my understanding that the Burton amendment will
be then split out of the en bloc amendment for the purposes of a vote,
and then the Gilman amendment as amended?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. For the information of the
Members, the Chair will announce that the order of voting will proceed
as follows: first on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Gilman]; next on separate votes on any divisible portion of
this Gilman amendment; and finally on the remainder of the Gilman
amendment, as amended or not.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, does that mean that Members
could ask for a division on any of the manager's amendments that are in
there?
The CHAIRMAN. Any divisible portion of the amendment can be subjected
to a separate vote.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Gilman].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXIII, the Chair
announced that he may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the period of
time within which a rollcall vote by electronic device may be taken
without intervening business on the divisible portions of the Gilman
amendment.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 318,
noes 99, not voting 17, as follows
[Roll No. 362]
AYES--318
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Bachus
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonior
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Danner
Davis
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fattah
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flake
Flanagan
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wyden
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--99
Abercrombie
Armey
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Borski
Browder
Brown (CA)
Canady
Clay
Clinger
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Combest
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Cunningham
Deal
Dellums
Dixon
Edwards
Ehlers
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Foglietta
Foley
Fowler
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Goodling
Gordon
Hamilton
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hostettler
Houghton
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Knollenberg
Lewis (GA)
Longley
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McKinney
Meek
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Moakley
Murtha
Payne (VA)
Petri
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Roemer
Rose
Roukema
Sabo
Sanders
Schroeder
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Souder
Spence
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Torkildsen
Torres
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Ward
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--17
Bonilla
Chapman
de la Garza
Dicks
Harman
Johnson (CT)
Kleczka
Laughlin
Lofgren
McDade
Montgomery
Oberstar
Peterson (FL)
Spratt
Thornton
Wicker
Yates
{time} 1448
Mrs. MEEK of Florida and Messrs. CRANE, BROWDER, LEWIS of Georgia,
and CLINGER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. BUYER, Mrs. CLAYTON, and Messrs CALLAHAN, NADLER, SERRANO, BLUTE,
and RUSH changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the last divisible portion of the
amendment as originally offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Gilman], as amended, demanded by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Burton].
The Clerk will report the divided portion of the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
In section 3231 of the bill (in section 667(a)(1) of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as proposed to be amended by
such section 3231; relating to operating expenses of the
United States Agency for International Development), strike
``$465,774,000'' and insert ``$396,770,250'' and strike
``$419,196,000'' and insert $396,770,250''.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that this portion of 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.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the last divisible portion of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], as
amended.
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 182,
noes 236, not voting 16, as follows:
[[Page H5728]]
[Roll No 363]
AYES--182
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bevill
Boehner
Bono
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Camp
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
English
Ensign
Ewing
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gekas
Geren
Goodlatte
Graham
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kennedy (RI)
Kim
Kingston
Klug
Largent
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Lincoln
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Minge
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Poshard
Quillen
Radanovich
Ramstad
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shuster
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Waldholtz
Walker
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--236
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Callahan
Calvert
Cardin
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Danner
Davis
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Hyde
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Livingston
Longley
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Slaughter
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornton
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
White
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--16
Bonilla
Chapman
de la Garza
Dicks
Harman
Johnson (CT)
Kleczka
Laughlin
Lofgren
McDade
Montgomery
Oberstar
Peterson (FL)
Spratt
Wicker
Yates
{time} 1459
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Wicker for, with Mr. Yates against.
Mr. DeFAZIO and Mr. QUINN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. KASICH, KIM, and McCOLLUM changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the last divisible portion of the amendment, as amended, was
rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1500
The question is on the remaining portion of the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], as amended.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239,
noes 117, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No 364]
AYES--239
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Forbes
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--177
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo [[Page H5729]]
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Klink
Knollenberg
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
NOT VOTING--18
Allard
Bonilla
Chapman
de la Garza
Dicks
Harman
Johnson (CT)
Kleczka
Laughlin
Lofgren
McDade
Montgomery
Oberstar
Peterson (FL)
Spratt
Walsh
Wicker
Yates
{time} 1509
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Wicker for, with Mr. Yates against.
Mr. WILSON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to reiterate my strong support
for the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, of which I am an original co-
sponsor.
Those who support this portion of H.R. 1561 believe in the integrity
of the United States, and are sensitive to preserving America's
credibility abroad. That credibility is linked to effectively carrying-
out policies of humanitarian assistance. U.S. humanitarian assistance
must be allowed to be delivered to those countries in need all over the
world.
