[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 103 (Thursday, June 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6243-H6256]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 170 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1868.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] as Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Boehner] to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1714


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1868) making appropriations for foreign operations, export 
financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 1996, and for other purposes, with Mr. Boehner, Chairman pro 
tempore, in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considerd 
as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, before I address the contents of this 
appropriations bill, let me take a moment to thank the staff of our 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs. This newly assembled little group got together only a few 
months ago, they are very professional. I want to tell you, it is a 
pleasure to work with them, particularly Charlie Flickner, Bill Inglee, 
John Shank, Lori Maes, and our CRS detail, Larry Nowels, and also to 
work with Terry Peel on the minority staff as well as Nancy Tippins on 
my own staff.

                              {time}  1715

  They were all very professional, and without their professional help 
we would not be here today with this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, as far as I know, each and every member of the 
subcommittee supported bringing this bill to the House floor and each 
and every one had to go along with things they did not want. This is 
what legislation in the Congress is all about, compromise.
  I want to thank our chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston], for all his help at the early stage of the process. And I 
appreciate the efforts of my predecessor, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey], and the ranking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Wilson], for their patience, understanding, and 
guidance. Everything we are doing is building on the record that the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], made in the last Congress, 
along with the former chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey].
  Mr. Chairman, now let me simply address the contents of this bill. It 
is a foreign aid bill for sure, but it is more than that. It is the 
instrument for this President, and any future President, to work out 
foreign problems with more than talk but less than military force.
  If Members find time to look at our committee report this weekend, I 
urge them to take a close look at the general introduction, beginning 
on page 3. Those pages express better than I can this afternoon what 
this bill is about and why it is necessary.
  It is the instrument for American businesses and private groups to 
help less fortunate nations develop economically. The first items in 
this bill, in title I, are for export and investment assistance, and 
they are a priority for this committee this year. The best way to 
demonstrate a market economy is to do it, and that is what our 
businesses and investors enable others to do: learn about business by 
buying, selling, building, and working with American capitalists.
  Because of the budget, we have had to reduce the more traditional 
types of development assistance, particularly when it is done through 
the multilateral banks. The committee does protect two categories of 
aid: children's programs and efforts to fight infectious diseases. In 
fact, we recommend a new account in the Treasury to ensure that 
children are protected and we continue a vigorous fight against
 diseases that affect both children and adults.

  I am not sure that many American's are aware that our public health 
officials are moving towards the eradication of polio. Rotary 
International has been the sparkplug of this effort, and they have 
brought that to our attention.
  In title III of the bill we have tried to go along with as much of 
the President's request for military assistance as we were able to 
afford. We have included the economic support fund and the military 
finance moneys that are sufficient to fulfill the Camp David accord 
needs. We also went along with the President's Warsaw initiative to 
help new democracies in Central Europe contribute to European security.
  The final title, multilateral economic assistance, has had to bear 
the bulk of the reductions we made. That is not because our 
subcommittee does not appreciate what many of these banks and agencies 
do, but we simply had a higher priority on bilateral programs 
undertaken by our own Government. I would note that funding for UNICEF 
has been moved from title IV to the Child Survival and Disease Programs 
Account in title II, at the current level of $100 million.
  The subcommittee has removed many of the general provisions from 
title V. Some of them have been picked up in the authorization bill. 
Others were no longer needed. Many of the amendments that have been 
filed will occur during consideration of the general provisions title.
  Let me close by going over a few of the numbers. The dollar levels 
that the House provides in this bill, history indicates, will be very 
close to what the final, enacted numbers are.
  This bill is less than $12 billion in budget authority. That is $1.5 
billion less than the current year, and almost $10 billion less than 
the level of a decade ago. It is the lowest level in a decade.
  At $11.99 billion, this bill is $2.8 billion less than the 
President's request, a reduction of 19 percent. that may be the largest 
reduction in history. We know it is the largest reduction within the 
last two decades.
  Finally, this bill is under the congressional budget. In fact, it is 
over $200 million under our subcommittee allocation.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. We have tried to come up with a 
fair bill and we worked hard to balance the priorities of the new 
Republican majority and our veteran Democratic Members. I think we have 
accomplished what we set out to do.
  There will be those who will come to the floor today and next week 
when we continue this bill who will want to spend more money on foreign 
aid, but I would ask each and every one of them to recognize the 
message that the American people sent to us in November. They said to 
cut spending. They did not say to cut spending in every area that we 
deal in except foreign aid. They said to cut everything. [[Page H 
6244]] 
  There will be those that want to increase that, but there is no money 
to increase that. We have given the President the latitude he needs to 
have an effective foreign policy. We give him in this bill all of the 
money that we can afford for foreign operations for the next fiscal 
year.
  So I think we have been fair to the administration. Certainly the 
minority party has been fair in negotiating how we spend this limited 
amount of money next year. It is the best that we can do.
  So those of you who that are planning to come forward next week and 
indicate that you want to spend more, that you want to give the 
President more, forget about it. We are not going to go any higher. We 
cannot go any higher.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record:
                                             Rotary International,


                                        The Rotary Foundation,

                                      Evanston, IL, June 16, 1995.
     Hon. Sonny Callahan,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Callahan: I join with the 1.2 million 
     Rotarians worldwide in thanking you for your leadership on 
     polio eradication. We were pleased to find out that the House 
     Foreign Operation Appropriations Subcommittee included Report 
     Language recommending up to $20,000,000 for targeted polio 
     eradication efforts in fiscal year 1996.
       We believe this direction from the Subcommittee is a 
     critical first step in our fight to eradicate polio by the 
     year 2000. This language is essential to focusing our 
     humanitarian assistance programs on efforts that can be 
     successful in providing important health benefits for the 
     world's children, while at the same time saving money here in 
     the United States.
       We are encouraged by the Report Language in the Foreign 
     Operations Subcommittee, which has demonstrated the broad 
     consensus on the value of polio eradication. We look forward 
     to celebrating the eradication of this disease in the year 
     2000.
           Sincerely,
                                                Herbert A. Pigman,
                                                General Secretary.

                                              [[Page H 6245]]

