[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 27, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6324-H6377]
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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 1868.

                              {time}  1258


                     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. 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. Hansen in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.

                              {time}  1300

  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, June 
22, 1995, all time for general debate had expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered under the 5-minute 
rule by titles and each title shall be considered as having been read.
  Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to 
consider the amendments printed in part 1 of House Report 104-147. 
Those amendments will be considered in the order printed, by a Member 
designated in the report, may amend portions of the bill not yet read 
for amendment, are considered as having been read, are not subject to 
amendment, and are not subject to a demand for division of the 
question. Debate on each amendment is limited to 10 minutes, equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the 
amendment.
  After disposition of the amendments printed in part 1 of the report, 
the bill as then perfected will be considered as original text.
  An amendment printed in part 2 of the report shall not be subject to 
a demand for division of the question.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
who has caused an amendment to be printed in the designated place in 
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered as having 
been read.
  The clerk will read.
  The clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1868

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, namely:

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to refresh the Members as to where we 
are. We had general debate, and since that time the weekend has 
intervened.
  Just to bring the Members of Congress up to date on where we are on 
this foreign operations appropriation bill, H.R. 1868, let me tell the 
Members we have worked out a bipartisan agreement with both sides of 
the aisle, working very hard to bring to this floor a bill that both 
sides could support. The ranking member on the committee, the gentleman 
from Texas, Charlie Wilson, has been most cooperative, as have all 
Members of the other side that have approached the committee. We do not 
want to deny any Member the opportunity to address any issue they want 
to in this bill. Thus, the open rule.
  However, I must tell the House that we have 73 pending amendments to 
this bill. We would like for them to be considered as expeditiously as 
possible. I have informed the leadership, and I have discussed it with 
the ranking member of our committee, we are willing to stay here until 
4 o'clock in the morning if that, indeed, is what the Members want to 
do. We want to have everybody here. However, at the same time, we are 
going to ask Members to be as brief as possible.
  First of all, this bill is $11.99 billion in budget authority. Most 
importantly, it is a 22-percent reduction from 1995. It is nearly $3 
billion less than what the administration has requested.
  The American people have sent us a strong message telling as to cut 
Government spending, and they said to cut foreign aid as well. That is 
precisely what this bill does. It is drafted in such a manner that it 
gives the administration a great deal of latitude. I would hope that we 
do not fall prey to some today who will be coming before us asking us 
to increase this measure.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate title I.
  The text of title I is as follows:

               TITLE I--EXPORT AND INVESTMENT ASSISTANCE


                export-import bank of the united states

       The Export-Import Bank of the United States is authorized 
     to make such expenditures within the limits of funds and 
     borrowing authority available to such corporation, and in 
     accordance with law, and to make such contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations, as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as may be necessary in carrying out the program for the 
     current fiscal year for such corporation: Provided, That none 
     of the funds available during the current fiscal year may be 
     used to make expenditures, contracts, or commitments for the 
     export of nuclear equipment, fuel or technology to any 
     country other than a nuclear-weapon State as defined in 
     Article IX of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear 
     Weapons eligible to receive economic or military assistance 
     under this Act that has detonated a nuclear explosive after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.


                         subsidy appropriation

       For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, insurance, 
     and tied-aid grants as authorized by section 10 of the 
     Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended, $786,551,000 to 
     remain available until September 30, 1997: Provided, That 
     such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall 
     be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974: Provided further, That such sums shall remain 
     available until 2010 for the disbursement of direct loans, 
     loan guarantees, insurance and tied-aid grants obligated in 
     fiscal years 1996 and 1997: Provided further, That up to 
     $100,000,000 of funds appropriated by this paragraph shall 
     remain available until expended and may be used for tied-aid 
     grant purposes: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated by this paragraph may be used for tied-aid 
     credits or grants except through the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: Provided 
     further, That funds appropriated by this paragraph are made 
     available notwithstanding section 2(b)(2) of the Export-
     Import Bank Act of 1945, in connection with the purchase or 
     lease of any product by any East European country, any Baltic 
     State, or any agency or national thereof.


                        administrative expenses

       For administrative expenses to carry out the direct and 
     guaranteed loan and insurance programs (to be computed on an 
     accrual basis), including hire of passenger motor vehicles 
     and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to 
     exceed $20,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses for members of the Board of Directors, $45,228,000: 
     Provided, That necessary expenses
      (including special services performed on a contract or fee 
     basis, but not including other personal services) in 
     connection with the collection of moneys owed the Export-
     Import Bank, repossession or sale of pledged collateral or 
     other assets acquired by the Export-Import Bank in 
     satisfaction of moneys owed the Export-Import Bank, or the 
     investigation or appraisal of any property, or the 
     evaluation of the legal or technical aspects of any 
     transaction for which an application for a loan, guarantee 
     or insurance commitment has been made, shall be considered 
     nonadministrative expenses for the purposes of this 
     heading: Provided further, That, notwithstanding 
     subsection (b) of section 117 of the Export Enhancement 
     Act of 1992, subsection (a) thereof shall remain in effect 
     until October 1, 1996.


       overseas private investment corporation noncredit account

       The Overseas Private Investment Corporation is authorized 
     to make, without regard to fiscal year limitations, as 
     provided by 31 U.S.C. 9104, such expenditures and commitments 
     within the limits of funds available to it and in accordance 
     with law as may be necessary: Provided, That the amount 
     available for administrative expenses to carry out the credit 
     and insurance programs (including an amount for official 
     reception and representation expenses which shall not exceed 
     $35,000) shall not exceed $26,500,000: Provided further, That 
     project-specific transaction costs, including direct and 
     indirect costs incurred in claims settlements, and other 
     direct costs associated with services provided to specific 
     investors or potential investors pursuant to section 234 of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, shall not be considered 
     administrative expenses for the purposes of this heading.


                            program account

       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, $79,000,000, 
     as authorized by section 234 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, to be derived by transfer from the Overseas Private 
     Investment Corporation Noncredit Account: Provided, That such 
     costs, including 

[[Page H 6325]]
     the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That 
     such sums shall be available for direct loan obligations and 
     loan guaranty commitments incurred or made during fiscal 
     years 1996 and 1997: Provided further, That such sums shall 
     remain available through fiscal year 2003 for the 
     disbursement of direct and guaranteed loans obligated in 
     fiscal year 1996, and through fiscal year 2004 for the 
     disbursement of direct and guaranteed loans obligated in 
     fiscal year 1997. In addition, such sums as may be necessary 
     for administrative expenses to carry out the credit program 
     may be derived from amounts available for administrative 
     expenses to carry out the credit and insurance programs in 
     the Overseas Private Investment Corporation Noncredit Account 
     and merged with said account.

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                      trade and development agency

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 661 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $40,000,000: Provided, That the Trade and Development Agency 
     may receive reimbursements from corporations and other 
     entities for the costs of grants for feasibility studies and 
     other project planning services, to be deposited as an 
     offsetting collection to this account and to be available for 
     obligation until September 30, 1997, for necessary expenses 
     under this paragraph: Provided further, That such 
     reimbursements shall not cover, or be allocated against, 
     direct or indirect administrative costs of the agency.

                  International Financial Institutions


         contribution to the international finance corporation

       For payment to the International Finance Corporation by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, $67,550,000, for the United States 
     share of the increase in subscriptions to capital stock, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That of the amount 
     appropriated under this heading not more than $5,269,000 may 
     be expended for the purchase of such stock in fiscal year 
     1996.


contribution to the enterprise for the americas multilateral investment 
                                  fund

       For payment to the Enterprise for the Americas Multilateral 
     Investment Fund by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the 
     United States contribution to the Fund to be administered by 
     the Inter-American Development Bank, $70,000,000 to remain 
     available until expended.

  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to echo what the chairman of our 
subcommittee said. The minority is perfectly willing to stay here until 
4 o'clock in the morning to finish the bill.
  I would also like to underline that the bill is a fairly fragile 
compromise, and I hope that we can keep it from being fundamentally 
changed. As it is now, I think it is veto-proof. I think that would be 
a very constructive thing for the House to do.


                    amendment offered by mr. gilman

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman: 
       Page 8, beginning on line 9, strike ``shall be made 
     available notwithstanding any other provision of law, and''.
       Page 9, beginning on line 15, strike ``Provided further,'' 
     and all that follows through ``Committees on 
     Appropriations:''.
       Page 16, line 23, strike ``and for other purposes,''.
       Page 19, line 8, strike ``1.5'' and insert ``1''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Gilman] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this bill, which is the product of 
careful consultation with our Committee on International Relations by 
the subcommittee, under the leadership of the gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Callahan]. I commend the distinguished chairman, the gentleman 
from Alabama, and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Wilson]. The bill as a whole deserves the support of the House. I 
strongly urge Members to support it on final passage.
  Mr. Chairman, my en bloc amendment is designed to overcome certain 
concerns I had with the bill as reported. Chairman Callahan, Chairman 
Solomon, and I agreed that the best way to handle these concerns, which 
might otherwise be subject to a point of order, would be for me to 
offer two amendments. This is the first of those amendments.
  The amendment would strike three legislative provisions and alter a 
third.
  The first provision strikes legislative language in the Child 
Survival and Diseases Fund Program that would allow funds appropriated 
to the fund to be made available notwithstanding any other provision of 
law.
  This language is inappropriate, in my view, because it would set 
aside appropriate provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act and give the 
administration little guidance beyond the bill's six child survival 
purposes.
  In recent days, Members expressed concerns about the child survival 
section of the Foreign Assistance Act. The International Relations 
Committee will be considering legislation later this summer to update 
the Child Survival Program. We will update provisions of the FAA and 
take care of any concerns with current law. I trust it will be a 
bipartisan bill and would seek its rapid adoption in the Congress.
  The second provision would strike the provision that allows the 
transfer of funds from AID's Development Assistance account to the 
Treasury Department for debt restructuring. Given the cuts to the 
Development Accounts in the authorizing bill, our International 
Relation Committee chose not to allow the transfer funds from 
development assistance to other accounts in violation of section 109 of 
the Foreign Assistance Act. The policy of section 109 of the FAA is 
clear--funds may not be transferred from development assistance. I 
think it was wise policy when it became law. I do not think this law 
should be waived. I will also point out that during debate on the 
authorizing bill, the House decisively rejected an attempt to provide 
additional funds for debt restructuring.
  The third provision strikes language that expands the purposes of the 
appropriation for the Freedom Support Act--assistance to the former 
Soviet Union--to unspecified other purposes, notwithstanding any other 
provision of law. This is the kind of legislative language that could 
have the effect, however unintentional, of weakening the appropriate 
oversight role of the authorizing committees, since it is not at all 
clear what the other purposes of such additional aid would be or what 
authorities they would employ. If this language were not stricken, the 
House would be appropriating, to some degree, in the blind with respect 
to the somewhat troubled aid program for Russia and the New Independent 
States.
  Finally, the amendment changes the ratio of required private 
participation in certain programs in Russia. This amendment reflects 
the reality that, in dollar terms, indigenous contributions by 
Russians, valued in dollars, are necessarily going to be very small, 
and it will be very difficult to reach the required ratio for many 
projects.
  In a compromise with Chairman Callahan, we agreed to reduce this 
ratio from 1.5 to 1 down to 1 to 1. It will reflect an equal 
partnership between the public and private sectors It was my 
understanding from the appropriations committee staff that this change 
would help groups like Save the Children in Russia and other New 
Independent States.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the effort made by Chairman Callahan and 
Rules Committee Chairman Solomon to help me address several concerns 
that have come up during consideration of this bill.
  We had unprecedented cooperation between the subcommittee and our 
Committee on International Relations. Chairman Callahan addressed some 
of my concerns through an amendment he offered in full committee and I 
thank him for that. With the adoption of this amendment and the one 
that I will offer next, our committees will be in sync.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member opposed to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York?
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  This amendment would delete a provision that waives legislative 
restrictions for programs for child survival.
  Over the past several years the committee has included this provision 
in the bill because programs for children 

[[Page H 6326]]
should be carried out without technical or political restrictions.
  The provision has enabled aid to help displaced children, orphans, 
and other children in distress in Bosnia, Mozambique, Somalia, and 
Rwanda.
  It enables the United States to respond quickly to assist children as 
a result of natural disasters, war, and the spread of disease.
  Assistance to children for immunization, family reunification, and 
other assistance is the one area in the foreign assistance area where 
we can statistically show that benefits are achieved and in fact lives 
are saved. UNICEF has estimated that the United States program for 
child survival has saved more than 1 million lives during the past 10 
years.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a number of legislative provisions in this 
bill that have been here for a number of years--since there hasn't been 
an authorization bill signed into law for more than 10 years.
  I do not know why the gentleman has chosen this one to strike. But I 
think for the sake of saving lives of children, Members should vote 
against the Gilman amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WILSON. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
   Mr. Chairman, the pending first amendment provided for under the 
rule, by the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and 
incidentally, I want to thank the chairman for his cooperation during 
this process, and for helping me through his very knowledgeable history 
in foreign relations.
  However, the amendment of chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations reflects discussions between us prior to the Committee on 
Rules hearing last week. By way of explanation, the ``notwithstanding'' 
provision that is deleted in this amendment was inserted by the 
Committee on Appropriations to allow the executive branch to act more 
expeditiously than the Foreign Assistance Act would allow in the case 
of epidemics. The diphtheria epidemic now sweeping across the former 
Soviet Union is a case in point.
  According to the General Accounting Office, AID delayed contracting 
with the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, when diphtheria struck 
the Ukraine more than a year ago. Now that the epidemic has spread, we 
accept the chairman's assurances that the ``notwithstanding'' clause is 
unnecessary to prevent future delays in responding to epidemics to 
prevent future delays in responding to epidemics abroad.
  The two language changes in the heading ``Assistance for the New 
Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' should not change the 
Committee on Appropriation's original objectives. Administration 
lawyers have assured us that reverting to the customary term ``and for 
related programs'' as a result of the deletion proposed by the 
chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], will in no way 
reduce the ability of the coordinator and special advisor to obligate 
these funds. They may be used for any activities in the former Soviet 
Union that were requested by the administration and the Committee on 
Appropriations.
   Mr. Chairman, I am not going to ask for a recorded vote, I would say 
to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson].
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILMAN. I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], a senior member of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth] is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
   Mr. Chairman, we have two amendments here that are very important. 
The first one deletes authorizing language from the bill which runs 
directly contrary to the provisions that came out of the Committee on 
International Relations and were written in the law.
  In one instance, the bill waives all provisions of law in providing 
funds for certain health-related programs. In another instance, the 
bill authorizes $15 million of debt relief in Africa. In another, the 
bill authorizes the transfer of $15 million from the development fund 
for Africa. That is why these amendments are important.
  In offering these amendments, the gentleman from New York is making a 
very important point. The point is this: appropriations bills should be 
consistent with the authorization bills. This is not the case here. I 
understand the tendency, as has been pointed out by the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Wilson], that in the past 10 years we have not had an 
authorization bill enacted.
 Now we have an authorization bill that has been passed. Before, yes, 
the appropriations bill carried the burden of the authorization bill.

  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, he means he 
has had an authorization bill passed.
  Mr. ROTH. Yes, Mr. Chairman. What we are saying is the authorization 
bill should set the standard. The appropriations should dovetail into 
the authorization bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 2 
additional minutes to engage in a colloquy with the maker of the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise the gentleman, only if the time 
is equally divided by each side can the Chair entertain that request.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for an 
additional 3 minutes, and that it be equally divided between both 
sides.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned with the part 
of the amendment that would delete the phrase ``notwithstanding any 
other provision of law'' from the Child Survival and Disease Programs 
Fund in title II. I would just ask the chairman of the full committee 
for a clarification. If the amendment passes, can the House be assured 
that the money in the fund would not be used or available for 
population assistance?

                              {time}  1315

  We have such money designated. It has been used in the past. My hope 
is that this day on point for child survival interventions, 
immunizations, oral rehydration, and the like, and those things that 
were expressed on the bottom of page 7 and page 8 of the bill.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. If the amendment passes, the House can be assured the 
money in the fund would not be available for population assistance.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
clarifying that.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the unanimous-consent argument, the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Wilson] is recognized for an additional 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in part 1 of House Report 104-147.


                    amendment offered by mr. gilman

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman: Page 8, line 16, strike 
     ``$669,000,000'' and insert ``$645,000,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members' support for the Gilman-Brownback 
amendment. This amendment simply reduces 

[[Page H 6327]]
the foreign aid development assistance budget to the level approved by 
the House on June 8.
  When the House debated the American Overseas Interests Act (H.R. 
1561), we supported a total funding level of $858 million for 
development assistance. This amount reflected a balanced reduction in 
foreign aid to meet our budget reduction targets included in the House-
passed budget resolution. I strongly support these programs but must 
note that we must show spending restraint in a time of $200-billion 
deficits.
  Chairman Callahan's bill was marked up in subcommittee while the 
Overseas Interests Act was debated on the floor--therefore amounts in 
the bill are not identical to the authorizing bill. Our amendment would 
simply reduce the amounts in the bill for this particular account to 
the authorized level as passed in the House. We support Chairman 
Callahan's Child Survival Program and our amendment would not cut a 
penny from that account or AID funds for Africa. My colleagues recall 
that the budget savings in the Overseas Interests Act were endorsed by 
Chairman Kasich and the following organizations: the National Taxpayers 
Union Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform, the Association of 
Concerned Taxpayers, and Citizens Against Government Waste. Remembering 
the support of these budget-conscious groups, I urge support for the 
Gilman-Brownback amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Brownback].
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Gilman-Brownback amendment to reduce the Development Assistance Fund to 
the level authorized by H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interests Act.
  My support for reducing the Development Assistance Fund is not based 
on a desire to gut USAID's development assistance program. Nor is it 
based on a desire to unfairly single out individual projects for 
outright elimination.
  The problem is we are broke. This fiscal year, the Federal Government 
is forecasted to spend over $200 billion more than it takes in. That 
annual deficit will add to our current national debt of almost $5 
trillion.
  We cannot afford to continue our current spending habits. That is why 
the new Republican majority in the House has crafted a balanced budget 
resolution, and we must meet our budget targets.
  I cosponsor this amendment to the foreign aid authorization bill, 
H.R. 1561, to bring its funding levels in compliance with the budget 
resolution target.
  Although this foreign operations bill overall spends even less on 
foreign aid than the budget resolution's target, H.R. 1868 raises the 
level of the Development Assistance Fund by approximately $25 million.
  I applaud the Appropriations Committee for lowering the level of 
taxpayer funding of foreign assistance. However, the committee should 
not have used the additional savings to raise the funding levels of the 
Development Assistance Fund.
  I agree that the United States should be providing development 
assistance for programs that further U.S. interests abroad. However, 
because of the importance of balancing the budget and reducing the 
deficit, we need to reduce our overall level of development assistance. 
As a result, we need to reevaluate our development assistance 
priorities.
  Providing more than $27,000,000 to Nepal is not a priority.
  Providing almost $19,000,000 to Sri Lanka is not a priority.
  Providing almost $10,000,000 to Yemen is not a priority.
  I do not want to gut these programs of the entire fund. But I cite 
these programs as examples of areas in which cost-cutting could and 
should occur.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for the passage of the bill.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I am confused. Do I control 5 minutes of 
the time?
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Texas opposed to the amendment?
  Mr. WILSON. I am extremely opposed, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] is recognized for 
5 minutes in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Gilman]. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] has 1 
minute remaining.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am extremely opposed to this amendment for many, many 
reasons, but basically because the funding levels in this bill were 
reached after very, very careful negotiations in order to bring a 
bipartisan bill to the floor, a bill that would be veto-proof, a bill 
that could gain wide acceptance through all elements of both parties, 
and to cut $25 million here out of development assistance, which would 
mean a 40 percent total cut, I think would endanger that compromise.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say this: If the House wants 
to have bipartisan support for this bill, it needs to defeat this 
amendment. If it does not care about getting support for this bill from 
this side of the aisle and wants to pass it all on your own, then vote 
for the amendment, because that is going to be the result.
  When we came out of the subcommittee, we had reached a very delicate 
compromise. Basically what we had done is, taking into account the 
level of DA already recommended by the subcommittee, we simply 
suggested that other accounts that had been increased over last year be 
reduced so that through a combination of development assistance and 
assistance to Africa, we would reduce somewhat the huge cuts that had 
already taken place in those accounts.
  The problem with this amendment is that it is cutting an account 
which has already been cut by 40 percent at the same time that military 
assistance in this bill is $1 million above last year's level.
  We do not believe that that is a balanced approach, we do not think 
you ought to do that, and frankly I do not instead to support a bill if 
it becomes nothing but a delivery mechanism for warped priorities.
  It seems to me it is essential for us to stick with a bipartisan 
product. If this amendment is passed, you abandon that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston].
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan] to yield time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] controls the 
time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that there is only 1 
minute left.
  Mr. WILSON. I think I control the time, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] controls the time 
in opposition. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] has 1 minute 
remaining.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin still has the time that was yielded to 
him, 3 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. That is my impression. My understanding is that there will 
be no time for the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] or the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] unless I yield to them, which I 
am trying to do.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, if I might, respectfully ask for 
unanimous consent to extend the debate for 3 additional minutes on each 
side and then I would ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations, to yield his 3 
minutes to me so I can recognize the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston], chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and we each 
would have additional time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, 
we have, I think, 2 or 3 speakers on this side that have served on the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs/International Relations who feel very 
strongly about this amendment. We would like to have a minute or two 
for us to express our feelings.
  I would ask unanimous consent instead of 3 minutes that we have 7 
minutes so we can split it 3\1/2\ minutes on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alabama modify his request?
  
[[Page H 6328]]

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to 
object, is the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] planning to give 
the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 3 minutes?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am, when they yield to me.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to 
object, that being the case, then I think we need more than the 3 
minutes. We need 10 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, is all of this coming out of my time?
  The CHAIRMAN. Each side has to be equally treated in this area.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
debate on this amendment be extended by an additional 10 minutes 
equally divided on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] will be 
recognized for an additional 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Wilson] will be recognized for an additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Could I ask the Chair how much time I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 
expired.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time. I doubt I will use the full 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the Gilman amendment reduces the development assistance 
account by $24 million in order to bring the bill in line with the 
authorization bill. I understand and support his desire to appropriate 
within House-passed authorization levels. However, I respectfully 
disagree with Mr. Gilman on the merits, and the effect of this specific 
amendment.
  Our committee was forced to not only work with the authorizing 
levels, but also to work out billions in cuts in a politically 
difficult bill.
  Chairman Callahan displayed amazing leadership and consensus building 
skills in developing a bipartisan consensus on how we should distribute 
the declining foreign assistance dollars. Each member of the 
subcommittee outlined their priorities and we compromised in order to 
report a bill with wide bipartisan support. Mr. Wilson and Mr. Obey 
both support this legislation. I think it is important that we maintain 
the support of the minority in order to get this bill through.
  However, if we agree to Mr. Gilman's amendment, we break our 
bipartisan agreement and risk losing support from our minority party 
members. It seems extremely counterproductive to lose the bipartisan 
support we have worked so hard to achieve, merely to prove our 
unequivocal compliance with the authorizing legislation. Especially 
since we conform with the authorization bill in almost all respects, 
and overall $375 million below the total funding level assumed in the 
authorization bill.
  In addition to breaking bipartisan support, this bill is wrong on the 
merits. Our committee provided a $25 million increase for child 
survival activities in the newly created child survival and disease 
programs fund This was done to accommodate a bipartisan effort to 
protect funding for child survival and infectious disease programs. Not 
only did we maintain a separate account, we were able to increase the 
level by $25 million because of wide support for protecting children.
  Mr. Gilman's amendment, while understandable for jurisdictional 
reasons, is a bad amendment for the children of the world. In order to 
keep bipartisanship and to protect children, I urge opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], the distinguished chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Committee on 
Appropriations, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to 
control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] is recognized 
for 6 minutes.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment, but I am going to speak last on it.
  At this point, though, in fairness to all concerned, I yield 1 minute 
to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, we are not going to be allowing children 
to starve if we pass this amendment. The authorizing committee came up 
with a reasonable amount of money to deal with the problems of the 
world. The problem is the authorizing committee came up with a figure 
and now we are going above that with the Appropriations Committee of 
$24 million. We do not need to be spending that money at a time when we 
are having fiscal problems.
   I want to read what one of the Chief of Staffs of AID said, Larry 
Byrne. He said that AID was 62 percent through the fiscal year and they 
had only spent 38 percent of their dollar volume. They needed to spend 
a $1.9 billion in the next 5 months. Now, get that.
  They were two-thirds through the year and they had only spent one-
third of their money so they had to speed up the spending process, to 
blow American taxpayers' dollars, so they could ask for more money.
  They don't need more money. We don't need to be spending this $24 
million.
  I say to my colleagues who are fiscally responsible, vote for this 
amendment. It takes it back to the authorizing level, which was a 
reasonable figure. We do not need to be going above authorized levels 
if we are really concerned about balancing the budget.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].
                              {time}  1330

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, what we are trying to do 
here is to roll back the aid to the Development Assistance Fund $24 
million, back to the authorizing levels. It is very simple. We are 
trying to save some money.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Gilman's amendment to strike 
$24 million from the Development Assistance Fund [DAF] in an effort to 
cut spending and reduce the deficit and national debt.
  Today the national debt stands at over $4.89 trillion--that's right, 
trillion--dollars. In fact, the debt continues to increase by $9,600 
every second, which means that by the time I conclude my remarks, the 
national debt will have risen by another $576,000--another half a 
million dollars of fiscal liability placed on the backs of our 
children.
  Mr. Chairman, given this fiscal crisis, we as responsible legislators 
must continue to look for ways to make reasonable cuts in government 
spending. The amendment before us now makes such a reasonable 
reduction. Two weeks ago, we passed a foreign aid authorization bill 
that set spending levels for the Development Assistance Fund at $858 
million. The appropriations bill we are currently considering proposes 
to spend $25 million above the authorized amount on the DAF. The Gilman 
amendment simply brings the appropriation in line with the levels 
authorized without touching the Child Survival Program.
  I think we all agree, Mr. Chairman, that cutting spending to reduce 
the deficit and the debt is necessary and will bode well for the 
economy and for future generations of Americans. I think we can agree, 
too, that a very basic step in controlling spending is to keep 
appropriations within approved authorization levels. This amendment 
does just that. Let's stop the half-a-million-a-minute trend of debt 
accumulation. I support the amendment by the distinguished chairman and 
I urge the support of my colleagues.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I basically have a question. I realize 
Chairman Callahan and ranking member Wilson have done a good job and we 
congratulate them on that. As I interpret this amendment, the nub of 
the issue basically is this. The gentleman's amendment takes us back to 
the authorization bill and basically cuts it $24 million. It brings it 
back to the authorization fund. There is no jurisdiction fight 

[[Page H 6329]]
or anything as I read it; it is just going back to the authorization 
bill.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin is precisely 
correct. It cuts development assistance by $24 million, down to $645 
million, to the level the House authorized back on June 8. It does not 
cut child survival or Africa development funds.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman].
  (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I urge the body to reject the amendment. 
The fact is the appropriations bill that is before us is below the 
602(b) allocation for the 150 account. The total of the bill does not 
exceed the authorization level. it is $400 million below the 
authorization level.
  As was mentioned by Chairman Livingston and Chairman Callahan, the 
$24 million increase in the development assistance was a major part, a 
very small amount of money, but it was a major part of deciding whether 
this body is going to go back to a bipartisan approach trying to deal 
with the very important question of foreign assistance.
  I ask my colleagues to remember, the appropriations bill is below the 
602(b) allocation, that is in the budget resolution that passed the 
House. The appropriations bill in total is $400 million below the 
authorization level. And we are talking about $24 million for 
development assistance to support the most critical programs in the 
foreign assistance program; the kinds of aid that goes directly to 
people, that is not government-to-government, that is not going to be 
squandered.
  And what is the benefit of this? We go back to a bipartisan approach 
to the foreign assistance program. That is worth something. I am sorry 
the amendment is being offered. I hope it is rejected. I think it is 
critical to the future of how we handle foreign assistance programs in 
this body.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I think it would benefit the House for the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] to close.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I too rise in opposition to the Gilman amendment. So just let me 
reinform the committee that we have worked hard. We have bipartisan 
support.
  The Appropriations Committee has reported a bill that conforms with 
the authorization bill in almost all respects. In fact, overall we are 
$375 million below the total funding level assumed in the authorization 
bill.
  Chairman Gilman maintains that we are $25 million over the 
authorization level for the Development Assistance Fund. However, that 
is only due to the fact that the committee provided a $25 million 
increase for child survival activities in the newly created Child 
Survival and Disease Programs Fund.
  Creation of this new fund was a response to a bipartisan effort to 
protect funding for child survival and infectious disease programs of 
the Agency for International Development. Members from both sides of 
the aisle on both the authorizing and appropriations committees 
discussed this matter with me, and I decided to protect these programs 
by creating a separate appropriations account.
  Not only did we maintain funding for child survival programs at the 
1995 level of $275 million, we were able to increase this level by $25 
million.
  In addition, I worked hard to achieve bipartisan support for this 
bill. Part of that compromise involved slightly higher funding levels 
for development assistance programs. I believe it is very important 
that foreign policy legislation, to the extent it is possible, be 
supported by Members on both sides of the aisle.
  In my opinion, we do not violate the authorizing committee one iota. 
We have created a child survival account to make absolutely certain 
that the children that we are helping worldwide, the starving children 
that you see on television in these Third World countries and 
underdeveloped countries, are the ones that will suffer.
  Let me encourage my colleagues in this House to keep this bipartisan 
agreement together; to reject the Gilman amendment.
  Many of the funding levels in this bill were developed with that end 
in mind.
  I want to stress that this bill already makes the largest reduction 
from a President's request for foreign aid in 20 years. It is 19 
percent below the administration's request, and over 11 percent below 
last year's level. We have done our job on the Appropriations Committee 
to reduce spending on international relations.
  I have the greatest respect for Chairman Gilman. He did an 
outstanding job under very difficult circumstances when he successfully 
managed the authorization bill several weeks ago. Therefore I can 
understand his reluctance to agree to an appropriations bill that does 
not completely comply with the authorization.
  However, I have developed a bipartisan bill with Mr. Wilson and Mr. 
Obey, and I must oppose this amendment. I do so with the utmost respect 
for Chairman Gilman, but I believe the committee process has resulted 
in a good bill that we can all support.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Gilman 
amendment that would slice $25 million from the Development Assistance 
Fund.
  The Development Assistance Fund, which finances family planning 
programs, has become the slush fund of choice for Members of this body. 
Everyone is raiding the development assistance pot--a pot that is 
almost empty already.
  Currently, this bill designates approximately $669 million for 
development assistance for all sectors including population assistance, 
once the child survival and disease programs earmark is deducted. Under 
the current bill, population assistance will get approximately a 49-
percent cut from the 1996 request level. Now, Mr. Gilman asks us to cut 
an additional $25 million. This cut would have a devastating and 
irreversible effect on the well-being of women and children throughout 
the world.
  These cuts would directly result in the loss of family planning and 
other reproductive health services to millions of women who need them. 
Ultimately, cuts in USAID population funding will affect the size of 
the world's population for decades to come. Our decisions here today 
will determine whether the world's population stabilizes under 10 
billion, or whether it doubles from its current size to reach 12 
billion by 2050, and continues to grow thereafter.
  Among the immediate consequences of a 50-percent cut are an estimated 
1.6 million unintended pregnancies per year, which would have been 
directly prevented through USAID supported family planning activities. 
These pregnancies will result in 1.2 million unwanted births, 363,000 
otherwise unneeded abortions, and 8,000 maternal deaths.
  Programs lost or dramatically reduced due to severe budget cuts would 
include research programs developing new contraceptive methods and 
methods to help prevent HIV/AIDS transmission. In addition, programs 
targeted at reducing the heavy reliance on abortion in countries like 
Russia and the New Independent States would have to be reduced or 
discontinued.
  Moreover, with the cuts proposed here today, USAID will be unable to 
continue its mission of bringing family planning and reproductive 
health services to the world. Over 120 million women have an unmet need 
for family planning services today. During the next decade, 200 million 
more women will reach their reproductive years, creating increased 
demand for services. The world cannot afford for the USAID programs to 
be crippled by severe budget cuts.
  One of the most important forms of aid that the United States 
provides to other countries is family planning assistance. No one can 
deny that the need for family planning services in developing countries 
is urgent and the aid that we provide is both valuable and worthwhile.
  Mr. Gilman's additional cut of $25 million is a gratuitous swipe at 
family planning. To demand additional cuts on top of the 49-percent 
reduction, is to say to the world that the United States does not care.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Gilman 
amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman].
  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 202, 
noes 218, not voting 14, as follows:

[[Page H 6330]]


                             [Roll No 420]

                               AYES--202

     Allard
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Bono
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     Lincoln
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--218

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Callahan
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crapo
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Pryce
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     White
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Baker (LA)
     Camp
     Collins (MI)
     Cubin
     Ford
     Furse
     Gunderson
     Jefferson
     Lantos
     Mfume
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Torricelli
     Williams

                              {time}  1356

  Mrs. CHENOWETH changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                    amendment offered by mr. sanders

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 44.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders: Page 4, line 26, strike 
     ``$26,500,000'' and insert ``$1,000,000''.
       Page 5, line 9, strike ``$79,000,000'' and insert ``$0''.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, this country has a 
$4.7 trillion national debt, and this body has passed a budget which 
makes savage cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, student loans, veterans 
programs, and many other programs which mean a great deal to tens of 
millions of working Americans. Given that context, Mr. Chairman, it 
seems to me long overdue that the U.S. House of Representatives begins 
to stand up and take on the $100 billion a year in corporate welfare 
which goes to the largest corporations in America and to the wealthiest 
people, and this amendment begins that process.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment offers a crystal clear test case to show 
all of our constituents that Congress has the guts to take a bite out 
of corporate welfare. It will be a recorded vote to stop the Federal 
Government acting through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 
OPIC, from committing billions more in U.S. taxpayer dollars to help 
Fortune 500 companies.
  What this amendment does very simply is, it says that OPIC, a Federal 
agency, can no longer commit and put at risk tens of billions of 
dollars of taxpayer money for the largest corporations in America.
  OPIC is a small, obscure Federal agency which has its hands deep into 
the pockets of every American taxpayer. It receives at least $26 
million every year in appropriated funds, but, more importantly, it has 
already placed at risk, at risk, $6.3 billion of taxpayer money, and it 
keeps on getting bigger.
  Why is OPIC such a juicy target for cutting corporate welfare? It 
seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it makes no sense at all that the 
Congress provide incentives for large American corporations to invest 
in politically unstable countries around the world. If huge Fortune 500 
companies, like General Electric, duPont, Caterpillar, Westinghouse, 
and on and on it goes, want to make investments in unstable countries 
like Russia, they have every right in the world to do so. But they do 
not have the right to obligate American taxpayers to underwrite the 
insurance for the possible loss of their private investments.
  Currently, if these giant corporations make a lot of money, well, the 
good news is that the owners of those companies become a little bit 
richer. However, if there is political turmoil in an unstable country, 
and these large companies lose their assets as a result of 
expropriation, or political turmoil, or civil war, guess what? It is 
Uncle Sam and the American taxpayers who have to bail out these 
companies.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, OPIC does not make sense for two basic reasons. 
No. 1, we do not have to subsidize the largest corporations in America 
and stand a tremendous potential loss when we have a huge deficit. No. 
2, from an economic point of view, why in God's name are we encouraging 
the largest corporations in America to invest abroad rather than 
reinvesting in America and creating jobs?
  What are the outrages of OPIC can be seen on the chart to my right. 
We are providing incentives for corporations like Ford to invest abroad 
when Ford has laid off in the last 15 years over 150,000 American 
workers. We are providing incentives to GE to invest abroad when GE has 
laid off over 180----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] 
has expired.