Specifically, this legislation will address situations such as that
found in Armenia, where a Turkish blockade is preventing our aid from
being delivered. It is essential that United States aid be allowed to
flow unhindered into Armenia.
I urge my colleagues to support the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1561,
the so-called American Overseas Interests Act. Despite several good
provisions, this bill will severely restrict the ability of the United
States to exercise leadership in the post-cold war world. By
micromanaging foreign policy and slashing valuable foreign aid
resources, this legislation unilaterally disarms America and relegates
the world's sole remaining superpower to a second-class status.
H.R. 1561 includes a number of provisions that tie the hands of the
President and reduce the leverage he needs to solve complex foreign
policy problems in countries such as Russia, North Korea, and China. It
also undermines our effective participation in international
organizations and our efforts to encourage other nations to share the
burden of global responsibilities.
It is ironic that many of my colleagues who criticized Democrats for
curtailing and micromanaging the foreign policies of Presidents Reagan
and Bush will vote for this measure today. They would be wise to heed
the words of Lawrence Eagleburger, former Secretary of State under
President George Bush, who recently stated on the bill, ``all of these
various restrictions and demands on the President * * * are an absolute
attack on the separation of powers. Foreign policy is now and always
should be in the hands of the executive branch with the advice and
consent of the Congress. * * * You can't put in prescriptions that may
apply today and don't apply tomorrow.''
Moreover, despite promises by its sponsors that it will reduce
bureaucracy, H.R. 1561 will create a megabureaucratic State Department
that is unwieldy, costly and ineffective. By contrast, the Clinton
administration is already proceeding vigorously with its efforts to
streamline the State Department foreign policies agencies, reducing
staffing by 4,700 positions, cutting bureaucratic layers and
duplication.
H.R. 1561 also cuts our foreign aid programs by $1 billion, including
a 30 percent cut in development assistance. These cuts will restrict
the ability of our President to fight for our interests through
diplomacy, protect our global security interests, and open markets to
U.S.-produced goods and services.
Mr. Chairman, it is with some reservations that I oppose final
passage on this measure today. I support the provisions in H.R. 1561
that include the administration's full request for foreign assistance
to Israel and Egypt. This aid is absolutely critical to keeping the
Middle East peace process moving forward.
While aid to Israel is protected in the short term in this
legislation, the long-term future of Israel's security is jeopardized
by the isolationist policies implicit in this legislation.
By slashing America's foreign policy resources, H.R. 1561 will hollow
out our first line of defense against future threats to the United
States and Israel. It will impede our ability to bar the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction that threaten both the United States and
Israel. It will slash the resources we need to combat international
terrorism that threatens both the United States and Israel. And it will
diminish our influence and leadership in efforts to peacefully resolve
potential conflicts in the Middle East before they flair into military
conflicts.
H.R. 1561 will set foreign aid spending on a downward spiral that
will ultimately increase political pressure to cut into the aid
accounts for Israel and Egypt. Under this legislation, aid to Israel
and Egypt will comprise almost half of the overall foreign aid budget.
Under this trend, there will soon be nothing left to cut in these
accounts.
Without foreign aid, our country will lose its ability to exercise
leadership to confront the challenges of the post-cold-war world. It is
a small but very important investment, representing less than 1 percent
of our overall budget, in our ability to safeguard America's political
and economic interests abroad.
Mr. Chairman, despite the end of the cold war, the world remains a
dangerous and uncertain place. We will be confronted with new
challenges abroad every day. H.R. 1561 will inhibit the ability of the
executive branch to meet those challenges. For this and many other
reasons, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1561 should be defeated, and the House
should instead approve an authorization bill that gives the President
the tools he needs to exercise leadership in the postcold-war world.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R.
1561, the American Overseas Interest Act. I believe that the bill
before us represents a responsible foreign aid approach that clearly
defines America's overseas interests. It is a departure from the past
and a vision into the future.
An important provision of H.R. 1561 is the inclusion of the MacBride
Fair Employment Principles, that serve as a corporate code of conduct
for U.S. companies doing business in Northern Ireland. The MacBride
Principles, named for the late Sean MacBride, co-founder of Amnesty
International and Nobel Peace Prize winner, were initiated, proposed
and launched by the Irish National Caucus in November 1984. Since their
inception, the MacBride Principles have provided Irish-Americans with a
direct, meaningful and non-violent means of addressing injustice in
Northern Ireland. H.R. 1561 codifies these principles and for the first
time ever, any U.S. company accepting funds from the International Fund
for Ireland must comply with the MacBride Fair Employment Principles.