TH22JN95.000


[[Page H 6246]] TH22JN95.001


[[Page H 6247]] TH22JN95.002


[[Page H 6248]] TH22JN95.003



[[Page H 6249]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the passage of the foreign 
operations bill.
  Although I hope that some funding adjustments can be made as the bill 
moves through the legislative process, I think the bill should be 
supported vigorously in its current form.
  As the chairman has said, the committee has recommended a bill of $12 
billion for fiscal year 1996, which is $1.5 billion, 11 percent, below 
last year, and more importantly, $2.8 billion below the President's 
request or 19 percent below the President's request. I dare say there 
will not be another appropriation bill presented to this House that is 
that much below the President's budget.
  Funds are provided in the bill to meet the administration request for 
Camp David, and other commitments in the Middle East including Jordan 
and programs for the West Bank and for the Gaza Strip.
  The bill also provides a significant program to help increase U.S. 
exports abroad, which is in my opinion one of the most important 
characteristics of the bill. The $822 million in export assistance in 
the bill will provide for more than $20 billion in guaranteed loans 
through the Export-Import Bank and more than $1 billion in assistance 
through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
  I would like to say at this point that regarding OPIC, the Overseas 
Private Investment Corporation, that that is one of the very few 
agencies in the U.S. Government that pays more back into the Treasury, 
that remits more to the Treasury of the United States, than is 
appropriated for its operation.
  So, it not only pays more back than we appropriate, but it also 
significantly affects in a positive way the balance of payments of the 
United States, as well as creating jobs and exports in every State in 
the Union.
  The bill also helps meet our humanitarian commitment abroad by 
providing the amount requested by the administration for both refugee 
assistance and international disaster assistance.
  The bill also, at the initiative of the chairman, sets aside 
significant funds for child survival and funds to meet our 
international commitment to fighting worldwide diseases.
  I would also say, Mr. Chairman, that this bill is the result of very 
strenuous and vigorous negotiation and compromise on the part of all of 
the members of the committee and particularly of the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the chairman of the full committee, and the ranking 
member of the full committee.
  The bill is truly bipartisan in nature and truly enjoys at this point 
bipartisan support. I can only express my hope that damaging amendments 
are not added to the bill which will upset the bipartisan balance that 
we have achieved.
  I want to compliment the chairman again. I want to compliment the 
chairman of the full committee. I certainly want to compliment the 
ranking member, because everyone stretched their tolerance to the limit 
to reach a truly, truly, bipartisan compromise. I urge Members to stay 
with the bill as reported in the House and not to make changes that 
will endanger this bipartisan support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Wilson] for his comments and I would like to say that I 
omitted to recognize the gentleman's very able staff person, Kathleen 
Murphy, who did an outstanding job as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Louisiana, [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Callahan], my good friend, the able chairman of the subcommittee, and 
rise in support of the fiscal year 1996 foreign operations bill.
  First, let me pay special tribute to the great gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Callahan] the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. The 
gentleman has displayed not only great leadership, but diplomatic 
skills worthy of Henry Kissinger in shepherding this bill through the 
committee.
  My friends, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member, also deserve special 
praise for their hard work and willingness to develop a bipartisan 
consensus on what could have been a very difficult bill, but has not 
been because of their tremendous assistance and cooperation.
  The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], the chairman worked with 
all of the members of the subcommittee, many members of the authorizing 
committee, and the administration to allocate the shrinking foreign 
assistance dollars in the fairest and most balanced manner possible. 
Due to the gentleman's inclusive leadership, we are able to present a 
bill with bipartisan support which we hope to pass.
  I want to echo the comments of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] 
that I hope also that it can be done with a minimum of amendments.
  We are continuing the downward trend in foreign aid spending that has 
occurred in the last decade. We spent $18.3 billion on foreign 
operations appropriations in fiscal year 1985, which is $25 billion in 
today's dollars. Since today's bill is less than $12 billion, we have 
basically cut foreign aid in half over these last 11 years.
  This bill makes the tough choices to cut $1.5 billion from last 
years's level and $2.8 billion from the President's request.
  Despite the difficult cuts, we have protected the most vulnerable of 
those who rely on us, the young children and the victims of disease and 
disaster.
  Therefore, I strongly support the decision of the chairman, the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] to create a new account called 
the child survival and disease program fund. At $484 million, it 
slightly increases the spending for protection of young children 
worldwide and it encourages the administration to fund programs to 
eradicate polio and reduce other infectious diseases, including AIDS.
  While maintaining support for children and refugees, this bill 
reduces the old-style government-to-government foreign aid in favor of 
market-oriented, private-sector-driven economic growth. Genuine and 
sustainable development will be promoted far faster by investment by 
real entrepreneurs and expanded trade and capital formation by U.S. 
companies in emerging private sectors around the globe.
  We have invested in programs that allow private companies to work 
with export assistance agencies to make broad-based economic growth a 
reality in developing free markets. The bill contains no earmarks, 
instead providing the President with maximum flexibility possible to 
develop foreign policy without micromanagement.
  We could have used this bill to score political points against the 
President's foreign policy, or raised flowery rhetoric on controversial 
issues. We avoided pejorative political statements and instead provided 
the President with resources to conduct a global foreign policy letting 
the numbers speak for themselves.
  We have accepted the reorganization savings made by the authorizing 
committee and kept the funding levels generally in line with the levels 
provided in H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interest Act. If you voted 
for the authorization bill, you should support this appropriations 
bill.
  We have maintained the funding levels to meet our Camp David 
commitments for Egypt and Israel. We have made children a priority and 
moved our aid program in the direction of promoting trade and free 
markets instead of government-to-government handouts.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a responsible and balanced bill, and I urge all 
of our Members to cooperate with us and try to keep their amendments to 
the minimum, and I urge their support for the good work of the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] and the good work of all of the 
members of the subcommittee.
                              {time}  1730