[[Page H 6331]]

  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Sanders was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, let us eliminate OPIC for two reasons. The 
largest, most profitable corporations in America do not need taxpayer 
incentives, and we do not have to cover through insurance their risky 
investments. No. 2, what does it say to companies in America who are 
reinvesting here? That we are going to subsidize large corporations who 
take our jobs abroad.
  It is time to eliminate OPIC. I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  The Overseas Private Investment Corporation is not perfect. It does 
have room for improvement. Perhaps part of that can be privatized. This 
matter will be discussed in the amendments to be offered later in the 
day by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us closes down the Overseas 
Private Investment Corporation. In fact, it does not leave enough money 
to even close it down. It cannot be done for $1 million. Many former 
Socialist nations are now looking to American investment and building 
the infrastructure needed for their own development. In the short term 
much of that American investment will involve OPIC insurance of 
financing, and, as long as these countries, such as India, do not have 
a track record of adherence to free market principles, OPIC is needed.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are going to compete in a global economy, then 
our business people must compete with the Governments of Japan and 
Germany and all of the other industrialized nations because all of them 
have such an agency to assist the export of our American jobs overseas. 
This is the finest vehicle we have to do that, and I think that it 
would be a very serious mistake to do it especially in the way that the 
gentleman from Vermont proposes, and that is just to walk downtown, and 
give them a key, and tell them to lock the door, and do not even give 
them enough money to pay the rent for the rest of the month.
  So I strongly oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to support 
this bipartisan disagreement to the gentleman from Vermont's amendment 
and to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I probably will not take the whole 5 minutes, but, if 
there has ever been a win, win, win situation in an institution in the 
United States, it is the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. The 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation generates an immense number of 
jobs in the United States and the production of heavy generation 
equipment, of airplanes, of airplane engines, of all the rest. It not 
only creates jobs, it creates a positive balance of payments. It 
creates a good competitive situation against Germany and Japan.
  Mr. Chairman, many Members of the House really do not know what OPIC 
does, but what OPIC essentially does is allow companies to buy 
insurance against political instabilities in other countries, and then 
this insurance makes it possible for them to obtain private financing.
  The final point that I would make, and we are going to be making 
these points all day, but the final point that I would make is that 
OPIC not only generates an enormous number of jobs in the United 
States, it not only generates a positive balance of payments for the 
United States, but most of all it returns money to the Treasury. It is 
one of the few agencies I know that has a positive impact on the 
Nation's deficit.
  Mr. Chairman, since 1971 OPIC has contributed $2 billion to deficit 
reduction in the United States, and in 1996 we expect OPIC to 
contribute $100 million in addition to all of its other economic 
contributions to our country and to our balance-of-payments accounts.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I myself introduced a virtually identical amendment. I 
would like to talk about who I think ought to be for this amendment.
  First of all, let me say that I commend my colleagues on the 
Republican side for making some very difficult and controversial stands 
in favor of reducing the Federal budget. I do not agree with all that 
they have done, but I agree with the idea that they are addressing, in 
a very honest and aggressive way, the fact that we are spending far 
more than we take in. I invite them to continue that philosophy and 
continue that tradition by voting for Mr. Sanders' amendment.
  The bill, as it presently is written, calls for 79 million dollars' 
worth of appropriations for new loans, and new guarantees and new goals 
for OPIC, and it calls for, I believe, 29 million dollars' worth of 
operating money from the American taxpayer. Here is an opportunity, my 
colleagues, to say to duPont, ``Be a rugged individualist,'' to say to 
CocaCola in an entrepreneurial society, ``Make it on your own,'' to say 
to AT&T and GTE, ``Take risks with your own shareholders' money, but 
not with the taxpayers' money of the United States,'' to American 
Express, ``Leave home without it, leave home without the taxpayers' 
money the next time you want to make a deal somewhere overseas.''
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, If you will look, my friends, 
to cut unjustifiable welfare subsidies in the welfare budget, as I have 
when I voted with you on your welfare reform bill, then look to the 
Sanders amendment, and vote ``yes.'' If you think that it is a wrong-
headed policy for the United States to subsidize a company that will 
create jobs overseas, but not create jobs in the United States, then 
vote for the Sanders amendment.
  I say to my colleagues, You think about this the next time you return 
to your district. If a company in your district wanted a Federal loan 
guarantee to make their factory bigger, or their store employ more 
people, or do research and development, by and large the answer would 
probably be ``No, they wouldn't get that Federal loan guarantee,'' but 
if they chose to set up shop in Guatemala, or Malaysia, or Argentina, 
or somewhere else outside of the United States, here comes OPIC driven 
and funded by the American taxpayer to the rescue. If you think it is a 
bad industrial policy to subsidize the export of American capital and 
American jobs, then vote for the Sanders amendment.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, to my friends' concern about the foreign 
policy of our country, I say, If you think it is bad foreign policy for 
an unelected, unaccountable, private group of people to travel the 
world and make policy decisions on behalf of the United States, if you 
agree with the editors of the Wall Street Journal who said that OPIC is 
really nothing more than foreign policy conducted through another way, 
foreign aid conducted through another way then support the Sanders 
amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, the majority is to be commended for making very 
difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions to try to bring our budget 
into balance. It is entirely consistent with that tradition that they 
support the Sanders amendment. I am going to; I would urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do so, too.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment before us is a disaster for American 
exporters and, therefore, American jobs. This amendment reduces 
American exports, it costs American jobs, it does great harm to our 
competitive position in the world and will destroy a valuable tool for 
American exporters.
                             {time}   1415

  I think the chairman of the committee and the ranking member have 
explained it very precisely. This amendment simply denies OPIC the 
authority to function. It shuts down OPIC.
  Last week's disastrous trade report underscores the reason why the 
House should reject this amendment. In April of this year our overall 
trade deficit was the worst in the 3 years, $11 billion, and the 
deficit in goods was $16 billion. The reality is, our exports are 
stalling.
  If our exports do not grow, our economy will not grow, and probably 
will 

[[Page H 6332]]
slip into recession. Now, along comes this amendment, which would 
further reduce our exports. This amendment is economic unilateral 
disarmament. Who in this House wants to vote to cut exports, at the 
very time we are in danger of slipping into a recession?
  OPIC essentially puts us in a position in the world markets where we 
can compete for jobs. OPIC provides two services for American business 
they cannot get anywhere else: Long-term insurance against risk and 
financing for trade and investment overseas.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROTH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, some of the other speakers have indicated 
that OPIC operates at a cost to the American taxpayers. Would the 
gentleman agree that is not so?
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I have looked at OPIC and 
read the law. There is not 1 red cent of taxpayer money in OPIC. That 
is No. 1. No. 2, what is this talk about sending jobs overseas? OPIC 
has written in law that it cannot cost American jobs. That is part of 
the law.
  Long-term financing is given so that we can compete in international 
markets. OPIC exists because American business cannot get this 
insurance and financing anywhere else. Over the past 25 years, OPIC has 
directly supported $40 billion in American exports, and that translates 
into 800,000 jobs.
  Let me repeat that again--$40 billion in American exports. Where do 
you think our good-paying jobs are coming from? They come when we send 
our products overseas. You stop selling our products overseas, and you 
are not going to have jobs in New Hampshire, and Dallas, TX, or Green 
Bay, WI, or San Francisco. You are only going to have more good-paying 
jobs when you have more exports.
  OPIC is the best managed Federal agency. OPIC has never lost 1 cent. 
OPIC has paid back to the Treasury every dollar; yes, my good friend 
from Ohio, every dollar it initially had to capitalize. So there is no 
taxpayer money, not 1 red cent.
  Look at me. Am I blue in my face? There is not 1 red cent of taxpayer 
money involved in OPIC. Every year OPIC makes money for the Treasury. 
Do you know how much it made last year alone? It made $167 million. 
OPIC actually helps cut the Federal deficit. It has contributed $2 
billion--yes, my friend from Texas, $2 billion to the U.S. Treasury. It 
has helped to reduce the deficit. If you shut down OPIC, we will not 
have this money to help reduce the deficit. And where will U.S. 
exporters obtain the long-term financing necessary to establish a 
presence in foreign markets? The answer is, without OPIC, you will not.
  If this amendment would become law, our exporters will suffer, 
particularly in the emerging markets of Latin America, Asia, and parts 
of Africa, where OPIC insurance is so essential.
  A loss of American exports translates into a loss of American jobs. 
That is what we are fighting for here today. We are fighting for 
American jobs, because we are staring a recession in the face. We have 
to have jobs for our people. You cut out OPIC, you cut out exports. You 
cut out exports, you cut out jobs.
  So let us fight for the American worker for a change. Let us do 
something for the American worker. This amendment makes absolutely no 
sense.
  So here is our choice. If we want to reduce American exports, if we 
want to kill jobs for American workers, and if we want to make America 
less competitive in the world markets, then vote for this amendment.
  But if you want to increase exports--and let me just say, every 
indicator is that we are facing a recession--if you want to fight for 
American jobs, then let us vote against this amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I, with some reluctance because of my deep respect for 
the sponsor of the amendment, rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. This will, in a word, lose jobs. It will not gain them.
  I am in favor of eliminating unnecessary subsidies to business. I 
think where the private sector can do it, it should be able to do it, 
and it should be left to do it. But I think we have to be careful how 
we apply it. I believe when we talk about corporate welfare, and we 
need to look at it, we have to separate the wheat from the chaff. We 
have to look at business subsidies, but with some care, and not with 
simply a sword that cuts off some assistance where it is necessary.
  Where does the purpose of OPIC lie? What does it do? Mainly it 
insures. And what does it insure against? Expropriation, currency 
problems, political violence. You cannot go to the private sector and 
get that kind of insurance. Period. The purpose of OPIC is not 
basically to give money to corporations to go overseas to do research 
and development.
  That is not its basic purpose. It was founded to provide insurance so 
that American companies could compete with companies of other countries 
and be insured against contingencies where they could not cover those 
problems themselves.
  Now, let me just say a word about what other countries are doing. 
They are providing this kind of insurance. Our competitors do that. So 
if you eliminate OPIC, what you are simply saying to the companies of 
the United States who are trying to do some exporting, trying to 
operate overseas, not to take jobs away from this country, but to help 
to create them here, is that they will not have the same kind of 
facility as is available to companies from other countries.
  Now, let me say a word about job loss. Look, let us not confuse the 
issue. OPIC specifically provides, the statute does, that no money can 
be given, no insurance can be provided, where there would be a negative 
effect on U.S. jobs.
  Our companies do operate overseas. When they do it appropriately, 
they create jobs here. Simply to say there will be no insurance 
available to them is going to result in job loss in the United States.
  About 25 percent of the companies that now are insured by OPIC, as I 
understand it, are small businesses. So I do not think it is fair to 
simply take the big business label and simply to throw it around and 
say, ``This is a way to get at big business.''
  Look, I do not like the downsizing, but the downsizing has nothing to 
do with OPIC. I do not like the downsizing when it comes to job loss. 
But OPIC's insurance activities have nothing to do with that 
downsizing. Indeed, what we need to do is to stimulate American 
companies to compete with their overseas competitors.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me if we are going to provide 
subsidies and incentives to corporations who are laying off hundreds 
and hundreds, if not millions of workers, then at the very least, it 
would be appropriate to say stop laying off workers here in the United 
States. To simply give these people incentives to invest abroad and 
then turn a blind eye on their disastrous policies here in America is a 
real sell-out of American workers.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say in response 
to my distinguished colleague from Vermont, if that is what the facts 
were, I would favor the Sanders amendment. The trouble is, those are 
not the facts. The facts are that the OPIC efforts have nothing to do 
with the downsizing in this country, and in fact, there is a provision 
that will not allow insurance.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Levin was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, there is a provision that if the insurance 
would cause job loss, it will not be provided.
  Now, look, everybody knows that some activities of companies overseas 
generate jobs in the United States. That is simply a fact. When we, for 
example, insure an activity, a powerplant activity in another nation 
for a U.S. company, that can create jobs in the United States, because 
it is likely that the equipment used by that power company will come 
from the United States.
  So I think what you have to use here when it comes to corporate 
welfare is some objectiveness, some understanding of the facts. You 
have to sometimes use a scalpel and not a meat ax here, and I think 
this is essentially a meat ax proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I think this is not a wise amendment. I 
think 

[[Page H 6333]]
we have to protect American jobs, safeguard them in this country. I 
think we have to be sure that our policies stimulate growth of jobs in 
this country, and that is what OPIC's mission is. And while it has made 
some mistakes, it has done more good than it has done harm. So get at 
the problem, do not take this sword and cut American business and 
American workers, at the knees in many cases.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I just want to take a second to say that 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] and the previous speaker made a 
number of comments that I disagree with, and they made some that I 
agree with.
  My problem with the Sanders amendment is it goes too far too fast 
from the standpoint of what my and the amendment of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] has, which is to privatize the operation of this 
corporation. If we were to adopt the Sanders amendment, we would have 
great difficulty.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Levin was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. So what I would argue, Mr. Chairman, is that we should 
resist the Sanders amendment and then quickly pivot and adopt the Klug 
amendment, which the chairman of the subcommittee has agreement with. 
That would do several things. It would bring the appropriation more in 
line with the game plan spelled out within our budget resolution, and 
would prevent the transfer of funds from the insurance fund into the 
investment fund, all of which will serve in a short period of time to 
privatize the operation of OPIC.
  We may have a debate down the road as to whether the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin] will support that. I happen to believe it is not 
something that should continue to be directly supported by taxpayers, 
and can in fact be a viable entity in the private sector.
  So I would urge opposition to the Sanders amendment, but then quick 
support in favor of the Klug amendment that will take this out of the 
hands of the Government, privatize it, and make it an efficient 
operation, not directly funded by the taxpayers of the country.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just say quickly 
in response, if we can privatize a function effectively, let us do it. 
But you, I think, will have the burden of showing, the burden of proof, 
that this indeed can be done by the private sector, the insurance 
against political turmoil, currency problems, and also expropriation.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is not only is OPIC not 
a drain on the taxpayers, it has a return to the taxpayers every year. 
Estimates are as much as $2 billion has been brought to the Treasury 
since 1971.
  So in effect what you are saying is we have two challenges on the 
floor to the Overseas Private Investment Corporation today. One says we 
are angry at business, so we want to hit anything that helps them. The 
problem with that approach is the layoffs will be greater if we do not 
have OPIC to help facilitate sales overseas.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Levin was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, the other challenge says the private 
sector can do it better. There is no demonstration of that anywhere 
that I have seen. I do not know where you replace the $140 million, 
$100 million a year that comes to the Treasury, and where you can get 
the kind of guarantee that the Federal Government brings in with its 
intelligence resources and other resources to make sure that American 
companies can stay competitive overseas.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just say to the 
gentleman from Connecticut, I very much agree with that, and let me 
just close: Look, I think we need to get at subsidies that are unwise. 
I think we need to look after the taxpayers' needs. This is a 
shortsighted way to do it.

                              {time}  1430

  OPIC has been insuring activity that is creative of American jobs, 
not destructive. I urge defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and will be 
speaking on behalf of the Klug amendment that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] and I are going to bring after this. But I want to 
correct one thing before I speak in opposition. That is, we hear 
repeatedly that OPIC has actually brought money to the Treasury over 
the past couple of decades that it has been in business. While in one 
sense there is some truth to that, I think that by saying that it is 
generating income is misleading. It really ought to be corrected.
  What it has done is it has generated reserves against possible 
potential insurance claims, as any insurance company does. To say that 
that is income to the Treasury and has helped offset the deficit is 
essentially to mislead the fundamental aspects of what insurance 
underwriting is all about.
  If there are and when there are claims against that amount, it could 
be wiped out very, very quickly. It happens that OPIC has done a very 
good job which, frankly, is a very powerful argument in favor of 
privatization.
  The reason that I am opposed to the Sanders amendment is because it 
truly does not offer an opportunity to privatize. It immediately shuts 
everything down in a way that will make it impossible to in a 
thoughtful and orderly and regular way actually get to a privatization.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOKE. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] makes a 
very important point, and I hope the Members are listening. We have 
heard some Members say, this adds $2 billion to the Treasury. It is 
used for deficit reduction, et cetera, et cetera. Wrong. It is an 
insurance fund.
  If my memory is correct, we have some $6.3 billion in liabilities out 
there. In point of fact, if we kill OPIC, then we would have $2 billion 
to use for deficit reduction. Right now, as the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hoke] indicates, this is an insurance fund.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if we kill OPIC, I do not 
agree that we would have that money for deficit reduction because I do 
not think that we can simply abrogate the liabilities of the U.S. 
Government by writing them off in a new agreement. At least, even if we 
can do that by law, it is something that I do not think that this 
Congress is going to do because we have made commitments in that area.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOKE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman and I have got 
conflicting information that we both believe is true. But I believe 
that the OPIC has steadily contributed to, has returned money to the 
treasury in addition to maintaining its $2.4 billion reserve. We need 
to clear that up.
  Mr. HOKE. That is my understanding, Mr. Chairman.
  Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, and to finish up, I think that the 
reason that we do not want to go in this direction where we are going 
to shut it down is it will make it impossible to do what we need to do, 
which is essentially make it possible to privatize the whole operation. 
I think we can do that.
  Clearly, the insurance end of it is making money. I think that the 
credit side of it is much more problematic, and it may not be able to 
be privatized. And frankly, it may not be worth going forward with. I 
am not sure that that is good use of taxpayer funds on the credit side.

[[Page H 6334]]

  I think most people do not understand that there are two different 
accounts. There is the credit account that guarantees the loans and 
then there is the insurance account that insures against losses due to 
politics or currency fluctuation, et cetera.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
think you will find, and you probably do not disagree and it does not 
conflict with anything you said, but it is the insurance side that 
turns the big profit because there is no competition out there. They 
can charge whatever they think that the traffic will bear and that is 
the reason they are able to return money.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, to sum up, I rise in opposition to the 
Sanders amendment.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting what we have confronted here. 
OPIC is under attack because it has been successful. It has done a good 
job, and it has helped exports. It has protected the American economy, 
protected American workers, and, yes, it has helped American business. 
They are all in the same boat. We are all in the same boat.
  To the Sanders amendment, I have to say that without these tools, 
frankly, more of the people that we are concerned about, the workers, 
would be being laid off. So if you take away the guarantees and they 
cannot sell the products that we make to a lot of these markets, when 
they are unstable, we are not going to be in there when these countries 
stabilize. The Germans, the French, the Japanese will have locked up 
these markets, and we will be back on this floor in 5 or 6 years 
wringing our hands about a larger trade deficit and more layoffs and 
more downsizing.
  It is without question against America's best interests to do damage 
to OPIC. This is the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. It is not 
the one that dealt with the oil monopolies. This one helps us. The 
other one hurt us. It helps workers, and we ought to protect those 
workers.
  How does it help us? When American products are made and we are 
entering markets that are just developing, there are oftentimes a 
number of challenges: stability in the regime; stability in the 
currency. Corporations, large ones and small ones alike, may not be 
able to, first, assess the danger and, second, take all that risk in a 
product being moved into that country. The Government guarantee helps 
us access those markets.
  As those markets mature and become stable, once we are the ones that 
have established the generating system, we are going to get the 
replacement parts. We are going to get the new orders more likely, when 
there is a mature and stable market.
  This program has made money for the taxpayers, made money for the 
treasury and made jobs for our country. It would be counterproductive, 
with all the anger that we share against people being unemployed, to 
hurt this program because it means more people would be unemployed.
  I would hope we defeat this amendment. It is a bad amendment. It 
would hurt the workers of this country.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, we talk about job creation. Where is your 
information about how many jobs have been created?
  Second of all, the gentleman from Wisconsin previously talked about 
exports. Nobody in this House believes more than I do that we have got 
to rebuild our manufacturing base, create decent-paying jobs and 
exports. That is not what we are talking about here.
  In fact, what we are talking about here is helping the largest 
corporations in America who have thrown hundreds of thousands of 
American workers out on the street, set up factories abroad. The jobs 
that are going to be created are over 90 percent abroad.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with 
those statistics. I would say that what we have seen across the board 
is that every billion dollars of exports means about 20,000 American 
jobs. And when you look at the OPIC guarantees, inevitably 70 and 80 
percent of the product in those plants that make those plants operate 
are American-made products, in some cases as high as 90 percent.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, to answer the question how many jobs OPIC 
created, I can answer that for the gentleman: $40 billion have been 
sold overseas because of OPIC. You had mentioned 20,000 jobs for every 
billion sold overseas, that means 800,000 jobs have been created 
because of OPIC. There is your answer.
  The other point is, some people say that we are going to send some 
jobs overseas. Look who is on the board of directors of OPIC, the 
president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace 
Workers. Do you think he would be on the board sending jobs overseas?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what the gentleman 
from Wisconsin has just listed is the head of the machinists union, as 
I understand it, is a member of the OPIC board and making these 
decisions. The gentlemen from Wisconsin and I joined together with 
language several years ago to make sure that there was virtually no 
chance that we would do a net harm to the United States.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Let me say to the gentleman from Vermont, just take 
another look at this. We are now over in Geneva trying to force open 
the markets of Japan.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. 
Gejdenson] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Levin, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Gejdenson was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, we 
are trying to get the Japanese to open their markets for American cars 
and American parts. We are spending a lot of time and some resources 
doing that.
  The beneficiaries, if you want to call it that, will be Ford, GM, 
Chrysler, they are big companies, Allied Signal, TRW, and a lot of 
other parts companies, which would be able to build parts here in the 
United States and ship them to Japan. It simply is incorrect to say 
because a company is large, as it would be, because a company is small, 
they should not do business overseas. And what OPIC does, basically, is 
to insure companies. And we do not need this as to Japan. We need it 
other places, against currency difficulties, against political 
violence, and turmoil and expropriation.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, to continue on the 
gentleman's analogy, you would then have to argue that trying to open 
the markets in Japan are helping these big companies that downsize. 
That is not correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. The opposite is true, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield. We want to open up the Japanese market so that the 
downsizing in the auto industry will stop and they can continue to 
begin to hire more people.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we are missing a 
fundamental point here. To talk about opening up Japan for American 
products is something that we all agree on. That means products are 
being manufactured in the United States, employing American workers and 
sold in Japan. That is what we want. That is not what OPIC is about. 
OPIC is giving the largest, most profitable corporations in America 
help in setting up factories abroad.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. 
Gejdenson] has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Levin, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Gejdenson was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, if 
that were the history of OPIC, I would be in favor of its destruction. 
It simply is not true.

[[Page H 6335]]

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I believe that it 
would be impossible to have the head of the machinists union on an 
organization that was moving jobs out of the country. The president of 
the machinists union is on this board particularly for that reason, to 
make sure that we protect American jobs.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. 
Sanders] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the issue here is whether or not 
multibillion-dollar corporations, Mars Candy comes to mind, why Mars 
Candy? Because that family, the Mars family, is one of the very 
wealthiest families in America. Why do these people need subsidies and 
incentives to start factories and plants in other countries?
  Some of my friends here have said, this is a job creator. The way you 
create jobs is to build plants and factories in the United States, 
manufacture and sell them abroad.
  Some people say, well, it really does not matter, that we are 
encouraging companies to start factories abroad.
  I respectfully disagree. A company looks at the bottom line and it 
says, I have got $1 billion here. Do I build in Detroit, MI or in 
Burlington, VT? Or do I go to Russia? And then they say, is it not 
nice, I cannot get Government subsidies to build in Detroit or 
Burlington, VT but I can get help to go to Russia or to Latin America?

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. Chairman, I have heard a whole lot about the beauties of the 
market system and the free enterprise system. If it is such a good 
system, then why do the largest corporations in this country need 
taxpayer subsidies in order for them to go out and make money? Right 
now one of the scandals facing this country, in my view, is that 
American corporations, while they are laying off hundreds of thousands 
of workers a year here, are investing $750 billion a year abroad. They 
do not need to help abroad. They are doing it just fine. Ask the 
workers in the UAW who have lot their jobs when companies, automobile 
companies, are set up in Mexico.
  Mr. Chairman, if these programs are so good, let the private sector 
undertake the insurance. Let the multinationals go to private banks to 
get below-market financing. This Congress has voted to cut back on 
Medicare, student loans, veterans programs. We should not be providing 
subsidies and incentives to the largest corporations in America.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has said several times, and I 
do not know why he has said it, but he has said several times that OPIC 
gives subsidies loans and is subsidizing American corporations. Is the 
gentleman aware that OPIC only makes loans at market rates?
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if OPIC makes loans at market rates, why 
do not companies go to the private market and get those loans?
  Mr. WILSON. They do not go to the private market to get the loans, 
Mr. Chairman, because the loans do not bear the same significance as 
loans guaranteed by the Government of the United States, because it is 
impossible to get private financing against political instability.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I should think that in a free market 
society, there would be some insurance companies that would love to be 
charging a high premium.
  Reclaming my time, Mr. Chairman, over and over again what I am 
hearing from my Republican friends is, Get the Government out of this, 
get the Government out of that. The private sector does such a great 
job.
  I am hard pressed to believe that a large insurance company could not 
provide insurance for some of these companies to invest in Russia and 
make some money. If it is such a good deal, let the private sector do 
it, and not the taxpayers of America.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's characterization of OPIC is not 
correct. Also, this is a bipartisan support. The committee on both 
sides, Republicans and Democrats, supported this bill.
  The Overseas Private Investment Corporation, or more commonly known 
as OPIC, is a good thing for the country and a good thing for the 
American people. Mr. Chairman, I support downsizing Government more 
than anyone. However, abolishing OPIC will not further either of these 
goals.
  OPIC is not some big Government subsidy program, as some have 
charged. It provides loans and political risk insurance, as we just 
heard, to American companies doing business abroad. It does not do this 
for free. As Members heard, it charges market rates.
  Let me tell the Members about a company that I know of personally 
that has worked with OPIC. It recently got charged 11.9 percent for a 
financing rate, 11.9 percent to construct a powerplant in the 
Philippines. If it was not for OPIC, that company would have purchased 
500 million dollars' worth of goods in the Japanese market.
  Like most every other Federal agency, OPIC actually takes in more 
than it spends. As we have heard this year, this past year, it made 
over $167 million. At the end of each year it writes a check back to 
the Federal Government. Since 1971, it has contributed back $2 billion 
to the Federal Government. OPIC is a successful entity 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. It actually makes money for the Government, so its 
elimination would actually increase the deficit, not reduce it.
  Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, OPIC is a model example of how a Federal 
agency should run. I oppose the Sanders amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask 
for support for the committee's position.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely right. The 
gentleman from Vermont is looking at the Mars Candy Bar Co. I do not 
know what he is talking about. Why does he not look at some of the 
positive aspects of what OPIC is doing. Look at some of the generation 
plants that they are building. Large American companies, true. However, 
look at the fact that they are building power plants, that they are 
building infrastructure in countries that they would not be able to be 
in without the guarantee of OPIC. Who would be there? The Japanese 
would be there.
  Do Members guess the Japanese would insist we buy General Electric 
generators? No, they would buy their generators from Japan. Do we guess 
then that people who bought the Japanese generator might need American 
parts to repair them? No. They would go to Japan.
  Let me tell the gentleman, he is absolutely right. This is a way we 
can compete. The example of the Mars Candy Bar Co. to me makes no logic 
whatsoever, because the gentleman is talking about a small tip of the 
dog's tail, when he should be talking about the fact that this is the 
only vehicle that American business people have to compete 
internationally with the other G-7 nations, so the gentleman is 
absolutely right, we should reject the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. I thank the chairman for his leadership on this 
issue. Reclaiming my time, that is exactly the point. That is exactly 
what has happened with the people that I know of who have worked with 
OPIC in the past.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the debate on this amendment, 
and am very concerned about the fact that what I hear is that this is a 
program that really benefits all of us here in America, but it is 
really to the benefit of the major corporations of America. Again, it 
is like the old trickle-down: We are going to be benefited when 
somebody builds a power plant somewhere else and uses American goods.
  That is true, we all benefit when those jobs are created. However, 
what 

[[Page H 6336]]
if the people that bought that power plant do not pay for it? Then the 
taxpayers have to pay for it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the insurance is not an insurance against 
the loss of an investment because it was unprofitable.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I did not say unprofitable.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is insurance against expropriation, against political 
turmoil, like a revolution, or because of currency problems, so no one 
could bring back their money to the United States. It is not an 
insurance to guarantee a profit.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I did not say it was guaranteeing a profit. Mr. 
Chairman, I am saying basically it is a guarantee that we are going to 
receive our return for the investments.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it 
is not.
  Mr. VOLKMER. In a way, it is.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I want to agree with the gentleman, that 
OPIC does in fact do loan guarantees, not just insurance. It gives loan 
guarantees. It says if the enterprise located in a foreign country does 
not pay its loan back, the American taxpayer does.
  The other point in the gentleman's statement, I am sure in Missouri 
there are a number of communities that would like to build power 
plants, sewer plants, and factories, as well.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I have all kinds of 
cities that would like to build an industrial tract in order to entice 
industry to come in, and does the gentleman know how much help those 
Missouri communities would get from OPIC?
  They would not get any.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Nothing, because it is not part of OPIC's charter.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, it is basically to create jobs here, but 
basically the work goes elsewhere. What really bothers me, Mr. 
Chairman, is when I see the types of companies, many of which are huge 
conglomerates, worldwide companies, that have billions of dollars, and 
yet we have to guarantee a loan for them.
  DuPont? I have to guarantee a loan for DuPont? Come on, Mr. Chairman. 
Why would I have to guarantee a loan for DuPont? Why do I have to 
guarantee a loan for CitiBank? I think they have enough of their own 
money. They have whole bunches of money. Why would I have to guarantee 
a loan for CitiBank? That is what this does.
  This is what I call, if we talk about corporate welfare, and what 
really interests me is listening to the gentleman from Nebraska 
speaking in the well before me. If I remember, he is the same one who 
says we have to save a little money and do away with elevator 
operators, we have to do away with elevator operators, but we can keep 
this corporate welfare around. Who benefits from it?
   Mr. Chairman, I want to let the people out there know that DuPont 
got a $200 million loan guarantee, and that CitiBank got a $113 million 
loan guarantee. How about a little Coca-Cola? Little bitty old Coca-
Cola, a little bitty company, they do not have any money at all. They 
got a loan guarantee of $165 million.
  What is going on in this world? We are cutting back, we are going to 
cut back on the increase that people need out there for food stamps, 
for school lunches, for Medicare, for Medicaid, but we cannot cut back 
on all of these loan guarantees for these huge major corporations. We 
cannot do that, Mr. Chairman. There is something wrong, I think, with 
this Congress, with our priorities.
  I think it is time that we tell corporate America that they are no 
better off than individual citizens of this country, and just because 
they have a whole bunch of money to lobby down here and pay off people 
and get good benefits for their type of activity, it is time we told 
them no. I think it is time that we told corporate America that they, 
too, can survive under the Republican budget, and they do not need this 
kind of welfare.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 90, 
noes 329, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 421]

                                AYES--90

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Andrews
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crane
     Crapo
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Duncan
     Ensign
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Funderburk
     Greenwood
     Hancock
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kingston
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Luther
     Martinez
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Montgomery
     Nadler
     Neumann
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Poshard
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Smith (MI)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stump
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Volkmer
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Woolsey
     Zimmer

                               NOES--329

     Ackerman
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Tejeda

[[Page H 6337]]

     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Camp
     Collins (MI)
     Farr
     Ford
     Furse
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hilliard
     Jefferson
     Lantos
     Mfume
     Moakley
     Payne (VA)
     Reynolds
     Torricelli

                              {time}  1515

  Messrs. PICKETT, PAXON, and MANZULLO, Ms. MOLINARI, and Ms. ROS-
LEHTINEN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HANCOCK, McHALE, HINCHEY, and TUCKER changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                     amendment offered by mr. klug

  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Klug: Page 5, line 9, strike 
     ``$79,000,000'' and insert ``$60,629,334''.
       Page 5, beginning on line 10 strike ``, to be derived by 
     transfer from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation 
     Noncredit Account''.

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment, and all amendments thereto, close in 15 minutes and 
that the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I object; there has been so much 
misinformation on this whole subject. And I fully and fairly object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, as you know, we have just had a long debate 
about the proper role of OPIC in terms of helping to fund overseas 
investments and we had a choice in front of us several minutes ago. The 
amendment of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] to essentially 
zero out OPIC funding immediately. But I think the suggestion of a 
number of my colleagues, including the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, is that we have a 
second alternative which is to take one of the facets of OPIC, 
privatize it, and sell it off, returning more money to the Federal 
Government.
  The OPIC is divided into two funds. First of all, the credit program 
and second, an insurance program. One of the key components in OPIC is 
an insurance fund and what is does is insure against losses of U.S. 
companies who invest overseas in politically risky environments.
  We have to ask ourselves why it is that the Federal Government in 
this day and age is in the business of essentially offering public 
insurance against private risk?
  And OPIC has grown dramatically over the last several years where now 
U.S. taxpayers face a
 potential liability of nearly $800 million and is is not going to be 
terribly far off before we have a liability approaching a billion 
dollars?

  Mr. Chairman, I have absolutely no objections whatsoever to keeping 
OPIC in place to help do low-interest loans which do return more money 
to the Treasury than they actually cost. It is an operation that stands 
in and of itself.
  But there is absolutely no reason for the Federal Government to be 
involved in essentially guaranteeing high-risk political decisions by 
U.S. corporations.
  My colleagues can look around and see all the other kinds of 
components of high-risk ventures one can do. A high-risk auto insurance 
driver can only go to the private sector to get insurance. If you play 
in a charity golf tournament where a car is offered on a hole, 
insurance is available to guarantee that the auto company does not have 
to pay the cost. Insurance is available to protect the charity sponsor.
  Why is it that the Federal Government is involved in guaranteeing 
foreign investments if they decide to put U.S. operations or to sell 
U.S. products in a very risky political environment?
  One of the great ironies I think is the fact that for example 
Ameritech received $200 million in political risk insurance to provide 
Hungary's long-distance telecommunications system. Yet we have a fight 
over whether OPIC should be privatized, but we will loan money to help 
U.S. companies to compete overseas.
  We loaned Marriott $9 million for the privatization of hotels in 
Budapest. Clearly, what we need to do is have a transition window where 
OPIC is allowed to continue its job of offering loans which cannot be 
obtained in the private sector to help U.S. companies invest overseas.
  But it is time, clearly, to spin off the privatization of OPIC's 
insurance function and actually return dollars to the U.S. Treasury and 
to eliminate what is close to a billion dollar risk for U.S. taxpayers.
  That, I should say, was the intention of the House Committee on the 
Budget which recommended privatizing and phasing out OPIC over the next 
3 years. It was also language in the original authorization bill, but 
we have discovered that the appropriations bill wanted to fund OPIC's 
operations by bleeding money out of its reserve accounts. And if money 
is taken out of those reserve accounts and OPIC's key asset is 
essentially depleted, guess what? We suddenly cannot privatize it.
  Our amendment will reduce the funding levels from $79 million down to 
$60 million, consistent with the Committee on the Budget's 
recommendation and, second, rope off the reserve funds now approaching 
$2 billion to guarantee in the future that those funds will be 
available so that when we follow through on the authorizing committee's 
language moving toward privatization, an authority now granted to the 
President to begin privatizing some of OPICs functions, that that $2 
billion in insurance funds, the most valuable component in OPIC's 
treasury, the most valuable asset in its portfolio, will be available 
as an attractive component in a move by the U.S. Government to 
privatize OPIC's insurance function.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer my support for the Klug-Hoke 
amendment to H.R. 1868, allowing for the privatization of the Overseas 
Private Investment Corporation [OPIC].
   Mr. Chairman, I believe we should provide appropriate assistance to 
promote and encourage U.S. exports. Exports increase American jobs at 
home and help encourage developing countries to move toward free-market 
economies.
  However, I question whether we can afford to spend taxpayer dollars 
to provide below-market subsidies to major multinational corporations 
while we try to tackle an incredible Federal deficit and national debt.
  With the dual goals of balancing the Federal budget while maintaining 
our strong presence and assistance in the developing world, the Klug-
Hoke amendment makes common sense. It enables OPIC to become self-
supporting within 3 years. It provides for export promotion as well as 
fiscal responsibility. I therefore encourage my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  amendment offered by mr. callahan as a substitute for the amendment 
                          offered by mr. klug

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for 
the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Callahan as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Klug: Page 5, line 9, strike 
     ``$79,000,000'' and insert ``$69,500,000''.
       Page 5, beginning on line 10, strike ``, to be derived by 
     transfer from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation 
     Noncredit Account''.