Importantly, these principles do not call for quotas, reverse
discrimination, divestment--the withdrawal of United States companies
from Northern Ireland--or disinvestment--the withdrawal of funds now
invested in firms with operations in Northern Ireland.
The MacBride Principles have been widely endorsed by many states,
companies, and individuals. For the record I would like itemize the
principles as follows:
First, increase the representation of individuals from under-
represented religious groups in the work force including managerial,
supervisory, administrative, clerical, and technical jobs.
Second, ensure adequate security for the protection of minority
employees at the work place and while traveling to and from work.
Third, ban provocative religious or political emblems from the work
place.
Fourth, advertise all job openings publicly and making special
recruitment efforts to attract applicants from under-represented
religious groups.
Fifth, lay off, recall, and termination procedures should not favor a
particular religious group.
Sixth, abolish job reservations, apprenticeship restrictions and
differential employment criteria which discriminate on the basis of
religion.
Seventh, develop training programs that will prepare substantial
numbers of current minority employees for skilled jobs, including the
expansion of existing programs and the creation [[Page H5730]] of new
programs to train, upgrade and improve the skills of minority
employees.
Eighth, establish procedures to assess, identify and actively recruit
minority employees with potential for further advancement.
Ninth, appoint a senior management staff member to oversee the
company's affirmative action efforts and the setting up of timetables
to carry out affirmative action principles.
It is important that the United States take a strong moral stand
against unfair employment practices. As the largest contributor to the
International Fund for Ireland, we should lead by example and not
tolerate those who exclude any group because of their religion.
It is my hope that someday employment practices in Northern Ireland
will be fair so that the MacBride Principles will no longer be
necessary. However, at this stage in the Northern Ireland peace
process, the voice of the United States on the topic of fair employment
practices is more critical than ever. I strongly endorse this
legislation and urge its passage.
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to first praise the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Gilman] on his fine leadership in producing a bill
that reduces our foreign aid spending in a responsible manner.
The collapse of the Soviet empire has eradicated the threat of
Communist aggression worldwide leaving only one superpower, the United
States. With this end to the cold war, in turn, came radical changes in
the political and social landscape of the world and therefore,
strategies to keep stability in the world need drastic reforms. We can
no longer depend on the ``for us or against us'' formula of foreign
aid. With the rise of new regional conflicts posing new threats to
world peace and leaving us with new challenges for our foreign policy,
we must develop new strategies to meet the demands of the new world
order. Unfortunately, many of the antiquated foreign aid programs that
existed during the cold war are still in use, and paid for by American
taxpayers. While I understand that foreign aid cannot and should not be
cut out completely, it must be reformed and reduced to meet the demands
of the post-cold-war world.
H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interests Act of 1995, does just
that. The House is currently considering H.R. 1561, which will further
reduce Federal spending, and take yet another step toward balancing the
budget by streamlining overall spending on foreign aid programs and
redefining U.S. foreign aid policy for the future. Specifically it
would consolidate three agencies in the State Department and reduce
their budgets, forcing them to streamline and become more efficient.
The agencies to be consolidated are the Agency for International
Development, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the U.S.
Information Agency. The bill authorizes $32.3 billion over the next 2
years, saving the taxpayers $2 billion in fiscal year 1996 and $1
billion in 1997. The overall savings to the American taxpayer by the
year 2002 is projected to be nearly $21 billion.
I rise in support of the American Overseas Interests Act passed by
the International Relations Committee, not only because of the
reductions, eliminations and consolidations of bureaucracy, but because
of the reasonable funding for valuable programs that are in our best
interests. As I have always stated in the past, foreign aid programs
are an integral part of the President's efforts to protect and advance
U.S. interests at home and abroad. But, I strongly support foreign aid
reform. The U.S. aid program must be constantly evaluated and held
accountable to high standards of performance and results. Clearly
measurable and achievable goals should be established. Tough standards
should be applied to our aid program, as well as to those international
organizations and financial institutions to which we contribute
funding. Where our aid has no lasting impact, it should be terminated.
Redundancy must be eliminated, and this will require major program
changes. I would like to comment on two programs, in particular, that I
believe are worthy aid recipients: FUSADES and FUNDESA.
Almost everyone knows of my interests in Central America. As a member
of the International Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, and
an active participant in the affairs of Central America, I am quite
concerned with the political, economic, and social climate in this
region. Over the years, I have had the unique opportunity to meet and
forge great relationships with leaders throughout Central America.
Today, we are witnessing all across Latin America that those countries
who emerged from the disasters of civil war with a commitment to
improve human rights have been able to foster a stronger foundation for
social and economic development. The movement to democracy in Latin
America is no longer the great dream of this century. Victories in the
Western Hemisphere, from Argentina, Chile, Nicaragua to El Salvador,
are just a few examples of democracy in action.