  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the full 
committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. [[Page H 
6250]] 
  Let me, first of all, congratulate both the gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Callahan] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] for the work 
they have done in putting together a bipartisan approach to this bill 
and to say that I feel that for a long time, regardless of partisan 
differences on many other issues, I believe this subcommittee has 
always served as an example of the way the Congress ought to work, 
putting policy ahead of party and putting the country ahead of personal 
considerations.
  I do not think in the time that Mickey Edwards from Oklahoma was the 
ranking member or in the time that the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] was ranking member, and I chaired the subcommittee, that 
you could tell who was a Democrat and who was a Republican when we were 
addressing issues on this bill. There were no partisan scenes, and I 
think that the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] has made every 
effort, as has the chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston], now that the Republicans are in control of this 
institution, to see to it that that tradition remains, and I 
congratulate them for it because that is the only way this country can 
function on foreign policy.
  That does not mean we are going to agree on everything, because, as 
Will Rogers said, when two people agree on everything, one of them is 
unnecessary.
  But the fact is that we have many times stood in the well in the last 
10 years defending the positions and the prerogatives of the President 
of the United States, whether that President was a Republican or a 
Democrat, and I think it is essential on this bill that that tradition 
continue.
  Having said that, I also feel an obligation to point out the 
priorities in this bill are not necessarily my priorities. I would 
prefer that military aid not be as high as it is in the bill, and I 
would prefer that some of the economic accounts be somewhat higher.
  I also have very great doubts about both the administration's 
position and the subcommittee's position with respect to NATO. I would 
urge everyone to read the article by Mr. Hoagland in the Washington 
Post today if they want to understand what I mean.
  And I am concerned very much about what I feel to be an insufficient 
appreciation for the delicate situation that exists in the Soviet 
Union, and I think that this Congress runs a very major risk of not 
dealing with that relationship in the most constructive way possible. I 
think there are significant defects in this bill with respect to that 
issue.
  But having said that, I still intend at this moment to support this 
bill because it does represent a reasonable bipartisan effort to hold 
this institution together. It does not try, as the authorization bill 
sometimes does, to incredibly micromanage the Nation's foreign affairs. 
It does state clear policy preferences, but it does not try to 
micromanage, and I think that is a crucial difference.
  I would simply concur in the statement made by the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas who indicated that this bill is very delicately 
put together and it will remain a bipartisan bill so long as it stands 
in roughly this shape.
  The House has two choices it can make. It can choose, if it wants, to 
pass a partisan bill with nominal but not very enthusiastic support on 
this side of the aisle, in which case that bill may make a lot of 
people feel good temporarily. But it will in the end go nowhere because 
the President in the end has the veto pen, and I have no doubt he will 
use it if this bill is not consistent with his vision of the national 
interest.
  But the other choice it can make is to try to do what we have tried 
to do many times in this country's history, which is to produce a 
bipartisan product which meets the needs of the United States without 
regard to ideological preference, and while this bill certainly has a 
strong philosophical bent in the direction of the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan], that is to be expected because they have the 
votes for the time being, and I think what we need right now on both 
sides of the aisle is a determination that we will try to keep this 
bill as bipartisan as possible because in foreign affairs, and this is 
much more crucial than any other area of governance, although it would 
be useful in both, in foreign affairs it is crucial that we have 
continuity of policy so that we do not confuse our friends and that we 
do not confuse our adversaries.
  I think this bill tries to do that to a significant degree, and that 
is why, at least at this moment, I support the legislation with all of 
my doubts about some of the edges.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin and say that philosophically I agree with your statement 
that, with respect to the administration, I think the Constitution 
gives the responsibility and the authority to handle foreign affairs to 
the administration, and I think Congress has been too involved.
  But we are here today, talking about money under today's 
circumstances.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], a member of our subcommittee.
  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I support this bill and I want to commend 
the gentleman from Alabama for making the best of a very difficult 
budgetary situation. The bill is nearly $2 billion smaller than last 
year's, which represents a large cut in a relatively small bill, yet 
Mr. Callahan worked tirelessly to ensure that the concerns and 
priorities of all the members of the subcommittee and committee were 
taken into account.
  This is not to say that this bill is perfect--or could be in my view 
given the constraints the subcommittee is working under. But I believe 
the United States has not only an opportunity, but a responsibility, to 
take a leadership role in the world and promote our values of human 
rights, rule of law, democracy and free markets to the far corners of 
the globe. I am concerned that the cuts to the development assistance 
account--40 percent--gravely weaken our development programs, including 
voluntary family planning, environment, education, and micro- 
enterprise.
  I strongly oppose any effort that may be made to further cut the 
development assistance account on the floor today or that will inhibit 
AID from undertaking much needed streamlining.
  Perhaps the most important item in this bill in my view is the 
funding to the government of Turkey. Together with Frank Wolf and Chris 
Smith, I will be offering an amendment to cut some of these funds in 
order to send a clear message to Turkey that their ongoing genocide of 
the Kurds and that their treatment of their neighbors--Armenia and 
Cyprus--is absolutely unacceptable. This bill provides $320 million in 
loans to Turkey to allow it to purchase weapons and $46 weapons and $46 
million in economic aid in the form of cash transfers to the Turkish 
Government. It is hypocritical, it seems to me, that our Nation, the 
freest ever, should be helping to prop-up and arm a government that the 
State Department has repeatedly cited for gross and worsening 
violations of human rights. As I said, at the appropriate time I will 
be offering an amendment to cut aid to Turkey.
  I am very pleased, however, that the report to this bill makes clear 
that the committee continues to strongly support funds to bring 
together the two communities in Cyprus, which have been separated for 
over 20 years following the Turkish invasion of the island.
  Another grave concern I have with this bill is the retreat on funding 
for voluntary family planning programs. To understand this concern, I 
would like to ask one question, ``Do you think the quality of life for 
people on Earth, including Americans, will be better or worse when the
 global population is double what it is today?''

  If we do not take action to provide couples with the means to plan 
the number and spacing of pregnancies, the world's population will 
double by 2050. This will put huge pressures on food and energy 
supplies and the environment, not to mention the political instability 
that will be created by huge numbers of young people in the developing 
world. Adequate funding for bilateral and multilateral voluntary family 
planning programs today helps [[Page H 6251]] to ensure that our 
children and grandchildren will live in a safer more prosperous world. 
I encourage Members to keep that in mind when an amendment is offered 
later by Rep. Smith of New Jersey to effectively eliminate our 
multilateral population program and hamstring our bilateral program so 
the most effective family planning providers cannot receive U.S. funds.
  This bill addresses, as best it can given the budget squeeze, the 
need to help other nations conserve and protect their environments. AID 
has for a number of years, been focusing resources on protecting the 
biodiversity in areas like South America, central Africa, and Papua New 
Guinea. I strongly support this ongoing effort.
  I am also very supportive of the continuing work of the Global 
Environmental Facility--the GEF--which is the environmental lending 
program, of the World Bank. I think the best way to describe the GEF is 
that it is a fund that helps developing nations help themselves in ways 
that help us. The GEF lends funds to developing nations for 
environmental projects that address the loss of forests and species, 
ozone depletion, and pollution of international waters. Although the 
bill cuts the U.S. contributions to the GEF nearly in half, this level 
of U.S. participation is essential to ensure that other donors continue 
to participate. In the next 4 years, Japan has pledged $500 million and 
Germany has pledged $240 million. I strongly support our contribution 
and oppose any effort to cut it further on the floor.
  This bill also puts at a high priority the democratization and 
development of free markets in nations of the former Soviet Union, 
particularly Armenia. Armenia has a young, but fully functioning 
democracy that is far ahead of its neighbors in privatization. This 
bill provides funds for both humanitarian assistance for Armenia and 
for long-term development that will, coupled with an end to the 
blockades imposed by its neighbors, ultimately make Armenia a self-
sufficient country. The State Department plans to end assistance to the 
NIS countries before the end of the century. Assistance, like that to 
Armenia, is
 essential to set them on the right track and ensure that they will 
develop sufficiently to be able to stand on their own in the near 
future.