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, first of all I appreciate the articulate 
manner in which the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] has addressed 
the problem he is concerned about. And I certainly share some of the 
concerns the gentleman has, and he is to be commended for coming before 
this body with a solution that we can live with.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] and I have come to an 
agreement on this matter. We are both interested in moving the 
appropriate functions of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to 
the private 

[[Page H 6338]]
sector. The resulting subsidy appropriation for OPIC will enable the 
organization to support American investment abroad in a robust manner.
  The increase above the current subsidy appropriation is substantial 
and indicates the support of this House for OPIC's mission. But OPIC 
should recognize that this reduction from its request indicates that 
many Members of this House, led by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Klug], expect OPIC to take seriously the proposals for it to move many 
or most of its functions into the private sector.
  Mr. Chairman, I expect OPIC to closely consult with the committee as 
it prepares the report that we have requested on page 10 of the 
committee report, and to expand the scope of the report to include all 
OPIC activities and to provide the report in a timely manner.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell my colleague from 
Alabama, Mr. Callahan that I am in agreement with his amendment and 
with the reduction which I think is appropriate. And I want to commend 
the gentleman for keeping an open mind on the subject and I would hope 
in the future I could count on the gentleman's support to move OPIC 
toward privatization.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. The gentleman certainly can.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, what is the final figure that the two 
gentlemen have arrived at there?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Klug's amendment was to strike $79 million and 
insert $60 million. My amendment brings it up back up to $69 million. 
It is a compromise.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] a question.
  I do not quite understand the effect of the gentleman's transfer 
language. Can he explain that to me?
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KLUG. Certainly, OPIC has two accounts. The one account, 
obviously, involves the credit program, which provides investment 
financing through direct and guaranteed loans.
  But then OPIC also has the reserve account which is essentially a 
reserve guaranteeing the insurance component of OPIC. If you begin to 
take that money out of the insurance fund to essentially cover 
operating costs, you have now begun to bleed down the insurance 
reserves, which essentially makes it much more difficult next year for 
those of us who want to privatize OPIC to indeed privatize it.
  Mr. WILSON. Has that ever been done before?
  Mr. KLUG. To the best of my knowledge, no.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a little dialog here 
so we all know what we are talking about. We get varying numbers as to 
what that reserve account is, but it is somewhere between $2 billion 
and $2.5 billion. Is that the gentleman's understanding?
  Mr. KLUG. In terms of the liability?
  Mr. WILSON. In terms of the amount that is returned to the Treasury 
as well as its liability.
  Mr. KLUG. Right, the money returned to the Treasury, I think the 
gentleman is accurate. But my concern is the fact that the taxpayers 
have an exposure of well over $800 million.
  Mr. WILSON. Yes, but this is something that the gentleman may not 
know that I think he will be interested in, and that is we have done a 
lot of study in the committee as to their credit procedures and 
arriving at the creditworthy projects and over 24 years, they have only 
had to pay claims of $20 million. That is a pretty remarkable record, 
is it not, for the amount of loans they have made?
  Mr. KLUG. It is, but as the gentleman knows, past performance is no 
guarantee of future performance, as they will tell you in any 
investment instrument.
  Mr. WILSON. We could talk about what Harry Truman said about those 
who read history, too.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I will 
yield to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], the subcommittee 
chairman, to answer my questions.
  My understanding is in the present fiscal year the level of 
appropriation for OPIC is $33 million in the program account; is that 
correct?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. ANDREWS. It is further my understanding that the underlying bill 
that the chairman has brought to the floor increases that to $79 
million for fiscal 1996; is that correct? In the program account?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. The gentleman is correct, 69.5.
                              {time}  1530

  Mr. Klug's amendment would have reduced that from 79 down to 60, and 
the effect of your amendment is to bring it back up to $69 million? Is 
that correct?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. If the gentleman will yield, that is correct.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I object to and oppose this amendment for the following 
reason: I think that the authorizing bill that we passed here 2 weeks 
ago was correct in moving us toward privatization of OPIC. I wish we 
had done it much sooner and much more aggressively.
  I do not think it makes any sense, when we are moving toward 
privatization of a Government agency, to increase taxpayer liability, 
which is precisely what we are doing here. The impact of moving OPIC's 
program appropriation from 33 up to 69 is to increase the amount of 
exposure that the taxpayers can be exposed to by OPIC over the next 
fiscal year. That makes no sense to me, if we are going to, in fact, 
take a deliberate, thoughtful look at privatization, which I support, 
it makes no sense whatsoever to me, to be increasing the level of 
public risk at the same time we are doing that, for two reasons: First 
is the taxpayers ought not to be subjected to more risk, and second, it 
seems to me the more debt that you load up, the more difficult it is to 
sell. It makes it a more difficult object for privatization. For that 
reason, I would oppose respectfully the subcommittee's amendment.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KLUG. During the authorization process there were a number of us 
who wanted to move this privatization process forward much more 
quickly. We were not successful in bringing that fight to the floor.
  Clearly, what we are doing today is guaranteeing the Committee on 
Appropriations does not take us three steps backward. That is the 
importance of today's amendment, is to say if we are going to preserve 
that option next year, that is the only option in front of us today, 
given our ability to legislate on appropriations bills, then I think 
this is the best way to guarantee we will move toward privatization.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. Let me say to the gentleman from New Jersey that I share 
his concern on this, and let me say that there is no agreement that 
ever gets worked out that represents 100 percent. I mean, I wish it 
did, because I spent my whole life being frustrated because I cannot 
get everything I want, but you cannot in the real world.
  The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] has stopped the transfer of 
money from this reserve account. Why do we not want to transfer it? 
Because it is the most valuable resource that OPIC has so that when, in 
fact, we move to privatize, that those funds are in place and it makes 
an attractive private sector investment.
  Now, the fact that the chairman has moved, I mean, basically we kind 
of split the difference. I mean, that is really what we did in an 
effort to make sure that we get this done, that we do not raid the 
reserve fund, that we do not increase it like the appropriators were 
saying, and that next year, I will say to the gentleman from New 
Jersey, 

[[Page H 6339]]
we will have that reauthorization of this program, and we are going to 
have a pretty big fight on this floor.
  I think what we have been able to do in stopping the transfer of 
these funds is to dramatically increase the chance we are going to 
privatize it.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] supports privatization. I am 
told the chairman supports privatization. The amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] calls for privatization. I strongly 
believe in privatization. I suspect the gentleman from Texas and all of 
us will have a fight next year on privatization. I think we will win 
that fight.
  What this amendment does is to guarantee us and sets us up for the 
privatization of OPIC and moves us closer to what our goals were within 
the budget and stops the transfer of those funds.
  So I think this is a great victory for those people who want to make 
a big dent in corporate welfare.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I am going to support the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] even if amended in 
this way. I agree with what the chairman just said.
  I would ask the chairman and the Republican leadership to consider 
actively inclusion of this issue in the reconciliation bill that is 
forthcoming. I see no reason why we have to wait until next year to 
resolve the underlying debate. That is obviously your call. I would 
respectfully request you consider dealing with this in the 
reconciliation bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] as a substitute for the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I filed an amendment for consideration which would have 
provided $30 million for law enforcement training and judicial 
improvement efforts in Russia, the new independent states of the former 
Soviet Union, Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic States. I will 
not offer the amendment today; however, I would like to raise this 
issue in the House and obtain an assurance from Chairman Callahan that 
this training is a priority that will be addressed in conference.
  Last year Congress set aside $30 million which enabled the FBI, DEA, 
U.S. Customs, and other U.S. law enforcement agencies to start new and 
innovative training programs to help professionalize the police in the 
region, and allowed on-going efforts to improve and strengthen 
prosecutorial and judicial agencies. Furthermore, the House Committee 
on International Relations has recognized the critical need and 
importance of this funding. In its report on the ``American Overseas 
Interests Act of 1995,'' which passed this House on June 8, the 
Committee urged that up to $30 million be allocated in each of FY96 and 
FY97 to support rule of law, law enforcement, and criminal justice 
assistance activities in the NIS, and East European and Baltic States. 
I agree that this is sound policy.
  The goal of funding programs to assist the struggling democracies of 
the NIS and Eastern Europe will fail if criminal elements take over 
those countries. Moreover, organized crime that flourishes in Russia is 
spilling over into the United States. The problem is so prevalent that 
the FBI established a Russian Organized Crime Squad in May 1994. 
Earlier this year the FBI arrested in New York allegedly one of the 
most powerful Russian crime leaders along with five of his associates 
on federal charges of conspiracy to commit extortion.
  According to the FBI, Russian organized crime groups use businesses 
in the NIS, Western and Central Europe, and the United States to serve 
as fronts for laundering the proceeds of illegal activities and for 
conducting highly profitable commerce in goods in the Commonwealth of 
Independent States. This commerce, rife with corruption, thrives on 
such illegal practices as extortion, kickbacks, bribery of public 
officials, and violence.
  Last year Congress began to address the serious organized crime 
threat in the region and we should do so again this year. I would 
appreciate knowing whether the chairman of the Foreign Operations 
appropriations subcommittee will work with me to provide the necessary 
funding for this critical purpose.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to 
me, and I also appreciate your bringing this important issue to the 
attention of the House. I share your concerns about the detrimental 
impact organized crime is having on the Newly Independent States, 
Eastern Europe, and the Baltic states, as well as the United States. I 
look forward to working with you, the members of the subcommittee, and 
our Senate counterparts in adequately funding cooperative programs for 
establishment of the rule of law, law enforcement, and criminal justice 
assistance to help foster the growth of democracy.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join my colleague, the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], in support of this very important effort to insure 
that adequate monies are available for U.S. police training and 
exchanges for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States.
  Today organized crime and criminal elements in the region threaten 
the very reform and democracy most of our U.S. assistance and other 
U.S. government efforts are intended to help foster.
  I was very pleased to have led the way initially in asking for and 
getting the FBI, DEA, U.S. Customs, and other U.S. law enforcement 
entities, monies in FY 1995 to carry on these critical police training 
programs in both the former Soviet Union and the NIS. These programs 
are intended to professionalize and made the local police better able 
to cope with this serious problem of crime, especially organized crime.
  Since the initial $30 million was made available in FY 1995 for these 
police training programs, the FBI, DEA, U.S. Customs and others have 
trained more than 1,000 police officers in the former Soviet Union and 
the NIS. We are making progress and must continue these valuable 
efforts that benefits us, as well as these new nations in the region. I 
am pleased to join in this effort to keep these programs fully 
supported.
  Finally, let me set the record straight. This isn't just another 
foreign aid program for police officers overseas. What is also at stake 
here is efforts by our FBI and other U.S. law enforcement agencies to 
get a handle on Russian organized crime here at home. Major crime 
elements that are fast spreading to the U.S., witness the arrest most 
recently in NYC of a major Russian organized crime figure still closely 
linked to his homeland.
  These overseas police training programs give the FBI and other U.S. 
law enforcement known and reliable U.S. trained police counterparts in 
the region. These officers can in turn later work cooperatively with us 
to help solve the problem of transnational organized crime operating 
and threatening both our as well as their internal security and safety.
  I compliment the efforts of my colleague, the gentleman from 
Virginia, [Mr. Wolf], and also urge that this matter receive the 
highest priority in conference as discussed here today.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title II.
  The text of title II is as follows:
                TITLE II--BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE


                  FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT

       For expenses necessary to enable the President to carry out 
     the provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and for 
     other purposes, to remain available until September 30, 1996, 
     unless otherwise specified herein, as follows:

                  Agency for International Development


                child survival and disease programs fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of part 
     I and chapter 4 of part II 

[[Page H 6340]]
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, for child survival, assistance 
     to combat tropical and other diseases, and related assistance 
     activities, $484,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 1997: Provided, That this amount shall be made available 
     for such activities as (1) immunization programs, (2) oral 
     rehydration programs, (3) health and nutrition programs, and 
     related education programs, which address the needs of 
     mothers and children, (4) water and sanitation programs, (5) 
     assistance for displaced and orphaned children, (6) programs 
     for the prevention, treatment, and control of, and research 
     on, HIV/AIDS, polio, malaria and other diseases, and (7) a 
     contribution on a grant basis to the United Nations 
     Children's Fund (UNICEF): Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be made available 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, and shall be in 
     addition to amounts otherwise available for such purposes.


                      development assistance fund

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     sections 103 through 106 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, $669,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     1997: Provided, That none of the funds made available in this 
     Act nor any unobligated balances from prior appropriations 
     may be made available to any organization or program which, 
     as determined by the President of the United States, supports 
     or participates in the management of a program of coercive 
     abortion or involuntary sterilization: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds made available under this heading may be 
     used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of 
     family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to 
     practice abortions; and that in order to reduce reliance on 
     abortion in developing nations, funds shall be available only 
     to voluntary family planning projects which offer, either 
     directly or through referral to, or information about access 
     to, a broad range of family planning methods and services: 
     Provided further, That in awarding grants for natural family 
     planning under section 104 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 no applicant shall be discriminated against because of 
     such applicant's religious or conscientious commitment to 
     offer only natural family planning; and, additionally, all 
     such applicants shall comply with the requirements of the 
     previous proviso: Provided further, That nothing in this 
     paragraph shall be construed to alter any existing statutory 
     prohibitions against abortion under section 104 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding section 109 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, of the funds appropriated under this heading and under 
     the heading ``Development Fund for Africa'', not to exceed a 
     total of $15,500,000 may be transferred to ``Debt 
     restructuring'', and that any such transfer of funds shall be 
     subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding section 109 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, of the funds appropriated under this heading and under 
     the heading ``Development Fund for Africa'', not to exceed a 
     total of $15,000,000 may be transferred to ``International 
     Organizations and Programs'' for a contribution to the 
     International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and 
     that any such transfer of funds shall be subject to the 
     regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.


                      development fund for africa

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     chapter 10 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $528,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1997: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by this Act to 
     carry out chapters 1 and 10 of part I of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 shall be transferred to the Government 
     of Zaire: Provided further, That funds appropriated under 
     this heading which are made available for activities 
     supported by the Southern Africa Development Community shall 
     be made available notwithstanding section 512 of this Act and 
     section 620(q) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.


                  PRIVATE AND VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this Act for development assistance may be made available 
     to any United States private and voluntary organization, 
     except any cooperative development organization, which 
     obtains less than 20 per centum of its total annual funding 
     for international activities from sources other than the 
     United States Government: Provided, That the requirements of 
     the provisions of section 123(g) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 and the provisions on private and voluntary 
     organizations in title II of the ``Foreign Assistance and 
     Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1985'' (as enacted in 
     Public Law 98-473) shall be superseded by the provisions of 
     this section.
       Funds appropriated or otherwise made available under title 
     II of this Act should be made available to private and 
     voluntary organizations at a level which is equivalent to the 
     level provided in fiscal year 1995. Such private and 
     voluntary organizations shall include those which operate on 
     a not-for-profit basis, receive contributions from private 
     sources, receive voluntary support from the public and are 
     deemed to be among the most cost-effective and successful 
     providers of development assistance.


                   INTERNATIONAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE

       For necessary expenses for international disaster relief, 
     rehabilitation, and reconstruction assistance pursuant to 
     section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 
     amended, $200,000,000 to remain available until expended.


                           debt restructuring

       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of modifying direct loans 
     and loan guarantees, as the President may determine, for 
     which funds have been appropriated or otherwise made 
     available for programs within the International Affairs 
     Budget Function 150, including the cost of selling, reducing, 
     or canceling amounts, through debt buybacks and swaps, owed 
     to the United States as a result of concessional loans made 
     to eligible Latin American and Caribbean countries, pursuant 
     to part IV of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, $7,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.


         micro and small enterprise development program account

       For the subsidy cost of direct loans and loan guarantees, 
     $1,500,000, as authorized by section 108 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, as amended: Provided, That such costs 
     shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974. In addition, for administrative expenses 
     to carry out programs under this heading, $500,000, all of 
     which may be transferred to and merged with the appropriation 
     for Operating Expenses of the Agency for International 
     Development.


                    HOUSING GUARANTY PROGRAM ACCOUNT

       For administrative expenses to carry out guaranteed loan 
     programs, $7,000,000, all of which may be transferred to and 
     merged with the appropriation for Operating Expenses of the 
     Agency for International Development.


     PAYMENT TO THE FOREIGN SERVICE RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY FUND

       For payment to the ``Foreign Service Retirement and 
     Disability Fund'', as authorized by the Foreign Service Act 
     of 1980, $43,914,000.


     OPERATING EXPENSES OF THE AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 667, $465,750,000: Provided, That of this amount not 
     more than $1,475,000 may be made available to pay for 
     printing costs: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act for programs administered by the 
     Agency for International Development may be used to finance 
     printing costs of any report or study (except feasibility, 
     design, or evaluation reports or studies) in excess of 
     $25,000 without the approval of the Administrator of that 
     Agency or the Administrator's designee.
       In addition, for necessary expenses to carry out the 
     provisions of section 667 related to the termination or 
     phasing down of programs, activities, and operations of the 
     Agency for International Development under chapters 1, 10, 
     and 11 of part I and chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, and for related purposes, 
     $29,925,000, to remain available until September 30, 1997: 
     Provided, That such funds are available in addition to 
     amounts otherwise available for such purposes: Provided 
     further, That, prior to the obligation of any funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph, the Administrator of the 
     Agency for International Development shall report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations on the proposed use of such 
     funds: Provided further, That by September 30, 1997, the use 
     of such funds should result in the reduction of 500 full-time 
     equivalent direct-hire employees from the onboard level 
     existing on April 30, 1995: Provided further, That the 
     authority of sections 109 and 610 may be used for the purpose 
     of making funds available to fulfill the requirements of 
     section 667.


 OPERATING EXPENSES OF THE AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE 
                          OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 667, $35,200,000, which sum shall be available for 
     the Office of the Inspector General of the Agency for 
     International Development.

                  Other Bilateral Economic Assistance


                         ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     chapter 4 of part II, $2,326,700,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 1997: Provided, That any funds 
     appropriated under this heading that are made available for 
     Israel shall be made available on a grant basis as a cash 
     transfer and shall be disbursed within thirty days of 
     enactment of this Act or by October 31, 1995, whichever is 
     later: Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading shall be made available for Zaire.


                     international fund for ireland

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of part 
     I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, up to $19,600,000, 
     which shall be available for the United States contribution 
     to the International Fund for Ireland and shall be made 
     available in accordance with the provisions of the Anglo-
     Irish Agreement Support Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-415): 
     Provided, That such amount shall be expended at the minimum 
     rate necessary to make timely payment for projects and 
     activities: Provided further, That funds made available under 
     this heading shall remain available until September 30, 1997.
     
[[Page H 6341]]



          assistance for eastern europe and the baltic states

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Support for East 
     European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989, $324,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 1997, which shall be 
     available, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     economic assistance and for related programs for Eastern 
     Europe and the Baltic States.
       Funds appropriated under this heading or in prior 
     appropriations Acts that are or have been made available for 
     an Enterprise Fund may be deposited by such Fund in interest-
     bearing accounts prior to the Fund's disbursement of such 
     funds for program purposes. The Fund may retain for such 
     program purposes any interest earned on such deposits without 
     returning such interest to the Treasury of the United States 
     and without further appropriation by the Congress. Funds made 
     available for Enterprise Funds shall be expended at the 
     minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for projects 
     and activities.
       Funds appropriated under this heading shall be considered 
     to be economic assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 for purposes of making available the administrative 
     authorities contained in that Act for the use of economic 
     assistance.


  assistance for the new independent states of the former soviet union

       (a) For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     chapter 11 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     and the FREEDOM Support Act, for assistance for the new 
     independent states of the former Soviet Union and for related 
     programs, and for other purposes, $595,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 1997: Provided, That the 
     provisions of 498B(j) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     shall apply to funds appropriated by this paragraph.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated under this heading shall 
     be transferred to the Government of Russia--
       (1) unless that Government is making progress in 
     implementing comprehensive economic reforms based on market 
     principles, private ownership, negotiating repayment of 
     commercial debt, respect for commercial contracts, and 
     equitable treatment of foreign private investment; and
       (2) if that Government applies or transfers United States 
     assistance to any entity for the purpose of expropriating or 
     seizing ownership or control of assets, investments, or 
     ventures.
       (c) Funds may be furnished without regard to subsection (b) 
     if the President determines that to do so is in the national 
     interest.
       (d) None of the funds appropriated under this heading shall 
     be made available to any government of the new independent 
     states of the former Soviet Union if that government directs 
     any action in violation of the territorial integrity or 
     national sovereignty of any other new independent state, such 
     as those violations included in Principle Six of the Helsinki 
     Final Act: Provided, That such funds may be made available 
     without regard to the restriction in this subsection if the 
     President determines that to do so is in the national 
     security interest of the United States: Provided further, 
     That the restriction of this subsection shall not apply to 
     the use of such funds for the provision of assistance for 
     purposes of humanitarian, disaster and refugee relief.
       (e) None of the funds appropriated under this heading for 
     the new independent states of the former Soviet Union shall 
     be made available for any state to enhance its military 
     capability.
       (f) Funds appropriated under this heading shall be subject 
     to the regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       (g) Funds made available in this Act for assistance to the 
     new independent states of the former Soviet Union shall be 
     subject to the provisions of section 117 (relating to 
     environment and natural resources) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961.
       (h) Funds appropriated under this heading may be made 
     available for assistance for Mongolia.
       (i) Funds made available in this Act for assistance to the 
     new independent states of the former Soviet Union shall be 
     provided to the maximum extent feasible through the private 
     sector, including small- and medium-size businesses, 
     entrepreneurs, and others with indigenous private enterprises 
     in the region, intermediary development organizations 
     committed to private enterprise, and private voluntary 
     organizations previously functioning in the new independent 
     states.
       (j) The ratio of private sector investment (including 
     volunteer contributions in cash or time) to United States 
     government assistance in projects referred to in subsection 
     (i) shall be no less than a ratio of 1.5 to 1.

                          Independent Agencies


                     african development foundation

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of title 
     V of the International Security and Development Cooperation 
     Act of 1980, Public Law 96-533, and to make such contracts 
     and commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations, as 
     provided by 31 U.S.C. 9104, $10,000,000.


                       INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION

       For expenses necessary to carry out the functions of the 
     Inter-American Foundation in accordance with the provisions 
     of section 401 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1969, and to 
     make such contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal 
     year limitations, as provided by section 9104, title 31, 
     United States Code, $20,000,000.


                              PEACE CORPS

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Peace Corps Act (75 Stat. 612), $210,000,000, including the 
     purchase of not to exceed five passenger motor vehicles for 
     administrative purposes for use outside of the United States: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading shall be used to pay for abortions.

                          Department of State


                    INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 481 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $113,000,000: Provided, That during fiscal year 1996, the 
     Department of State may also use the authority of section 608 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, without regard to its 
     restrictions, to receive non-lethal excess property from an 
     agency of the United States Government for the purpose of 
     providing it to a foreign country under chapter 8 of part I 
     of that Act subject to the regular notification procedures of 
     the Committees on Appropriations.


                    MIGRATION AND REFUGEE ASSISTANCE

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to 
     enable the Secretary of State to provide, as authorized by 
     law, a contribution to the International Committee of the Red 
     Cross, assistance to refugees, including contributions to the 
     International Organization for Migration and the United 
     Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and other activities 
     to meet refugee and migration needs; salaries and expenses of 
     personnel and dependents as authorized by the Foreign Service 
     Act of 1980; salaries and expenses of personnel assigned to 
     the bureau charged with carrying out the Migration and 
     Refugee Assistance Act; allowances as authorized by sections 
     5921 through 5925 of title 5, United States Code; purchase 
     and hire of passenger motor vehicles; and services as 
     authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     $671,000,000, of which not to exceed $12,000,000 shall be 
     available for administrative expenses.
                    refugee resettlement assistance

       For necessary expenses for the targeted assistance program 
     authorized by title IV of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     and section 501 of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 
     1980 and administered by the Office of Refugee Resettlement 
     of the Department of Health and Human Services, in addition 
     to amounts otherwise available for such purposes, $5,000,000.


     united states emergency refugee and migration assistance fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 2(c)  of  the  Migration  and  Refugee  Assistance  
     Act  of  1962,  as amended (22 U.S.C. 260(c)), $50,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That the funds 
     made available under this heading are appropriated 
     notwithstanding the provisions contained in section 2(c)(2) 
     of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 which 
     would limit the amount of funds which could be appropriated 
     for this purpose.


                       ANTI-TERRORISM ASSISTANCE

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     chapter 8 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $17,000,000.


                 nonproliferation and disarmament fund

       For necessary expenses for a ``Nonproliferation and 
     Disarmament Fund'', $20,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, to promote bilateral and multilateral activities: 
     Provided, That such funds may be used pursuant to the 
     authorities contained in section 504 of the FREEDOM Support 
     Act: Provided further, That such funds may also be used for 
     such countries other than the new independent states of the 
     former Soviet Union and international organizations when it 
     is in the national security interest of the United States to 
     do so: Provided further, That funds appropriated under this 
     heading may be made available notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law: Provided further, That funds appropriated 
     under this heading shall be subject to the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.
                   amendment offered by mr. brownback

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 64.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Brownback: Page 12, line 8 strike 
     ``$7,000,000'' and insert ``$3,000,000''.
       Page 13, strike line 18 and all that follows through page 
     14, line 11.
       Page 16, line 24, strike ``$595,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$619,000,000''.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inform the Members this 
amendment is designed to have several outcomes, and what we are doing 
with this I will describe briefly in this presentation.
  It is intended to restore part of the funding for the newly 
independent states of the former Soviet Union provided by H.R. 1561, 
the American Overseas Interests Act, by removing some funds from other 
places.

[[Page H 6342]]

  My amendment is also intended to reduce the Treasury buy-back fund to 
the level authorized by the American Overseas Interests Act previously 
approved by this Congress and to eliminate the AID reform and 
downsizing account, a fund not authorized by H.R. 1561.
  Finally, my amendment would cut an additional $22 million in foreign 
assistance funds.
  Now, AID argues it needs the $30 million reform and downsizing 
account in order to make a 10-percent cut in budget, a $30 million 
reform and downsizing account to make a 10-percent cut in budget.
  By analogy, the ICC is making a 33-percent cut. It is not asking for 
a dime. I realize downsizing AID is very complicated, particularly more 
so than the ICC. I am not certain about that.
  But does AID need $30 million to make a $50 million cut? The GAO will 
be analyzing this issue and issuing a report in September. Let us 
appropriate what we agreed to authorize and revisit the issue in 
September if GAO thinks AID needs the money in order to downsize.
  Now, on the second part of this is the Treasury buy-back fund 
performs an admirable foreign assistance function, reducing bilateral 
debt of Latin American countries to support environmental and child 
survival activities. However, we have $5 trillion in debt. We have our 
own to worry about. We need to put our own fiscal house in order. That 
is why I am calling for additional reduction here.
  We have got to take care of this place so that we can have something 
to pass on to our own children, not worry about that so much in other 
countries.
  Regarding the NIS, I would just want to put this briefly to my 
colleagues: I think we need to put these funds back in NIS. The NIS 
fund will have been cut by 27 percent from fiscal year 1995 level and 
by 75 percent from fiscal year 1994 level. This cut we are proposing 
would eliminate waste which has already been cut, get at the waste of 
this program. That is why I think we need to restore these monies in 
this particular area of the program.
  I think we had better think about, ladies and gentlemen, what we are 
doing here in taking further, taking it down more than 75 percent from 
previously.
  These are countries that are struggling to survive, struggling to 
democratize. We need to help them out. We need to do whatever we can 
here, and this small bit of money, I think, is far better spent here in 
helping INS countries to stabilize than to having AID reform and 
downsize and spend $30 million to make a $50 million cut.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield to the gentleman from New York, the chairman 
of the authorizing committee.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the 
amendment by my good colleague, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Brownback].
  Our assistance program in the new independent states is a vital 
effort to support the growth of democracy and market-based economies in 
the region of the former Soviet Union.
  It is also vital to alleviating humanitarian needs in the region--
particularly in Armenia, Georgia and Tajikistan.
  In short--in ways both large and small--this program is serving the 
American national interest in that region.
  Frankly, in this time of difficult budget decisions, we have had to 
reduce this assistance program.
  Under the amount contained in this bill, as reported by the 
Appropriations Committee, this assistance program is already: 30 
percent below the fiscal year 1995 appropriation, and 24 percent below 
the fiscal year 1996 request.
  Most important, the amount included in this measure is $48 million 
below the amount approved by this House when it recently approved the 
foreign aid authorization bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, just in closing on this, this succinctly 
moves money from the AID reform account, which was not approved by the 
authorizors, into NIS, which is already being cut 75 percent, and it 
further reduces the deficit and cuts outlays an additional $22 million. 
It puts money where it ought to be. It cuts the budget. It cuts the 
deficit.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  First of all, I applaud the courage of the gentleman from Kansas 
today in introducing the amendment, and certainly I do not think there 
is any Member of this Congress, especially someone who has only been 
here such a short time as the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback], 
who has grasped international affairs such as he has. I know that you 
are a very valuable ally to Chairman Gilman on the Committee on 
International Relations.
  The gentleman was not here the last years during the appropriation 
process when we first started funding for Russia and the independent 
states. I think that I was probably the only Member of the House that 
stood in opposition to that, because I felt that while we wanted to 
help Russia and the other independent states emerge as industrialized 
nations and we wanted to help them get on their feet and form a good 
democracy, it was I who stood on the floor and said we do not have the 
money to do that.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. Chairman, the very fact that the gentleman is now coming before 
this committee that now I am chairing, and let me say we reduced the 
aid from $842 million in 1995 to $595 million in 1996, and I just feel 
like that we do not have the money to give more aid to Russia.
  I say to my colleagues, If you want to reduce the deficit, that is 
another thing. I wouldn't have agreed to the $595 million. It was much 
more than I wanted. But in the spirit of compromise, in trying to work 
out some bipartisan arrangement to give the administration the ability 
to have an effective foreign policy, I finally agreed to the $595 
million. To increase it further just sort of goes against my grain, but 
certainly not against the intent of what the gentleman is trying to 
accomplish, and that is to reduce AID money and to increase NIS money.
  But I say to my colleagues, I think that the House has already 
decided and determined to radically downsize AID and to merge it into 
the State Department, which your committee wants, but that will take a 
couple of years, and the saving the gentleman is using may leave AID 
unable to administer the very program he wants to expand. With his 
amendment AID might have to shut down.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest to the sponsor that he 
withdraw his amendment and that we work with the managers on both sides 
of the aisle to see if some accommodation can be worked out. At this 
time I am obliged to oppose it because I feel like it infringes upon 
the agreement, the gentleman's agreement I have with the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], and 
the other Members of the committee. Both sides of the committee, when 
this bill came out of subcommittee, went around the table, and I said 
if one member, if one member of our subcommittee on the Republican side 
opposed this agreement that we have structured, that fragile agreement 
which included more money for AID, well, then I said the agreement 
would not be put into effect.
  So, we have a fragile agreement. I am going to live up to that 
commitment. Under no circumstances can I vote for any amendment that is 
going to increase AID to the independent states or to Russia because I 
feel that we have gone overboard with respect to our ability at this 
time in our history. So I respectfully oppose the amendment and would 
hope that the sponsor would withdraw it.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take the entire 5 minutes, but I will say it 
is unfortunate that the full Committee on Appropriations is meeting at 
the present time because we have so many Members that are interested 
that are not here, but I will say that I feel certain that the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the chairman of the 
full committee would both vigorously oppose this amendment because of 
the AID reductions. I think they would also certainly oppose the 
reduction in the loan forgiveness for the poorest of the poor 

[[Page H 6343]]
countries, and I think I pushed the chairman about as hard as he can be 
pushed on the NIS, and I do not want to try to push him any further.
  So, for that reason I would oppose the amendment as well, and I hope 
the gentleman would withdraw it, and we will try very, very hard to 
work with him when we get to conference.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Brownback 
amendment to restore funding to the New Independent States. This 
funding will provide needed assistance to Ukraine, a nation which has 
consistently been a leader among these new and independent nations.
  Although I strongly support AID and am not pleased with further cuts 
to AID in order to fund the New Independent States, I also feel we must 
send a strong message of support for Ukraine. I hope
 we can address the AID shortfall as this bill moves through Congress.

  Ukraine has instituted democratic reforms which have made it one of 
the most politically stable nations in the region. Ukraine and her 
people play an undeniably important role in this post-cold war world 
and we would be foolish not to recognize this fact and do everything we 
can to foster stability and development in that nation.
  With more than 18 percent of the population of the newly independent 
states, Ukraine has consistently received under 10 percent of the total 
U.S. aid provided to the former Soviet Union. To let this continue 
would be neither fair nor prudent.
  Geographically, Ukraine is the largest nation solely in Europe. Seven 
decades of
 Soviet rule and collectivization destroyed Ukraine's once-rich 
agricultural system, while militarization and the arms race left a huge 
military-industrial complex which does nothing to feed or house 
Ukraine's 52 million people. This complex must continue to be converted 
to nonmilitary uses. If a humanitarian interest in helping our 
Ukrainian friends isn't a compelling enough reason to support aid to 
Ukraine, then certainly, my colleagues will agree that the United 
States has a significant security interest in making sure this 
conversion takes place.

  Despite the recent developments in Russia, we simply cannot punish 
its neighboring nations, like Ukraine, by denying vital assistance to 
these new and struggling nations.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues' support for the people of Ukraine 
and their vote in favor of this amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of increased funding for 
Ukraine. Ukraine is one of our most important allies among the New 
Independent States [NIS] of the former Soviet Union. Since its 
independence, Ukraine has instituted democratic reforms, making it the 
most stable country in the region.
  In 1994, Ukraine held democratic elections, voting in a new 
parliament and a new president. They have accepted all of our requests, 
including the ratification of START and NPT, and are in the midst of 
economic reform that has won praise from the IMF and G-7.
  In the wake of this significant show of stability in an otherwise 
fragile region, it is imperative that the United States show strong 
economic support for Ukraine. Although Ukrainians make up almost one-
fifth of the population of the NIS, they receive less than 10 percent 
of United States aid under the Freedom Support Act.
  Although there are reductions in foreign aid in this bill, we must 
continue to make clear our international priorities. If we do not 
earmark $150 million for assistance to Ukraine, we send the wrong 
signal to that country, and all other countries that are instituting 
democratic reforms. We must not tell Ukraine that there is nothing to 
be gained by adopting democratic reforms, maintaining a good human 
rights record, progressing with economic reforms, and unilaterally 
disarming their nuclear arsenal.
  There are battles being waged right now between President Kuchma and 
the Ukarainian parliament over Ukraine's economic reforms and 
unilateral disarmament. Many members of parliament are pointing to the 
lack of past support from the United States for Ukraine's reforms, and 
questioning the benefits of continuing down this road. We cannot afford 
to let the Ukrainians turn back. Ukraine and the other young nations of 
the world, struggling with the implementation of democracy, must know 
that they will benefit from those reforms.
  Mr. Chairman, Ukraine is deserving of our respect, praise, and 
commitment. I urge my colleagues to support increased aid to Ukraine.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 78, 
noes 340, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 422]

                                AYES--78

     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Blute
     Brownback
     Burton
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Condit
     Crane
     Crapo
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Flanagan
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilman
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Herger
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Inglis
     Kasich
     King
     Klug
     Largent
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Orton
     Pallone
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Porter
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Tate
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walker
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller

                               NOES--340

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

[[Page H 6344]]

    I71NOT VOTING--16
     Camp
     Collins (MI)
     Ford
     Frost
     Furse
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Jefferson
     Lantos
     Mfume
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Tauzin
     Torricelli
     Young (AK)
     Zimmer

                              {time}  1609

  Messrs. HASTERT, HINCHEY, DeFAZIO, LATHAM, and RUSH changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BARTLETT of Maryland, CHRISTENSEN, STUMP, PORTER, SMITH of 
Michigan, and SCARBOROUGH changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                  amendment offered by mr. richardson

  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 37.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Richardson: Page 14, line 22, 
     strike ``2,326,700,000'' and insert the following 
     ``2,325,500,000''.
       Page 21, line 7, strike ``$671,000,000'' and insert 
     ``672,000,000''.