These organizations have helped people realize this dream and have
received U.S. funding indirectly. FUSADES in El Salvador and FUNDESA in
Guatemala have successfully helped the people of these developing
countries progress economically and democratically. FUSADES and FUDNESA
were created to promote economic and social development improving the
precarious situation of many of our neighbors to the South. They
promote equitable, responsive development by awarding grants to small
entrepreneurs throughout the region. More importantly, these
organizations provide small loans to local individuals who start small
businesses and later repay their debts, at repayment rates of
approximately 95 percent. For example, only a $100 loan for the
purchase of a sewing machine can be the driving force to help an
individual start his or her own business. These small entrepreneurs
create jobs, assist the emerging middle-class, and in turn help
stabilize the region's economy. A small amount of U.S. aid goes a very
long way.
While recognizing the need to rein in federal spending, we have also
witnessed the positive side of foreign aid. With this in mind, I urge
Members to support H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interests Act. I
ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1561,
the American Overseas Interests Act. In an era of rising global
interdependence, this bill sends the message that America is turning
inward, away from its allies and the areas that need it the most.
Instead of maintaining and strengthening the leadership and vision
expected from a great superpower, this bill cuts and weakens the powers
of the executive branch and distorts the priorities of foreign policy.
More specifically, H.R. 1561 creates a vacuum of leadership and support
for the nations in our own hemisphere at the time when they need it the
most.
As a former member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations and as a representative of a district heavily populated by
Hispanic-Americans from throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, I
have a strong interest in issues affecting this area. This bill would
reduce assistance to the region by $213 million. Mr. Chairman, where is
the logic in this reduction when it is clear that our closest neighbors
are in dire need of our leadership and support? In the last few years,
this region has borne the brunt of the reductions necessary to
accommodate preserving or increasing assistance to other regions of the
world and any reduction only further jeopardizes the process toward
peace, prosperity, and democracy currently underway in Latin America
and the Caribbean.
Developmental assistance and economic support funds further our own
national security interests by encouraging fledgling democracies,
emerging economies, and public health initiatives. Not long ago, the
Western Hemisphere was ruled largely by military dictatorships. Now it
is overwhelmingly represented by emerging democracies. We should not
turn our back on the nations of this hemisphere while they struggle to
establish the structures which support strong democracies.
In addition, foreign aid to Latin America and the Caribbean makes
economic sense. It strengthens the ties forged by NAFTA, GATT, and the
Summit of the Americas and supports the President as he seeks to
further U.S. trade and economic interests in our hemisphere. The United
States should not reduce its commitment to our fastest growing market,
which accounts for $178 billion in two-way trade, $91 billion in U.S.
exports, and 2 million in American jobs.
Finally, public health initiatives for the hemisphere should be
supported. The Western Hemisphere has been declared polio-free thanks
in part to the decade-long investment by the United States in polio
prevention programs. Significant progress has also been made in the
areas of immunization, family planning, oral rehydration therapy, and
AIDS. Cutting aid for these programs could affect the lives of millions
of children and cause a public health crisis in the region.
Aid to Latin America and the Caribbean furthers the interests of the
United States with respect to national security, trade, and public
health. It is in our own best interest to live in a neighborhood of
nations which are stable and prosperous.
While this bill seeks to cripple our own Nation's ability to forge
ties with our closest friends and allies, it also works to dictate the
foreign policy objectives of the rest of the world by prohibiting
assistance to any foreign government that the President determines has
provided economic assistance to or engaged in no-nmarket-based trade
with the Government of Cuba or any entity controlled by such government
in the preceding fiscal year. Mr. Chairman, is assistance to Russia or
Israel in jeopardy as they move ahead with their trade initiatives in
the Caribbean island? Do we expect hundreds of other sovereign and
independent nations to, in effect, support an embargo which they have
consistently voted against in the United Nations for 3 consecutive
years? Are we asking the nations of the world [[Page H5731]] to submit
to our punitive and vindictive Cuba policy and our obsession with its
leader?
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1561's short-sighted objectives with regard to
Latin America and the Caribbean reflect the short-sightedness of the
bill in general. Foreign assistance only represents 1 percent of the
total Federal budget, but it is a crucial part of our role in world
leadership. At a time when the world looks to the United States for
leadership and vision, this bill sends the message that the United
States prefers a narrow, arrogant, isolationist policy. As the world
changes, it is logical that our foreign policy priorities also change,
but this does not imply a need for withdrawal from our
responsibilities. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
So the remaining portion of the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as modified, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified,
as amended, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Riggs) 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
authorization of appropriations for U.S. foreign assistance programs
for fiscal years 1996 and 1997, and for other purposes, pursuant to
House Resolution 155, 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 adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question
is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
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. hamilton
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill in its
current form?