  I am also very pleased that this bill continues to meet our Nation's 
commitment to the Camp David accords. Both Israel and Egypt are fully 
funded in this bill, as they should be. This bill helps fulfill our 
commitment to Israel's keeping a qualitative military edge over its 
neighbors as well as rewarding those who are willing to take reasonable 
risks to pursue peace.
  Finally, I would like to commend the staff of the subcommittee for 
their excellent and tireless work with Members and their staffs to find 
common ground on what are often very difficult issues and to bring this 
bill to the floor today. Thanks to Charlie Flickner, the new clerk who 
the chairman was fortunate enough to lure away from the other body, and 
to John Shank and Bill Inglee of the subcommittee staff, and to Nancy 
Tippines, the chairman's very able associate staffer. And special 
thanks to Lori Maes, who is the institutional memory on the 
subcommittee and a real professional.
  Also thanks to Terry Peel the minority staff whose knowledge of this 
bill was essential to our getting to this point today. I also want to 
commend the associate staff of the members of the subcommittee 
including Tripp Funderburk, Bill Deere, Ann Campbell, Chris Peace, 
Martha Harrison, Jim Doran, Jerome Hartl, Kathleen Murphy, Rep Wilson's 
very able and accommodating staffer, Steve Marchese, who grew up in 
Arlington Heights which is in my district, Carolyn Bartholomew, and 
Nancy Alcalde.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Callahan and urge Members to support 
this bill.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Packard], another distinguished member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I have the distinct pleasure and privilege 
of serving on this subcommittee with the chairman, the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan], and the ranking minority member, the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Wilson], and I find that they have crafted a very, very 
good bill, and I would like to recognize them for that effort.
  I also recognize the staff and all of their hard work that they have 
done, as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the fiscal year 1996 
foreign operations appropriations bill. This bill cuts 11 percent or 
$1.5 billion from fiscal year 1995 levels. It represents a $2.8 billion 
cut from the President's request. And more importantly, this bill 
continues the Republican transformation and downsizing of Government 
that we in Congress promised back in November.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill maintains many of our traditional foreign aid 
priorities such as humanitarian assistance and foreign military 
financing. In addition, this bill moves our foreign assistance program 
away from traditional bilateral aid which is ineffective and 
bureaucratic, and toward a more market oriented development which uses 
the private sector to promote economic growth.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this bill includes no earmarks. This is a 
clean bill, it is one that puts this country on the right track toward 
a deficit-free future.
  Once again, I wish to commend the chairman and the ranking minority 
member for their excellent work in crafting this very good and 
bipartisan bill, and I recommend all Members support it in final 
passage.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], a member of our panel.
  (Mr. LIGHTFOOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill.
  Let me begin by commending the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] 
and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] for their hard work on this 
legislation.
  A foreign aid bill is neither an easy nor popular bill to bring to 
the floor of the House for a vote. But Mr. Callahan and Mr. Wilson have 
worked in the bipartisan tradition of the committee to develop a bill 
we should all support.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by discussing the 
administration's attitude throughout this year's foreign aid debate. 
The administration's budget proposal did not reflect the fact foreign 
assistance spending must also contribute toward our goal of a balanced 
Federal budget. Further, the administration, as well as a number of 
special interest groups, have convinced themselves that if the American 
people just understood the foreign aid program, they would support 
increased foreign aid. This is a dangerously misguided view.
  That misguided belief apparently is fostered by a University of 
Maryland poll on American attitudes toward foreign assistance. As 
someone who has read and interpreted polls from time to time, I suspect 
the University of Maryland's poll conclusions would change dramatically 
if, for example, specific domestic programs were offered up as the 
funding source for increased foreign aid.
  In addition, a number of ambassadors have visited with me this year 
and expressed concern that Republican foreign policy means a return to 
isolationism. In light of Anthony Lake's speech equating a reduction in 
foreign aid with back door isolationism and Ambassador Albright's 
equating opposition to increasing the number of peacekeeping operations 
with membership in the ``Flat Earth Society,'' it is clear the 
administration has deliberately orchestrated this climate in order to 
draw attention away from its own pathetic foreign policy record.
  Now let me turn to this year's bill. Despite the bipartisan work of 
the committee, I believe the bill does reflect the priorities of the 
new majority. The emphasis of the bill is on export promotion 
activities, a continued commitment to supporting Israel, and a leaner 
more efficient agency for international development.
  There are two aspects of the bill which I would like to briefly 
discuss. The first concerns our continued support for export promotion 
programs.
  I believe the export assistance agencies fulfill a very important 
role in advancing American foreign policy. They [[Page H 6252]] are not 
corporate welfare. As you know, our three export assistance agencies 
support projects in parts of the world where commercial institutions 
are reluctant to participate. They also help level the playing field 
for American business in the global market.
  Neither Chairman Callahan nor I believe in corporate welfare. In 
fact, I do not believe we believe in any kind of welfare. But it is 
clear that foreign governments help their businesses compete in 
developing markets. In a perfect world it would be nice to reduce this 
type of funding. However, if we cut this funding we only succeed in 
harming American business abroad.
  Second, I think we are getting to the point where we need to think 
seriously about the future of bilateral aid programs. This bill and the 
budget resolution clearly indicate that future spending on foreign aid 
will continue to drop. We need to think about the most effective way to 
best spend those diminishing dollars.
  I think the best way may be to shift from bilateral programs to using 
the leveraging power we have with the multilateral development banks.
  Secretary Rubin and his staff have once again done an excellent job 
in demonstrating the utility of our funding the MDB's. As you know, the 
funds we appropriate as part of our previously negotiated share of MDB 
financing results in exports many times larger than our annual 
contribution.
  Every dollar of our MDB contribution leverages into $22 in total MDB 
lending. Additionally, we must continue to contribute to the MDB's if 
we are to continue to play a leadership role in the management of the 
individual multilateral banks.
  In closing, let me again commend Chairman Callahan and Mr. Wilson for 
bringing to the floor a good bill. I also want to acknowledge the fine 
work of the staff in getting us here.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.
                              {time}  1745

  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
  (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in 
yielding this time to me, and I rise in support of the legislation and 
to commend Chairman Callahan and the gentleman from Texas for the fine 
job they have done under very trying circumstances. I also rise to 
express my strong support for maintaining the integrity of section 907 
of the Freedom Support Act which sanctions Azerbaijan for its blockade 
of Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh. I am extremely concerned about one 
provision--in this bill which would gut section 907. The purpose of 
section 907 is specifically to prohibit direct United States Government 
assistance to the Government of Azerbaijan until Azerbaijan ceases its 
blockade of Armenia.
  I want to be clear about this: Section 907 prohibits direct 
government to government aid. It does not deny United States 
humanitarian aid to Azerbaijan, as the bill's language would lead us to 
believe. As a matter of fact, as of March 31, 1995, Azerbaijan has 
received $61.8 million in incountry, United States humanitarian 
assistance through nongovernment organizations and private volunteer 
organizations.
  Section 907 states:

       United States Assistance under this or any other act (other 
     than assistance under Title V of this act) may not be 
     provided to the government of Azerbaijan until the President 
     determines, and so reports to Congress, that the government 
     of Azerbaijan is taking demonstrable steps to cease all 
     blockades and other offensive uses of force against Armenia 
     and Nagorno Karabagh.