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I am offering with 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] will increase the 
migration and refugee assistance fund by $1 million to alleviate the 
refugee crisis on the Thai-Burma border. In keeping with budgetary 
guidelines, the increase in funding is offset by cuts to the Economic 
Support Fund.
  The ramifications of the systematic repression conducted by Burma's 
ruling military junta, the State Law and Order Restoration Council or 
[SLORC], have created a refugee crisis along the Thai-Burma border that 
is worsening.
  The launching of a major SLORC military offensive against the Karen 
refugees this spring resulted in an outflow of an estimated additional 
20,000 refugees to Thailand bringing the population to over 90,000.
  These new developments have serious implications for relief agencies. 
First, they are faced with unbudgeted expenses moving the refugees and 
establishing a new camp; and second, the new town-size camp will have 
different dynamics then the old village-size camps.
  The Burma Border Consortium [BBC], the group of NGO's responsible for 
rice distribution and relief in the border camps, issued an appeal in 
March for an increase of $5 million in their budget to cover the 
continuing worsening refugee situation. The BBC anticipated that it 
would be stretched to the limit and experiencing a serious cash flow 
problem by April.
  I have here a copy of a letter from the Burma Border Consortium 
Chairman Jack Dunford requesting additional funding.
  Efforts to combat the growing refugee crisis along the Thai-Burma 
border could be expedited with this additional funding particularly if 
NGO's on both sides of the border were empowered with proper financing.
  The Thai Government should not have to bear the burden of this 
refugee population alone. A clear signal must be sent that the 
international community is willing and able to assist the Thai, thus 
preventing the return of refugees to unsafe and unacceptable 
conditions.
  The Richardson-Rohrabacher amendment increasing the migration and 
refugee assistance funds by $1 million will enable organizations 
working along both sides of the Thai-Burma border to facilitate the 
settlement of additional refugees.
  Mr. Chairman, I insert for the Record a letter from Jack Dunford, 
chairman of the Burma Border Consortium.

                                              The Church of Christ


                                                  in Thailand,

                                                   March 20, 1995.

                       Burmese Border Consortium


                            emergency update

       The Burmese Border Consortium (BBC) six monthly report to 
     the end of December incorporates a revised Appeal for 1995 
     and will be sent to you next week. The Appeal is for an 
     increased budget of U.S. $5 million to cover a continuing 
     worsening refugee situation.
       The map shows the estimated refugee population at the end 
     of February as 88,907, an increase of 12,000 or 15 percent 
     since December. During March numbers have continued to 
     increase and could now have reached 95,000. Most of the new 
     arrivals are in the northern area, camps K1 to K6. Currently 
     there is still military activity around the KNU 6th and 4th 
     Brigade areas and there is still the potential for a lot more 
     refugees from these areas if SLORC launches and all-out 
     offensive.
       The situation remains very volatile and extremely dangerous 
     for both the refugees and NGO's working for them. SLORC and 
     Karen rebels continue to make intrusions into Thailand, 
     entering refugee camps, stealing rice, threatening, abducting 
     and killing refugees. There is fear and panic and a small 
     number of refugees (probably less than 2000) have returned to 
     the Burma side.
       Most of the new refugees have arrived in very remote areas 
     which will be cut-off by road as soon as the rains start. 
     This is adding to the normal burden of stockpiling supplies 
     for the rainy season. The revised budget of U.S. $5 million 
     is already 25% higher than 1994 but even this is based on a 
     population of only 90,000 and a rice price of $580. We are 
     currently paying $700 per sack for these new refugees.
       The BBC is currently stretched to the limit. There will be 
     a critical cash/flow crisis in April unless new funds arrive 
     very soon, and any further increase in numbers will 
     necessitate yet another increase in the budget.
       It is difficult to estimate exact needs because many Donors 
     have yet to indicate their proposed contributions for 1995. 
     Present indications however suggest a shortfall of between 
     U.S. $500,000 and U.S. $1 million for 1995. All Donors are 
     urged to confirm commitments as soon as possible, and to 
     transfer funds as quickly possible to support the rainy 
     season stockpiling. We will issue another statement when the 
     funding situation becomes clearer.
       On a more optimistic note, the first reports of a Karenni 
     cease-fire deal are coming through, the Mon are reported to 
     be about to resume talks with SLORC, and even the Karens are 
     said to be discussing possible negotiations. There is still 
     hope for a better future, but the needs of the BBC programme 
     are unlikely to reduce in 1995.
                                                     Jack Dunford,
                                                     BBC Chairman.
                                              The Church of Christ


                                                  in Thailand,

                                            Bangkok, June 14, 1995

                     Burmese Border Consortium 1995


                     emergency/funding update no. 4

       Previous updates described two phases of the current 
     emergency on the Burmese border. From January through March 
     SLORC launched a major military offensive against the Karen 
     National Union opposite Tak and Mae Hong Sen Provinces 
     sending as many as 15,000 new refugees into Thailand. 
     Although a de-facto cease-fire has been in place since then, 
     the second phase of the emergency saw SLORC-backed Karen 
     rebels entering Thailand, burning down refugee camps and 
     attempting to pursuade the refugees to return to Burma.
       At the time of writing the incursions have stopped and, for 
     the relief agencies providing assistance, the emergency has 
     entered a third phase. To improve security for the refugees 
     the Thai authorities have ordered a consolidation of the 
     camps located in the areas where incursions occurred. In Tak 
     Province camps K8 to K14 are to be consolidated in two 
     locations, Sho Khlo (K10) and Mae La (K14), and in Mae Hong 
     Sen Province camps K1 to K7 are to be consolidated at Mae Ra 
     Ma Luang (K7). For the time being all other camps will remain 
     as before.
       The consolidation of camps K8 to K14 has started (see map) 
     and Mae La will eventually house a population of over 20,000. 
     This has two implications for the relief agencies. Firstly we 
     have been faced with unbudgeted expenses moving the refugees 
     and establishing a new camp, and secondly the new town-size 
     camp will have different dynamics than the old village-size 
     camps. We have already incurred costs in buying building 
     materials because there is not enough available locally and 
     we will now also have to start providing firewood. The 
     Ministry of Interior will set up office in the camp but 
     wishes to maintain the low key, self-support nature of the 
     relief activities as much as possible. The need for other 
     support services however seems inevitable. It is hoped to 
     complete this consolidation within a month although further 
     moves have been temporarily suspended because of an outbreak 
     of diarrhea resulting in at least four deaths.
       Although the order has already been issued for 
     consolidating camps K1 to K7, heavy rains could make this 
     impractical until later in the year.
       All of this has been taking place against a background of 
     speculation that the refugees might soon start repatriating 
     to Burma. This has been fuelled to some extent by the fact 
     that only about 50% of the refugees are turning up at Mae La 
     during the camp moves. Some are interpreting this to mean 
     that the others have all chosen to go back to Burma, but 
     there is no reliable information. Some certainly have gone 
     back but others are probably hiding out elsewhere in 
     Thailand. There have also been continuing new 

[[Page H 6345]]
     refugee arrivals mostly escaping village relocations and forced labour.
       The border situation is tense. SLORC seems to have reverted 
     to a hardline policy against all opposition and refugees tell 
     of ongoing human rights abuses throughout the border States. 
     From our perspective there seems little justification to 
     claim, as some do, that the situation has ``returned to 
     normal''. There could still be further offensives or 
     incursions resulting in new refugee movements. Relations 
     between SLORC and Thailand are strained to the point that 
     most border points are closed, construction on the 
     ``Friendship'' bridge has been stopped, and both sides have 
     been moving troops into border areas.
       The result of all of this for the BBC is that we are facing 
     additional expenditures because of the emergencies, and 
     cannot rule out the possibility of new emergencies as the 
     year progresses. Even without emergencies the BBC budget has 
     not increased to over US$6 million for this year:

                                                                    US$
Food items....................................................4,750,000
Household items/medical.........................................370,000
Emergency items/transport.......................................900,000
Administration..................................................180,000
                                                       ________________

    Total.....................................................6,200,000

       Donor response has again been magnificent and this budget 
     is currently covered by projected income totalling 
     US$6,311,100.

                                                                    US$
ADRA..............................................................4,000
Anonymous.......................................................200,000
American Baptist Ministries.......................................6,000
Anglican Church of Canada.........................................7,000
Australian Churches of Christ.....................................3,600
Bangkok Community Theatre.........................................4,100
Bread for World, Germany........................................100,000
Burmese Relief Centre............................................16,000
Burma Action Group, UK............................................3,000
CAFOD, UK........................................................20,000
Christ Church Bangkok.............................................1,200
CARITAS Switzerland.............................................255,000
Christian Aid--UK...............................................159,000
Church World Service, USA.......................................245,000
Canadian Council of Churches....................................180,000
Compassion International..........................................6,400
DIAKONIA, Sweden..........................................\1\ 1,136,000
DOEN, Netherlands............................................\1\ 15,000
Dutch Interchurch Aid.....................................\1\ 1,745,000
International Church BKK..........................................2,000
International Rescue Committee..................................608,000
Jesuit Refugee Service...........................................65,200
Korean Church.....................................................5,000
German Embassy...................................................55,500
National C.Churches Australia...............................\1\ 365.000
Norwegian Church Aid........................................\1\ 168,000
Open Society International.......................................30,000
Refugees International Japan.....................................35,000
Swissaid....................................................\1\ 290,000
Trocaire.....................................................\1\ 23,000
United Society Prop Gospel........................................3,100
ZOA Refugee Care Netherlands....................................560,000
Interest/Misc.....................................................4,000

\1\ Part or all of these amounts have yet to be confirmed.

       Funds from the Governments of Australia, Canada, European 
     Union, Germany, Great Britain, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, 
     Switzerland and USA are channelled through these Donors.
       Approximately US$3,650,000 has already been received but 
     BBC is currently carrying no reserves. Donors still 
     processing grants are urged to transfer funds as quickly as 
     possible to avoid further cash/flow problems, and to provide 
     cover for new emergencies.
       Further funding appeals/updates will be issued if and when 
     the situation changes.

                                                 Jack Dunford,

                                        Burmese Border Consortium,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] and I 
have had a long interest in this issue. Let me say that we have met 
with the chairman of the subcommittee, who has made a very, very 
strenuous effort to ensure that there are adequate funds for this 
effort.
                              {time}  1615

  Now, we have at this time $1.5 million that are allocated for the 
Thai-Burma border for the refugee crisis. It is the understanding of 
myself and the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] that the 
chairman will ensure that the funds that are in the legislation, that 
are in the refugee and migration account, will be moved over so that 
there will be a total of $2.5 million for this amendment.
  For that reason, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California and I 
are considering withdrawing the amendment once we enter into a colloquy 
with the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say that, again, the reason that there is 
this repression, that this is taking place on the Thai-Burma border is 
we have a government called the SLORC, easily the most repressive of 
all time, that clearly is in a situation where because of this 
repression they are increasing the number of refugees along their 
border. There are squalid, horrendous conditions on this border. The 
Thais do not have the funds to adequately ensure that they can deal 
with the refugee crisis. So what we are doing is, we are moving these 
funds and we are ensuring that there are adequate medical facilities 
and that the United States, the State Department has not entirely spent 
their budget on this effort. For some reason, they have said in the 
past, we do not need these funds. So what the practical effect of this 
amendment does is, it would move ahead with $2.5 million total for this 
effort.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] insist 
on his point of order?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to stand in support of my friend and 
colleague from New Mexico and everything that he stated. I would just 
say that there is a tragedy, an ongoing tragedy in Burma. The people of 
the United States have historically stood for freedom and democracy and 
if, indeed, we would continue this stand in Southeast Asia, many of the 
problems that we face today, like this refugee problem that is being 
expressed, talked about today, would not be confronting us. 
Unfortunately, what we have done in these last 4 and 5 years is we have 
tried our best to try to romance the SLORC regime. We have done our 
best, and the gentleman from New Mexico has done heroic deeds in the 
cause of democracy. Yet, trying to treat this dictatorship with kid 
gloves, trying to move them along outside of the arena of tyranny has 
not worked.
  Today we are confronted with not only a monstrous repressive regime 
but refugees whose lives are in our hands today.
  I just stand in support of my colleague's efforts and my colleague's 
amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from New Mexico for 
bringing to the attention of the House the need for additional refugee 
assistance along the Thai-Burma border.
  The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] as well as the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] have both been long 
interested in dealing with this matter. I know they have filed an 
amendment to add funds for refugee assistance in the area. I would 
appreciate them withholding their amendment, however. In return, I 
pledge to them that we will work with the State Department to ensure an 
additional $1 million is provided these refugees.
  I know that $1.5 million has already been allocated for this purpose, 
but we will monitor the situation to ensure that these funds are spent 
for the purposes identified in the amendment.
  I would like to thank both of the gentlemen for their efforts in this 
regard and for working with me and the committee to resolve the 
problem.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, let me commend the chairman and his 
staff for their excellent work on this issue. The chairman is somebody 
who I know is very concerned about this issue. I just want to make it 
clear that based on what the chairman just said to me in the colloquy, 
that in addition to the $1.5 million that are allocated for the Thai-
Burmese border, that the chairman, through his very strong efforts as 
chairman of this subcommittee, will ensure that an additional $1 
million will flow to this account to make it a total of $1.5 million. 
Is that an accurate statement?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I cannot assure that, but I will assure 
the gentleman that I will do everything I can to ensure that it does 
take place.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, if that is the case, the gentleman from New Mexico and I know my 
friend from California are satisfied. I do appreciate 

[[Page H 6346]]
the chairman's word on this. We will, as the gentleman knows, have 
another amendment coming up on Burma which deals with the narcotics 
issue which we appreciate the chairman's support.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.


               amendment offered by mr. burton of indiana

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana: Page 13, strike 
     line 18 and all that follows through page 14, line 11.

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 30 
minutes, 15 minutes on each side, proponents and opponents of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes, and a Member in opposition will be 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, when we had the markup in the Committee on 
International Relations on AID, I became very concerned because I 
thought that the cut in the operational budget was not sufficient. The 
chairman's mark cut the overhead for AID by about 10 percent. I wanted 
to increase that cut to about 20 to 25 percent.
  I wanted to reduce the spending by $65 million. I brought an 
amendment to the floor of the House when the bill reached the House 
floor, trying to cut that $65 million, and my position did not prevail 
because it was agreed by the majority of the House that we should stick 
with the chairman's mark of $465 million.
  I have talked to my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations and 
I was under the impression that they agreed with the chairman's mark on 
the foreign aid authorization bill as far as the operational costs were 
concerned or the overhead was concerned.
  Now I find that the chairman of the subcommittee has agreed to 
increase above the chairman's mark on the Committee on International 
Relations the figure by $29.9 million. In my view, this is an excessive 
amount of money, and it is a waste of taxpayers money.
  We here in the Congress of the United States have cut our staffs by 
30 percent. I felt like we should be able to cut the AID staffs by 20 
to 25 percent, but we did not. We only cut them by 10 percent. Now we 
find that they are increasing in the foreign aid appropriations bill by 
$29 million the operational account.
  I think that is a mistake. Let me just point out some of the reasons 
why I think that is a mistake.
  I have here before me a message that alludes to what the ambassador 
in Chad thinks about the AID program over there. And the ambassador in 
Chad, according to this memo, said that this was expensive, an 
expensive development program in Chad since the 1979 and 1981 wars, and 
that it had little impact.
  This involves, I understand, $2- to $300 million. And if you read 
further in this memo, you find that the AID officer over there said, 
and I quote: With the exception of one other officer who leaves June 
15, the remaining personnel will be occupied with the administration of 
the closeout. And listen to this, this is very important, our parting 
gift of $4 million for Government officials' salaries in Chad will have 
been paid out to officials by the end of the May. They were giving them 
a goodbye gift of $4 million. This is the AID administration.
  This is a waste of taxpayers' dollars.
  I also have in my possession an amendment or a document that I read 
several times before. This document was sent out by Sally Shelton, the 
senior staffer at the AID office. And this went through their inner 
office memo system throughout the world. She said, Larry Byrne, the 
assistant administrator for management at AID, announced that AID was 
two-thirds or 62 percent through this fiscal year, and we have 38 
percent of the dollar volume of procurement actions completed. We need 
to do $1.9 billion, that means spend $1.9 billion, in the next 5 
months. Byrne also said there are large pockets of money in the field, 
so let's get moving.
  What he was saying in essence was, we want to spend this money before 
the end of the fiscal year.
  Now, in addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to 
my colleagues what AID has been spending some of their money on. This 
is what is called a gender analysis tool kit. A gender analysis tool 
kit, it costs $175,000. Nobody in this place really knows what that 
thing is for. AID has no
 business dealing with gender analysis tool kits. They are supposed to 
help developing countries with AID programs. And one of the subtitles, 
one of the booklets in this gender analysis tool kit says, sex and 
gender; what is the difference? A tool for examining the sociocultural 
context of sex differences. I would like to say to my colleagues on the 
Committee on Appropriations, what in the world is AID doing coming up 
with this kind of a program?

  So finally, I would like to say that the chairman's mark, although I 
did not agree with it in the Committee on International Relations, did 
make a minor cut of 10 percent in the operational budget of AID. That 
is not enough. But most certainly, most certainly we should not be 
increasing by almost $30 million the $465 million that was in the 
chairman's mark at a time when we are trying to cut expenses.
  My colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations are going to come 
back and say, we are cutting the appropriations by $400 million. That 
may be the case. But here is 30 more million you can add to it because 
it is not needed. We certainly do not need to be spending this money.
  I submit to my colleagues that we should stick with the chairman's 
mark. It is a reasonable amount of money. It will deal with the AID 
expenses adequately. It will take care of their personnel and any 
people who are going to be cut or laid off because it has figured into 
it the amount of money it is going to take to close out those people in 
some of these offices around the world.
  So, I submit to my colleagues, support my amendment. Cut AID by $29 
million, go back to the Committee on International Relations chairman's 
mark. It is a reasonable figure. I urge the support of my amendment.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Burton amendment. 
The amendment would cut the $29 million supplementary add-on of AID's 
operating expenses in a new reform and downsizing account. While the 
purpose of the account is a good one, regrettably, the account was not 
authorized in the Committee on International Relations bill. I support 
the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] to keep 
control of spending in this bill.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to allocate half of the time 
allocated to me to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson].
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] 
will be recognized to control 7\1/2\ minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes to speak in 
opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee recommendation truly does propose 
reduction of AID personnel and operations. We do not come into this 
issue ignoring the concerns that the gentleman from Indiana has. In 
fact, we applaud his enthusiasm toward attacking this agency 

[[Page H 6347]]
for some of their wasteful spending. He is exactly right in some areas. 
However, he is wrong here.
  What his amendment is doing, is taking away from the ability of AID 
to downsize. The $29 million he is talking about was money we put into 
the bill specifically earmarked to AID to downsize. If we take away 
this authority for them to downsize, I do not know how in the world 
they can downsize.
  Mr. Chairman, an example is Radio Free Europe. They are in the 
process of reducing staff in Munich from 1,500 to 400 employees, and 
moving to Prague in the Czech Republic. The cost of downsizing is $130 
million, more than half the size of Radio Free Europe's annual budget.
  AID has already cut staffing by 18 percent below the level that 
existed at the beginning of fiscal year 1994. The total of $29,975,000 
is being proposed for reform and downsizing activities.
  The committee intends for the funds to be used as follows: $4.7 
million for severance pay, which we have to pay, for general services 
employees; $11.2 million for the return home of directors that are 
overseas, general service, foreign service, and contractor employees, 
including moving expenses and employee closeout costs; $12 million of 
the money must be used for mission closure costs, and foreign national 
severance pay.
  We have entered into a contract with these foreign nationals, who 
have worked in conjunction with AID efforts. Under contract with those 
countries, we have to pay those employees severance pay. I did not make 
that arrangement. The United States of America made the arrangements. 
We are obligated. We cannot just say ``Well, Congressman Burton said we 
could not have the $29 million.'' We have to pay that money.
  Mr. Chairman, I concur in the sense that we ought to be downsizing 
AID, but I do not concur in this amendment. We already have downsized 
AID in our appropriation bill. We have acted responsibly, We have 
reached a bipartism commitment between the minority side and the 
majority side. We recognize the concern of the committee that the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] so eloquently serves upon and 
speaks about. At the same time, I think we must be responsible. If we 
are going to downsize, we have to give them a van to close them out and 
to move them home. That is what this $29 million does. It is earmarked 
specifically for reduction in force. Mr. Chairman, I would urge a 
``no'' vote against the Burton amendment .
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I talked to the gentleman's 
staffers in the Committee on Appropriations and asked them where they 
got the information. They told me they got the information the 
gentleman just quoted from AID officials.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, where would we get 
the information? Would we go ask someone on the street ``How much would 
it cost to close down an office in Ethiopia?'' We do not know that 
answer. We have to depend upon the agency to tell us how much money 
they need to downsize. They told us that to downsize that is what it 
would be.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say to my dear friend, the 
gentleman from Alabama, that when you call a bureaucracy like AID, with 
which I have worked for 12 years, and ask them if they need more money 
for closing down, we must expect they are going to say ``We need more 
money for closing down.''
  I have worked with this agency, like I said, for 12 years. I can tell 
the Members, no matter how much money we say they are going to cut, 
they say they need more. I am not saying my colleagues are naive 
because they are very intelligent people, but I do not think we should 
rely on people from AID.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Johnston].
  Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to look at 
this amendment very closely. This is amendment No. 57, and it is 
double-barreled.
  First, it takes away the downsizing account money, and as the 
chairman of the subcommittee said, this is going to affect it all over 
the world. We closed about nine offices, six in Africa alone. Of 
course, there are commitments there before you can close them about 
leases and moving and things of that nature.
  It also affects our operation in Asia and Latin America, but 
specifically Africa. We have to give credit where credit is due.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. This is amendment No. 14, Mr. Chairman, I 
would tell the gentleman.
  Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. The same premise, Mr. Chairman, to eliminate 
this. That is $30 million, which I think the committee very graciously 
put the money in there. I know from experience, Mr. Chairman, and being 
in Africa, being in Botswana, where the regional office was closed, 
myself, without going to AID, the fact that is going to be a 
substantial amount of expense involved.
  Mr. Chairman, in others areas of Africa, and particularly in the 
francophone countries where there are leases involved, I think in that 
case we are going to have to give credit where credit is due in the 
fact that AID is doing an excellent job here. I just think that by 
eliminating this fund, this is very shortsighted. I strongly request my 
colleagues to defeat this amendment. The fact that we spent $175,000 
for gender analysis does not mean that we have to cut them by $29.9 
million.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there is not much more to say. It has all been said. 
This is an amendment to cut $29 million from an account that has 
already been cut by $52 million. The money is necessary for a 
businesslike, logical downsizing, for it to be done in a way that 
exercises good business judgments. The people do have to be moved. This 
reduction would particularly impact AID programs in Eastern Europe and 
the former Soviet Union. We have already reduced those significantly.
  I just think that further reduction in AID would impact children's 
programs, programs that are labor-intensive, but most of all, it would 
act as a deterrent to a logical, rational downsizing approach.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to vote against 
this amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my 
colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I would like to make four points, Mr. Chairman. One is a special 
appreciation to the chairman, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Callahan], for the good work he has done, along with the new ranking 
member, the gentleman from Texas.
  The other point I would like to make is an appreciation to the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], for making this amendment in order, because in prior 
congresses it would be suspect whether it would be in order or not.
  The second argument I would like to make is an argument of process. 
We have proceded under the rules of the House. We set up authorizing 
committees and we set up appropriators. If we want to ignore the rules 
of the House and need to do that, then let us get rid of the Committee 
on Appropriations and put it all in one. We have done that. History has 
shown we have tried that before.
  What we have tried to do under this Congress is to stop the sieve of 
the money. This is one of the experiences I learned in the 103d 
Congress, was if you did not get a project, if it was not authorized, 
or you did not get the amount that you wanted from an authorizing 
committee, run off to the appropriators and they will appropriate money 
that either was not authorized or is in excess of the authorizing 
amount. If we have monies here in excess of the authorizing amount, 
that should not be made in order. However, it was made in order. I 
understand that. Now we are here on the House floor as a matter of 
process and procedure. 

[[Page H 6348]]

  Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the consciences of my colleagues to support 
this amendment and to support the authorizing committees, and not to 
support the appropriators spending money in excess of that which is 
authorized.
  The fourth point I would like to make is that on substance. All of us 
are beginning to learn there are more and more, tons of studies out 
there referencing AID. The Agency for International Development has 
become a bureaucratic beast, a beast for which, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Wilson] is smiling, he understands what it is about. It is 
very difficult to rein in the excesses of that. I think the two 
gentlemen working together are beginning to do that, but I think that 
AID is a bureaucratic beast which Reagan could not reform, Bush could 
not reform, and President Clinton is having a very difficult time 
reforming. I think this House is going to have to take the leadership 
to reform it. Please support the Burton amendment.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  AID is already in the process of downsizing and restructuring. Hiring 
has been frozen for almost two years, and will continue through fiscal 
year 1996. Twenty-one AID missions are being closed. The national 
performance review eliminated 1,200 jobs, and the authorization passed 
several weeks ago will reduce staff by another 400. These actions 
already underway represent a 20-percent personnel cut.
  Further reduction of AID funding will impede management and oversight 
of the taxpayer's money and the programs which it funds. It will also 
increase job losses and complicate AID's efforts to transition to a 
smaller, more streamlined agency while still maintaining itself as a 
coherent and accountable institution.
  Even without this amendment, the bill is $14 million short of the 
amount AID says it needs to carry out its mission while downsizing and 
streamlining its programs and personnel. Further cuts will only 
complicate and disrupt this process.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let us get the facts out here. Let us stop and reflect 
on where we are. First of all, Mr. Chairman, the authorizing committee 
authorized a sum of $465,750,000. The appropriations subcommittee and 
the full committee recommended the exact same amount.
  The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has so eloquently found 
issues such as this throughout the entire 10 years I have known him, 
and I applaud his efforts of bringing these matters, such as this 
horrible box of information that AID has printed. I knew nothing about 
that. I think it is great that he brings these things to our attention.
  However, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] also came to me and 
said ``Sonny, we need to downsize. We need to reduce the AID staff. We 
need to bring home some of these people from overseas.'' I do not want 
anybody in this country or in this room or anywhere in this city to 
think that I am up here trying to increase aid for anybody, much less 
AID.
  Therefore, what we did in response to the request of the gentleman 
from Indiana, we went to AID and said ``We are going to force you to 
downsize. We are going to include $29 million in this bill, and we are 
going to say that you can only use this, and you must use this, to 
downsize your operation, because the Congress of the United States is 
demanding it.'' What we did was a responsible thing. We provided them 
with a moving van to bring these people home, with an opportunity to 
pay the severance pay when necessary in these foreign countries, not to 
just walk out of there and have us have to come back next year and ask 
for even more money.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I felt when I got with the minority and when 
I got with the subcommittee's ranking member, the gentleman from Texas, 
and we worked this out, I insisted that the wishes of the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Burton] be fulfilled; that we send a strong message 
to AID, and that at the same time, we afford them the opportunity by 
the $29,000,000 that we put in there, especially earmarked, cannot be 
used for anything else, that we were doing a service to the gentleman 
from Indiana, I thought.
  Now he comes and says he wants to remove the $29 million. If we do 
not give them the $29 million, how are we going to downsize?

                              {time}  1645

  I think that we have done the responsible thing. I urge Members to 
vote ``no'' on the Burton amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the other body, the authorizing committee over there 
was below the chairman's mark in the House by $33 or $34 million, so 
you have two of the authorizing committees that are well below the 
figure that the appropriators are coming up with here today.
  The thing that bothers me the most is not that my colleagues are not 
well-intentioned. I have the highest respect for both the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Wilson] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], 
but my problem is that they are believing the people over at AID. I 
have worked with those people for 12 years. Mr. Chairman, I am not 
accusing them of being liars, but I am saying they stretch the truth an 
awful lot.
  The chairman's mark on the Committee on International Relations was 
set at $465 million. That is a 10 percent cut.
  Let me give a figure that will surprise my friends on the Committee 
on Appropriations. Since 1985, AID's program costs have gone down by 23 
percent. The money they are spending for worthwhile projects has gone 
down 23 percent. At the same time that their costs for programs have 
gone down 23 percent, they have increased their overhead by 41 percent.
  How can you cut the size of your programs by 23 percent and at the 
same time increase the number of personnel and the overhead by 41 
percent? It is obvious there is inefficiency in that agency, major 
inefficiency.
  That is why the chairman's mark on the Committee on International 
Relations cut them back to $465 million. I came to your office and 
wanted to cut it back to $400 million or less, but it could not be 
done, according to the people on the staff of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Now you are coming back and saying you want to increase it by $29 
million over the chairman's mark on the authorization committee. I just 
do not understand that. When you say the reason that you are increasing 
it by almost $30 million is because, quote, AID says they need the 
money to close down, what evidence do you have except their word?
  Mr. Chairman, if you went to any single bureaucracy within the 
jurisdiction of the Congress of the United States, any one of them, 
they would tell you they need more money for closing down or 
downsizing. The fact of the matter is the only way you are going to cut 
those bureaucracies is to say, ``Hey, we're cutting you by 10 percent. 
You figure out how to do it.''
  If one were in any business, and I know the gentleman from Alabama 
was a businessman before he came to Congress, if you have to cut your 
overhead or go in the red and go bankrupt, you would call your staff 
in, you would call your board of directors in and you would say, ``Hey, 
how do we get from here to there? How do we cut the spending?'' And you 
would say, ``We've got to do it or we go bankrupt,'' and they would 
figure out a way to do it.
  Mr. Chairman, the AID bureaucrats will figure out how to live without 
this $30 million. We are telling the taxpayers of this country they are 
going to have to do with less. We are cutting programs, domestic 
programs, left and right. Now here we have a chance to stick with the 
chairman's mark on the Committee on International Relations, and you 
are telling me you want to go $30 million above it? I do not buy it.
  I hope my colleagues in this body will see fit to live within the 
chairman's mark on the Committee on International Relations, save $30 
million, live within the budget, do the 

[[Page H 6349]]
right thing and save the taxpayers money. I absolutely guarantee, AID 
will be able to live with it.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment, for two 
reasons.
  First, it waves $30 million for the American taxpayer, by cutting out 
unnecessary funds for AID operating costs.
  Second, it sends a message to the bureaucracy that business as usual 
is over. Let me explain the legislative situation. Many of us in 
Congress have been pressuring AID to downsize.
  It is a bloated bureaucracy, which is spending $546 million for 
salaries, travel, office space, and operating costs. That is more than 
half a billion dollars to operate programs that total $6.5 billion. 
What is AID's response to downsizing? They are demanding another $30 
million! Only in the Federal Government does downsizing translate into 
spending more money, not less.
  Everywhere else in America, downsizing means reducing in size, 
cutting costs and saving money. But not in Washington. This is why the 
Burton amendment is so important.
  This amendment says that downsizing means spending less money, not 
more. It says to AID: reduce your operating costs, like the rest of 
America. Vote for the amendment, save $30 million and tell AID to cut 
its costs.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 238, 
noes 182, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 423]

                               AYES--238

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Zeliff

                               NOES--182

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Callahan
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Camp
     Collins (MI)
     Ford
     Furse
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Jefferson
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Mfume
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Torricelli
     Zimmer

                              {time}  1709

  Mr. TUCKER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. KLUG, Mr. DICKEY, and Mrs. CUBIN changed their votes from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
          Amendment, as modified, Offered by Mr. Hall of Ohio

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, as modified.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment, as modified.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Amendment as modified, offered by Mr. Hall of Ohio: Page 7, 
     strike line 18 and insert the following: ``CHILDREN AND 
     DISEASE PROGRAMS FUND''.
       Page 7, line 23, strike ``$484,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$592,660,000''.
       Page 8, line 6, strike ``and (7)'' and insert ``(7) basic 
     education programs, and (8)''.
       Page 8, line 16, strike ``$669,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$655,000,000''.
       Page 14, line 22, strike ``$2,326,700,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,300,000,000''.
       Page 30, line 17, strike ``$167,960,000'' and insert 
     ``$100,000,000''.

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] 
yield for a unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Callahan].
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman object to placing a 
1-hour time debate on this with the time equally divided?
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I would not object.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I object, 
really, on the grounds that this is a very important amendment and it 
has just come to my attention.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York objects.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, will the 
gentlewoman agree to any time limitation?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I would object to a time limit on the 
grounds that this is a very important amendment and it has just come to 
my attention that the money from this amendment is coming from family 
planning. And we would like to have a thorough discussion of it.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, 
would the gentlewoman object to any 

[[Page H 6350]]
time limit so that we could give the Members an opportunity to go and 
eat or do whatever? But if we just had some time limitation, something 
reasonable, I am willing to accept anything the gentlewoman would like.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I regret, Mr. Chairman, I did not want to object, but 
I wanted to make certain that everybody has the opportunity to discuss 
this.

                              {time}  1715

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, known as the 
``Children's Amendment'', is being introduced by myself and my 
colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton].
  Our amendment transfers $108.66 million from other foreign aid 
programs to ones that specifically save children. Our amendment is 
budget neutral. We have found the enabling
 funds within other foreign aid programs including development 
assistance ($14 million), the economic support fund ($26.7 million), 
and the Asian Development Fund ($67.96 million). With all the cuts that 
foreign aid has received in the last few years, we must prioritize. We 
will save and improve millions of lives by making this transfer.

  Mr. Chairman, 5 years ago, I attended the World Summit for Children 
in New York. In New York, 159 world leaders, including President George 
Bush, agreed to aim their nation's foreign aid resources at a few 
practical and achievable goals. We agreed to reduce child deaths by at 
least one-third, to reduce maternal deaths and child malnutrition by 
one half, and to provide all children access to basic education.
  Many of you well know I have sought to champion these causes by 
ensuring that the United States contributes its fair share to the noble 
vision of the World Summit.
  Mr. Chairman, ever since 1984, when I personally witnessed the 
unnecessary deaths of over a dozen infants in Ethiopia, I cannot seem 
to rest until I feel comfortable that we are doing all we can to avert 
such horrible tragedy. These children, whom I held in my arms, visit my 
conscience each and every day.
  As policy makers who work closely with the programs that save these 
kids, Amo Houghton and I have seen the incredible results products by 
focussing on child survival and basic education programs. Millions and 
millions of young girls, for instance, rarely make it past the fifth 
grade and perpetuate a cycle of poverty their families can never 
escape.
  For each additional year of schooling these children receive, their 
incomes rise by 10 percent. By learning to read and write and to take 
care of themselves and their children, they cease being recipients of 
foreign aid and become instead economic players purchasing America 
goods.
  We are at an extremely critical juncture today. The World is watching 
the Congress. The World is watching our new leadership in Washington. 
We have the chance to do the right thing for innocent, destitute, and 
dying children. What I am asking for will cost no more than the total 
amount currently in the foreign aid appropriations bill. What I am 
asking for is for us to prioritize children by transferring $108.66 
million
 from other accounts in this bill. These accounts are simply not as 
important as saving and improving the lives of millions of starving 
children who have absolutely no hope of a whole life.

  We have made progress toward the goals that President Bush agreed to. 
It would be a big mistake to end our commitment before we finish the 
job. I remember some years ago saying that six vaccine-preventable 
diseases such as measles and tetanus were killing 5 million kids each 
year, and then 4 million. Now I am here to say that the same 
preventable diseases are taking 2 million lives a year. This is a 
legacy that Congress can be proud of. It is a legacy our Congress 
should continue.
  Here is the legacy for Congress I would like to see. It is a legacy 
where we stood up to the task of stopping 2 million preventable child 
deaths next year. It is a legacy where we faced the fact that almost 
one-half of all rural women remain illiterate and more than 100 million 
children, mostly girls, are not in primary schools.
  This amendment does not add one extra dollar to the appropriations 
bill before us today. Mr. Houghton and I have provided modest cuts in 
other programs under this bill in order to save these most precious 
children. I think the areas which we propose to slightly reduce--the 
Economic Support Fund, the Asian Development Fund, and the General 
Development Account--can sustain the cuts we have in mind. Simply put, 
children come first.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud of the new protected Child Survival and 
Disease Programs Fund that the new leadership has created. Let's put 
our very limited dollars where they can really make a difference. This 
is the kind of foreign aid the American people like. It is the kind of 
foreign aid we can all be proud of, citizens and legislators alike.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlemen from Ohio [Mr. Hall] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mrs. Schroeder and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hall of 
Ohio was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. There is nothing I want to do more than agree with 
the gentleman, but the way I read this is these cuts are coming out of 
the funds that go to international family planning, too, and I am very 
troubled by that because as we just finished the Cairo conference, 
where we talked about empowering women and that women should have the 
choice to decide whether they are going to be productive or 
reproductive, we are really going at this by doing that, and I am 
really very saddened by the gentleman's amendment.
  Because I would jump on it in a minute except for the fact that it 
appears from the way I read it, it comes right off of the area where we 
have already made cuts but where we would be funding our family 
planning programs.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. The area that you are talking about is the 
development assistance account. I do take $14 million out of there. I 
take $67 million out of the Asian development bank of which I can 
explain a little bit later. I take approximately $26 million out of 
ESF.
  The $14 million that I take out, in my opinion, is minuscule in what 
I am trying to do, because what happened in the last couple of years 
actually, before 2 years ago, we had an account called basic education. 
In this complete bill here, there is not a mention even in the 
committee report of basic education. Basic education goes for women and 
children. It goes for the teaching of breast feeding, the boiling of 
water, teaching women and children how to read and write.
  I felt it necessary to take moneys out of certain funds, put basic 
education in the amendment and be sure at least that basic education 
got its fair share.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I understand what the gentleman is saying. I just am 
very, very saddened because pitting mothers against children is not the 
way I would go in this amendment. That is how I read this amendment.
  When you are going after a fund that has already been gone after, 
after the United States decided at the Cairo conference that if you 
worked really hard to empower women and children, I think we are going 
the wrong way.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to speak 
on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like, if the gentlewoman from Colorado would 
just hold on a minute, I would like to get specifically to this issue 
that she talks about. Then I would like to talk on the general 
amendment.
  As I understand it, there are three areas the money for this 
Houghton-Hall amendment would come from. One of them is the economic 
development assistance program. There are a variety of areas in there. 
There is economic development. There is environmental development. 
There is the population issue. And then there is the basic education.
  In talking to the people in that specific area, they said they were 
going to spend on basic education, this is out of a fund of $669 
million, $14 million, so all we are doing is taking that $14 million, 
making sure that it is spent for basic education, not taking it out of 
anything else, so the remaining amount of money is going to be spent 
exactly as it was before.