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Hamilton moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1561 to the
Committee on International Relations, with instructions to
report it back forthwith with the following amendments:
On page 11, strike line 1 and all that follows through page
82, line 9 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
DIVISION A--STREAMLINING OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AGENCIES
TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
``SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
``This division may be cited as the Foreign Affairs
Agencies Streamlining Act of 1995.
``SEC. 102. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
``The Congress makes the following findings:
``(1) With the end of the Cold War, the international
challenges facing the United States have changed, but the
fundamental national interests of the United States have not.
The security, economic, and humanitarian interests of the
United States require continued American engagement in
international affairs. The leading role of the United
States in world affairs will be as important in the twenty
first century as it has been in the twentieth.
``(2) The United States budget deficit requires that the
foreign as well as the domestic programs and activities of
the United States be carefully reviewed for potential
savings. Wherever possible, foreign programs and activities
must be streamlined, managed more efficiently, and adapted to
the requirements of the post-Cold War era.
``(3) As part of an overall review to foster efficiencies
in the executive branch, the President has had under review
the organization and functions of those departments and
agencies responsible for administering the international
affairs (150) budget function.
``(4) The President deserves commendation for the results
of such review to date, including significant numbers of
foreign posts closed and personnel reductions made by some
foreign affairs agencies.
``(5) In order to achieve further budgetary savings and
eliminate overlapping responsibilities and duplication of
efforts in the foreign programs and activities of the United
States without jeopardizing United States interests,
continued careful review and strong effective leadership will
be required.
``(6) A streamlined foreign affairs structure under the
leadership of the President can more effectively promote the
international interests of the United States in the next
century.
``TITLE II--ONGOING REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS MANAGEMENT
``SEC. 201. REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AGENCIES.
``(a) Review.--The President shall review, as part of an
overall effort to foster efficiencies in the executive
branch, the programs described in the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 and the Arms Export Control Act, as well as other
initiatives within the administration of international
affairs programs, to determine how best to achieve the cost
savings and streamlining.
``(b) Considerations.--The review conducted pursuant to
subsection (a) shall include a review of--
``(1) any additional costs or cost savings that would
result from reorganizing the agencies administering programs
under the international affairs (150) budget function;
``(2) the management implications of any agency
reorganization;
``(3) the optimal organizational structure for the foreign
affairs agencies;
``(4) the implications for the conduct of United States
foreign policy and United States foreign assistance programs
of any agency reorganization;
``(5) the justification for staffing levels of non-foreign
affairs agencies overseas, including the Departments of
Commerce, Defense, Justice, Treasury, and any intelligence
agencies;
``(6) the extent to which the activities of such non-
foreign affairs agencies contribute to United States foreign
policy and national security interests;
``(7) the implications for United States foreign operations
of recent developments in communications technology;
``(8) the feasibility of centralizing worldwide financial
services of all foreign affairs agencies in the United
States, including the feasibility of moving all such services
to a location outside of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan
area;
``(9) the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of contracting
with private companies or other United States Government
agencies for certain services, including payroll, vendor
payments, and Foreign Service pension payments systems,
medical examination programs, and certain training programs;
and
``(10) efforts to consolidate management of all U.S.
international exchange programs to eliminate duplication and
overlap.
``(c) Report.--Not later than six months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the
Committee on International Relations and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate a report on the results of the
comprehensive review required by subsection (a).
``SEC. 202. REORGANIZATION AUTHORITY.
``(a) Authority.--The President is authorized to submit to
the Congress a reorganization plan, if he determines such
reorganization is necessary, to enhance the coordination,
effectiveness, and efficiency of programs within the
international affairs (150) budget function.
``(b) Exception.--Any plan submitted pursuant to the
authority of subsection (a) may be submitted pursuant to
chapter 9 of title 5 (relating to executive reorganization)
of the United States Code, notwithstanding section 905(b) of
that chapter.