  To date I am not aware that the President has filed a report with the 
Congress indicating that the blockade is being lifted.
  The Azerbaijan blockade against Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh is now 
in its 5th year and it has made Armenia the poorest of the 15 former 
Soviet Republics.
  According to United States AID's 1995 country profile of Azerbaijan, 
Azerbaijan continues to enforce a complete rail, road, and fuel 
blockade of Armenia throughout its territory, effectively cutting off 
fuel supplies and humanitarian supplies.
  As a result, the blockade has forced a shut-down of almost all 
Armenian industries.
  In fact, as many as one-third of Armenia's 3.6 million people have 
fled the country because the winters are unbearable and the factories 
stand idle.
  Lifting the ban now would only encourage Azerbaijan to resist a 
peaceful solution to the Karabagh conflict and keep their blockade in 
place. The effort in the bill to weaken United States law that 
restricts United States aid to Azerbaijan represents a retreat from the 
principal position adopted by this body in 1992 that Azerbaijan must 
make progress towards peace by lifting its blockade. Congress would 
send the wrong message now by moving to weaken this restriction when 
the Azerbaijan Government in more than 2 years has failed to act on the 
United States demands.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg] a member of the subcommittee.
  (Mr. KNOLLENBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support 
for this bill which reflects the subcommittee's careful crafting and 
compromise. I particularly wanted to salute the gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Callahan], the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], and of course the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Wilson] who has been a strong advocate for bringing together this 
compromise. It deserves bipartisan support. It is not a Republican 
idea, it is not a Democratic idea, it is an American idea.
  H.R. 1868 recognizes the fiscal situation we face and reduces the 
amount of money that we spend on foreign assistance. But H.R. 1868 also 
reflects our continued belief in the importance of maintaining our role 
as a leader in global events.
  This bill does not blindly slash foreign aid. We make some serious 
cuts that reflect careful consideration and the review of every 
program. We have eliminated and reduced funding to those programs that 
have failed to justify continued support.
  Foreign aid is a crucial component of our foreign policy. With the 
end of the cold war, there exists a sentiment in our country to place 
foreign affairs on the back burner and focus on domestic problems, and 
I admit we cannot ignore the domestic problems of crime, health care, 
education, and the economy, but I believe that recent events in the 
former Soviet Union, North Korea, and Bosnia illustrate that America 
must not insulate itself from the international community.
  Faced with a national debt that is strangling our economy, Congress 
is operating under severe pressure to reduce spending and rightfully 
so. But we must work toward these goals as the world's only superpower 
and the sole proprietor of democracy. We have reduced foreign aid in 
this bill but we have not eliminated our ability to participate in the 
world.
  Foreign aid, which makes up less than 1 percent of our Federal 
budget, is a good investment and has benefited our interests around the 
globe by furthering the development of economic and political stability 
in the international community.
  H.R. 1868 allows us to continue to remain active in world event while 
it reflects our budgetary constraints.
  I support this bill very strongly, and I urge my colleagues to do 
likewise.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to comment on three issues that 
will come up in the context of the fiscal year 1996 foreign aid 
appropriations bill. First is the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. This 
is a provision in the bill that would bar U.S. assistance to countries 
that bar the delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid to another country. The 
Republic of Turkey, a major recipient of United States assistance, has 
maintained a blockade on its neighbor Armenia. Asking our allies to 
allow American humanitarian assistance to reach its intended recipients 
is a reasonable condition for U.S. aid, and any country that fails to 
abide by this basic condition is undeserving of our aid. This provision 
was approved by the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, and [[Page H 
6253]] was part of the foreign aid authorization bill which has already 
passed the House. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has also 
adopted this provision. Any attempt to remove the Humanitarian Aid 
Corridor Act from the bill must be opposed.
  Second, Mr. Chairman, I support conditional aid to Turkey on 
compliance with human rights. Our colleague, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] a member of the Foreign Ops Subcommittee and the 
cochairman of the Armenian issues caucus, is planning to introduce an 
amendment that would cut assistance to Turkey until that country makes 
substantial improvements in its human rights record. The Porter 
amendment is intended to draw attention to Turkey's immoral and illegal 
blockade of Armenia, the Cyprus issue, the rights of the Kurdish 
people, and the restrictions on free expression in Turkey. I strongly 
support the Porter amendment.
  Third, I would urge the House to maintain the economic sanctions on 
Azerbaijan until it lifts its blockade of Armenia. Language was 
inserted into the foreign aid appropriations bill which severely 
weakens section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, which became law in 
1992. This provision prohibits government-to-government assistance 
between the United States and Azerbaijan until that country lifts its 
devastating blockade of Armenia. Given that the Azerbaijani Government 
has not made any progress toward lifting its blockade, as was 
previously stated by my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Visclosky], there is no basis for changing the law, and Azerbaijan 
should not be rewarded for its intransigence. Indeed, the law has not 
prevented humanitarian aid disbursed by nongovernmental and private 
voluntary organizations from getting to Azerbaijani refugees. Our 
colleague Peter Visclosky of Indiana, a member of the Appropriations 
Committee and also the Armenian issues caucus, may offer an amendment 
to strike this provision or to explicitly forbid direct governmental 
assistance to Azerbaijan. The Visclosky amendment would prevent the 
gutting of the existing law, and I urge support for that amendment.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, Armenia has made tremendous strides toward 
democracy and a market economy since the breakup of the Soviet Union 
despite the relentless hostility of its neighbors, Turkey and 
Azerbaijan. Turkey and Azerbaijan, in my opinion, continue this 
blockade illegally. The United States should support countries that 
share America's values and not give encouragement to those countries 
that oppose our principles so flagrantly.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Forbes], one of the hardest working new Members of this 
Congress that has come in this year to join us. We are blessed that he 
was also put on our subcommittee, and he has been a valuable 
contributor, a man who works hard, a man who understands this bill as 
much as anybody in this Congress.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those wonderful 
words.
  I rise in support today of the foreign operations bill, and I 
compliment the ranking minority leader of this great committee and my 
distinguished chairman for all their hard work.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say that this document is a responsible 
document, to say the least. There are many across the country who 
question this Nation's commitment to foreign operations and foreign 
assistance, and I have to say to those people who think that we should 
be spending more around the globe that they will be disappointed 
because this document is a responsible document that blends a 
responsible approach for this Nation as a leader in making sure that we 
help children, that we make sure that those who are so dedicated to 
freedom and democracy around the world have appropriate assistance, but 
it does not allow us to move around and perhaps be the world's 
policemen.
  So I compliment the committee and the committee staff particularly 
for their help in crafting what I would say is a most responsible 
document. It calls for $11.9 billion. It is a responsible document that 
results in the lowest spending in foreign operations in 20 years. It is 
in line with this Nation's ability to move toward a balanced budget. It 
is $200 million below the budget authority. It is $400 million below 
the authorizers' document, and, as I said, it is a very responsible 
spending plan that is in line with this Nation's responsibilities to 
its allies and to the preservation of democracy and freedom around the 
world. This document preserves funding for peace, strategic allies like 
Israel and Egypt, and helps to move forward on the Middle East 
agreements, and addresses new priorities for this Nation in 
counterterrorism and drug interdiction.
  By zeroing out or severely reducing funding for soft loan windows at 
the multilateral banks, we are moving away from the statist model of 
development in favor of a more free market approach. On the other hand, 
the bill creates a new child survival account, as I have referenced, 
and ensuring that nearly half a billion dollars will be spent on basic 
needs for children rather than the nebulous and often wasteful, quote, 
development assistance account. It maintains and even increases funding 
for export assistance, something that is vital to this Nation's economy 
and where the small business sector looks for new opportunities. It 
enhances U.S. competitiveness abroad and certainly will result in the 
creation of jobs here at home.
  The bill maintains enough funding for the United States to carry out 
what I said is its proper foreign policy obligations and ensures that 
national security functions as the world's leader continue. It brings 
us back from the brink of becoming the world's policemen and nanny to a 
more responsible place for this Nation as the guardians of peace, 
freedom, and democracy around the world.
                              {time}  1800