[[Page H 6351]]

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOUGHTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Now, my understanding is that really because of an 
amendment we passed, did we not change that $669 million? Did not the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] lower that figure? I mean, we have 
already tapped into that fund once.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. It was $840 million. Now it is $669 million.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Now it is down to $669 million? I thought it was 
lower than that. It has already been cut quite a bit.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. It has already been cut. None of us are particularly 
happy about that, but with the amount of money remaining, the basic 
education, according to the people who are running the program, would 
be $14 million. All we are doing is taking that out. That would not 
have affected the population or environment or economic development 
funds anyway.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. If the gentleman will yield further, then what I hear 
the gentleman saying is that my interpretation is incorrect, that you 
are not going to touch the funds?
  Mr. HOUGHTON. We will not touch the population or environment or 
economic development funds. We will not even touch the basic education. 
The problem is that with taking any amount of money out of any one of 
these categories, we are going to be separating those amounts of money, 
the $14 million, putting it in a different category, but the same 
amount of money would have been spent, in any event.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. If the gentleman will yield further, the way the 
gentleman's amendment is written, it does not say that. It takes it out 
of the top number, so you could take it out of environment and you 
could take it out of family planning, the way I read it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOUGHTON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. I would just like to add, what we are doing is 
basic education could be funded out of the development assistance fund 
to the tune, because there is $669 million; what I am doing is freeing 
up the fund of basic education and transferring $108 million into the 
children's account and saying spend the basic education money in that 
account.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Reclaiming my time, just let me go for the basic 
numbers. It was $840 million for this entire category with four 
subsections. It is now $669 million. We want to bring it down to $665 
million.
  The only change is that the money which already would have been spent 
in that $669 million, the $14 million, is going to be pushed aside to 
make sure it is spent on basic education. None of the rest of the 
moneys, according to their plan, would be affected at all.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Except, if the gentleman would yield further, you are 
still lowering it by $14 million, and it has got to either come out of 
family planning or environment.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. It lowers it in a total sense. In terms of a practical 
allocation, it does not affect those other three categories, because 
they were going to spend $14 million anyway out of the $669 million.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. So you are saying you lower it by that and transfer 
it to another category?
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Transfer what already we spent to another category, to 
make sure that small amount of money of the $669 million is going to be 
spent on basic education.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. If the gentleman would yield further, I understand 
what the gentleman is saying. That makes me feel better. I do not see 
where it says that in the amendment, and I am terribly frightened they 
would take the $14 million out of there.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. It probably does not, but this is according to the 
people who would be allocating and spending the money.
  I think I am sort of running out of the 5 minutes, but I thank the 
gentlewoman very much.
  I would like to say in conclusion that I support what the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Hall] is doing. I respect him. I think it makes a lot of 
sense.
  The agony is when you shift funds at all. Absent that, this would be 
an absolute no-brainer.
  But I think it is the right thing to do, and I can give you chapter 
and verse out of my own experience, and I hope this will be supported.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to start off by saying how much respect I have 
for the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] and for many of the causes that 
he has been behind, especially with respect to humanitarian rights and 
to starving children, and I would like, as soon as he can, for him to 
give me his attention, because I want to direct part of my talk to him.
  I want the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] to know that the American 
people gave us a strong message last November. They told us they wanted 
us to come to Washington, and they wanted us to cut spending, and they 
told us at the same time they wanted us to reduce everything. They did 
not say, cut everything but spending on foreign aid. They said cut 
foreign aid.
  During this process, I, like you, have been concerned about the 
children of the world who are destitute and starving and who need 
immunization programs, and out of respect for you, I came to you and I 
said we must do one thing, if we are going to reduce foreign aid, which 
we are going to do, then we must protect the number one priority, and 
that is the children., We did not want to look at the television set 
and see starving children and know that we could have done something 
about that by sending them food or medicine.

                              {time}  1730

  So, out of deference to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] and others 
we created a new account called the child survival account, and in the 
child survival account we said to the administration, ``You must take 
this money, and you must spend it on needy children throughout the 
world.''
  I say to the gentleman, I thought I was doing exactly what you wanted 
me to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud of the fact that this Congress and this 
committee has brought to this floor a measure that still reduces 
dramatically foreign aid, but at the same time prioritizes the use of 
what limited amounts of money we will have for child survival needs, 
and now I see the gentleman comes and says that, ``You want to also 
increase the child survival account, increase it by taking away $126 
million from the Development Assistance Fund, $68 million from the 
Asian Development Fund, and $17 million from the Economic Support Fund 
to do something for basic education for adults.''
  The child survival program was intended, and is intended, and is in 
my bill because I was concerned, and I thought the gentleman was just 
as concerned about children of the world and need immunization, who 
need basic foods, we need a survival capacity that the United States of 
America can deliver in the form of food and medicine, and now we are 
saying that we also want the child survival account to educate adults 
in some countries.
  I think that we do need to help educate some adults in other 
countries. I think we need to help educate some adults in this country. 
But I do not think that we ought to violate the child survival account 
by now including a mishmash of things by saying that we ought to also 
take money from other accounts, put it in my child survival account, 
and start educating people through basic adult education.
  I say to my colleague, If you wanted to do that, I think that you 
should have come with an amendment, not put it in the child survival 
account, not even renamed the child survival account. I don't think you 
should have done that, but that's the gentleman's prerogative, but I 
would assure you, by, first of all, taking away from the Asian 
Development Fund, you are costing thousands of possible exporting job 
situations here in the United States because the Asian Development Fund 
is utilized to make things better for people and to give them a 
monetary possibility to
 develop the underdeveloped countries of Asia.

  So, as my colleague knows, he has got me almost lost because when he 
came to my office there was nothing, there was no assurance, that the 
United States would do exactly what he has 

[[Page H 6352]]
been wanting to do ever since the day I first met him, and that is to 
provide a capability to feed starving children and to provide 
immunizations, and now he is coming and saying, ``Let's expand the 
child survival account. Let's also put this itinerary here where we are 
going to increase the possibility of America spending money to educate 
adults in foreign countries.''
  Mr. Chairman, the American people do not want that. I do not want it 
in my bill. That is not the intent of the section that I included. My 
intent was to make absolutely certain that we would prioritize what 
limited amounts of money we are going to have available in 1996 for 
child survival, not adult education.
  So, I strongly oppose the amendment, and I would ask my colleagues to 
recognize the purpose of the child survival section in my bill, and 
that is child survival.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection the Chair recognizes the gentleman 
from Ohio for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate everything the gentleman 
from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] has said. He is a very distinguished 
gentleman. I have had a number of talks with him about this. He is very 
much of a gentleman, and I appreciate the kind of constraints that he 
is under. But I must tell my colleagues I can remember debating this 
bill when this bill was around $20 billion, and then $18 billion, and 
now it is at a little bit under $12 billion for foreign operations. We 
have cut this bill since 1985 by 40 percent, and it is interesting. I 
say to my colleagues: As you ask people in the country about the kinds 
of programs that I'm talking about, child survival activities, they 
believe in this. But it is also they did a poll in the United States, 
and they asked people what portion of the Federal budget should go to 
foreign aid, and most people thought that the portion of the Federal 
budget that went to foreign aid was around 18 percent. That was the 
average. Then they asked the American people, ``What percentage do you 
think it should be?'' The average guess was, the average what they 
thought was right, was 8 percent.
  Well, the fact is that this is 1 percent actually of our total 
Federal budget. It is less than 1 percent of what we are talking about 
today.
  I applaud what the gentleman has done in putting a parentheses around 
child survival activities. That is the only part I like about the bill 
because the other part in development assistance has been cut by 40 
percent, aid to Africa has been cut by 34 percent, and there are a lot 
of programs in there that ought to be in there that are not in there. 
But the one good thing that I believe that the gentleman did is the 
parentheses, the special category for children, and what the gentleman 
said, we are going to put so much money in this for children, for child 
survival activities, basic nutrients, AIDS, UNICEF, immunization kinds 
of programs, ORT and et cetera.
  The gentleman added seven categories. I added another one. I made 8, 
and I add basic education because the gentleman forgot to include that, 
and we have funded basic education for years here to teach mothers 
about nutrition, to teach mothers reading and writing, to teach mothers 
about breast feeding, and boiling water and those kinds of things that 
eventually not only bring down the populations through the studies we 
have, but increase the gross national product.
  Mr. Chairman, we only have so much resources, and I am saying, and 
some of us are saying, that this is the best money that we spend 
overseas. It is spent on child survivor activities, women and children. 
We get more mileage out of this.
  As I said in my opening statement, years ago 5 million children were 
dying. Because of our efforts, then it was 4 million, then it was 3 
million. Now is down to 2 million. We made that goal, and we have 
something to look forward to. We could end it, and we end it by these 
programs, and that is why I am saying we only have so much money, we 
must prioritize.
  I say, I say, put the money here.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by my good friends, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hall] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton].
  I must agree with the arguments made by the manager of the bill, the 
chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Callahan.
  The amendment would cut the development assistance account by $14 
million and the Economic Support Fund by $27 million as part of its 
effort to provide additional funds for the Child Survival and Disease 
Fund. In addition, it would cut the Asian Development Fund by $68 
million.
  The Economic Support Fund contains, apart from any funds intended for 
Israel and Egypt, only about $250 million for economic political 
support for the entire world. With these funds we provide assistance to 
Jordan, Lebanon, on the West Bank and in Gaza, to developing 
democracies in Africa, Asia, and in Latin America. When we passed H.R. 
1561 less than 3 weeks ago, we made prudent cuts so that this program 
will be funded below last year's level and below the President's 
request.
  But there must be a limit. We must provide the President with some 
assistance tool with which to attempt to shore up our friends. We would 
be going a long way toward tying the President's hands if we cut it by 
the nearly 10 percent contemplated by this amendment.
  I think that the decision made by this House last week on the overall 
size of the combined development assistance account, which at that time 
included the Child Survival Fund, should likewise be upheld. Also, as a 
strong supporter of family planning programs, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Furthermore, the Appropriations Committee has looked at the 
subdivision of funds between the Child Survival Program, on the one 
hand, and the development assistance account, on the other, and made a 
recommendation to this House. They have also taken a hard look at the 
Asian Development Fund, and recommended support for it.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to keep long-term development in mind, as well 
as the pressing needs of individuals who are in need of immediate 
assistance. The Appropriations Committee has made a reasonable 
decision, and I think we should not overturn it.
  To further clarify, this amendment would transfer $14 million from 
the overall development assistance account to Child Survival. Simply 
put, it would mean that there would be fewer funds for family planning 
activities, among others, out of the development assistance account.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Hall amendment.
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of the Houghton-Hall 
amendment, and I am glad to speak in favor of a bipartisan effort to 
make this bill better.
  I have listened to the debate, and oftentimes we cannot say that in 
this body, that we have been in the room and we have listened to the 
debate, but I have had the opportunity, since coming over to 
participate in it, to listen from the beginning, and I heard the 
concerns, Mr. Chairman, expressed about the family planning money, and 
I, too, am very concerned about that.
  I did make the effort and had the opportunity to talk to the sponsors 
of this amendment, to other Members who are deeply involved in this 
amendment and to professional staff, and have been assured by them that 
this will not cause a reduction in family planning spending because we 
should not cause a reduction in family planning spending, but by the 
same token we do need at the same time, we do need to increase spending 
on education through these programs. Only through education can we 
achieve true freedom around this world. Only through basic education 
and basic skills training, as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] has 
spoken of, can we achieve true freedom for all citizens of this world 
because only through education do people have the opportunity to have 
more control over their lives, whether it is through family planning or 
through taking advantage of economic opportunities.

[[Page H 6353]]

  So, for those reasons, I speak in strong favor of the Hall-Houghton 
amendment and praise the sponsor for his work. I, too, have had the 
opportunity of being in the Third World, of seeing the conditions that 
bring rise to these needs, of seeing the conditions that can be helped.
  As the sponsor of the amendment said, we have seen a decrease in 
infant mortality around the world. We need to continue that, and for 
that I applaud him and support the amendment.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hall/
Houghton amendment and would like to particularly thank my good friend, 
the gentleman from Ohio for the tremendous work and commitment he has 
put into this and other child survival issues for so many years.
  Having had the privilege of serving as the first vice chairman of the 
former Select Committee on Hunger, I had the honor of working with 
then-chairman Mickey Leland and his successor, Mr. Hall, to make 
important reforms in U.S. hunger policy and to make the public better 
aware of the plight of the hungry.
  Although the Select Committee on Hunger which Mr. Hall chaired is 
gone, our obligation is not. As the wealthiest and most advanced nation 
in the world, the globe's last remaining superpower, we continue to 
have a moral responsibility to help alleviate the problems related to 
hunger.
  The Hall-Houghton amendment moves us toward meeting that obligation. 
In essence, Mr. Hall would reprogram $109 million from the development 
assistance account to the child survival account to be used for basic 
education--primary and secondary schooling and adult literacy and 
skills training. By providing this level of education to children 
living in developing countries we are taking a critical step toward 
ensuring sustainable development is successful.
  These programs are often carried out by NGO's [Non-Governmental 
Organizations] to teach children how to read and write and mothers the 
importance of cleanliness and hygiene.
  In recent years, Members of the House have continued to recognize the 
importance of basic education as a means of advancing sustainable 
development throughout the world. By investing in basic skills, we are 
equipping impoverished children to become self-sufficient as they grow 
older while giving them a better understanding of how to utilize the 
resources around them so that their communities can prosper. Without a 
basic education, how can we expect developing communities receiving 
U.S. assistance to most effectively use the funds that we are providing 
and rise out of poverty?
  The question arises: what do we in the United States get out of this 
proposal?
  Simply put, basic education is an invaluable investment for us 
because it is a necessary tool for sustaining long-term development. In 
many respects, it should be viewed as critical seed money by which 
children, their families, their villages and eventually, whole 
economies become more independent and self-sufficient. Consequently, 
they will rely less on us for future aid.
  Just as we recognize here in the United States the importance for 
every child to receive an education, so too must we recognize this need 
for impoverished developing nations throughout the world. And, because 
in many of these nations access to basic education is often not readily 
available, we must work to make it more available.
  Throwing good money after bad if we fail to target this money in the 
most cost-effective way.
  The other issue facing this amendment is the funding question. First, 
the Hall-Houghton amendment would transfer basic education from the 
development assistance account to the child survival account. This is 
necessary because basic education is an important component of child 
survival. If we lump it together with other development assistance such 
as population, environment, and economic growth programs, there is a 
real possibility that basic education programs will lose out to these 
larger and more popular programs and this could significantly impact 
our attempts to achieve substantial development.
  Second, the amendment would transfer an additional $108 million from 
three other accounts to the child survival account to fund basic 
education. Let me repeat, the amendment is budget neutral and does not 
add funding to the bill but rather finds offsetting spending reductions 
to support this funding--a critical distinction between this and other 
amendments that might also be offered today.
  This represents a proper order of priorities. Without basic 
education, we will limit efforts to achieve progress in sustainable 
development, and we will have less ability to make advances in 
agriculture, health, and other areas critical to economic and social 
progress. As populations continue to grow throughout the world, we must 
make sure that these communities at least receive the bare minimum of 
basic education so that they don't languish in hunger and poverty 
forever. Such a small contribution on our part will reap innumerable 
benefits in the future.
  Once again, I would like to congratulate my two colleagues for their 
efforts on this issue and for bringing it to the attention of our other 
colleagues. I urge support for the Hall-Houghton amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered 
by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 263, 
noes 157, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 424]

                               AYES--263

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Canady
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                               NOES--157

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilman
     Greenwood
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger

[[Page H 6354]]

     Hostettler
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Matsui
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Quillen
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thornberry
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Camp
     Collins (MI)
     Fields (TX)
     Furse
     Gunderson
     Lantos
     Mfume
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Roberts
     Rose
     Torricelli
     Yates
     Zimmer

                              {time}  1804

  Mr. KIM and Mr. DICKEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Ms. ESHOO, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, and Messrs. 
DIXON, CLINGER, HILLEARY, and HOEKSTRA, Mrs. SEASTRAND, and Messrs. 
DICKS, SMITH of Michigan, and FLAKE changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
               amendment offered by mr. miller of florida

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of Florida: Page 16, line 
     24, strike ``$595,000,000'' and insert ``$565,000,000''.

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am introducing this amendment 
along with my colleague, the gentlewoman from Miami, FL [Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen], to reduce funding for Russia and the newly independent 
states by $30 million. This amendment will reduce funding for Russia 
and the newly independent states by $30 million.
  By passing this amendment, we can send a message to Moscow that 
Congress will not continue to support a government that disregards 
human rights at home and abroad. We need to let Russia know that its 
egregious behavior has not gone unnoticed. In Chechnya the Russian 
military has displayed a pattern of aggression that should not be 
ignored.
  In Bosnia, Russia supports the Serbians who are engaged in brutal 
acts of ethnic cleansing. And even closer to home in Cuba, they have 
assisted Fidel Castro in maintaining his totalitarian reign over that 
nation.
  While I commend the efforts of my colleagues on the Committee on 
Appropriations for introducing a bill that reduces foreign aid by more 
than 10 percent, I believe that we need to go further. In this era of 
fiscal austerity for which every American has sacrificed, we cannot 
continue to subsidize Russia's aggressive behavior.
  This amendment will provide a warning to Russia to alter their 
policies or face further sanctions. We have got to let them know the 
United States will not stand for it, Congress will not stand for it, 
and the American taxpayer will not stand for it.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand and I sympathize with the concern of the 
gentleman from Florida and the other members of the Florida delegation 
about the possibility of an unsafe nuclear reactor.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the concern of the Florida delegation and 
the gentleman from Florida with his amendment of reducing aid to the 
independent states of the former Soviet Union.
  However, his amendment, in my opinion, does not do what he seeks to 
do, and that is limit the ability of Russia to provide some type of 
capability to the Castro government in Cuba to help them with a nuclear 
reactor. No one in this body that I know of supports helping give 
Castro any ability to participate with Russia or any other country, 
Iran or any other country, to help them build a nuclear reactor, but 
the gentleman's amendment does not address that. The gentleman's 
amendment is just a symbol of what he is trying to do.
  The amendment does not address specifically what he wants to address, 
and that is whether or not Russia will be diminished in the event that 
they furnish aid, some type of assistance to Cuba. We do not have 
special account aid, first of all, in this bill for Russia. So there is 
no money to cut. And even if we did have, it does not do that. It 
simply says that we are going to take away money from the independent 
states, from the various independent states of the former Soviet Union. 
So what you are doing is, you are penalizing the Ukraine and Armenia 
and other areas of the independent states by your amendment because you 
simply just reduce the amount of money that we had provided for the 
former independent states.
  So if you are going to address this issue, I think it should be more 
properly addressed in the Menendez amendment, which has been put in 
order by the Committee on Rules and will answer that question directly 
yes or no. But to just go ahead and reduce aid to the independent 
states to send someone a message, number one, it does not ensure that 
the balance of the money will not be used by Russia or any of the 
independent states. They can take what is left, if they want to build a 
nuclear reactor in Cuba. So I think your amendment misses the point.
  And while I respect what you are trying to do and your colleagues in 
Florida are trying to do, I hope you recognize that your amendment is 
not doing that. It is simply reducing aid to the independent states. 
There is nothing in there to say that the reduced aid cannot be spent 
in Cuba. And while I do not support any of it being spent in Cuba, I 
think that your amendment really does not truly address the question.
  If you want to reduce aid to Russia, we will reduce aid to Russia, 
but there is no provision in this bill that gives any aid to Russia 
anyway. So I recognize what the gentleman is saying. I sympathize with 
the problem. I will do everything I can to absolutely send whatever 
message to whatever country, whether it be a newly independent state or 
any other country in the world, that we do not want this to take place 
on our shores. I just do not think that the amendment actually 
satisfies what the gentleman is trying to do because there is nothing 
to preclude them from doing it, if we are going to give them aid 
anyway.
                              {time}  1815

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I take a back seat to no one in the desire to save 
money on foreign assistance. During the years that I chaired the 
subcommittee, the foreign aid bill for the United States was reduced 
from $18 billion to $13 billion. I defy anyone to show me any other 
appropriation bill which was cut more deeply.
  I have in my possession, in fact I prize them, three letters from 
previous administrations, the Reagan Administration and the Bush 
Administration, each telling me that they were planning to veto my bill 
because we did not spend enough money, so I take a back seat to no one 
in my desire to see the taxpayers' money is spent judiciously in this 
area.
  However, there is a price for participation effective participation 
in the world. When we do not pay that price, we often pay a far higher 
price. If Members question that, all they have to do is to take a look 
at what happened to the world when the West essentially ignored what 
was happening in the Weimar Republic after World War I in Germany. A 
fellow by the name of Hitler came to power because he exploited the 
fact we did nothing to ease the economic collapse in that country, and 
only 50 million people died, including a good many Americans, so there 
is a price for participation in the world. I would much rather it be 
financial than human.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is a mistake to cut aid to the Soviet Union, 
or the former Soviet Union, below the amount in the administration's 
request. I in fact think it is a mistake to pass this amendment. Aid to 
the former Soviet 

[[Page H 6355]]
Union has already been reduced by 27 percent below last year's level. 
This cuts another $30 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out that two-thirds of this cut will not 
be applied to Russia. It will be applied to other former republics, 
such as Armenia, Ukraine, countries that we would like very much to see 
maintain as much independence as possible. This amendment is going to 
make it more difficult for them to sustain that independence.
  I would also suggest this cut is going to hurt the very people we are 
trying to help in Russia itself, the reformers who want to see a 
market-based economic system, and who want to see a democratic 
political system.
  I understand that this amendment is being offered by members of the 
Florida delegation because they are unhappy about the fact that Cuba 
began in 1983 (before the Communists fell from power in Russia) they 
began the construction of a nuclear power plant, financed partially by 
the former Soviet Union.
  However, I would point out that all Russian aid stopped in 1992, when 
Russia demanded hard currency payments from Cuba. I would point out 
that the only subsidy from Russia since that time was a $30 million 
credit to mothball the plant, not to build it, but to mothball the 
plant. We want that plant mothballed!
  Mr. Chairman, I would also make the point that the press has reported 
that the Cubans would seek Western backers for that plant, but in fact 
the Wall Street Journal contacted the companies allegedly involved and 
they denied any concrete intention to proceed. So it seems to me 
shortsighted to deny $30 million aid to former Soviet Republics because 
they provided $30 million to put the nuclear plant in mothballs. It 
seems to me that is exactly what we want. No sane person, Russian or 
American, want to see that plant built.
  Therefore, it seems to me if we want to effectively oppose the 
construction of any nuclear plant in Cuba that is not to our liking, 
what in fact we ought to be doing is to promote the political causes of 
the factions within Russia who are most opposed to that, and other 
idiotic actions that some of the other factions would like to take.
  Mr. Chairman, I know it is very easy to come into this well and say 
``Let us cut foreign aid.'' As I say, we have cut it billions of 
dollars over the past few years. However, there are times when a 
specific cut can be the wrong thing from the standpoint of American 
interests, and this is such a time.


   amendment offered by mr. wilson as a substitute to the amendment 
                    offered by mr. miller of florida

  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for 
the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Wilson as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Miller of Florida: on page 16, line 
     24, delete $595,000,000 and insert $580,000,000.

  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, this substitute merely reduces the amount 
of the cut from $30 million to $15 million. Mr. Chairman, I would ask 
the gentlewoman, is this acceptable?
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WILSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, is this 
then a $15 million cut from the same budget item on the appropriations 
bill? It was the 595, and the gentleman cut 15.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman, yes.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. 
Chairman, I would ask, would the legislative language be clear in our 
debate? We have tried to make sure that it is understood that our 
intent is that Russia is the target of this.
  I realize that the way that the bill is drafted, and purposely and 
quite deliberately, it is drafted in a way that it has to be taken out 
of Russia and all the newly independent states. Would the gentleman 
agree that the target in this would be Russia, and of course, it is not 
up to us to determine this, I understand, in this bill?
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I do not think I can do this because of the 
way this is drafted. It has to come from all of the newly independent 
states.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, that would 
be a determination?
  Mr. WILSON. We could discuss the language with the managers. I am 
unable to make that commitment at this point.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, if I could further ask the gentleman 
to yield, that would be an acceptable cut, $15 million, from my 
perspective. I am a cosponsor with my colleague, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Miller], if we could ask him for his response on this.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WILSON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would find that acceptable, 
and I would support the gentleman's amendment to my amendment.


   Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley as a Substitute for the Amendment 
offered by Mr. Wilson as a Substitute for the Amendment Offered by Mr. 
                           Miller of Florida

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for 
the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Wilson as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Miller of Florida: strike 
     ``$580,000,000'' and insert ``$296,800,000''.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, is an amendment to the amendment to the 
amendment in order? Is that an amendment in the third degree?
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute 
is not in the third degree and is in order.
  The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the 
substitute which cut the appropriations to the former Soviet Union from 
$595 million to $296.8 million. For those who have been talking about 
how the $30 million cut is too drastic, it is going to seem very, very 
drastic.
  The way we arrived at these figures is to look at last year's. It is 
a little difficult to get at, because it is difficult in the bill to 
know exactly where these dollars are going to go. However, the way we 
arrived at it was to look at the expenditures last year, and some of 
the programs that we thought were foolish expenditures, and subtract 
from that.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], 
for his efforts in putting together a bill that is significantly better 
than the foreign operations bills of the past. The gentleman has worked 
hard to focus American taxpayer dollars on regions that will most 
benefit from U.S. assistance, and prioritize them according to our own 
national security interests.
  The former Soviet Union is such a region. I agree with the 
committee's views that no relationship is more important to the long-
term security of the United States than the strategic relationship with 
the former Soviet Union. If reform fails in the former Soviet Union, 
the potential of nuclear confrontation will increase greatly.
  If I believe this to be true, how could I stand here and promote 
slashing U.S. aid to the newly independent states? Let me tell the 
Members why, because much of the aid we have given, and that which we 
will give again this year, has been a total waste, I think, of taxpayer 
dollars.
  When we think of the aid to the former Soviet Union, most of us think 
of humanitarian aid, or aid to promote free market, or we think of 
strengthening democracy there. However, when we think of aid to the 
former Soviet Union, do we envision Planned Parenthood of Northern New 
England? That is right, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England has 
received over $200,000 of these tax dollars to develop a Center for the 
Formation of Sexual Culture in Russia. I do not know about the Members, 
but that is not high on my list of aid to the Soviet Union priorities.
  Mr. Chairman, we give money intended to implement structural changes 
in Russia, but instead some of this money went to the Center of Love 
and Support, a program to teach employees in Russian hospitals a good 
bedside manner. I wonder how many 

[[Page H 6356]]
Russian children could have been immunized with the $200,000 that was 
spent on that?
  What bothers me most and should bother all of us, I think, is the 
amount of money we are wasting in the so-called aid to the Soviet 
Union. Billions of the dollars we expended in the past has not been 
wisely spent, much of it because between 50 percent and 90 percent of 
the money in these aid packages has not reached the pockets of a single 
pro-democracy, pro-market, pro-reform foreign citizen.
  Instead, this money found its way into the pockets of consultants and 
beltway bandits, and the going rate for a Western consultant to the 
former Soviet Union is about $800 a day, and a lot of them are 
collecting on that rate.
  My constituents are outraged, and I think the gentleman's are, too. I 
encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to cut aid to the 
former Soviet Union. This amendment is intended to zero out many 
programs which are simply so inefficiently administered as to render 
them useless, or are programs we do not need to be involved in, or are 
programs we simply do not have good accountability on. We do not know 
where the money has gone, and we do not know whether it is being spent 
well or not.
  Mr. Chairman, I would encourage support of this amendment.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a massive, massive, massive cut. This would 
absolutely wreck the entire program that the United States has built 
up. It would not only cause great hardship in Russia and certainly put 
the brakes on all the efforts toward privatization there, but it would 
wreck the programs in the Ukraine, it would wreck the programs in 
Armenia, it would wreck the programs in Georgia, and in my opinion, it 
would completely diminish any ability that the United States has to 
affect any events that take place in the former Soviet Union or in 
Russia itself.
  Mr. Chairman, I am surprised at the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] because of the drastic nature of 
it. It is a train wreck. It will destroy any possibility of any sort of 
bipartisan cooperation in passing this bill on the floor. I do not have 
to tell the Members what the State Department or what the 
administration feels.
  Mr. Chairman, often during times when Democrats ran the House and 
Senate and Republicans ran the White House, which has usually been the 
situation since I have been in Congress, I used to always have to 
remind my Democratic colleagues when they had amendments like this that 
would absolutely wreck administration programs that we ought to be a 
little careful and a little moderate, because some day we might have 
the White House.
  I would like to remind my friends in the majority that they ought to 
be a little careful and a little moderate, because some day they might 
have the White House and we might be back in the majority, and then 
they will have to talk to us about this.
  However, this amendment is drastic, it is extreme, it is an sleuth 
show-stopper, and Mr. Chairman, I would urge, urge, urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no''.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last work.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
                              {time}  1830

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, if this amendment were adopted, frankly, it would knock 
out a key component of a declining foreign aid budget. It would affect 
more than Russia. It would affect Armenia, Ukraine, and all of the 
independent states that we are trying to assist in achieving their 
independence from Russia. It would, frankly, just destroy our foreign 
policy with respect to New Independent states of the former Soviet 
Union. I think that is ill-advised. I just hope that the Members will 
vote against it.
  There is reason to be concerned about Russia, for example, their hard 
tactics against Chechnya, but a cease fire is in place and there are 
mediating talks between the Russian government and the Chechnyan 
separatists going on now.
  The Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission is meeting this week to review the 
proposed sale of Russian nuclear reactors to Iran, to ensure that no 
militarily useful components are provided to Iran.
  With regard to NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, Russia has now 
joined NATO's Partnership for peace program.
  Russia is fully supportive of U.N. talks to end the conflict in 
Tajikistan. Russia has signed a framework agreement for the withdrawal 
of its 14th Army in Moldova.
  Russia has recently reached important agreements with Ukraine on 
division of the Black Sea Fleet and basing of the fleet. It is 
reportedly moving to settle a conflict that Georgia faces with 
separatists in the region of Abkhazia.
  It has agreed that any peacekeeping force in Azerbaijan will fall 
under OSCE supervision. It is moving towards parliamentary elections 
this December and presidential elections next June in Russia alone.
  It has withdrawn its troops from the Baltic States, and it is ending 
its targeting of nuclear weapons on the United States. The days of the 
costly and dangerous cold war confrontation are hopefully over for 
good.
  The best way to turn that around is just to turn our back on Russia 
and say, ``All your progress over these last few years is all nice, but 
we're just going to walk away from you. Whatever happens to you, just 
go ahead, reassert your nationalistic, militaristic point of view on 
your neighbors, and we're going to save our money.''
  I would say it is going to cost us a heck of a lot more money 
changing this around when all hell breaks loose in that part of the 
world. This amendment is just not wise.
  I want to take this opportunity to say that I know that the gentleman 
from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr.Wilson] 
have worked with the members of this subcommittee long, hard hours, 
with the staff, to confect this bill. I know that it is the objective 
of the majority to allow as much of an open rule as possible, and allow 
all Members to come forward to the well of the House and offer their 
amendments.
  We have over 70 amendments to this bill. If we want to engage in the 
committee process, if it makes any sense whatsoever to try to develop 
some expertise and some coherent foreign policy, then I hope that the 
Members would have some reliance on the committee process and let it do 
its work.
  But if we want to just write all legislation on
   the floor of the House, fine. We will just forget the committee 
process. Let's just do all of the business on the floor of the House, 
but be prepared to work to midnight from now until Christmas, and let's 
forget about weekends.

  This has just gone a little bit too far. This bill is a good bill, it 
is a balanced bill, and this amendment destroys the balance and 
neglects the role and the objectives of the United States in 
maintaining peace in the world. It is ill-advised. It should be 
rejected.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to the Hefley amendment. My 
colleagues, I do not think there has been anyone in this House who was 
more opposed to the program that the administration brought to this 
Congress in 1994 where the President had committed some $2.1 billion to 
the independent states of the former Soviet Union. I rose and spoke 
against part of that aid to Russia, although I was certainly interested 
in seeing democracy prevail there, but I never rose in support of 
cutting off moneys to the Ukraine or Armenia or any of the other 
independent states.
  Mr. Chairman, no one to my knowledge, including me, rose to say they 
were against aid to Ukraine. No one rose and said we ought not to give 
money to Armenia or to Georgia, because we want those countries to 
survive, and we want them to understand democracy, and we want the 
administration to have the ability to go to the independent states.
  We are not talking about Russia as much as we are the Ukraine and the 
other independent states. There is nothing in my bill that earmarks any 
money for Russia. As a matter of fact, 

[[Page H 6357]]
there is language in my bill that says before they can spend any money 
in Russia, they have to come back to the committees to get permission 
to do it, that we can sign off on.
  No one has been stronger in vocal opposition to aid to Russia for 
silly things like building houses for the retired military officers in 
Russia than I have. I have been the only one that stood on this floor, 
to my knowledge, and said anything about it. I did not hear the 
gentleman from Colorado or anybody else coming up and saying we ought 
to not give aid to Ukraine or Georgia or Armenia, and I did not say it.
  We have come from $2.1 billion. Last year we gave them $842 million. 
This is not Russia. This is all of the independent states. The 
President came this year, and he said, ``Gentlemen, I need $788 
million,'' and I was the one who said we do not have that kind of 
money, we are going to have to cut the independent states just like we 
are cutting everybody else.
  The committee reduced it to $595 million, one-quarter of what we gave 
them just 2 years ago. Now along comes the gentleman from Florida, and 
he recommends another $30 million, and now the gentleman from Texas has 
worked out seemingly a compromise to
 reduce that to only $15 million, which I am going to support.