On page 84, beginning on line 21 strike ``$1,728,797,000
for the fiscal year 1996 and $1,676,903,000 for the fiscal
year 1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$1,748,438,000 for
each of the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 85, beginning on line 11 strike ``$366,276,000 for
the fiscal year 1996 and $355,287,000 for the fiscal year
1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$372,480,000 for each of
the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 86, beginning on line 1 strike ``$391,760,000 for
the fiscal year 1996 and $391,760,000 for the fiscal year
1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$421,760,000 for each of
the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 86, beginning on line 11, strike ``$23,469,000 for
the fiscal year 1996 and $23,469,000 for the fiscal year
1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$24,250,000 for each of
the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 86, beginning on line 16, strike ``$15,165,000 for
the fiscal year 1996 and $14,710,000 for the fiscal year
1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$15,465,000 for each of
the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 86, beginning on line 20, strike ``$9,579,000 for
the fiscal year 1996 and $9,579,000 for the fiscal year
1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$8,579,000 for each of
the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 87, beginning on line 6, strike ``$873,505,000 for
the fiscal year 1996 and $867,050,000 for the fiscal year
1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$934,057,000 for each of
the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 87, beginning on line 17, strike ``$309,375,000 for
the fiscal year 1996 and [[Page H5732]] $302,902,000 for the
fiscal year 1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$425,000,000
for each of the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 94, beginning on line 15, strike ``$445,000,000 for
the fiscal year 1996 and $345,000,000 for the fiscal year
1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$533,304,000 for each of
the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 96, beginning on line 10, strike ``$68,260,000 for
the fiscal year 1996 and $68,260,000 for the fiscal year
1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$100,000,000 for each of
the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 100, begining on line 9, strike ``$13,858,000 for
the fiscal year 1996 and $12,472,000 for the fiscal year
1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$13,858,000 for each of
the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 100, beginning on line 11, strike ``$10,393,000 for
the fiscal year 1996 and $9,353,000 for the fiscal year
1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$10,393,000 for each of
the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 100, line 17, strike ``$666,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$740,000''.
On page 100, beginning on line 20, strike ``$3,500,000 for
the fiscal year 1996 and $3,195,000 for the fiscal year
1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$3,550,000 for each of
the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 101, line 1, strike ``$13,202,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$14,669,000''.
On page 104, beginning on line 11, strike ``$10,000,000 for
the fiscal year 1996 and $9,000,000 for the fiscal year
1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$15,000,000 for each of
the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 105, beginning on line 4, strike ``$450,645,000 for
the fiscal year 1996 and $428,080,000 for the fiscal year
1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$496,002,000 for each of
the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 105, beginning on line 14, strike ``$117,484,200
for the fiscal year 1996 and $113,680,800 for the fiscal year
1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$130,799,000 for each of
the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 106, beginning on line 19, strike ``$87,625,800 for
the fiscal year 1996 and $87,341,000 for the fiscal year
1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$119,536,000 for each of
the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 107, beginning on line 1, strike ``$321,191,000 for
the fiscal year 1996 and $286,191,000 for the fiscal year
1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$395,340,000 for each of
the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 107, beginning on line 17, strike ``$75,164,000 for
the fiscal year 1996 and $67,647,000 for the fiscal year
1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$85,919,000 for each of
the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 108, beginning on line 2, strike ``$4,300,000 for
the fiscal year 1996 and $3,870,000 for the fiscal year
1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$4,300,000 for each of
the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 108, beginning on line 8, strike ``$15,000,000 for
the fiscal year 1996 and $10,000,000 for the fiscal year
1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$20,000,000 for each of
the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 108, beginning on line 23, strike ``$44,000,000 for
fiscal year 1996 and $40,050,000 for the fiscal year 1997''
and insert in lieu thereof ``$76,300,000 for each of the
fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 197, on line 19, strike ``$3,284,440,000'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``$3,351,910,000''.
On page 197, on line 20, strike ``$3,240,020,000'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``$3,351,910,000''.
On page 200, line 18, strike ``$22,620,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$37,000,000''.
On page 200, line 22, strike ``$37,800,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$52,890,000''.
On page 218, beginning on line 5, strike ``$20,000,000 for
fiscal year 1996 and $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1997'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``$15,244,000 for each of the fiscal
years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 248, beginning on line 16, strike ``$2,356,378,000
for fiscal year 1996 and $2,283,478,000 for fiscal year
1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$2,504,300,000 for each
of the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 264, line 9, strike ``$858,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$1,300,000,000''.
On page 264, line 14, strike ``$629,214,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$802,000,000''.