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] has 5 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] has 15 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the committee and its 
chairman for rejecting any attempt to close down the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation [OPIC]. I support downsizing Government more 
than anyone, but abolishing OPIC will not further either of these 
goals.
  OPIC is not some foreign boondoggle program, as some have charged. 
OPIC provides loans and political risk insurance to American companies 
doing business abroad. It does not do this for free. It charges market 
rate for its services, which is how it makes money. For example, 
recently OPIC charged an 11.9-percent financing rate for a company that 
is constructing a powerplant overseas. If it was not for OPIC, that 
company would have had to purchase $500 million worth of goods from 
Japan, rather than from the United States.
  Unlike almost every other Federal agency, OPIC actually takes in more 
than it spends. In fact, it showed a net income of $167 million last 
year, and it writes a check at the end of each year returning most of 
its profits to the Government. Since 1971, OPIC has contributed almost 
$2 billion back to the Federal Government to reduce the debt.
  OPIC is a successful business because it negotiates on a government-
to-government basis. Its services are simply not available in the 
private sector. OPIC does not cost the taxpayers anything, and it 
actually makes money for the Government, so its elimination would 
actually increase the deficit, not reduce it. In my opinion, OPIC is an 
example of how a Federal agency should be run. Its elimination would 
hurt U.S. interests and result in higher deficits.
  I want to thank the committee and its chairman for fighting to keep 
it, and also I look forward to working with the chairman to make sure 
we stem the tide of any elimination as this process goes on.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to ask a question 
of the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen]. I would like to ask 
the gentleman from Nebraska to reiterate what he said. I think many 
Members of this body do not understand that OPIC actually returns more 
money to the Treasury than we appropriate for it.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is 
correct.
[[Page H 6254]]

  Mr. WILSON. As well as creating jobs, as well as positively affecting 
the balance of payments, as well as creating more taxpayers.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. It does the things that the private sector cannot 
do, because the private sector does not have an arm where it will take 
political risks. OPIC takes that risk for the American enterprise, for 
the entrepreneur, for the corporation, loaning out at market rates and 
returning back to the Federal Government the cost.
  Mr. WILSON. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Menendez].
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member 
for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, in my absence a lot has been said about the amendment 
that I have offered and which the Committee on Rules made in order, 
which I want to publicly thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] who, in his wisdom, along with the members of the Committee on 
Rules, agreed to have this amendment made in order, particularly in 
view of the serious nature and the timing of what is involved.
  For someone to say that it is a rather narrow focus about the issue 
of the nuclear power plant in Cuba, they should have seen the 60 
Minutes program 2 weeks ago. It is not a narrow focus.
  If we look at the September 1992, GAO report, for those of us who 
have been following this for quite some time, we know this is a very 
serious issue, and not just to those who follow Cuba policy vis-a-vis 
the United States and Cuba.
  This is what this report said about the nuclear power plant. It said 
that reports by a former technician from Cuba examining with x rays 
weld sites believed to be part of the auxiliary plumbing system found 
10 to 15 percent of those were defective; that the operation of this 
reactor would be criminal. In fact, it says, for those of you who are 
Members from Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 
South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Washington, DC, according 
to a study by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 
Administration, that summer winds could carry radioactive pollutants 
from a nuclear accident at that powerplant throughout all of Florida 
and parts of the States on the gulf coast as far as Texas, and northern 
winds could carry it as far northeast as Virginia and Washington, DC. 
That affects the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans and in fact 
it makes it so imperative that we consider this amendment and move 
forward on it. We do not need to be supplying money to countries who 
want to permit another Chernobyl-like accident 90 miles away from the 
United States. That is why I appreciate the amendment being considered.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the full 
committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to take a second to 
respond to the comments of the gentleman who just spoke. I very much 
admire the way the gentleman attends to the needs of his district and 
his constituents and his substantive concerns. But I want to make clear 
something which I said earlier with respect to that nuclear power plant 
in Cuba, since he was referring to me in his comments.
  As I said earlier in my exchange with the gentleman from Florida, I 
very much agree with people on the substance of the question of the 
nuclear power plant in Cuba. I think it should not be built. I think it 
is very bad business. I think the Russians should not be financing it 
in any way, shape, or form. There is no disagreement whatsoever on 
substance.
  I would simply point out that the GAO report to which the gentleman 
referred was a 1992 report. My understanding is that that nuclear 
operation has been mothballed since 1993, and it is quite clear that 
the administration shares the gentleman's concerns about that plant and 
is trying to find the best way to see to it that it does not proceed 
and is not ever put in place. The only question before us is what the 
best way is to discourage that. The only question is how
 do you prevent it from actually happening. That is what is in dispute 
here.

  So, with all due respect to people's concerns about it, which are 
legitimate, I would simply suggest that it is occasionally possible to 
be correct in terms of one's goal, while being very mistaken in terms 
of the means that one chooses to get to that goal. Sometimes you have a 
law of unintended consequences, which means that what you start out to 
try to stop, you in fact create because of inadvertence. I do not want 
that to happen here, which is why I am concerned that this amendment is 
considered on this bill, when I think it ought to be considered by 
another committee that knows a whole lot more about it than this 
committee does.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the gentleman that I agree 
wholeheartedly with you. We would not want to mislead anybody in this 
House or this country that we are in support of Russia affording this 
opportunity to Cuba. We think his destination is right, he is just on 
the wrong bus to get to that destination.
  I agree with you, the gentleman should have done it in the 
authorization bill, not in this bill. So I agree with you, but I want 
everybody to know that I do not disagree with the destination. We do 
not want that plant in Cuba under any circumstances, and we do not want 
Russia contributing to that.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, none of us do. It could 
be a significant threat to the security of the United States. Everybody 
recognizes that. The question is, what is the best way to see to it 
that it never happens, and I think to achieve that we all need to work 
together on another vehicle.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, does the 
ranking member agree with me that as a matter of national pride and 
national dignity and probably of politics in Moscow, that if the United 
States tells Russia they cannot do it, then they have to do it?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I know how we would react as Americans. If 
somebody tells America, ``You cannot do something or we are going to do 
X to you,'' that is when the Americans have the fur on the back of 
their neck go up and they say, ``Tough, buddy, we are going to do it.'' 
That is human nature. So the question is how do you handle this in a 
way that people do not do dumb things because they are following 
emotion rather than logic.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this committee's proposal, 
and I am especially grateful for the work that Chairman Callahan and 
Chairman Livingston have done to establish a new child survival 
account. Since I have been in Congress, since the early 1980's, there 
has been a bipartisan effort to preserve and fence off money for 
immunizations and for oral rehydration money, which has literally saved 
millions of children because of that very modest investment.
  I have witnessed during the 1980's two mass vaccination days in 
Central America and saw thousands of kids vaccinated against 
preventable diseases like diphtheria, tetanus, and other preventable 
diseases. Yet we find that millions of kids still die. We have still 
not brought the blessings of the child survival revolution to all those 
to whom we could bring it, and this account will go very, very far in 
trying to advance that, especially in times of budget austerity.
  I would just remind Members that when we consider the authorizing 
bill, I had offered language that was
 accepted by the committee to fence off money, to earmark money, that 
would be used for child survival activities. It passed in a bipartisan 
way in committee, and a soft earmark has been retained on the floor of 
the House.