  But if we are going to tell Armenia, if we are going to tell Georgia, 
if we are going to tell the Ukraine, if we are going to tell anybody 
that we are not going to support the democratization and the ability of 
this administration to assist them to establish these democracies, 
well, then, maybe we ought to cut it all out. Maybe that would be the 
way to go. If you want to build a wall around America and say we are 
not going to participate in this type of international activity, build 
a wall up. Let's do it that way.
  But to come in and to say that we are going to cut $296.8 million and 
take it away from those countries who deserve our help and who we want 
to support, and we don't want to create another cold war, we don't want 
to give them encouragement to begin redeveloping a military, we want to 
assist them where they will not become reunited again, which is what 
your amendment is going to force, I think, ultimately them to do, is to 
say, ``Look, we thought the United States would help us, we thought the 
other G-7 nations would help us, but now they're turning their backs on 
us.''
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the gentleman's substitute amendment. 
I urge Members to vote against the Hefley amendment. I urge Members to 
vote for the Wilson substitute, and if the Wilson substitute passes, I 
would encourage Members to then vote for the Miller amendment as 
substituted by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson].
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. HEFLEY. I thank the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] for 
yielding. I have great respect for your judgment in this. You are 
certainly more knowledgeable than I am.
  It is not just the Ukraine that is getting this money. Booz, Allen & 
Hamilton is getting this money. Paine Webber is getting this money. 
Ernst & Young is getting this money.
  Some of you speak as if I am cutting the whole thing out. We still 
have $300 million in here. You say we have come down a great deal, and 
we certainly have since we started doing this, but is this something, 
do we take them to raise forever?
  Is this something that is going to go on and on forever or are we 
going to see the day when we are not putting any money into the former 
Soviet Union?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we need to put in perspective what we are being 
asked to do here.
  We have an awful lot of self-styled foreign policy experts, starting 
with people like Henry Kissinger himself and going right on down, who 
are saying that we ought to extend our NATO guarantees virtually to the 
Russian border.
  I ask Members, how many people really believe that the American 
people would support the idea that the United States ought to make a 
security commitment to defend all of eastern Europe, possibly even the 
Ukraine and some of the other countries in that region, much as we want 
to see those countries remain free?
  In a public opinion poll, how many Americans do you think would vote 
for us to extend that security commitment with all of the dollars that 
it would cost to maintain that commitment and with all of the cost it 
might someday reach in human terms? I suspect the answer is not very 
many.
  If you believe that, as I do, then it seems to me that what you need 
to do is to find a way to make sure, even though we only affect events 
on the margin in that region, to try to find a way to make sure that we 
never have to provide that kind of money and we never have to provide 
the use of American troops to defend those countries.
  What is the best way to do that? Well, when the Iron Curtain 
collapsed, the Bush administration and the Congress on a bipartisan 
basis decided the best way to do that was to try to promote market 
reforms in the Soviet Union.
  Secretary Baker came down to the committee and he said, ``Look, 
fellows and gals,'' he said, ``I know we're going to make some 
mistakes, but I beg you not to tie our hands. We don't know what 
opportunities are going to be presented to us, we don't know what 
choices are going to be presented to us. We ask you to just trust us to 
do our best in a situation we've never experienced before.''
  It seemed to this subcommittee at that time to be a good bet, because 
we had literally spent trillions of dollars to win the cold war, and we 
did win the cold war. Now we are faced with a Russian economy which is 
in shambles because of the stupidity associated with the Communist 
system. So we are trying to work our way through both political reform 
and economic reform, not just in Russia but in some of the former 
captive nations.
  Now we are told that despite the fact that that rebuilding job has 
barely begun, that we ought to take this bill and reduce aid to the 
former Soviet Union by two-thirds from last year. As the gentleman who 
chairs the subcommittee has indicated, that is an almost three-quarters 
reduction from just 2 years ago.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit that what we are spending today is pennies in 
comparison to what we will have to spend if events go the wrong way in 
Russia and the Ukraine and in other countries in that region.
  You betcha there have been mistakes. I have great respect for the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], but I can give him some other 
examples of mistakes. I recall just a couple of years ago when there 
was an op-ed piece in the Washington Post attacking me because I 
withheld funds for the Enterprise Funds in that region because they 
were insisting on paying salaries of $400,000 a year. And our committee 
held up that whole operation for 4 months until they blew that 
arrangement away.
  You have been told by the subcommittee chairman that not a dime is 
going to be able to be spent in Russia until they bring the way they 
intend to spend it back to the committee so we can make a judgment 
about it. That is going a far piece, to make certain that to the best 
of our ability in the legislative as opposed to administrative body, 
that we can help prevent the executive branch from making further 
mistakes.
  I do not like the fact that a single dime was wasted. But the fact is 
I think that it was perfectly understandable for the previous 
administrations to say, ``look, we've got to try everything. 
Undoubtedly we will make some mistakes, but we're going to experiment. 
We hope you bear with us.'' I think it was reasonable for them to ask 
us that. I think it is reasonable for the Clinton administration to ask 
that we give them reasonable flexibility in dealing with all of the 
problems in that region. I would respectfully suggest that we would be 
cutting off our nose to spite our face and damaging our own economic 
and political and national interest if we make this kind of reduction. 
I urge Members not to do this.

[[Page H 6358]]


                              {time}  1845

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Speaker, I will not take the full 5 minutes, but I rise in strong 
support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Hefley]. I think it is a very fair and reasonable amendment. I rise in 
support of this amendment not as any criticism of the gentleman from 
Alabama, because I think that he has done everything within his power 
to make this bill as fair to everyone as possible and to cut it as low 
as possible, but the last speaker mentioned that he thinks that a 
public opinion poll would show that very few people would support an 
extension of NATO. I would say to you that I think a very small 
percentage, a very few of the American citizens, an overwhelming 
majority of the American citizens would not support us even spending 
$300 million in aid to the States of the former Soviet Union, and that 
is, of course, the amount that would be left to do in the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Colorado.
  We should have no reason to feel guilty about that figure of $300 
million, because we have sent billions over there just the last few 
years. In fact, 4 years ago Leslie Gelb, the foreign affairs editor of 
the New York Times, estimated that the combined Western aid to the 
former States of the Soviet Union had totaled $60 billion, most of it 
coming from the United States.
  Two years ago this Congress voted to send $12 billion to the States 
of the former Soviet Union through the International Monetary Fund and 
the World Bank. Then in addition to that the gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Callahan] mentioned a few moments ago that 2 years ago we sent 
$2.1 billion in direct aid to the States of the former Soviet Union. I 
think it was $830 million last year. If we reduced it to $300 million 
this year we would still have done many times more than any other 
country in this entire world.
  As the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] has mentioned, much of 
this money, most of this money, is going to overpriced, overpaid 
consultants. He got this figure of $800 a day for a typical consultant 
from a story which ran in the Wall Street Journal last year, and that 
story ran under a headline, quote, ``U.S. Aid is Quite a Windfall for 
U.S. Consultants,'' and some consultants are receiving as much as 90 
percent of certain aid contracts.
  And listen to this. The article said that there is, ``dancing in the 
streets'' by consultants but hardly any of the money is getting through 
to the average Russian. The story reported criticism because of waste 
and meager results. That same story quoted one expert as saying that, 
``The aid benefits Russians minimally, if at all,'' and that he expects 
``a scandal down the road that is going to upset the taxpayers.''
  A few years ago, 3 or 4 years ago, Henry Kissinger wrote an article 
for the Washington Post that said unfortunately most of our aid to 
Russia is going down a black hole. We need to stop pouring money down 
that black hole.
  Our first obligation is to the U.S. taxpayers. We are still almost $5 
trillion in debt. We are still losing almost a billion dollars a day. 
We are spending money that we do not have; $300 million in aid to the 
States of the former Soviet union is plenty.
  I urge support for this amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise with a great deal of sympathy for the intent of 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  I think that it is appropriate that Congress act on the floor of the 
House of Representatives with respect to sending a message to Russia. 
But I think that the gentleman's amendment is probably for method, for 
money, and for message the wrong place to send this message to the 
Russian people. Let me explain what I mean.
  First of all, I would oppose the gentleman's amendment because of the 
method. I will offer an amendment under title V which will place a 
limitation on moneys to Russia. It will not get into the moneys that 
would go to the newly independent states. We do not want to punish 
under this amendment, even though we are saying this is intended for 
Russia, it is the account for the newly independent states as well. So 
it is not the appropriate method to achieve the message that we want to 
send to Russia.
  Second, the money. Certainly, as we send the hundreds of millions of 
dollars to the Russian people, some of the programs, very effective, 
very efficient, are working to achieve what we hope that the Russian 
people achieve, and that is a transition to a free enterprise system 
and democracy.
  Some of the money that we are sending is under the Nunn-Lugar money, 
which is trying to achieve peace and stability, and I support that 
money. Some of the money is sent from our NASA account to buy the 
Russian participation in the space station. I object to that money.
  But certainly we should have a voice when we send hundreds of 
millions of dollars over there. I think that is what the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Miller] and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] are 
saying, but we do not want to devastate our relationship with the 
Russian people at such a delicate and precarious time. I think to send 
the message that we are going to cut $296 million out of aid to the 
Russian people is simply too much at this delicate, precarious time.
  I think more in terms of a limitation only to Russia, directed at 
Russia, and specifically limiting it by $30 million; a $30 million cut, 
as I would propose under title V, would be more appropriate.
  Last, I think, Mr. Chairman, it is very appropriate for us to send a 
message to Mr. Yeltsin and the Russian people that they must stop 
immediately this war in Chechnya. This is in our direct interest to do. 
It is in our direct interest because the Russians have just recently 
acquired a $6.2 billion loan from the IMF. We are the largest guarantor 
of those loans through the IMF. We have a great deal at stake in the 
Russian transformation to a free enterprise system and a democracy, and 
the Russian people, the Russian Government are spending about $2 
billion in pursuing this war in Chechnya.
  Now, this is morally and ethically a tragic war that is taking away 
from the efforts to transform their economy and their government. So I 
think it is appropriate for us to send a message to them. I would hope 
that the gentleman from Colorado would join on title V where we can 
directly limit the aid to Russia rather than get at some of the newly 
independent states' moneys.
  I think it is very appropriate for the United States Congress to say 
to the Russians and to Mr. Yeltsin: ``This war has got to stop. It is 
hurting you in the West. It is hurting you in the world. It is hurting 
your people. It is hurting people. It is hurting peace. It is an 
immoral war, and it must stop.''
  That is a good message for the people of the United States to send to 
the people of Russia and to Mr. Yeltsin.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the entire 
5 minutes, but I do rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], my good friend, and in support of 
the compromise offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] and 
modified by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] and the gentlewoman 
from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].
  Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago I was on the floor of the House perhaps 
leading the fight on increasing funds for missile defense and for 
putting some limitations on Nunn-Lugar money so that we could get some 
cooperation from the Russians on their chemical and biological weapons.
  But, Mr. Chairman, this amendment I think sends a totally wrong 
signal. It is important for us, I think, to let the Russian military 
know that we are going to deal with them from a position of strength 
and that we are going to take what steps we have to take to protect our 
people.
  But it is equally important for us to send a signal to the Russian 
people, and the citizens of Armenia and Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan and 
Uzbekistan and Tadzhikistan, and all 

[[Page H 6359]]
those other former Soviet republics, that we are going to work with 
them to help them move away from a military-industrial economy, move 
toward a free market system.
  That is what this money does, Mr. Chairman. I think that this 
amendment sends the wrong signal. Let us look at some of the specific 
programs that have benefited from this funding. I will just give some 
examples of ones that I have been working with.
  Our good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] and I for 
the last 2\1/2\ years have cochaired the Former Soviet Union-American 
Energy Caucus. We have worked with the 16 largest energy corporations 
in the world, most of them American corporations, to develop energy 
initiatives inside the former Soviet republics. The assistance from 
programs like those funded today made possible the single largest 
energy deal in the world.
  The Sakhalin project deal was just concluded this past year. It will 
see $10 billion of western investment that will allow Mobil and 
Marathon Corp. to work with the Russians in developing what we think is 
one of the world's largest energy resources.
  That will directly benefit this country, private sector money, 
western capital, and help stabilize the
 Russian economy.

  The same thing is happening right now in the Caspian Sea where we are 
working with a group that wants to develop a project and a pipeline 
that may help us bring together the Armenians and the Azeris in a way 
that will allow then to see economic benefits from a project developing 
energy resources in the Caspian Sea.
  Why are these projects so important? The alternative for the Russian 
people, and those people of the other former Soviet republics, is to 
sell off their nuclear technology; that is unacceptable to us. To sell 
off their conventional arms to raise capital; that is unacceptable to 
us. We have seen them do it with the submarine sales to Iran with the 
efforts to sell off their technology.
  Therefore, we must work in a positive way to develop joint economic 
opportunities and to help the Russians realize their full economic 
potential. Just last year a delegation of the Members of this Congress, 
bipartisan, went over to Murmansk, and we came back and worked with the 
Trade Development Administration. We have heard criticism about 
consultants.
  The Trade Development Administration awarded a $300,000 grant to the 
MacKinnon Searle Group of Virginia to begin the study of the conversion 
of the largest shipyard in St. Petersburg. The Baltic shipyards in St. 
Petersburg is where the Russians built the Kirov-class warships, where 
they have potential to build nuclear warships, 8,500 workers.
  Money that will be cut in this amendment was used to begin the 
process of converting that shipyard to an environmental remediation 
center where instead of building warships, those 8,500 workers can help 
dismantle old Russian warships and deal with PCB's and lead-based 
paints and the other problems inherent in naval warships.
  In addition, we have seen from the funding that would be cut in this 
amendment the development of an Biz-net program. And I urge my 
colleagues to do down to the Department of Commerce and see the 
tremendous strides made in working to encourage American businesses to 
do joint ventures in Russia and the other republics.
  That is creating American jobs and American economic opportunity, but 
it is having a direct positive impact on the Russian economy and the 
economy of the other republics.
  Mr. Chairman, I am as concerned about what is happening in Chechnya 
as any of my colleagues in this body. But, Mr. Chairman, I think this 
amendment sends the wrong signal. I think we have to be aggressive with 
the Russian Government, as we did on the defense bill. But I think we 
also have to show that we want to be supportive; we want to nurture the 
free enterprise developments that are occurring there; we want to 
encourage the kind of positive economic opportunities that are 
developing throughout the former Soviet states today.
  So I would urge my colleagues, despite my friendship with the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], to oppose this amendment and to 
support the efforts of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] and also 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] in this amending process.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hefley amendment and in 
support of the Wilson substitute, I know that it is fun to come down to 
the floor and do a lot of cutting. I used to do it a lot on my own. And 
I hope Members heard the gentleman from Pennsylvania's excellent 
presentation on being responsible when you do the cutting.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee has been responsible. The committee has 
made deep cuts in aid to the former Soviet Union. But the Hefley 
amendment goes way too far and seriously undermines our ability to work 
with Russia and the independent states, as the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] has so eloquently outlined.
  Two-thirds of the money that is left in this bill, after having cut 
it to $193 million less than the request, and $248 million less than 
last year, two-thirds of this money does not go to Russia.
  The Hefley amendment cuts aid to Ukraine, Armenia, and other victims 
of the former Communist state. We need to continue our support for an 
independent Ukraine. We need this money to keep Armenia alive. It will 
seriously undercut the remaining free marketeers and reformers in 
Russia.

                              {time}  1900

  It is not responsible, from this Member's point of view, to make the 
kind of cuts that the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] envisions 
cutting. He has made some good arguments, and they are arguments that 
we need to address, but this is not the way to address it.
  The way to address it is look at what the committee has done and 
seriously sending a message to Russia by cutting from the request and 
cutting from last year.
  But there are real, legitimate concerns that the committee has. We 
are sending a message with the Wilson substitute, a very real message 
that if Russia does not clean up their act, there will be consequences 
from this body. But when you come to the rubber hitting the road, you 
have to ask yourself, are we cutting for cutting sake or are we cutting 
to make responsible decisions?
  I think the Hefley amendment cuts too deep. I would urge our Members 
to vote against Hefley amendment and support the Wilson substitute.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I will not take the full 5 minutes. I would like to echo what the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] said about what I consider to be 
the very dangerous idea of expanding NATO into countries the American 
people probably have not too much interest in defending and that can 
make no contribution on their own. I do not think the United States 
really and truly wants to extend our nuclear umbrella to the borders of 
Russia.
  I would like to remind the members that we are talking about, in the 
great scheme of things, we are talking about a very minuscule amount of 
money. The most successful foreign policy initiative that the United 
States has ever enjoyed was the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan saved 
Europe from communism. We even extended the Marshall Plan to Germany, 
to our great enemy in World War II. But, again, it saved democracy. It 
kept Europe from becoming communist. It kept Europe from coming behind 
the Iron Curtain. It was done in a great bipartisan manner. It was not 
popular with the American people. It was an enormous amount of money, 
particularly compared to what we are doing today.
  I suggest that this modest investment in the newly independent states 
is in the same spirit as the Marshall Plan was.
  Finally, I would like to underline one more time that two-thirds of 
this money, two-thirds of this cut, are going to cut the hearts out of 
the programs that we have in the Ukraine, that we have in Armenia, that 
we have in Georgia and that we have in other countries which I not only 
cannot spell but I cannot pronounce.

[[Page H 6360]]

  Finally, finally, finally, I would like to remind the House that we 
are talking here about a couple hundred million dollars. But I would 
also remind the House that since the Berlin Wall came down, since the 
great changes occurred in the Soviet Union and since the disintegration 
of the Soviet Union, that we have saved probably today, this year, our 
defense budget is probably $200 billion less than it would be if we 
were still facing a highly nationalistic Soviet Union. So I think, by 
any measure, by any measure, that the Hefley amendment should be 
defeated.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] as a substitute for the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] as a substitute for 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
                             recorded vote

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XXIII, the Chair will 
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the time for a recorded vote, if 
ordered, on the Wilson substitute and then on the original Miller 
amendment, if there is no intervening business or debate following the 
15-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 104, 
noes 320, not voting 10, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 425]

                               AYES--104

     Allard
     Baker (LA)
     Barcia
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Brewster
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Canady
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cunningham
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ensign
     Everett
     Fields (LA)
     Funderburk
     Geren
     Goodlatte
     Green
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Inglis
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Lewis (KY)
     Lincoln
     Longley
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Pastor
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Quillen
     Ramstad
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Traficant
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--320

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Camp
     Collins (MI)
     Furse
     Gunderson
     Mfume
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Torricelli
     Yates
     Zimmer

                              {time}  1924

  Mr. RUSH and Mr. VOLKMER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. KIM, LEWIS of Kentucky, METCALF, WHITFIELD, and GOODLATTE, 
Mrs. CHENOWETH, and Messrs. BURTON of Indiana, DOOLITTLE, EVERETT, 
BARTON of Texas, and INGLIS of South Carolina changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment offered as 
a substitute for the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] as a substitute for the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller].
  The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.


                  amendment offered by ms. jackson-lee

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee: Page 19, line 16, 
     strike ``$10,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``$11,500,000''.

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, first let me applaud the work that has 
been done by the mutual chairperson/ranking member.

                              {time}  1930

  A parable has been heard by many of us that says if you give a man a 
fish, he will ask for another fish tomorrow. But if you teach him how 
to fish, then he will be independent and be able to make a way for 
himself in years to come.
  I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 1868, which would increase 
the funding for the African Development Foundation in the fiscal year 
1996 from $10 to $11.5 million. This is a modest increase, Mr. 
Chairman, but it will help the African Development Foundation to 
continue its important work in 20 African countries.
  Established in 1980, the African Development Foundation is a 
progressive organization that delivers funds directly to self-help 
organizations in economically undeveloped countries in Africa. Since no 
funds are channeled through any foreign government, the ADF avoids any 
bureaucratic patterns in dispensing funds.

[[Page H 6361]]

  This organization has been instrumental in expanding ties and 
developing good will among the citizens of the United States and the 
citizens of many African countries. I understand that every Federal 
program and every agency is now under extensive review under this 
concept of responding to the Federal budget deficit. However, I would 
simply say in keeping in mind about teaching a man or woman to fish, 
and helping to feed hungry children and improving the development 
opportunities in developing nations, that this amendment needs and 
deserves consideration. I would ask my colleagues to consider it, 
because it adds to the funding to help impact the real lives of people 
in our developing nations.
  I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that I hope we are able to come to 
a reasoned response and compromise for the African Development 
Foundation which will be strengthened by these additional dollars of 
$1.5 million. It will help strengthen the economies, enhance the number 
of people that can benefit from the grants awarded to agricultural 
cooperatives, youth groups and self-help organizations.
  These groups have been effective stewards of the grants that range 
from 20,000 to 250,000. That is the most important part of ADF. It 
provides small amounts of money that are leveraged into large amounts 
of activity and success. My amendment is important to the African 
Development Foundation and to the people of Africa and to millions of 
Americans who support adequate development assistance.
  Again, it reinforces the point, Mr. Chairman, that if you give a man 
a fish, or a woman, they will ask for another fish tomorrow. But teach 
them to fish, and they will maintain that opportunity for development 
for years to come.
  I ask my colleagues to support this modest amendment to make a 
statement for enhancing opportunity for our African countries and their 
self-help organizations.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alabama seek recognition on his 
point of order?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to withdraw my point of 
order and accept the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, there is no objection to the amendment on 
this side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?
  The Clerk will designate title III.
  The text of title III is as follows:
                     TITLE III--MILITARY ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


             international military education and training

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 541 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $39,000,000: Provided, That up to $100,000 of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading may be made available for 
     grant financed military education and training for any high 
     income country on the condition that that country agrees to 
     fund form its own resources the transportation cost and 
     living allowances of its students: Provided further, That the 
     civilian personnel for whom military education and training 
     may be provided under this heading may also include members 
     of national legislatures who are responsible for the 
     oversight and management of the military, and may also 
     include individuals who are not members of a government: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading shall be available for Zaire: Provided further, 
     That funds appropriated under this heading for grant financed 
     military education and training for Indonesia and Guatemala 
     may only be available for expanded military education and 
     training.


                   foreign military financing program

       For expenses necessary for grants to enable the President 
     to carry out the provisions of section 23 of the Arms Export 
     Control Act, $3,211,279,000: Provided, That funds 
     appropriated by this paragraph that are made available for 
     Israel and Egypt shall be made available only as grants: 
     Provided further, That the funds appropriated by this 
     paragraph that are made available for Israel shall be 
     disbursed within thirty days of enactment of this Act or by 
     October 31, 1995, whichever is later: Provided further, That 
     to the extent that the Government of Israel requests that 
     funds be used for such purposes, grants made available for 
     Israel by this paragraph shall, as agreed by Israel and the 
     United States, be available for advanced weapons systems, of 
     which not to exceed $475,000,000 shall be available for the 
     procurement in Israel of defense articles and defense 
     services, including research and development: Provided 
     further, That funds made available under this paragraph shall 
     be nonrepayable notwithstanding any requirement in section 23 
     of the Arms Export Control Act: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds made available under this heading shall be 
     available for any non-NATO country participating in the 
     Partnership for Peace Program except through the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.
       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of direct loans authorized 
     by section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act as follows: cost 
     of direct loans, $64,400,000: Provided, That these
      funds are available to subsidize gross obligations for the 
     principal amount of direct loans of not to exceed 
     $544,000,000: Provided further, That the rate of interest 
     charged on such loans shall be not less than the current 
     average market yield on outstanding marketable obligations 
     of the United States of comparable maturities: Provided 
     further, That funds appropriated under this heading shall 
     be made available for Greece and Turkey only on a loan 
     basis, and the principal amount of direct loans for each 
     country shall not exceed $224,000,000 for Greece and shall 
     not exceed $320,000,000 for Turkey.
       None of the funds made available under this heading shall 
     be available to finance the procurement of defense articles, 
     defense services, or design and construction services that 
     are not sold by the United States Government under the Arms 
     Export Control Act unless the foreign country proposing to 
     make such procurements has first signed an agreement with the 
     United States Government specifying the conditions under 
     which such procurements may be financed with such funds: 
     Provided, That all country and funding level increases in 
     allocations shall be submitted through the regular 
     notification procedures of section 515 of this Act: Provided 
     further, That funds made available under this heading shall 
     be obligated upon apportionment in accordance with paragraph 
     (5)(C) of title 31, United States Code, section 1501(a): 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading shall be available for Zaire, Sudan, Peru, 
     Liberia, and Guatemala: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds appropriated or otherwise made available for use under 
     this heading may be made available for Colombia or Bolivia 
     until the Secretary of State certifies that such funds will 
     be used by such country primarily for counternarcotics 
     activities: Provided further, That funds made available under 
     this heading may be used, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, for demining activities, and may include activities 
     implemented through nongovernmental and international 
     organizations: Provided further, That not more than 
     $100,000,000 of the funds made available under this heading 
     shall be available for use in financing the procurement of 
     defense articles, defense services, or design and 
     construction services that are not sold by the United States 
     Government under the arms Export Control Act to countries 
     other than Israel and Egypt: Provided further, That only 
     those countries for which assistance was justified for the 
     ``Foreign Military Sales Financing Program'' in the fiscal 
     year 1989 congressional presentation for security assistance 
     programs may utilize funds made available under this heading 
     for procurement of defense articles, defense services or 
     design and construction services that are not sold by the 
     United States Government under the Arms Export Control Act: 
     Provided further, That, subject to the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations, funds made 
     available under this heading for the cost of direct loans may 
     also be used to supplement the funds available under this 
     heading for grants, and funds made available under this 
     heading for grants may also be used to supplement the funds 
     available under this heading for the cost of direct loans: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading 
     shall be expended at the minimum rate necessary to make 
     timely payment for defense articles and services: Provided 
     further, That the Department of Defense shall conduct during 
     the current fiscal year nonreimbursable audits of private 
     firms whose contracts are made directly with foreign 
     governments and are financed with funds made available under 
     this heading (as well as subcontractors thereunder) as 
     requested by the Defense Security Assistance Agency: Provided 
     further, That not more than $24,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading may be obligated for 
     necessary expenses, including the purchase of passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only for use outside of the United 
     States, for the general costs of administering military 
     assistance and sales: Provided further, That not more than 
     $355,000,000 of funds realized pursuant to section 
     21(e)(1)(A) of the Arms Export Control Act may be obligated 
     for expenses incurred by the Department of Defense during 
     fiscal year 1996 pursuant to section 43(b) of the Arms Export 
     Control Act, except that this limitation may be exceeded only 
     through the regular notification procedures of the Committees 
     on Appropriations.


                        peacekeeping operations

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 551 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $68,300,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title III?


                    amendment offered by mrs. lowey

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page H 6362]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Lowey: Page 23, line 19, insert 
     ``or Indonesia'' after ``Zaire''.
       Page 23, line 21, strike ``Indonesia and''.

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama reserves a point of order.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to correct a critical flaw in 
the bill before us. In 1992, we voted to end all international military 
education and training assistance for Indonesia because of that 
country's abysmal human rights record and their continued oppression of 
the people of East Timor.
  Regrettably, this bill reinstates IMET funding for Indonesia, which 
has shown no significant improvement in its human rights record since 
the IMET ban was imposed. In fact, the State Department's own human 
rights report notes that there have been only cosmetic changes in East 
Timor.
  Violent crackdowns on peaceful demonstrations in East Timor continue. 
First, innocent protestors are massacred and then the military rounds 
up and jails the witnesses so that the world will never know what 
happens. Is this the type of oppression we want to be rewarding with 
U.S. assistance? I don't think so.
  The State Department report goes on: ``Extrajudicial arrests and 
detention, torture of those in custody, and excessively violent 
techniques for dealing with suspected troublemakers continued'' 
throughout Indonesia. ``The Armed Forces continued to be responsible 
for the most serious human rights abuses.''
  In November 1991, in the city of Dili, the Indonesian military 
slaughtered 200 people in full view of news cameras. Sixty-five people 
are still unaccounted for, and yet the Indonesian Government does not 
apologize for these killings. On the contrary, the regional commander 
of East Timor, Gen. Herman Mantiri, said: ``We don't regret anything. 
What happened was quite proper. They were opposing us.''
  Mr. Chairman, Indonesia's policy in East Timor is about the 
oppression of people who oppose Indonesia's right to torture, kill, and 
repress the people of East Timor. It is about the 200,000 Timorese who 
were slaughtered by the Indonesian military when they invaded in 1975. 
Two-hundred thousand killed out of a total population of 700,000. It is 
about genocide.
  The language in this bill is the first step toward releasing pressure 
on the Indonesian Government to clean up its act. Without passage of 
this amendment, we will continue to support a government that laughs in 
the face of the human rights principles that we hold dear.
  We, in Congress, made the right decision in 1992 when we cut off all 
IMET funding to Indonesia. But we must not go backward now. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment and send a message to Indonesia 
that we will not tolerate the oppression of the Timorese people.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] seek 
recognition on his point of order?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am really sorry this amendment has to be offered. I 
would have hoped that the Indonesian Government would have learned, and 
this is an opportunity I think to send a message to them. The amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] is a good 
amendment. The Indonesian military should not be rewarded for their 
conduct with the American IMET dollars. Congress and the American 
people value human rights and dignity, and we should not be timid about 
conveying that message to countries that do not share our basic 
concerns. We should be prepared to use bills like this to send that 
message.
  Mr. Chairman, the State Department's country reports on Human Rights 
Practices for 1994 reports, ``The Indonesian Government continued to 
commit serious human rights abuses and in some areas, notably freedom 
of expression, it became markedly more oppressive, departing from a 
long-term trend toward greater openness. The most serious abuses 
included the continuing inability of the people to change their 
government and harsh repression in East Timor.''
  I would tell the Members of the body, if they could have seen the 
film and talked to the men and women that were there, what the 
Indonesian army did to these people was brutal, absolute persecution of 
the Catholic Church. The Congress should be concerned with these 
issues, and I strongly urge the Members of the body to support this 
amendment. Hopefully this will send a message to Indonesia, where by 
next year things will be good and this will not be a problem.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]. I think she makes a persuasive 
and compelling case. The ongoing violation of human rights in Indonesia 
is unsustainable in a moral way, and certainly not supportable in a 
budgetary way.
  It is my understanding that shortly the Chair will be asked to rule 
on a point of order with respect to legislating on an appropriations 
bill. Let me just make this comment: Presumably the Chair will consider 
whether the proper time to offer the Lowey amendment would have been 
during the authorization bill. During the authorization bill, we 
labored under a rule that ate up a considerable amount of time on some 
very important amendments, that ate up a long, long time of debate. 
There were dozens and dozens of amendments like this one that could 
have been offered that were not heard during that debate.
  Now, it seems to me that this kind of consideration of process puts 
the Members of this House in a Catch-22 situation. You cannot legislate 
on an appropriations bill by attaching conditions to spending like 
this. That is our rule. And then you are supposed to pursue it in an 
authorization bill. But when the authorization bills come up, we have 
unduly restricted rules that cut off debate in an arbitrary time and 
never permit this kind of thing to come up.
  The real shame, Mr. Chairman, the real shame that is being raised by 
Mrs. Lowey's amendment, is that such a meritorious and critical debate 
will never really happen and never really get a vote because of the way 
the rules of the House are being manipulated. I think that is a shame.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment and commend 
the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], and the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], for their leadership in proposing this amendment. 
Indeed, I attempted to offer a similar amendment to H.R. 1561, the 
Foreign Aid Authorization bill, but as my colleague from New Jersey 
explained, because of this construction of the rule, I was effectively 
prevented from doing this.
  In 1992, my former colleague from Rhode Island, Mr. Machtley, offered 
successfully an amendment to cut training for funding for the training 
of Indonesia military in response to flagrant abuses of human rights in 
East Timor. When Congress cut this money, it send two strong messages: 
First, to the Government of Indonesia that the U.S. will not tolerate 
any more human rights abuses by the military in East Timor, and, 
second, to the East Timorese, who were finally given hope that someone 
had listened to their call for help and provided them a voice in the 
face of oppression.
  Today we are debating a bill which effectively restores this money. 
That might be appropriate if the conditions in East Timor had improved, 
but in fact they have not.
  I would like to emphasize that this amendment is not about the 
efficacy of American military training and the value of exposing 
foreign military personnel to our professional military instruction. 
No, this is about sending a strong signal concerning the abuse of human 
rights in East Timor.
  In June and July of last year, Indonesian troops committed acts of 
sacrilege against the East Timorese 

[[Page H 6363]]
church and clergy. The courts are still sentencing people to long 
prison terms for speaking to journalists or sending information 
critical of the government. On January 12 of this year, Indonesian 
soldiers killed six men outside Dili. These six civilians were shot in 
retaliation for a guerrilla attack the day before, but sources present 
indicate that the six were never involved in the attack.
  At a joint hearing before the International Relations Subcommittee on 
Asia and the Pacific and International Operations and Human Rights on 
March 16, the Director of the Human Rights Watch stated, ``In East 
Timor, violations of fundamental rights have been especially severe, 
and have worsened dramatically since the APEC summit meeting in 
Djakarta last November.''
  When we are cutting aid to Africa and are cutting many, many worthy 
programs, it seems incongruous we would be giving money in the face of 
these human rights abuses.
  I would urge my colleagues to accept the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]. I would urge them to send a 
strong signal to the Government of Indonesia that we will not tolerate 
further human rights abuses in East Timor.
  A headline in the New York Times in November of last year stated, 
``Timorese worry world will now forget them.'' Mr. Chairman, I urge my 
colleagues not to forget them, to stick to the precedent we have now 
established. We have taken a stand. We can make a difference. Mr. 
Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Lowey-Wolf amendment.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my point of order on the 
amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise as a supporter and a true believer in the 
International Military Education and Training program. But I am 
compelled, like my colleagues who have just spoken, by the overwhelming 
evidence to support this amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New 
York [Mrs. Lowey], and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  This is a good program, but this is the wrong time and the wrong 
place for IMET. For 3 years, Congress has denied IMET to Indonesia. A 
careful look at the record shows that this is no time to shift this 
policy. When Congress, at the urging of my predecessor, Ron Machtley, 
revoked Indonesian participation in IMET, a clear and unmistakable 
message was sent. We will no longer tolerate an intolerable situation. 
The human rights abuses in East Timor must end. Simply put, the abuses 
have not ended. IMET should not be restored.
  This amendment is most appropriate, considering recent assessments of 
human rights conditions in Indonesia. To quote from the State 
Department's 1994 human rights report,

       The Indonesian government continued to commit serious human 
     rights abuses and in some areas, notably freedom of 
     expression, it became markedly more repressive. The most 
     serious abuse included the continuing inability of the people 
     to change their government and harsh repression of the East 
     Timorese dissidents. Restoring IMET at this time would run 
     counter to these findings and would undermine the moral force 
     of these findings.

  We have in Indonesia a situation where the benefits of IMET would be 
lost. The corruption is too deep. The violence is too extreme. And the 
repression is too severe for us to hold any hope that it can be 
tempered through education and training. IMET is designed to support 
democracy and military professionalism, and we cannot support what does 
not already exist.
  U.S. aid cannot fill this vacuum. IMET is a powerful and effective 
tool. It must be used in the right way at the right time. This is not 
the time. Only through continued pressure will we be able to have the 
opportunity for an improvement in East Timor. Now is not the time for 
the United States to send conflicting messages on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the Lowey amendment, and I ask 
my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my point of order on the 
amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lowey-Kennedy amendment and 
urge our colleagues to support them. First, before speaking about that 
amendment, I want to commend our chairman, the gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Callahan], and the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], as well as our ranking members, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Wilson], for their leadership in bringing this very strong bipartisan 
bill to the floor.
  As a member of the subcommittee, I want to personally thank Mr. 
Callahan for his exceptional leadership his first time out with this 
bill. He has consulted individually and personally with members of the 
subcommittee, listened to our concerns and did the best that he could 
do under the circumstances of our very limited allocation. That 
allocation was limited not because our chairman of the full committee, 
Mr. Livingston, did not work hard to get us a better allocation but 
just the realities of the budget resolution.
  It is in that spirit of bipartisanship and admiration for our 
chairman that I hope that we can pass this not perfect but best 
possible bill we could get on the floor today. I hope when we do pass 
it today or tomorrow that it will have the Lowey-Kennedy language in 
it.
  To get to the point about Indonesia, because I know time is of the 
essence, it is a close call on the enhanced and expanded IMET. Many of 
us have had some very serious concerns about how IMET funds have been 
used throughout the world. And in some countries, it underwrites the 
brutality of authoritarian regimes with U.S. taxpayers' dollars. The 
expanded IMET is supposed to be used to teach human rights training, 
democratic institutions, the role of a military in a democratic 
society. And it would be hoped that that is what these purposes would 
be in Indonesia. And I commend the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. 
Lowey] and the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] for bringing 
this resolution to the floor because it focuses just on what expanded 
IMET is and why if we would continue to grant it, if we would grant it 
to Indonesia, why it should be used specifically for those purposes.
  The concern of some of us is that funds sent to a country are 
fungible and if the regime happens to be authoritarian and a violator 
of human rights, then we are subsidizing that even with our good 
intentions.
  Others today have talked about what the situation is in Indonesia in 
terms of human rights. I will say that I will join with some others in 
quoting the 1995 State Department human rights country report which 
calls Indonesia ``strongly authoritarian'' and notes that ``it became 
markedly more repressive'' during 1994 as the ``government continues to 
commit serious human rights abuses.''
  Last December, a United Nations Special Rapporteur noted,

     the conditions that allowed the 1991 Santa Cruz killings to 
     occur are still present. In particular, the members of the 
     security forces responsible for the abuses have not been held 
     accountable and continue to enjoy virtual impunity.