On page 264, beginning on line 18, strike ``$643,000,000
for fiscal year 1996 and $650,000,000 for fiscal year 1997''
and insert in lieu thereof ``$788,000,000 for each of the
fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 264, beginning on line 24, strike ``$325,000,000
for fiscal year 1996 and $275,000,000 for fiscal year 1997''
and insert in lieu thereof ``$480,000,000 for each of the
fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 265, beginning on line 5, strike ``$20,000,000 for
fiscal year 1996 and $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1997'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``$31,760,000 for each of the fiscal
years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 265, beginning on line 10, strike ``$10,000,000 for
fiscal year 1996 and $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1997'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``$17,405,000 for each of the fiscal
years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 283, beginning on line 11, strike ``$456,774,000
for fiscal year 1996 and $419,196,000 for fiscal year 1997''
and insert in lieu thereof ``$529,027,000 for each of the
fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 284, beginning on line 3, strike ``$35,206,000 for
fiscal year 1996 and $31,685,000 for fiscal year 1997'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``$39,118,000 for each of the fiscal
years 1996 and 1997''.
On page 284, strike line 20 and all that follows through
line 24 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
``There is authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 1996 and 1997 for the provision of
agricultural commodities under title III of the Agricultural
Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1727
et seq.).''.
At the end of the bill, insert the following new title:
``TITLE XXXVI--AGGREGATE AUTHORIZATION
``SEC. 3601. AGGREGATE AUTHORIZATION.
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the maximum
aggregate amount authorized to be appropriated by this Act
shall not exceed $16,505,843,000 for fiscal year 1996 and
$15,395,362,000 for fiscal year 1997.
Mr. HAMILTON (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
{time} 1515
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Hamilton] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The motion to recommit is rather simple and straightforward. The
motion to recommit has two components to it. First of all, it deletes
that portion of the bill that requires the abolition of AID, USIA, and
ACDA. In its place it replaces those portions with a requirement that
the President review the management and operations of the foreign
policy agencies. It is a requirement that the President review those
agencies and report to the Congress efforts to streamline those
operations. That is the first part.
The second part of the motion authorizes the same level of funding
for each of the line items in this bill that the President requested,
but then it cuts the overall authorization funding to the level that is
now in the bill.
The effect of the motion to recommit, then, is to accept the funding
levels that the committee and this House have already voted on. We
accept those cuts. What we do is permit the President of the United
States, however, to have flexibility as to how those funds are spent.
We earmark Egypt and Israel, but in other respects he has flexibility.
So the motion to recommit accepts the funding levels that this House
has voted on.
Second, with regard to reorganization, it lets the President take the
initiative; after all, it is his administration. He should be able to
reorganize that executive branch as he sees fit. We tell him he has to
do it, no discretion at that time on that point. But there is no
micromanagement on our part. We do not force him to reorganize in a
particular way, but we do require him to reorganize.
So the motion to recommit accepts the funding levels that we now have
as voted on in this House but gives the President flexibility to spend
those funds, and it requires a reorganization. It does not try to
micromanage. It does not tell the President how to organize his own
executive branch, but it does permit the Congress to set the policy
parameters and give the President the flexibility with regard to
reorganization.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished minority leader, the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
(Mr. Gephardt asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to ask Members to vote for
this motion to recommit. I do it in a bipartisan way. We have always
had a bipartisan foreign policy for this country. We have always tried
to stop partisanship at the water's edge. And we have always tried to
write these authorization bills for foreign policy together. And we
have always tried to balance the power of the President with the power
of the Congress in reaching our foreign policy.
In all humility, I suggest to all of my colleagues that this bill
does not carry on that tradition. I was proud of the House last night
when in a bipartisan way we refused to give up powers that I think it
was important for the Congress to keep with regard to how we declare
and make war. And I ask tonight that we pass this motion to recommit;
we leave more of the power in reordering the structure of our foreign
policy [[Page H5733]] to the President, that as we make these cuts we
give the President more authority in exactly where the cuts ought to be
made.
Let me finish with this simple thought: Foreign aid and foreign
policy are not popular and never have been in any district in these
United States. But it is vitally important to every one of our citizens
that we have a good foreign policy that is in the deep self-interest of
every American citizen and in our great country.
The best way to do that is to make it bipartisan and keep it that
way. I urge Members to send this bill back to the committee along the
lines the distinguished ranking member has made and let us return to
the successful tradition of foreign policy that we have had in this
country, which has served this country very well.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong opposition to the motion to recommit. Our bill
consolidates three major agencies. It cuts $3 billion in spending and
changes the status quo. The motion to recommit keeps the status quo. It
tries to add over $4 billion in spending. The recommit motion also
calls for yet another study. We have studied the issue long enough. The
cold war ended half a decade ago.
I say it is time now to reform foreign affairs agencies.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the
distinguished chairman of our Committee on the Budget.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
I know there is a lot of concern about the bill. America has a
responsibility to practice smart strategic foreign aid, which I believe
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] is delivering us in this bill.