  Let me just say why I think that is so important. When Brian Atwood 
testified before our committee 2 days before our markup, he said that a 
30 percent cut in USAID's child survival program, and there was no 
cutting in the program, it was a cut in DA, would [[Page H 6255]] mean 
that more than 4 million children will likely not be vaccinated, 
greatly heightening their risk of death from severe illness.
  He went on to say if there was a cut across the board in DA, 
development authority, that that would automatically translate into a 
cut for child survival. It is a matter of who manages the cuts.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for us to say we do not want to 
see any of these cuts. But if cuts have to be, children should come 
first.
  I again want to salute the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] for 
making sure that children do indeed come first and are protected from 
cuts.
  Mr. Chairman, foreign aid has its share of critics, and perhaps more 
than its share. This fact was reflected in our recently enacted foreign 
relations bill, which made significant cuts in foreign aid and was 
nonetheless subject to criticism in some quarters that it did not cut 
deeply enough. To some extent, the voters' distrust of foreign aid is 
warranted. In far too many cases, foreign aid has proved to be the 
ticket to the high life for corrupt bureaucrats in developing nations, 
while their people remain mired in poverty.
  But let us be clear about what it is that people object to when they 
object to foreign aid. Everyone objects to corruption in the system. 
Many object to spending money on infrastructure projects in developing 
countries while money is running out for similar projects here at home. 
And many object to funding abortion and heavy-handed population control 
tactics. But what virtually no one objects to is the aid that goes 
directly to saving lives.
  People are not skeptical about foreign aid because they believe that 
foreign aid has vaccinated too many children, fed too
 many starving people, or turned too many swords into plowshares. They 
are skeptical because they believe that foreign aid has paid for too 
many unnecessary government offices and limousines, or has been 
siphoned off by yet another corrupt politician. So the best political 
solution is also the best policy: accept the reality that resources are 
limited, cut the limousines, and save the food and medicine.