  The Rapporteur ``clearly sensed terror among many East Timorese he 
had the opportunity to meet.'' The situation has gotten worse during 
the first half of 1995.
  That is all to say, Mr. Chairman, that I think that we should have 
the opportunity to discuss this issue. If the Chair has a point of 
order that we cannot pass it here today, at least we should be sending 
a message to the authoritarian regime in Indonesia that if they get 
this IMET, it is to be for enhanced, that is, training their troops in 
human rights and training their military in the proper role of the 
military in a democratic society.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I again commend our chairman, Mr. Callahan, 
and the ranking member, Mr. Wilson, for their great leadership on this 
legislation.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. Before pressing my point of order, I want to rise in opposition 
to the amendment and speak to it just briefly.

[[Page H 6364]]

  I do rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentlewoman from New 
York, although I know she is offering it because it is based upon her 
own strongly held convictions as well as the other speakers who have 
spoken tonight. I appreciate the strong concerns of the gentleman from 
Virginia and the gentlewoman from California, the gentleman from Rhode 
Island. But as the gentlewoman from New York knows, under our bill, 
Indonesia will not be eligible for IMET training.
  Under H.R. 1868, Indonesia will only be able to receive human rights 
training under the expanded IMET training, as it is called. Expanded 
IMET is specifically designed to help improve human rights practices of 
the military. This is exactly the kind of program I think the 
gentlewoman from New York should be supporting.
  Furthermore, I would note that the House Committee on International 
Relations has already recommended expanding IMET for Indonesia, and 
included it in the authorization bill passed by the full House on June 
8.
  Also I note that because of the concern of the gentlewoman from New 
York, the committee report requires that all candidates for expanded 
IMET be carefully screened to make certain they have not been involved 
in past human rights abuses. I would hope under those circumstances 
that the gentlewoman would reconsider offering her amendment in light 
of the committee's action on this very important amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, before I do, I want to thank the gentleman 
again and commend him for his outstanding leadership of this committee.
  It has really been a privilege for me to work with the gentleman. He 
has been open. He has worked in a bipartisan way. He has approached 
each issue in a very thoughtful manner. I want to thank the gentleman, 
again, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson].
  In response to the gentleman's request, I do want to ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw the amendment. Mr. Chairman, we will be watching 
expanded IMET for Indonesia over the next year. And if the human rights 
records does not improve, we will work to cut off all IMET funding next 
year.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title III?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title IV.
  The text of title IV is as follows:

               TITLE IV--MULTILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  funds appropriated to the president

                  International Financial Institutions

     contribution to the international bank for reconstruction and 
                              development

       For payment to the International Bank for Reconstruction 
     and Development by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the 
     United States share of the paid-in share portion of the 
     increases in capital stock for the General Capital Increase, 
     $23,009,000, to remain available until expended.
       For payment to the International Bank for Reconstruction 
     and Development by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the 
     United States contribution to the Global Environment Facility 
     (GEF), $50,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     1997.


              limitation on callable capital subscriptions

       The United States Governor of the International Bank for 
     Reconstruction and Development may subscribe without fiscal 
     year limitation to the callable capital portion of the United 
     States share of increases in capital stock in an amount not 
     to exceed $743,900,000.


       contribution to the international development association

       For payment to the International Development Association by 
     the Secretary of the Treasury, $575,000,000, for the United 
     States contribution to the tenth replenishment, to remain 
     available until expended.


          contribution to the inter-american development bank

       For payment to the Inter-American Development Bank by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, for the United States share of the 
     paid-in share portion of the increase in capital stock, 
     $25,950,000.


              limitation on callable capital subscriptions

       The United States Governor of the Inter-American 
     Development Bank may subscribe without fiscal year limitation 
     to the callable capital portion of the United States share of 
     such capital stock in an amount not to exceed $1,523,000,000.
               contribution to the asian development bank

       For payment to the Asian Development Bank by the Secretary 
     of the Treasury for the United States share of the paid-in 
     portion of the increase in capital stock, $13,200,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


              limitation on callable capital subscriptions

       The United States Governor of the Asian Development Bank 
     may subscribe without fiscal year limitation to the callable 
     capital portion of the United States share of such capital 
     stock in an amount not to exceed $647,000,000.


               contribution to the asian development fund

       For the United States contribution by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to the increases in resources of the Asian 
     Development Fund, as authorized by the Asian Development Bank 
     Act, as amended (Public Law 89-369), $167,960,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


  contribution to the european bank for reconstruction and development

       For payment to the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development by the Secretary of the Treasury, $69,180,000, 
     for the United States share of the paid-in share portion of 
     the initial capital subscription, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of the amount appropriated under 
     this heading not more than $54,600,000 may be expended for 
     the purchase of such stock in fiscal year 1996.


              limitation on callable capital subscriptions

       The United States Governor of the European Bank for 
     Reconstruction and Development may subscribe without fiscal 
     year limitation to the callable capital portion of the United 
     States share of such capital stock in an amount not to exceed 
     $161,400,000.

                    North American Development Bank

       For payment to the North American Development Bank by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, for the United States share of the 
     paid-in portion of the capital stock, $56,250,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


              limitation on callable capital subscriptions

       The United States Governor of the North American 
     Development Bank may subscribe without fiscal year limitation 
     to the callable capital portion of the United States share of 
     the capital stock of the North American Development Bank in 
     an amount not to exceed $318,750,000.


                international organizations and programs

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and of 
     section 2 of the United Nations Environment Program 
     Participation Act of 1973, $155,000,000: Provided, That none 
     of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be made 
     available for the United Nations Fund for
      Science and Technology: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated under this heading may be made available for 
     the International Atomic Energy Agency only if the 
     Secretary of State determines (and so reports to the 
     Congress) that Israel is not being denied its right to 
     participate in the activities of that Agency: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading that are made available to the United Nations 
     Population Fund (UNFPA) shall be made available for 
     activities in the People's Republic of China: Provided 
     further, That not more than $25,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading may be made available to 
     the UNFPA: Provided further, That not more than one-half 
     of this amount may be provided to UNFPA before March 1, 
     1996, and that no later than February 15, 1996, the 
     Secretary of State shall submit a report to the Committees 
     on Appropriations indicating the amount UNFPA is budgeting 
     for the People's Republic of China in 1996: Provided 
     further, That any amount UNFPA plans to spend in the 
     People's Republic of China in 1996 about $7,000,000, shall 
     be deducted from the amount of funds provided to UNFPA 
     after March 1, 1996 pursuant to the previous provisos: 
     Provided further, That with respect to any funds 
     appropriated under this heading that are made available to 
     UNFPA, UNFPA shall be required to maintain such funds in a 
     separate account and not commingle them with any other 
     funds: Provided further, That up to $13,000,000 may be 
     made available to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development 
     Organization (KEDO) for administrative expenses and heavy 
     fuel oil costs associated with the Framework Agreement: 
     Provided further, That additional funds may be made 
     available to KEDO subject to the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title IV?


                    amendment offered by mr. de lay

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. 

[[Page H 6365]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. DeLay: Page 29, line 1, strike 
     ``$50,000,000'' and insert ``0''.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today with my 
colleague, the gentleman from Arizona, eliminates funding for the 
Global Environment Facility or the GEF.
  The GEF was created in 1991 to pay cash to Third World governments to 
stop local people from escaping poverty through development that could 
harm the environment at some point in the future--a difficult concept 
to grasp when you consider that the everyday concerns of these 
countries are not about climate change but survival, clean drinking 
water and reduced food spoilage.
  In 1992, the GEF was made the funding mechanism to help poor 
countries finance projects in compliance with the environmental 
conventions agreed to at the Rio summit dealing with such 
scientifically questionable--yet trendy--environmental ``calamities'' 
such as global warming and biodiversity loss.
  I say to my colleagues that what this program really is, is a global 
giveaway for poor countries--it gives developing countries a refund for 
the economic restrictions imposed on them in the UN ``biodiversity'' 
and ``climate change'' conventions. This program is flawed because its 
fundamental design is wrong.
  A scathing report on the GEF's activities--called for after loud 
complaints from environmental groups and donor countries to the GEF--
basically found that the GEF's operations are ``dysfunctional'' and its 
accountability is ill-defined.
  The report found that the fundamental purpose of the GEF, that being 
dedicating funds to climate change, biodiversity, international waters, 
and ozone depletion is ``rather obscure in nature.''
  The GEF has also been severely criticized as a ``green'' slush fund 
for the World Bank. On this, the independent report concluded that the 
World Bank controls the lion's share of the GEF's resources and that is 
fundamentally using GEF as a device to make its own regular projects 
look ``greener'' and to mitigate criticism alleging World Bank 
insensitivity to environmental concerns.
  Take a look at how the GEF is actually performing its obscure role: 
you'll find that it has done more to upset the environmental and social 
balances in developing countries than to clean things up. As of last 
year, over half of the GEF's projects had provoked clashes over forced 
resettlement of displaced local people.
  The report concluded that the premise of the GEF's mandate--putting 
emphasis on global environmental problems over local ones--is a 
``serious weakness.'' The GEF claimed it was reforming these abuses by 
including locals in the decision-making process but the independent GEF 
report called this claim a ``biased exaggeration, if not 
falsification.''
  The independent review led to a restructuring process that was 
supposedly completed in March of 1994. And my colleagues who support 
this institution will probably argue that the GEF has made progress 
since this report. But I submit to my colleagues that such assertions 
serve little more than the political purposes of those who seek the 
``environmental'' cover of the GEF.
  According to Probe International, a Canadian environmental group that 
has monitored the GEF for four years, ``The restructured GEF remains as 
flawed as its predecessor and, as a closer examination of some of its 
projects shows, does nothing to protect the global environment.''
  Despite such obvious reasons to be extremely concerned with sending 
taxpayer dollars to this operation, the Administration pledged last 
March to send a total of $430 million to the GEF over four years--the 
largest amount of any donor nation.
  In FY95, the U.S. gave the GEF another $90 million. This year's 
request from the Administration is a completely unsupportable $110 
million. You would think that the Administration believes the GEF has 
been an unheralded success.
  I commend the chairman of the Foreign Operations subcommittee for 
recognizing the extremely questionable activities of this project and 
reducing the funding for the GEF to $50 million in this bill. But, I 
submit to my colleagues that the GEF is a fundamentally flawed and 
unaccountable organization and certainly not an area where this 
Congress should be allocating scarce tax-dollars.
  Not only does eliminating funding for the GEF make sense and save the 
taxpayers hundreds of millions of tax dollars, but it will also have 
the effect of slowing the implementation of global environmental 
policies that do more to restrict economic opportunity in poor 
countries than to promote environmental conservation.
  The only responsible move for this Congress is to put a halt to the 
millions of taxpayer dollars we send to this flawed institution. I urge 
my colleagues to support this effort.
                              {time}  2000

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, to rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment is 
certainly a first for me, because we have voted 99 percent of the time 
together since we first came to this House 10 years ago.
  However, during the process of the responsibility I assumed on this 
subcommittee as its chairman, I think it became very, very important 
that we recognize that this subcommittee has a responsibility to this 
country and to the world. If we are going to be a participant in the 
world of international affairs, we are going to have to recognize that 
global environment has to be a part of that. In trying to put together 
the bill, we did assemble a bill that was very fragile. Each side 
compromised. I gave a little, the minority gave a little. We let 
everyone have as much input as we possibly could.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], will 
recognize, we cut the facility from $110 million to $50 million. I 
thought that was a compromise. I cannot, as eloquently as some who may 
follow me, stand up and defend the GEF. I can defend the fragile 
agreement that we have, the agreement that I put together that says if 
we will create child survival funds, if we will place our priorities on 
child survival, if we will reduce the level of overall spending, then I 
would compromise and go along with this request, provided they let me 
cut it from $110 million down to $50 million.
  Therefore, I commend the gentleman for the message that he gave, but 
I reluctantly rise in opposition to his amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. It is with great 
reluctance and in admiration for the maker that I rise to oppose his 
amendment to strike the additional funds over and above the funds the 
committee has already struck from the GEF.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for our colleagues to know, and 
many are very familiar and have worked on the Global Environmental 
Facility, otherwise known as GEF, that it is a multilateral fund 
dedicated to the preservation of the global environment. It funds 
projects that help developing countries deal with environmental 
problems that affect all countries, including the United States.
  Indeed, we have heard over and over again that environmental 
degradation and air pollution and water pollution know no boundaries. 
Effects of development, such as loss of the forest and wild species, 
ozone depletion, and pollution of international waters, are obviously 
not limited to the country where they occur.
  Mr. Chairman, the Bush and Clinton administrations both supported the 
GEF because meeting these threats is so important. Projects funded by 
the GEF help prevent the loss of forests and threatened plant and 
animal species. They help prevent pollution of international waters, 
threatening fish species on which the world depends.
  Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note what other countries are 
contributing to the GEF, because this is an international effort, not 
just one funded by the U.S. Other donors' pledges are related to ours 
in a burden-sharing arrangement. For example, Japan recently increased 
GEF funding over a 4-year period to $500 million, substantially more 
than the United States 

[[Page H 6366]]
even before the recent reduction. Germany will give $240 million over 
the same period. Further reducing GEF funding risks unraveling the GEF, 
and with it our efforts to bring developing countries into the global 
effort to safeguard our environment.
  Mr. Chairman, the GEF operates the three implementing agencies. Our 
colleague has pointed out some concerns that he had about the way the 
GEF has functioned, but I think he is aware, and if not, I am pleased 
to inform him that the governance of the GEF has been changed 
substantially since criticisms were
 lodged against it. The structure and governance of GEF have been 
criticized in the past, it is true.

  In response to an independent evaluation of the GEF pilot phase, 
which ended in December 1993, the GEF has been completely overhauled 
and restructured. Under U.S. leadership, a fully independent GEF 
Secretariat has been set up in Washington under the leadership of a 
U.S. citizen. A GEF council consisting of major donors, including the 
United States and developing countries' constituencies, is meeting four 
times annually to review project proposals, set policy, check 
implementing agency performance, and overall GEF effectiveness.
  I go into this detail, Mr. Chairman, to point out that the overall 
governance of the GEF has been overhauled, very specifically. A 
comprehensive project monitoring system has been created. In addition, 
the GEF Secretariat consults biannually, and I think this is very 
important, because it gives transparency and public participation to 
it, to a wide range of environmental and indigenous groups.
  Project development has been streamlined. There is strong U.S. 
economic interest involved as well. U.S. industries and consumers who 
have a substantial interest in conservation of biological and genetic 
diversity, with its myriad commercial application in production of 
food, fiber, and medicine, support the GEF. One fourth of all 
pharmaceutical prescriptions in this country contain active ingredients 
derived from plants, many of which exist only in tropical forest areas 
whose biodiversity values are facing rapid destruction.
  By catalyzing technological advances in developing countries, the GEF 
helps expand export markets for U.S. firms. The GEF's international 
waters portfolio has potential to prevent marine pollution and to 
conserve some of the most economically and ecologically valuable 
species.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to just sum up and say 
whether it is for environmental reasons or economic reasons, or 
population reasons in terms of avoiding the problem of environmental 
refugees that could result if we do not stop some of the degradation 
that is happening in our environment, the GEF is a very good 
investment.
  Mr. Chairman, our chairman, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Callahan], under his leadership, the GEF was cut substantially, in 
recognition of the budget and fiscal realities that we had to face. 
However, the value that he placed on it I think is one that is 
appropriate in these tough fiscal times, and I would hope that the 
membership of this body would support the chairman's mark and reject 
the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment. It is with great 
respect, Mr. Chairman, that I rise to oppose the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], and with great 
respect for the proponent of this amendment, the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. DeLay].
  The truth is, as the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] said, we 
do have a responsibility to the global environment. As my colleague 
from the other side said, indeed, the Global Environment Facility may 
in fact be dedicated to preservation of the environment, but the simple 
truth is it is an unabashed failure. It has not done what it proposed 
to do.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on the Budget, I rise to 
say enough is enough. We must have the strength to say no to continuing 
to fund bad programs, even if they are dedicated to worthy causes.
  Last month the national debt of the United States grew by over $1 
billion per day. We simply cannot continue to leave that legacy to our 
children. We cannot leave it in the name of failed programs like the 
Global Environment Facility. Let me explain why I call it a failure, 
and why I call upon my colleagues to support the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Delay] and to oppose any amendments which 
simply reduce its funding.
  Mr. Chairman, I hold before me a report prepared by an organization 
called Probe International, out of Toronto, Canada. Its title is ``The 
World Bank's Persisting Failure to Reform.'' It was written by John 
Thibodeau, and it is dated May, 1995. It documents in its first section 
that the Global Environment Facility remains dysfunctional.
  It says, and I quote, ``The review'' of this program ``was as 
scathing in its evaluation'' as possible, ``revealing an organization 
that was fundamentally flawed and unaccountable. The review found that 
the reason for the existence of the Global Environment Facility was 
obscure, ``that its operations were dysfunctional and its 
accountability ill-defined; that the concept of incremental costs was a 
serious weakness.''
  It concluded with the following words, and this is an independent 
review: ``No further funds to new
 projects or programs should be made until such time as strategies, 
policies, concentration areas, priorities, criteria'' have been put in 
place. That is the conclusion of this report.

  Let me tell the Members why. Is it in fact protecting the 
environment? It is not. Its record is fundamentally flawed. The report 
talks about ``The Tana River Primate Reserve in Kenya, a $6.2 million 
project to protect two Endangered Species Act of monkeys.''
  However, as my colleague pointed out, it is a failed proposal. It is 
a proposal to resettle 50,000 farmers of the Pokomo tribe. The GEF's 
desire to resettle this community, however, as is often the case, flies 
in the face of the evidence, the evidence that the Pokomo people not 
only co-existed with this endangered species and protected them for 
centuries, but also introduced them to Kenya, and when the danger to 
the environment of these monkeys became known, it was the Pokomo tribe 
that made it clear to the scientists.
  Mr. Chairman, why does the GEF propose to move them? The report 
details the facts. In fact, by claiming that the local people are a 
threat to the monkeys, what is happening is the GEF is conveniently 
hiding the fact that there are two other failed World Bank projects 
that are hurting the real environment for these monkeys. The two 
projects are the Kiambere Dam and the Bura Irrigation Project, both 
World Bank projects that are over budget disasters, and have so 
radically altered the Tana River's flow that the future of the monkeys 
is in danger.
  Mr. Chairman, the truth is the GEF is there to cover up and add a 
green tint to failed World Bank projects. In an environment such as we 
have today, where funds are so scarce, we simply cannot go on funding 
programs like the GEF.
  This amendment is supported, because it would save $50 million this 
year and $400 million over the course of the next 4 years, by Citizens 
Against Government Waste, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Small 
Business Survival Committee, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, 
Americans for Tax Reform, Coalitions for America, the National Center 
for Public Policy Research, the Environmental Policy Task Force, the 
Association of Concerned Taxpayers, Project 21, and Cato Institute.
  Mr. Chairman, why do they all support it? Because it is an abject 
failure. In this age, we cannot continue to support an abject failure, 
even at the minimal level. While I commend the subcommittee chairman 
for reducing the funding from a level that was proposed to only the 
figure of $50 million, it is time to zero this project in the waste and 
keep the monies where they belong, in the United States.


   amendment offered by mr. wilson as a substitute for the amendment 
                         offered by mr. de lay

  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for 
the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:


[[Page H 6367]]

       Amendment offered by Mr. Wilson as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. DeLay: On page 29 line 1, delete 
     ``$50,000,000'' and insert ``$40,000,000''.

  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] has 
deleted $50 million. We zero the entire enterprise. My amendment 
offered as a substitute would reduce the reduction in the bill by a 
further $10 million. In other words, instead of reducing the entire $50 
million, I would reduce it by $10 million, leaving $40 million in the 
enterprise.
  Mr. Chairman, the GEF as we have heard before, provides an insurance 
policy to avoid the cost of future environment degradation. The GEF 
promotes the use of technology, of which the United States is a leader. 
I could name all of the reputable companies that consult with the GEF, 
that work on ozone substitutes and that work in the biotechnology area.

                              {time}  2015

  The Bush and Clinton administrations have supported the GEF over more 
expensive alternatives. The GEF was completely reorganized and 
overhauled in 1994, and I think that many of the problems that have 
been mentioned here today have already been addressed.
  I would again suggest that the subcommittee, the Subcommittee on 
Foreign Operations, has already cut the GEF by 50 percent. The cut that 
I am proposing would add another 10 percent, which would mean a 60 
percent cut in this multilateral organization that I think still shows 
great promise for the environment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would move the substitute.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I strenuously oppose the amendment offered by my friend 
the gentleman from Texas. I believe a little history will help clarify 
for Members why providing funds for the GEF makes sense.
  The Global Environmental Facility [GEF] was established in 1991 
during the Bush administration for a 3-year pilot phase designed to 
identify innovative approaches to conservation--to determine what works 
and what does not. During the pilot phase, GEF was part of the World 
Bank, but was run in cooperation with the U.N. Development Program. In 
March 1994, at the end of the pilot phase, GEF became a freestanding 
international institution, designed to be arms length from existing 
international bureaucracies and able to articulate a clear global 
environmental agenda.
  Much was learned after the pilot phase and appropriate adjustments 
were made. In 1993 and 1994, two environmental organizations, 
Conservation International and Natural Resources Defense Council, 
conducted a major evaluation of the GEF and made recommendations for 
the operational phase. GEF was overhauled and is now technically first-
rate, transparent to the public, and responsive to its donors.
  Although some were skeptical early on, with the improvements that 
have been made every major
 environmental group now supports the GEF, and I have a letter here 
signed by 19 of them opposing the DeLay amendment. It may surprise you, 
though, to know that many major U.S. corporations also support the GEF. 
I have letters here from the chairman of the board of Intel, Dwayne 
Andreas of Archer Daniels Midland, and the vice chairman of the Mary 
Kay Corp. These corporations support GEF because it protects 
biodiversity, which they use to innovate in their fields, they sell 
environmental technology to countries for GEF projects, and they 
realize that protecting the environment is in our best interest as 
human beings.

  In addition, companies like Bechtel, Brooklyn Union Gas, and Texaco 
from the gentleman from Texas' home State have participated in GEF 
projects. DuPont, GE, and Raytheon dominate the market for substitutes 
for ozone depleting chemicals. And Merck and Ciba-Geigy, pharmaceutical 
companies, depend on the biodiversity protected by GEF for their 
future.
  As the gentleman from Texas knows, GEF mobilizes $5 for environmental 
protection for every $1 the U.S. contributes. For the United States, 
GEF is quite simply the most cost effective means of avoiding 
environmental degradation. No one--not AID, not the U.N. Environment 
Program--no one can do what GEF does.
  There is precious little left in this bill to ensure that our 
children and grandchildren have the benefits of clean air and water and 
access to biodiversity for new drugs, chemicals and plant adaptations. 
The President's request for GEF was $110 million, we appropriated $90 
million last year, this bill provides $50 million, and the DeLay 
amendment would eliminate funding. I urge Members to oppose the DeLay 
amendment, provide the subsistence level of funding contained in this 
bill for the GEF and help protect these treasures for the future.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Wilson amendment.
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona 
[Mr. Shadegg] for his comments regarding the inappropriate policies 
that he referred to. However, I also want to note that in the report to 
which you referred, you specifically said, ``until such time as new 
policies have been put in place.'' In other words, the funds should be 
cut until such time as new policies have been put in place.
  I will not go on because you have heard so much from my colleagues 
this evening. But I think we have received a lot of information which 
clearly lays out changes that have been put in place, and thereby the 
Wilson amendment, which says that we should cut it an additional $10 
million, I think is appropriate, and I would strongly oppose the 
amendment of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] and the gentleman 
from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] which would cut out all the money.
  We have heard this evening that the GEF secretariat consults 
biannually with a wide range of environmental and indigenous groups. We 
have heard that this sort of participation is unique to the GEF among 
multilateral institutions. As a result, environmental groups like the 
NRDC now endorse the GEF and support continued strong U.S. 
participation. Project development procedures have been streamlined. 
There has been extensive consultation with communities affected by GEF 
projects, and that is now required for every project.
  Mr. Chairman, as this report suggests, there have been policies and 
procedures put in place to ensure that this money is spent wisely.
  We have also heard that this has been supported by the Bush 
administration and the Clinton administration. I would like to add my 
support to the Wilson amendment and encourage my colleagues to vote 
with me.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Wilson].
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the proposal of those who seek to defend 
this program. I understand they claim that the corrections have been 
made. The report I read from, I did not have time to note its date. The 
report is a report by an independent organization called Probe 
International based not out of the United States but out of Toronto, 
Canada, and is dated May 1995. The section of the report which I read 
was from the independent review. That review was concluded some time 
ago and it did point out the flaws which have been clearly acknowledged 
here, indeed the numerous flaws which have been clearly acknowledged in 
the GEF. But this is a current report which goes beyond that, and says 
that notwithstanding the claims of the environmental community, in 
point of fact the GEF is not doing the job correctly today. I suggest 
indeed it is not. I suggest that as President Clinton called upon 
America and said we can do better, indeed for those who are concerned 
about protecting the global environment, we can do far better than to 
add more money to a failed World Bank-dominated program, a program 
which puts money in the hands of the rulers of third-world countries 
and does not achieve its goals, a program which papers over World Bank 
projects which do serious environmental damage. I think it is important 
that this Congress have the courage to say ``no,'' not the courage to 
say, ``oh, it failed so let's give it a little less,'' but the courage 
to say ``no.''

[[Page H 6368]]

  With regard to my colleague from this side who said there is great 
corporate support for this proposal, let me suggest a fundamental flaw 
in that notion. When he says that many corporate interests in America 
support this idea and support funding for it, let me point out their 
hypocrisy. The truth is when polluters pollute, they should pay to 
clean it up, not the American taxpayer, and in this instance when he 
cites a series of American corporations who think it is a wonderful 
idea for us to take American tax dollars and to deal with third-world 
pollution, indeed, third-world pollution which they themselves may have 
contributed to, we set the cart before the horse. If the polluters have 
created the pollution, they should be made to clean it up, not the 
taxpayers of America, and not under a government program where you and 
I and my children and indeed with the debt we are creating, my 
grandchildren are compelled to pay to clean it up, that creates all the 
wrong incentives. Then the polluter has no motivation to clean up 
because the taxpayer is going to come along and bail him out. It simply 
is, as the report I have read from, which is a second report suggests, 
a failed program.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply conclude with this point. If the best 
that the proponents of GEF can do is to acknowledge its failure, is to 
acknowledge that a year ago the environmental community, including the 
Environmental Defense Fund, criticized this and acknowledged that it 
was a failure, if the best they can do is say, ``Yes, it was poor 
before, but we've tried to improve, so give us, not $50 million but $30 
million,'' I suggest we can, as Bill Clinton said, do better, and we 
can do better by abolishing the funding and creating a new program, a 
new program that in fact makes polluters pay for the pollution and does 
not require the American taxpayer to pay for their pollution or the 
pollution of other third-world governments.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the Wilson amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I will try not to take the 5 minutes. I think it is 
important for those Members that are listening to understand what is 
going on here. It is obvious to me that the gentleman from Texas, my 
good friend, is trying to block zeroing out a failed agency because it 
has failed on a failed concept.
  The gentleman from Illinois was right in pointing out that former 
President Bush went to Rio and worked on the Rio summit and committed 
us to certain things. Before the President left, many of us, and many 
of us in leadership urged the President not to go because this summit 
would lead to bad things.
  This is a perfect example of proving us right. This is a feel-good 
organization that has no substance in its ability to clean up 
calamities as outlined in the Rio summit.
  First of all, I would like to say to those that may not know, being a 
biologist and biochemist by education, I am here and stand here on the 
floor to tell Members that global warming and ozone depletion are not 
proven. They are not proven concepts. They are theories. No one, 
including the environmentalists, can say with certainty that this is a 
proven concept. This is a hope-that-it-does-not-happen concept. It has 
never been proven. This is a concept designed on computer models by 
environmental activists. Yet we are spending millions if not billions 
of dollars on a theory. That is why we were very concerned that Bush go 
to Rio to get involved in this kind of issue.
  Yes, he signed a 3-year pilot. Well, the pilot has crashed. This does 
not work, it is a fundamentally flawed concept. Let me say to the 
Members that are interested in deficit reduction. We are not interested 
in ``government-light'' that is an example of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Texas. We are interested in looking at programs and 
those programs that can be done better and smarter, we want to do them 
better and smarter, thereby realizing savings. But for programs like 
the GEF that are fundamentally flawed and even environmental groups are 
saying it is flawed, we want to zero them out.
  Members have to vote against the Wilson amendment in order to get to 
the DeLay-Shadegg amendment in order to zero it out.
  Mr. Chairman, as far as the corporations, all those Members that have 
called for the end of corporate welfare, corporations support the GEF 
because GEF gives them green cover, and makes them look like they are 
environmentally sound. I am not here serving in this body to protect 
corporations and give them taxpayers' money to make them look a little 
greener. That is what GEF does.
  Mr. Chairman, I am just saying, this is a flawed program, it has not 
proven itself at all, it is a flawed program trying to control a flawed 
theory. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Wilson amendment and a ``yes'' vote 
on the DeLay amendment.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I have been overwhelmed by the eloquence of 
my colleague, the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my substitute 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  2030

  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the well-intentioned DeLay 
amendment. I find it very difficult, Mr. Chairman, to be here and watch 
the Global Environmental Facility be absolutely terminated. It went on 
a committee level from $110 million down to $50 million, and now to get 
rid of it completely I think is absolutely inappropriate and would be 
devastating.
  As one of the founding members of a group called GLOBE, Global 
Legislators for a Balanced Environment, I must speak up for a 
multilateral fund that was begun under the Bush administration and has 
had continued support by the present administration. Operating through 
three implementing agencies, the World Bank, the U.N. Development 
Programme, and the U.N. Environment Programme, the GEF plays a crucial 
role in influencing international environmental actions.
  We have here a unique fund dedicated to the preservation of the 
global environment. Its projects include those in climate change, which 
affect crop-growing seasons, plant distribution, damage to coastal 
communities, and many others: ozone depletion, which if it increases 
will increase our exposure to ultraviolet radiation and the attendant 
threat of malignant melanoma; pollution of international waters, which 
are already depleting our fish species, loss of forests, plants, and 
animal species; and the list goes on.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States does not stand alone in supporting 
the GEF. With the proposed reduction to $50 million, we will be going 
against the international mainstream. Japan has increased their 
contribution to $500 million over a 5-year period, and Germany will 
give $240 million over the same period.
  To bow out of this important World Bank program completely is to 
abrogate our responsibility, and I believe it will be very 
counterproductive. Why do I feel this way? Because the GEF is 
protecting the environment and biodiversity where it is most valuable 
and most threatened, in the developing countries of Africa, Asia, and 
Latin America.
  Frankly, if this attempt to further reduce the funds, to eliminate 
them, is a criticism of past governance, this has already been 
addressed. Under U.S. leadership, a fully independent GEF secretariat 
has been set up in Washington under the leadership of a U.S. citizen. A 
comprehensive project monitoring system has been created under this 
secretariat to ensure that projects meet cost and performance goals 
from start to finish. Many of these management changes are unique to 
the GEF among multilateral institutions.
  To further reduce funding of the Global Environmental Facility would 
be to jeopardize bringing developing countries to the global effort to 
safeguard our environment. Really, too much is at stake. I strongly 
urge my colleagues to support the GEF, it has already been reduced to 
the extent it is determined in the bill, and to vote against the DeLay 
amendment.
  As Shakespeare said, ``To nature none more bound,'' and we must 
remember that.

[[Page H 6369]]

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise against the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay]. But I would like to speak for just a 
few minutes on the positive impacts of the Global Environmental Fund.
  A number of my colleagues have mentioned a number of things here 
about tropical rain forests, global fisheries, biological diversity, 
global warming, ozone depletion, and things like that. These are not 
abstract concepts. These are not things that are proven beyond a shadow 
of a doubt to have impact on our Nation or the world as a whole.
  When we are dealing with scientific realities, there are always 
certain scientific uncertainties, but I want to start from this list 
and make a couple of comments.
  The nations of the world's forests, the rain forests of the world, 
are a storehouse of medical potential breakthroughs that will not only 
benefit us as citizens today, but future generations to come. What are 
the major pharmaceutical companies of the world, especially in the 
United States, American companies included, doing in tropical rain 
forests now? I will give you one example.
  Merck & Co. has signed an agreement partially through the link with 
the Global Environmental Fund to bring these two countries, the United 
States and Costa Rica, together. Costa Rica has decided to set aside 25 
percent of their entire country so a U.S. pharmaceutical firm can go 
down there and study the biology and the biodiversity of that country's 
species, flora and fauna, that means the animals and the plants, to try 
to extract chemical agents to cure diseases around the world that are 
becoming resistant to antibiotics today.
  These are going to be the cures for tomorrow. What does that mean to 
Merck & Co. as a result of this connection? It means literally billions 
of dollars.
  So if we are looking at the Global Environmental Fund and saying that 
it is not worth the few dollars that we are going to put into it, talk 
with the pharmaceutical companies of this country and they will tell 
you it is worth billions for Merck. It is worth hundreds of billions 
for the other pharmaceutical companies in this country and for the 
emerging biotechnology companies of this country.
  The global fisheries. If we just looked at the United States, 70 
percent of the commercial fish that we harvest are spawned in tidal 
estuaries. What does GEF, the Global Environmental Fund, do? It helps 
other countries realize the necessity of protecting their tidal marshes 
for the main protein source of the entire world. So for the few 
investment dollars that we put into GEF, the Global Environmental Fund, 
we reap huge profits.
  What about biological diversity in the first place? You cannot name a 
disease in this country that does not have a potential cure as a result 
of finding some chemical agent in some species around the planet. That 
is just as a result of our understanding for renewed molecular 
technology advancements in this country today.
  From an endangered species called the rosy periwinkle, a small little 
endangered flower, they extracted a chemical agent that now cures or 
sets aside 80 percent of childhood leukemia. Why is this particular 
plant important? Because it cures disease. Also, we have not been able 
to synthesize that chemical agent, so we need that particular plant.
  Whether it is heart attacks, high blood pressure, cancer, glaucoma, a 
whole range of diseases, we are finding agents in particular plants for 
these particular diseases to be cured.
  The Global Environmental Fund is a small investment, folks, for a 
major discovery. Global warming, has it been proved? No. Has it been 
disproved? No. But I will tell my colleagues, the major scientists of 
this country, if we talk to an independent scientist from Harvard or 
Cornell or Yale or whatever that is not linked with any environmental 
group, they would say, ``Hedge your bets, it might be happening.''
  What about ozone depletion? Is there an increase in the incidence of 
skin cancer? Are doctors telling you to stay out of the sun? The answer 
is yes. I reluctantly ask my colleagues to vote no on the amendment.
 amendment offered by mr. porter to the amendment offered by mr. delay

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Porter to the amendment offered by 
     Mr. DeLay:
       At the appropriate place, strike ``0'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$30,000,000''.