The motion to recommit takes us back to the status quo.
I am told that this morning the Heritage Foundation released a study
saying that the Agency for International Development hired a group to
study their studies. And we do not need to study anybody's studies
anymore.
The simple fact of the matter is under the Gilman bill, which is the
most successful effort at reform in foreign aid since I have been in
the House, will consolidate the Agency for International Development,
ACDA, the [Arms Control Disarmament Agency], the United States
Information Agency, in some sense a relic, and also makes cuts in
foreign aid.
The bill is endorsed by the Americans for Tax Reform by the Citizens
Against Government Waste. Why? Because they recognize the fact that the
United States has a role to play in the world. But they also
recognize the fact that the gentleman from New York has made changes.
Furthermore, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, one of the
best examples of big corporate pork, is now authorized to be sold and
to be phased out and to be privatized. This bill deserves and merits
our support.
I would argue to the Members that if you believe America has a role
in the world, that you want that role to be narrowed and focused, this
is not perfect, but this is the biggest step that we have made in the
House in a dozen years to try to bring improvement to foreign aid and
to satisfy some of the frustrations that our hard-working, tax-paying
constituents have wanted.
Mr. Gilman deserves a vote in favor of this bill and against the
motion to recommit. I would urge Members, as the leader of the world,
to adopt this bill. I think it makes good sense. It is fiscally prudent
and moves us in the right direction on foreign aid reform.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his support.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to our distinguished majority leader, the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Let me take a moment to thank the committee, the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Gilman], and the members of the committee for the hard work
they put into this bill.
My colleagues, we have just finished celebrating the 50th anniversary
of D-day. I do not know about you, but I spent a good deal of my past
weekend watching old film clips of that 50th anniversary. I was
reminded, as I watched those brave men all too often falling on the
shores of some remote beach, that this is a great Nation and in one
very, very special regard, it is the greatest Nation in the history of
the world. Because in America, in the history of the world, no nation
has ever so much loved freedom that their nation's people have been
willing to risk their own peace to secure freedom for other nations.
We have all too many times seen our Nation's children on the field of
battle, fighting for freedom and dreaming about peace. When we think of
those terribly horrible, frightful times when men and women were
willing to put their life and their limb on the line for the double
dream of freedom and peace, we then should reflect upon the times when
we can put some part of our national treasure on the line for freedom
and peace.
What can we do, where can we do it in the world, to help protect the
freedoms of people, help ensure the peace of people, help to see to it
that starving children perhaps have hope, help where we can to breathe
hope and life into this world.
We do not spend so awfully much but we have always been a frugal
Nation. We always have insisted that we spend our treasure with care,
with discretion, with compassion that is mixed with understanding and
where in fact it will make the difference we hope and dream for in the
lives of people.
This committee has done this. This committee has repaired American
foreign aid efforts, maybe not enough to suit everybody, but enough to
tell the world that, yes, indeed, we are willing to look at the needs
in the world. We are willing to be discrete. Yet we are willing to be
generous, and we are willing to be organized and we are willing to be
systematic. And we are willing to put some part of our treasury behind
the dream of freedom and peace for all the world's people. This is a
good bill. This is a good dream. It deserves our support.
I implore Members, vote ``yes'' for the dream of freedom and peace in
the lives of all the world as sponsored by the generosity of this
greatest Nation in the history of the world.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 179,
nays 237, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 365]
YEAS--179
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Davis
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Watt (NC) [[Page H5734]]
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
NAYS--237
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--18
Baker (LA)
Bonilla
Chapman
de la Garza
Dicks
Foglietta
Harman
Johnson (CT)
Kleczka
Laughlin
Lofgren
McDade
Montgomery
Oberstar
Peterson (FL)
Spratt
Wicker
Yates
{time} 1545
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Oberstar for, with Mr. Wicker against.
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The question is on the final
passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222,
noes 192, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 366]
AYES--222
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Riggs
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stockman
Talent
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--192
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunning
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefner
Herger
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rangel
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
NOT VOTING--21
Baker (LA)
Bonilla
Brown (CA)
Chapman
de la Garza
Dicks
Furse
Harman
Johnson (CT)
Kleczka
Laughlin
Lofgren
McDade
McKinney
Montgomery
Oberstar
Peterson (FL)
Spratt
Waters
Wicker
Yates
{time} 1603
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Wicker for, with Mr. Montgomery against.
Mr. Bonilla for, with Mr. Oberstar against.
Mr. TEJEDA changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________