  The intent of Congress in preserving child survival funds in an era 
of budget austerity is emphatically to save the funds for medicine, 
micronutrients, and vaccine. We intend to keep such funds from being 
siphoned off, either to luxurious perks, or to forms of foreign aid 
that lack a measurable positive impact on child morbidity.
  Even in this age of advanced medical progress, this world still 
witnesses the preventable deaths of millions of children. We still 
have:
  More than a million deaths per year due to measles, according to 
UNICEF.
  Still over 100,000 cases per year of polio, despite large strides 
toward eradicating it, according to Dr. Jong Wook Lee of the World 
Health Organization.
  Half of all child deaths are caused by either diarrhea or pneumonia, 
according to UNICEF. Yet these deaths are highly preventable: by early 
detection and antibiotics, in the case of pneumonia, and by oral 
rehydration therapy, in the case of diarrhea.
  Furthermore, the World Health Organization reports:
  Over a million child deaths per year from malaria; 17 million cases 
of river blindness and elephantiasis; 25,000 new cases per year of 
African sleeping sickness; 10-12 million case worldwide of leprosy, or 
Hansen's Disease.
  Unfortunately, when Congress does not speak clearly enough on how the 
funds it appropriates for child survival are to be spent, they are 
sometimes spent in ways that do not put child survival first. In a 
hearing before the International Relations Committee earlier this year, 
Brian Atwood, Administrator of AID, told us that funds designated for 
child survival had been drawn down for emergency relief, while 
population funds had not been similarly touched. The operating 
assumption seems to be: population means population, but child survival 
means a general humanitarian fund.
  Congress must state clearly that child survival means child 
survival--not population control or anything else. Whatever the proper 
place of family planning in U.S. foreign aid, it should not operate at 
the expense of child survival. Family planning implicates fundamental 
disagreements about morality, family life, and, in the case of 
abortion, about life itself. But child survival is something that all 
of us, on both sides of the population and abortion issues, can 
support. Child survival can and should bring us together, whatever 
battles we may need to fight over other issues.
  Unfortunatly, the Clinton administration is conspicuously absent from 
this broad coalition in favor of putting children first. At a recent 
hearing, Mr. Atwood explained how he would manage the one-third cut in 
Development Assistance funding:
  A 30-percent cut in USAID's child survival program would mean that 
more than 4 million children will likely not be vaccinated, greatly 
heightening their risk of death or severe illness from such preventable 
diseases as measles, whooping cough, and diphtheria.
  But there is one fact that puts Mr. Atwood's remarks in an alarming 
light. Our bill does not cut child survival. It cuts foreign aid 
overall, while attempting to protect child survival. Mr. Atwood, it 
seems, was not expressing a fear--he was issuing a threat. He was 
saying, if you cut Development Assistance, we will take that cut out of 
child survival.
  Mr. Atwood continued:
  Oral Rehydration Therapy [ORT] prevents an estimated 1 million deaths 
a year due to acute diarrhea. Usage rates for ORT in all areas of the 
world have risen to 40-65 percent. Despite the steady growth in ORT 
use, 3 million children still die from diarrheal disease annually. A 
cut of 30 percent in child survival resources would likely mean at 
least 100,000 children's lives would be lost each year for lack of this 
cheap and simple treatment.
  Chilling facts indeed--especially when you consider that such 
consequences could easily be avoided if USAID were to concentrate its 
Development Assistance cuts on something other than child survival.
  This is why Congress must not send up language that gives USAID any 
leeway on child survival.
  The Child Survival Account that the Appropriations Committee's bill 
would establish is a step in the direction of broadly supported 
humanitarian foreign aid. These funds will go, for instance:
  Toward oral rehydration therapy, which saves more than a million 
lives a year;
  Toward vaccination, so that the effective extinction of polio and 
measles can be brought about, as has already been done with smallpox;
  Toward eliminating Vitamin A and iodine deficiencies, thereby 
preventing blindness, illness, and death for untold numbers of children 
in the developing world; and
  To UNICEF, which has a long record of saving children's lives.
  UNICEF's research shows us how far we have come--and how far we still 
have to go--in fighting childhood diseases and improving childhood 
nutrition. Consider the case of polio.
  Worldwide estimates of polio cases have fallen from 400,000 in 1980 
to just over 100,000 in 1993. But at the same time, there are still 68 
countries where the polio virus is crippling children. Carrying out a 
vaccination program in places where outbreaks are still occurring can 
be expensive. Furthermore, the perception that polio is almost extinct 
makes it hard to generate the political will to make those 
expenditures, especially when other diseases seem to pose a much graver 
threat. Yet if the final extermination of polio is not achieved, the 
disease could mount a mighty comeback when a generation of unvaccinated 
children starts to grow up. Funds for UNICEF can help prevent this 
vicious circle from becoming a reality.
  Consider measles. Not as terrifying as polio, perhaps--yet UNICEF 
estimates that it causes 1 to 2 million child deaths each year, and 
often leaves even its survivors with severe malnutrition. Like polio, 
measles can be eliminated--provided the funding for vaccination 
continues even after the disease becomes rare. In 1994, Indonesia held 
a national immunization day targeted at both polio and measles, but 
health authorities there had to scale it back to polio alone due to 
inadequate funds. Indonesia is therefore at greater risk of a 
resurgence of measles.
  Consider child nutrition. Vitamin A is increasingly recognized as a 
low-cost way to reduce child mortality by between a quarter and a third 
in many developing nations. UNICEF calls vitamin A the most cost-
effective of all interventions for children. One study showed that 
malnourished children with adequate vitamin A were less likely to die 
than well-nourished children who were deficient in vitamin A. 
Consequently, UNICEF is undertaking a campaign to promote the 
fortification of common foods with vitamin A, and to make vitamin 
capsules available in areas of acute need.
  I have both high hopes and great fears about UNICEF. High hopes that 
it will continue as a pathbreaker in child survival projects, as it has 
done for decades. And great fears that it will veer from its core 
mission into areas such as family planning, which are dealt with by 
other U.N. agencies, and which tend to fracture the coalition that 
supports UNICEF.
  Over the years, liberals and conservatives alike have bought UNICEF 
greeting cards, encouraged their children to trick or treat for UNICEF, 
and even supported larger and larger contributions over the years by 
the United States. Continuation of this unusual consensus is most 
unlikely if UNICEF ventures into the most morally landmined field in 
all of foreign aid.
  The Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, which 
I chair, will be holding oversight hearings on UNICEF. We hope and 
expect to find through these hearings that UNICEF has remained faithful 
to its [[Page H 6256]] core mission of fighting child morbidity and 
promoting child health. In that regard, I welcome the declaration on 
family planning that UNICEF makes in its 1995 report called The 
Progress of Nations. That declaration makes clear that under the 
division of labor that characterizes U.N. agencies, UNICEF's mission of 
improving the well-being of children and women is different from that 
of the agencies that promote family planning.
  The core mission of UNICEF, and other important child survival 
activities, will be helped greatly by the child survival and disease 
program fund set up by this bill. This fund is foreign aid as it was 
meant to be. This Congress is making cuts, but it is not making them 
blindly or callously. It is cutting waste and extravagance, while 
preserving the heart of foreign aid. I commend the appropriators for 
their work, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the foreign operations 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the gentleman from New Jersey, and 
give him a lot of credit, because he, along with the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] came and 
suggested that we do something to ensure that as we dramatically 
downsize foreign aid, that we do not preclude the ability of the 
administration to have a sufficient amount of money to feed starving 
children, and to provide the immunizations programs that will help 
eradicate polio. So I compliment the gentleman.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the foreign 
operations funding bill.
  I do so with the view that this is not a perfect bill. In many 
respects, it represents a step backward in U.S. commitment to promoting 
development and democracy around the world.
  I am concerned about the 34-percent cut in African aid. This is bad 
public policy on humanitarian grounds. These cuts also make no fiscal 
sense. Investing a small amount in African development today will save 
many more tax dollars in emergency intervention in the future.
  I am also concerned that the bill contains language allowing for 
continued United States aid to Azerbaijan, despite that nation's 
unconscionable blockade of Armenia. Allowing our allies to block U.S. 
humanitarian assistance represents a complete undermining of our 
foreign policy objectives.
  Despite these problems, the bill contains many important provisions, 
and I want to thank Chairman Callahan and my good friend Dave Obey for 
their work.
  I strongly support the inclusion of $3 billion in economic and 
military assistance for Israel. As our only democratic ally in the 
Middle East continues to travel down the historic--and often 
dangerous--road toward peace, it is imperative that our country ensure 
Israel's economic viability and military advantage in the region.
  I am pleased that the bill maintains $15 million for Cyprus. It has 
been two decades since the brutal Turkish invasion of this beautiful 
island nation. This relatively small amount of money goes a long way 
toward helping the Cypriot people with critical economic development 
and peace-enhancing activities.
  I also want to convey my strong support for the funding for the 
International Fund for Ireland. President Clinton and the Congress have 
much to be proud of with respect to the profound and peaceful changes 
in Ireland. We therefore must renew our commitment to the heroic Irish 
people.
  I ask my colleagues to support this bill. It is not perfection, but 
it is very important nevertheless.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, this legislation poses a dilemma. Some of its 
provisions, such as the funding for export-related functions, are 
vitally necessary for our economic growth and job creation.
  The bill continues current levels of funding of the Export-Import 
Bank, which helps finance U.S. exports.
  The bill also provides $100 million for the Exim Warchest, which is 
used to counteract unfair trade practices by foreign governments. This, 
too, is essential for our competitive position in global markets. 
Further, the bill provides a substantial increase in the operating 
levels for the Overseas Private Investment Corporation [OPIC].
  This is consistent with our authorizing bill last year, in which we 
tripled OPIC's authorizing levels to $9.5 billion. Let me point out 
that OPIC does not use any taxpayer funds--it pays for itself and even 
makes money for the Government--last year earning $167 million. OPIC 
also maintains reserves to cover its liabilities, with $2.3 billion 
currently on deposit in the Treasury.
  None of these funds come from the taxpayer. Everything was earned 
through OPIC's business activities. The truth is, this appropriations 
bill simply allows OPIC to use the money that it has already earned on 
its own.
  The bill also provides funds for the Trade and Development Agency, 
which generates U.S. exports by funding the engineering and feasibility 
studies for major construction projects overseas.
  Our subcommittee's oversight hearings have shown that TDA generates 
$25 in exports for every $1 it spends. That is an excellent return on 
our investment. Therefore, I am concerned that this bill cuts TDA by $5 
million. I hope this provision can be revisited later.
  The importance of each of these export programs is underscored by the 
latest trade data, which came out yesterday. The overall deficit in 
April was $11 billion, the worst month in 3 years. The deficit in goods 
was $16 billion. That is $1.7 billion worse than in March.
  In April, our exports actually went down by nearly a billion dollars, 
while imports went up by $700 million.
  In other words, our trade deficit, which last year was the worst in 
our history, is getting even worse. The bottom line is, if our exports 
do not recover, we will certainly fall into a recession.
  In recent years, exports have provided most of our economic growth, 
as much as 80 percent.
 Clearly, we need the export programs in this bill.

  Therefore, I commend the Gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] and 
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] for these vital job-
creating provisions. Unfortunately, other parts of the bill represent 
business as usual in doling out foreign aid.
  The bill makes some cuts in foreign aid, but not enough, in my 
judgment. AID still gets $5.7 billion, including $530 million in 
operating expenses. Why does it cost a half a billion dollars to run a 
$5 billion program? Over the past 10 years, AID's programs have gone 
down 23 percent, but its operating costs have gone up 40 percent.
  It makes no sense that operating costs go up when the overall program 
is going down. In particular, I oppose the $29 million which is 
provided for AID downsizing. What sense does it make to appropriate 
more money to shut down missions and reduce the Agency? That represents 
the triumph of bureaucratic thinking over common sense.
  Yes, we absolutely should cut down AID, but let us not give the 
bureaucrats even more money to carry this out. Many amendments will be 
offered to this bill.
  Some will propose further reductions in foreign aid. Some will 
propose ill-considered reductions in support for our exporters. And 
some would actually increase foreign aid spending. The fate of this 
bill hangs in the outcome of these amendments.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the export-related 
provisions and in making further reductions in foreign aid.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
McKeon] having assumed the Chair, Mr. Boehner, Chairman pro tempore 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. 
1868), making appropriations for foreign operations export financing, 
and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and 
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.


                          ____________________