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes because I have 
already spoken on the DeLay amendment, but while I was off the floor, I 
understand that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] had withdrawn his 
amendment at $40 million. I simply would like to offer this amendment 
for the consideration of the Members, where the DeLay amendment would 
be reduced from zeroing out GEF so that it would leave $30 million in 
that account.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I see some great progress being made here. I understand 
it started at 110 million then it was at 50, then at 40, now at 30. I 
think we are almost there.
  But I would like to say this: I have heard the evidence on both sides 
of the equation, and other than the side that wants to preserve funding 
saying, ``Trust me, I am from the Government, I am here to help you,'' 
I have not found any compelling reasons to support this boondoggle.
  I support the efforts of an impressive list of people and groups that 
support the amendment put forth by the majority whip and the gentleman 
from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg]. These include Grover Norquist's group, 
Americans for Tax Reform, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound 
Economy, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and a host of other 
responsible groups. The GEF is a global giveaway that cannot be 
justified, particularly given our Nation's fiscal crisis, and it has 
even failed its stated goal, improving the environment. The GEF should 
RIP.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SALMON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I think the environment won an 
important battle today as there was an extension on the moratorium for 
drilling off the coast of this country. That was something I supported. 
It was something other environmentalists supported. And as an 
environmentalist, though, I cannot rise and support something like 
this. Resources are so scarce in our battle for cleaning up the 
environment that we cannot continue to throw money away at a failed PR 
effort for the World Bank.
  You now, Bismarck once said you can do anything with children so long 
as you play with them. Well, that is exactly what the World Bank is 
doing. They are playing a PR game here because they want to come off 
looking good.
  If they want to spend their own money, that is fine, but when they 
spend our money for their own PR games, it is not only the taxpayer 
that loses, but it is the environment that loses. If we as a body 
decide that we need to spend money cleaning up the environment of this 
country, then let us make sure that we invest our dollars wisely. We 
cannot continue in this hoax, in this PR game.
  Mr. Chairman, we should support the DeLay-Shadegg amendment and clean 
up this country for our children.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SALMON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just asked for this time to explain to the Members where we are. 
Even if we wanted to do the great things that the gentleman from 
Maryland claims that the GEF does, which I dispute, this is a waste of 
money, $30 million. It will go to bureaucrats. It will go the World 
Bank. It will not do anything.
  So I urge the Members to understand the vote. The vote that I am 
urging is a no vote on the Porter amendment to the DeLay amendment. 
Defeat that and then vote for the DeLay amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].

[[Page H 6370]]

  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XXIII, the Chair will 
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the timer for a recorded vote, if 
ordered, on the original DeLay amendment if there is no intervening 
business or debate following the 15-minute vote on the Porter 
amendment. This will be a 17-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242, 
noes 180, not voting 12, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 426]

                               AYES--242

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Callahan
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                               NOES--180

     Allard
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder

[[Page H 6371]]

     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Armey
     Bryant (TX)
     Camp
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gunderson
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Torricelli
     Williams
     Yates
     Zimmer

                              {time}  2104
  Messrs. RADANOVICH, ALLARD, ROYCE, DUNCAN, LEWIS of California, 
CHABOT, McINNIS, PACKARD, and PORTMAN changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Messrs. JEFFERSON, JOHNSON of South Dakota, BALDACCI, STUPAK, TUCKER, 
and FORBES 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 amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DeLAY. 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 273, 
noes 146, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 427]

                               AYES--273

     Allard
     Archer
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NOES--146

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Quillen
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Armey
     Bachus
     Bryant (TX)
     Camp
     Forbes
     Ford
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gunderson
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Torricelli
     Williams
     Yates
     Zimmer

                              {time}  2112

  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, and Mr. BARCIA 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title IV?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title V.
  The text of title V is as follows:
                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS


             OBLIGATIONS DURING LAST MONTH OF AVAILABILITY

       Sec. 501. Except for the appropriations entitled 
     ``International Disaster Assistance'', and ``United States 
     Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund'', not more 
     than 15 per centum of any appropriation item made available 
     by this Act shall be obligated during the last month of 
     availability.


     PROHIBITION OF BILATERAL FUNDING FOR INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL 
                              INSTITUTIONS

       Sec. 502. None of the funds contained in title II of this 
     Act may be used to carry out the provisions of section 209(d) 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.


                    LIMITATION ON RESIDENCE EXPENSES

       Sec. 503. Of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act, not to exceed $126,500 shall be for 
     official residence expenses of the Agency for International 
     Development during the current fiscal year: Provided, That 
     appropriate steps shall be taken to assure that, to the 
     maximum extent possible, United States-owned foreign 
     currencies are utilized in lieu of dollars.


                         LIMITATION ON EXPENSES

       Sec. 504. Of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act, not to exceed $5,000 shall be for 
     entertainment expenses of the Agency for International 
     Development during the current fiscal year.


               LIMITATION ON REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCES

       Sec. 505. Of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act, not to exceed $95,000 shall be 
     available for representation allowances for the Agency for 
     International Development during the current fiscal year: 
     Provided, That appropriate steps shall be taken to assure 
     that, to the maximum extent possible, United States-owned 
     foreign currencies are utilized in lieu of dollars: Provided 
     further, That of the funds made available by this Act for 
     general costs of administering military assistance and sales 
     under the heading ``Foreign Military Financing Program'', not 
     to exceed $2,000 shall be available for entertainment 
     expenses and not to exceed $50,000 shall be available for 
     representation allowances: Provided further, That of the 
     funds made available by this Act under the heading 
     ``International Military Education and Training'', not to 
     exceed $50,000 shall be available for entertainment 
     allowances: Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available by this Act for the Inter-American Foundation, not 
     to exceed $2,000 shall be available for entertainment and 
     representation allowances: Provided further, That of the 
     funds made available by this Act for the Peace Corps, not to 
     exceed a total of $4,000 shall be available for entertainment 
     expenses: Provided further, That of the funds made available 
     by this Act under the heading ``Trade and Development 
     Agency'', not to exceed $2,000 shall be available for 
     representation and entertainment allowances.


                 PROHIBITION ON FINANCING NUCLEAR GOODS

       Sec. 506. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     (other than funds for ``International Organizations and 
     Programs'') pursuant to this Act, for carrying out the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, may be used, except for 
     purposes of nuclear safety, to finance the export of nuclear 
     equipment, fuel, or technology.


        PROHIBITION AGAINST DIRECT FUNDING FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES

       Sec. 507. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended 
     to finance directly any assistance or reparations to Cuba, 
     Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Serbia, Sudan, or Syria: 
     Provided, That for purposes of this section, the prohibition 
     on obligations or expenditures shall include direct loans, 
     credits, insurance and guarantees of the Export-Import Bank 
     or its agents: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, Azerbaijan shall be eligible to 
     receive funds provided under title II of this Act to be used 
     solely for humanitarian assistance and for democracy-building 
     purposes.


                             MILITARY COUPS

       Sec. 508. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended 
     to finance directly any assistance to any country whose duly 
     elected Head of Government is deposed by military coup or 
     decree: Provided, That assistance may be resumed to such 
     country if the President determines and reports to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that subsequent to the 
     termination of assistance a democratically elected government 
     has taken office.


                       TRANSFERS BETWEEN ACCOUNTS

       Sec. 509. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated under an appropriation account to which they 
     were not appropriated, except for transfers specifically 
     provided for in this Act, unless the President, prior to the 
     exercise of any authority contained in the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 to transfer funds, consults with and provides a 
     written policy justification to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate: Provided, That the exercise of such authority shall 
     be subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations, except for transfers 
     specifically referred to in this Act.


                  DEOBLIGATION/REOBLIGATION AUTHORITY

       Sec. 510. Amounts certified pursuant to section 1311 of the 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1955, as having been 
     obligated against appropriations heretofore made under the 
     authority of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for the same 
     general purpose as any of the headings under title II of this 
     Act are, if deobligated, hereby continued available for the 
     same period as the respective appropriations under such 
     headings or until September 30, 1996, whichever is later, and 
     for the same general purpose, and for countries within the 
     same region as originally obligated: Provided, That the 
     Appropriations Committees of both Houses of the Congress are 
     notified fifteen days in advance of the deobligation and 
     reobligation of such funds in accordance with regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.


                         AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS

       Sec. 511. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation after the 
     expiration of the current fiscal year unless expressly so 
     provided in this Act: Provided, That funds appropriated for 
     the purposes of chapters 1, 8 and 11 of part I, section 667, 
     and chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, as amended, and funds provided under the heading 
     ``Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States'', 
     shall remain available until expended if such funds are 
     initially obligated before the expiration of their respective 
     periods of availability contained in this Act: Provided 
     further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, any funds made available for the purposes of chapter 1 
     of part I and chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 which are allocated or obligated for cash 
     disbursements in order to address balance of payments or 
     economic policy reform objectives, shall remain available 
     until expended: Provided further, That the report required by 
     section 653(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall 
     designate for each country, to the extent known at the time 
     of submission of such report, those funds allocated for cash 
     disbursement for balance of payment and economic policy 
     reform purposes.
     
[[Page H 6372]]



            LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE TO COUNTRIES IN DEFAULT

       Sec. 512. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used to furnish assistance to any country which 
     is in default during a period in excess of one calendar year 
     in payment to the United States of principal or interest on 
     any loan made to such country by the United States pursuant 
     to a program for which funds are appropriated under this Act: 
     Provided, That this section and section 620(q) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 shall not apply to funds made 
     available in this Act or during the current fiscal year for 
     Nicaragua, and for any narcotics-related assistance for 
     Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru authorized by the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 or the Arms Export Control Act.


                           COMMERCE AND TRADE

       Sec. 513. (a) None of the funds appropriated or made 
     available pursuant to this Act for direct assistance and none 
     of the funds otherwise made available pursuant to this Act to 
     the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation shall be obligated or expended to finance any 
     loan, any assistance or any other financial commitments for 
     establishing or expanding production of any commodity for 
     export by any country other than the United States, if the 
     commodity is likely to be in surplus on world markets at the 
     time the resulting productive capacity is expected to become 
     operative and if the assistance will cause substantial injury 
     to United States producers of the same, similar, or competing 
     commodity: Provided, That such prohibition shall not apply to 
     the Export-Import Bank if in the judgment of its Board of 
     Directors the benefits to industry and employment in the 
     United States are likely to outweigh the injury to United 
     States producers of the same, similar, or competing 
     commodity.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated by this or any other Act 
     to carry out chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 shall be available for any testing or breeding 
     feasibility study, variety improvement or introduction, 
     consultancy, publication, conference, or training in 
     connection with the growth or production in a foreign country 
     of an agricultural commodity for export which would compete 
     with a similar commodity grown or produced in the United 
     States: Provided, That this subsection shall not prohibit--
       (1) activities designed to increase food security in 
     developing countries where such activities will not have a 
     significant impact in the export of agricultural commodities 
     of the United States; or
       (2) research activities intended primarily to benefit 
     American producers.


                          SURPLUS COMMODITIES

       Sec. 514. The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the 
     United States Executive Directors of the International Bank 
     for Reconstruction and Development, the International 
     Development Association, the International Finance 
     Corporation, the Inter-American Development Bank, the 
     International Monetary Fund, the Asian Development Bank, the 
     Inter-American Investment Corporation, the North American 
     Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development, the African Development Bank, and the African 
     Development Fund to use the voice and vote of the United 
     States to oppose any assistance by these institutions, using 
     funds appropriated or made available pursuant to this Act, 
     for the production or extraction of any commodity or mineral 
     for export, if it is in surplus on world markets and if the 
     assistance will cause substantial injury to United States 
     producers of the same, similar, or competing commodity.


                       NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

       Sec. 515. For the purposes of providing the Executive 
     Branch with the necessary administrative flexibility, none of 
     the funds made available under this Act for ``Child Survival 
     and Disease Programs Fund'', ``Development Assistance Fund'', 
     ``Development Fund for Africa'', ``International 
     organizations and programs'', ``Trade and Development 
     Agency'', ``International narcotics control'', ``Assistance 
     for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States'', ``Assistance for 
     the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'', 
     ``Economic Support Fund'', ``Peacekeeping operations'', 
     ``Operating expenses of the Agency for International 
     Development'', ``Operating expenses of the Agency for 
     International Development Office of Inspector General'', 
     ``Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund'', ``Anti-terrorism 
     assistance'', ``Foreign Military Financing Program'', 
     ``International military education and training'', ``Inter-
     American Foundation'', ``African Development Foundation'', 
     ``Peace Corps'', ``Migration and refugee assistance'', or 
     ``United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance 
     Fund'', shall be available for obligation for activities, 
     programs, projects, type of materiel assistance, countries, 
     or other operations not justified or in excess of the amount 
     justified to the Appropriations Committees for obligation 
     under any of these specific headings unless the 
     Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress are 
     previously notified fifteen days in advance: Provided, That 
     the President shall not enter into any commitment of funds 
     appropriated for the purposes of section 23 of the Arms 
     Export Control Act for the provision of major defense 
     equipment, other than conventional ammunition, or other major 
     defense items defined to be aircraft, ships, missiles, or 
     combat vehicles, not previously justified to Congress or 20 
     per centum in excess of the quantities justified to Congress 
     unless the Committees on Appropriations are notified fifteen 
     days in advance of such commitment: Provided further, That 
     this section shall not apply to any reprogramming for an 
     activity, program, or project under chapter 1 of part I of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 of less than 20 per centum 
     of the amount previously justified to the Congress for 
     obligation for such activity, program, or project for the 
     current fiscal year: Provided further, That the requirements 
     of this section or any similar provision of this Act or any 
     prior Act requiring notification in accordance with the 
     regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations may be waived if failure to do so would pose a 
     substantial risk to human health or welfare: Provided 
     further, That in case of any such waiver, notification to the 
     Congress, or the appropriate congressional committees, shall 
     be provided as early as practicable, but in no event later 
     than three days after taking the action to which such 
     notification requirement was applicable, in the context of 
     the circumstances necessitating such waiver: Provided 
     further, That any notification provided pursuant to such a 
     waiver shall contain an explanation of the emergency 
     circumstances.
       Drawdowns made pursuant to section 506(a)(2) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 shall be subject to the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.


limitation on availability of funds for international organizations and 
                                programs

       Sec. 516. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of 
     this Act, none of the funds provided for ``International 
     Organizations and Programs'' shall be available for the 
     United States proportionate share, in accordance with section 
     307(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, for any 
     programs identified in section 307, or for Libya, Iran, or, 
     at the discretion of the President, Communist countries 
     listed in section 620(f) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, as amended: Provided, That, subject to the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations, 
     funds appropriated under this Act or any previously enacted 
     Act making appropriations for foreign operations, export 
     financing, and related programs, which are returned or not 
     made available for organizations and programs because of the 
     implementation of this section or any similar provision of 
     law, shall remain available for obligation through September 
     30, 1997.


              ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND ASSISTANCE FOR ISRAEL

       Sec. 517. The Congress finds that progress on the peace 
     process in the Middle East is vitally important to United 
     States security interests in the region. The Congress 
     recognizes that, in fulfilling its obligations under the 
     Treaty of Peace Between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the 
     State of Israel, done at Washington on March 26, 1979, Israel 
     incurred severe economic burdens. Furthermore, the Congress 
     recognizes that an economically and militarily secure Israel 
     serves the security interests of the United States, for a 
     secure Israel is an Israel which has the incentive and 
     confidence to continue pursuing the peace process. Therefore, 
     the Congress declares that, subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, it is the policy and the intention of the 
     United States that the funds provided in annual 
     appropriations for the Economic Support Fund which are 
     allocated to Israel shall not be less than the annual debt 
     repayment (interest and principal) from Israel to the United 
     States Government in recognition that such a principle serves 
     United States interests in the region.


     PROHIBITION CONCERNING ABORTIONS AND INVOLUNTARY STERILIZATION

       Sec. 518. None of the funds made available to carry out 
     part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, may 
     be used to pay for the performance of abortions as a method 
     of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to 
     practice abortions. None of the funds made available to carry 
     out part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 
     may be used to pay for the performance of involuntary 
     sterilization as a method of family planning or to coerce or 
     provide any financial incentive to any person to undergo 
     sterilizations. None of the funds made available to carry out 
     part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, may 
     be used to pay for any biomedical research which relates in 
     whole or in part, to methods of, or the performance of, 
     abortions or involuntary sterilization as a means of family 
     planning. None of the funds made available to carry out part 
     I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, may be 
     obligated or expended for any country or organization if the 
     President certifies that the use of these funds by any such 
     country or organization would violate any of the above 
     provisions related to abortions and involuntary 
     sterilizations.


                         reporting requirement

       Sec. 519. The President shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations the reports required by section 25(a)(1) of 
     the Arms Export Control Act.


                   special notification requirements

       Sec. 520. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     be obligated or expended for Colombia, Dominican Republic, 
     Guatemala, Haiti, Indonesia, Liberia, Nicaragua, Peru, 

[[Page H 6373]]
     Russia, Sudan, or Zaire except as provided through the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: 
     Provided, That this section shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated by this Act to carry out the provisions of 
     chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     that are made available for Indonesia and Nicaragua.


              DEFINITION OF PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

       Sec. 521. For the purpose of this Act, ``program, project, 
     and activity'' shall be defined at the Appropriations Act 
     account level and shall include all Appropriations and 
     Authorizations Acts earmarks, ceilings, and limitations with 
     the exception that for the following accounts: Economic 
     Support Fund and Foreign Military Financing Program, 
     ``program, project, and activity'' shall also be considered 
     to include country, regional, and central program level 
     funding within each such account; for the development 
     assistance accounts of the Agency for International 
     Development ``program, project, and activity'' shall also be 
     considered to include central program level funding, either 
     as (1) justified to the Congress, or (2) allocated by the 
     executive branch in accordance with a report, to be provided 
     to the Committees on Appropriations within thirty days of 
     enactment of this Act, as required by section 653(a) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.


                   child survival and aids activities

       Sec. 522. Up to $8,000,000 of the funds made available by 
     this Act for assistance for family planning, health, child 
     survival, and AIDS, may be used to reimburse United States 
     Government agencies, agencies of State governments, 
     institutions of higher learning, and private and voluntary 
     organizations for the full cost of individuals (including for 
     the personal services of such individuals) detailed or 
     assigned to, or contracted by, as the case may be, the Agency 
     for International Development for the purpose of carrying out 
     family planning activities, child survival activities and 
     activities relating to research on, and the treatment and 
     control of, acquired immune deficiency syndrome in developing 
     countries: Provided, That funds appropriated by this Act that 
     are made available for child survival activities or 
     activities relating to research on, and the treatment and 
     control of, acquired immune deficiency syndrome may be made 
     available notwithstanding any provision of law that restricts 
     assistance to foreign countries: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated by this Act that are made available for family 
     planning activities may be made available notwithstanding 
     section 512 of this Act and section 620(q) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961.


       prohibition against indirect funding to certain countries

       Sec. 523. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated to finance 
     indirectly any assistance or reparations to Cuba, Iraq, 
     Libya, Iran, Syria, North Korea, or the People's Republic of 
     China, unless the President of the United States certifies 
     that the withholding of these funds is contrary to the 
     national interest of the United States.


                           RECIPROCAL LEASING

       Sec. 524. Section 61(a) of the Arms Export Control Act is 
     amended by striking out ``1995'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``1996''.


                NOTIFICATION ON EXCESS DEFENSE EQUIPMENT

       Sec. 525. Prior to providing excess Department of Defense 
     articles in accordance with section 516(a) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, the Department of Defense shall 
     notify the Committees on Appropriations to the same extent 
     and under the same conditions as are other committees 
     pursuant to subsection (c) of that section: Provided, That 
     before issuing a letter of offer to sell excess defense 
     articles under the Arms Export Control Act, the Department of 
     Defense shall notify the Committees on Appropriations in 
     accordance with the regular notification procedures of such 
     Committees: Provided further, That such Committees shall also 
     be informed of the original acquisition cost of such defense 
     articles.


                       authorization requirement

       Sec. 526. Funds appropriated by this Act may be obligated 
     and expended subject to section 10 of Public Law 91-672 and 
     section 15 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 
     1956.


   OPPOSITION TO ASSISTANCE TO TERRORIST COUNTRIES BY INTERNATIONAL 
                         FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

       Sec. 527. (a) Instructions for United States Executive 
     Directors.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the 
     United States Executive Director of each international 
     financial institution designated in subsection (b), and the 
     Administrator of the Agency for International Development 
     shall instruct the United States Executive Director of the 
     International Fund for Agriculture Development, to use the 
     voice and vote of the United States to oppose any loan or 
     other use of the funds of the respective institution to or 
     for a country for which the Secretary of State has made a 
     determination under section 6(j) of the Export Administration 
     Act of 1979.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``international financial institution'' includes--
       (1) the International Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development, the International Development Association, and 
     the International Monetary Fund; and
       (2) wherever applicable, the Inter-American Development 
     Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the African Development 
     Bank, the African Development Fund, and the European Bank for 
     Reconstruction and Development.


                 commercial leasing of defense articles

       Sec. 528. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
     subject to the regular notification requirements of the 
     Committees on Appropriations, the authority of section 23(a) 
     of the Arms Export Control Act may be used to provide 
     financing to Israel and Egypt and NATO and major non-NATO 
     allies for the procurement by leasing (including leasing with 
     an option to purchase) of defense articles from United States 
     commercial suppliers, not including Major Defense Equipment 
     (other than helicopters and other types of aircraft having 
     possible civilian application), if the President determines 
     that there are compelling foreign policy or national security 
     reasons for those defense articles being provided by 
     commercial lease rather than by government-to-government sale 
     under such Act.


                  stingers in the persian gulf region

       Sec. 529. Except as provided in section 581 of the Foreign 
     Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 1990, the United States may not sell or 
     otherwise make available any Stingers to any country 
     bordering the Persian Gulf under the Arms Export Control Act 
     or chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961.


                          debt-for-development

       Sec. 530. In order to enhance the continued participation 
     of nongovernmental organizations in economic assistance 
     activities under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     including endowments, debt-for-development and debt-for-
     nature exchanges, a nongovernmental organization which is a 
     grantee or contractor of the Agency for International 
     Development may place in interest bearing accounts funds made 
     available under this Act or prior Acts or local currencies 
     which accrue to that organization as a result of economic 
     assistance provided under title II of this Act and any 
     interest earned on such investment may be used for the 
     purpose for which the assistance was provided to that 
     organization.


                         location of stockpiles

       Sec. 531. Section 514(b)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 is amended by striking out ``a total of $200,000,000 
     for stockpiles in Israel for fiscal years 1994 and 1995, up 
     to $40,000,000 may be made available for stockpiles in the 
     Republic of Korea, and up to $10,000,000 may be made 
     available for stockpiles in Thailand for fiscal year 1995.'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``$40,000,000 for stockpiles in 
     the Republic of Korea and $10,000,000 for stockpiles in 
     Thailand for fiscal year 1996''.


                           separate accounts

       Sec. 532. (a) Separate Accounts for Local Currencies.--(1) 
     If assistance is furnished to the government of a foreign 
     country under chapters 1 and 10 of part I or chapter 4 of 
     part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 under 
     agreements which result in the generation of local currencies 
     of that country, the Administrator of the Agency for 
     International Development shall--
       (A) require that local currencies be deposited in a 
     separate account established by that government;
       (B) enter into an agreement with that government which sets 
     forth--
       (i) the amount of the local currencies to be generated, and
       (ii) the terms and conditions under which the currencies so 
     deposited may be utilized, consistent with this section; and
       (C) establish by agreement with that government the 
     responsibilities of the Agency for International Development 
     and that government to monitor and account for deposits into 
     and disbursements from the separate account.
       (2) Uses of Local Currencies.--As may be agreed upon with 
     the foreign government, local currencies deposited in a 
     separate account pursuant to subsection (a), or an equivalent 
     amount of local currencies, shall be used only--
       (A) to carry out chapters 1 or 10 of part I or chapter 4 of 
     part II (as the case may be), for such purposes as--
       (i) project and sector assistance activities, or
       (ii) debt and deficit financing; or
       (B) for the administrative requirements of the United 
     States Government.
       (3) Programming Accountability.--The Agency for 
     International Development shall take all appropriate steps to 
     ensure that the equivalent of the local currencies disbursed 
     pursuant to subsection (a)(2)(A) from the separate account 
     established pursuant to subsection (a)(1) are used for the 
     purposes agreed upon pursuant to subsection (a)(2).
       (4) Termination of Assistance Programs.--Upon termination 
     of assistance to a country under chapters 1 or 10 of part I 
     or chapter 4 of part II (as the case may be), any 
     unencumbered balances of funds which remain in a separate 
     account established pursuant to subsection (a) shall be 
     disposed of for such purposes as may be agreed to by the 
     government of that country and the United States Government.
       (5) Conforming Amendments.--The provisions of this 
     subsection shall supersede the tenth and eleventh provisos 
     contained under the heading ``Sub-Saharan Africa, Development 
     Assistance'' as included in the Foreign Operations, Export 
     Financing, and Related 

[[Page H 6374]]
     Programs Appropriations Act, 1989 and sections 531(d) and 609 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
       (b) Separate Accounts for Cash Transfers.--(1) If 
     assistance is made available to the government of a foreign 
     country, under chapters 1 or 10 of part I or chapter 4 of 
     part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as cash 
     transfer assistance or as nonproject sector assistance, that 
     country shall be required to maintain such funds in a 
     separate account and not commingle them with any other funds.
       (2) Applicability of Other Provisions of Law.--Such funds 
     may be obligated and expended notwithstanding provisions of 
     law which are inconsistent with the nature of this assistance 
     including provisions which are referenced in the Joint 
     Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference 
     accompanying House Joint Resolution 648 (H. Report No. 98-
     1159).
       (3) Notification.--At least fifteen days prior to 
     obligating any such cash transfer or nonproject sector 
     assistance, the President shall submit a notification through 
     the regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations, which shall include a detailed description of 
     how the funds proposed to be made available will be used, 
     with a discussion of the United States interests that will be 
     served by the assistance (including, as appropriate, a 
     description of the economic policy reforms that will be 
     promoted by such assistance).
       (4) Exemption.--Nonproject sector assistance funds may be 
     exempt from the requirements of subsection (b)(1) only 
     through the notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.


  compensation for united states executive directors to international 
                         financial institutions

       Sec. 533. (a) No funds appropriated by this Act may be made 
     as payment to any international financial institution while 
     the United States Executive Director to such institution is 
     compensated by the institution at a rate which, together with 
     whatever compensation such Director receives from the United 
     States, is in excess of the rate provided for an individual 
     occupying a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule 
     under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, or while 
     any alternate United States Director to such institution is 
     compensated by the institution at a rate in excess of the 
     rate provided for an individual occupying a position at level 
     V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (b) For purposes of this section, ``international financial 
     institutions'' are: the International Bank for Reconstruction 
     and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the 
     Asian Development Bank, the Asian Development Fund, the 
     African Development Bank, the African Development Fund, the 
     International Monetary Fund, the North American Development 
     Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development.


         Compliance With United Nations Sanctions Against Iraq

       Sec. 534. (a) Denial of Assistance.--None of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act 
     to carry out the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (including 
     title IV of chapter 2 of part I, relating to the Overseas 
     Private Investment Corporation) or the Arms Export Control 
     Act may be used to provide assistance to any country that is 
     not in compliance with the United Nations Security Council 
     sanctions against Iraq, Serbia or Montenegro unless the 
     President determines and so certifies to the Congress that--
       (1) such assistance is in the national interest of the 
     United States;
       (2) such assistance will directly benefit the needy people 
     in that country; or
       (3) the assistance to be provided will be humanitarian 
     assistance for foreign nationals who have fled Iraq and 
     Kuwait.
       (b) Import Sanctions.--If the President considers that the 
     taking of such action would promote the effectiveness of the 
     economic sanctions of the United Nations and the United 
     States imposed with respect to Iraq, Serbia, or Montenegro, 
     as the case may be and is consistent with the national 
     interest, the President may prohibit, for such a period of 
     time as he considers appropriate, the importation into the 
     United States of any or all products of any foreign country 
     that has not prohibited--
       (1) the importation of products of Iraq, Serbia, or 
     Montenegro into its customs territory, and
       (2) the export of its products to Iraq, Serbia, or 
     Montenegro, as the case may be.


                       pow/mia military drawdown

       Sec. 535. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the President may direct the drawdown, without reimbursement 
     by the recipient, of defense articles from the stocks of the 
     Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of 
     Defense, and military education and training, of an aggregate 
     value not to exceed $15,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, as may 
     be necessary to carry out subsection (b).
       (b) Such defense articles, services and training may be 
     provided to Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, under subsection (a) 
     as the President determines are necessary to support efforts 
     to locate and repatriate members of the United States Armed 
     Forces and civilians employed directly or indirectly by the 
     United States Government who remain unaccounted for from the 
     Vietnam War, and to ensure the safety of United States 
     Government personnel engaged in such cooperative efforts and 
     to support United States Department of Defense-sponsored 
     humanitarian projects associated with the POW/MIA efforts. 
     Any aircraft shall be provided under this section only to 
     Laos and only on a lease or loan basis, but may be provided 
     at no cost notwithstanding section 61 of the Arms Export 
     Control Act and may be maintained with defense articles, 
     services and training provided under this section.
       (c) The President shall, within sixty days of the end of 
     any fiscal year in which the authority of subsection (a) is 
     exercised, submit a report to the Congress which identifies 
     the articles, services, and training drawn down under this 
     section.


                 mediterranean excess defense articles

       Sec. 536. During fiscal year 1996, the provisions of 
     section 573(e) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, 
     and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1990, shall be 
     applicable, for the period specified therein, to excess 
     defense articles made available under sections 516 and 519 of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.


                          cash flow financing

       Sec. 537. For each country that has been approved for cash 
     flow financing (as defined in section 25(d) of the Arms 
     Export Control Act, as added by section 112(b) of Public Law 
     99-83) under the Foreign Military Financing Program, any 
     Letter of Offer and Acceptance or other purchase agreement, 
     or any amendment thereto, for a procurement in excess of 
     $100,000,000 that is to be financed in whole or in part with 
     funds made available under this Act shall be submitted 
     through the regular notification procedures to the Committees 
     on Appropriations.


authorities for the peace corps, the inter-american foundation and the 
                     african development foundation

       Sec. 538. Unless expressly provided to the contrary, 
     provisions of this or any other Act, including provisions 
     contained in prior Acts authorizing or making appropriations 
     for foreign operations, export financing, and related 
     programs, shall not be construed to prohibit activities 
     authorized by or conducted under the Peace Corps Act, the 
     Inter-American Foundation Act, or the African Development 
     Foundation Act. The appropriate agency shall promptly report 
     to the Committees on Appropriations whenever it is conducting 
     activities or is proposing to conduct activities in a country 
     for which assistance is prohibited.


                  impact on jobs in the United States

       Sec. 539. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     obligated or expended to provide--
       (a) any financial incentive to a business enterprise 
     currently located in the United States for the purpose of 
     inducing such an enterprise to relocate outside the United 
     States if such incentive or inducement is likely to reduce 
     the number of employees of such business enterprise in the 
     United States because United States production is being 
     replaced by such enterprise outside the United States;
       (b) assistance for the purpose of establishing or 
     developing in a foreign country any export processing zone or 
     designated area in which the tax, tariff, labor, environment, 
     and safety laws of that country do not apply, in part or in 
     whole, to activities carried out within that zone or area, 
     unless the President determines and certifies that such 
     assistance is not likely to cause a loss of jobs within the 
     United States; or
       (c) assistance for any project or activity that contributes 
     to the violation of internationally recognized workers 
     rights, as defined in section 502(a)(4) of the Trade Act of 
     1974, of workers in the recipient country, including any 
     designated zone or area in that country: Provided, That in 
     recognition that the application of this subsection should be 
     commensurate with the level of development of the recipient 
     country and sector, the provisions of this subsection shall 
     not preclude assistance for the informal sector in such 
     country, micro and small-scale enterprise, and smallholder 
     agriculture.


                 authority to assist bosnia-hercegovina

       Sec. 540. (a) Congress finds as follows:
       (1) The United Nations has imposed an embargo on the 
     transfer of arms to any country on the territory of the 
     former Yugoslavia.
       (2) The federated states of Serbia and Montenegro have a 
     large supply of military equipment and ammunition and the 
     Serbian forces fighting the government of Bosnia-Hercegovina 
     have more than one thousand battle tanks, armored vehicles, 
     and artillery pieces.
       (3) Because the United Nations arms embargo is serving to 
     sustain the military advantage of the aggressor, the United 
     Nations should exempt the government of Bosnia-Hercegovina 
     from its embargo.
       (b) Pursuant to a lifting of the United Nations arms 
     embargo, or to a unilateral lifting of the arms embargo by 
     the President of the United States, against Bosnia-
     Hercegovina, the President is authorized to transfer, subject 
     to prior notification of the Committees on Appropriations, to 
     the government of that nation, without reimbursement, defense 
     articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense and 
     defense services of the Department of Defense of an aggregate 
     value not to exceed $50,000,000 in fiscal year 1996: 
     Provided, That the President certifies in a 

[[Page H 6375]]
     timely fashion to the Congress that the transfer of such articles would 
     assist that nation in self-defense and thereby promote the 
     security and stability of the region.
       (c) Within 60 days of any transfer under the authority 
     provided in subsection (b), and every 60 days thereafter, the 
     President shall report in writing to the Speaker of the House 
     of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the 
     Senate concerning the articles transferred and the 
     disposition thereof.
       (d) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     President such sums as may be necessary to reimburse the 
     applicable appropriation, fund, or account for defense 
     articles provided under this section.

                          special authorities

       Sec. 541. (a) Funds appropriated in title II of this Act 
     that are made available for Haiti, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and 
     Cambodia, and for victims of war, displaced children, 
     displaced Burmese, humanitarian assistance for Romania, and 
     humanitarian assistance for the peoples of Bosnia-
     Hercegovina, Croatia, and Kosova, may be made available 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law: Provided, That 
     any such funds that are made available for Cambodia shall be 
     subject to the provisions of section 531(e) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 and section 906 of the International 
     Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1985: Provided 
     further, That the President shall terminate assistance to any 
     country or organization that he determines is cooperating, 
     tactically or strategically, with the Khmer Rouge in their 
     military operations.
       (b) Funds appropriated by this Act to carry out the 
     provisions of sections 103 through 106 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 may be used, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, for the purpose of supporting tropical 
     forestry and energy programs aimed at reducing emissions of 
     greenhouse gases, and for the purpose of supporting 
     biodiversity conservation activities: Provided, That such 
     assistance shall be subject to sections 116, 502B, and 620A 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
       (c) During fiscal year 1996, the President may use up to 
     $40,000,000 under the authority of section 451 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, notwithstanding the funding ceiling 
     contained in subsection (a) of that section.
       (d) The Agency for International Development may employ 
     personal services contractors, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, for the purpose of administering programs 
     for the West Bank and Gaza.


        policy on terminating the arab league boycott of israel

       Sec. 542. It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the Arab League countries should immediately and 
     publicly renounce the primary boycott of Israel and the 
     secondary and tertiary boycott of American firms that have 
     commercial ties with Israel; and
       (2) the President should--
       (A) take more concrete steps to encourage vigorously Arab 
     League countries to renounce publicly the primary boycotts of 
     Israel and the secondary and tertiary boycotts of American 
     firms that have commercial relations with Israel as a 
     confidence-building measure;
       (B) take into consideration the participation of any 
     recipient country in the primary boycott of Israel and the 
     secondary and tertiary boycotts of American firms that have 
     commercial relations with Israel when determining whether to 
     sell weapons to said country;
       (C) report to Congress on the specific steps being taken by 
     the President to bring about a public renunciation of the 
     Arab primary boycott of Israel and the secondary and tertiary 
     boycotts of American firms that have commercial relations 
     with Israel; and
       (D) encourage the allies and trading partners of the United 
     States to enact laws prohibiting businesses from complying 
     with the boycott and penalizing businesses that do comply.


                       ANTI-NARCOTICS ACTIVITIES

       Sec. 543. (a) Of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act for ``Economic Support Fund'', 
     assistance may be provided to strengthen the administration 
     of justice in countries in Latin America and the Caribbean in 
     accordance with the provisions of section 534 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, except that programs to enhance 
     protection of participants in judicial cases may be conducted 
     notwithstanding section 660 of that Act.
       (b) Funds made available pursuant to this section may be 
     made available notwithstanding the third sentence of section 
     534(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Funds made 
     available pursuant to subsection (a) for Bolivia, Colombia 
     and Peru may be made available notwithstanding section 534(c) 
     and the second sentence of section 534(e) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961.
                       ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSISTANCE

       Sec. 544. (a) Assistance Through Nongovernmental 
     Organizations.--Restrictions contained in this or any other 
     Act with respect to assistance for a country shall not be 
     construed to restrict assistance in support of programs of 
     nongovernmental organizations from funds appropriated by this 
     Act to carry out the provisions of chapters 1 and 10 of part 
     I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: Provided, That the 
     President shall take into consideration, in any case in which 
     a restriction on assistance would be applicable but for this 
     subsection, whether assistance in support of programs of 
     nongovernmental organizations is in the national interest of 
     the United States: Provided further, That before using the 
     authority of this subsection to furnish assistance in support 
     of programs of nongovernmental organizations, the President 
     shall notify the Committees on Appropriations under the 
     regular notification procedures of those committees, 
     including a description of the program to be assisted, the 
     assistance to be provided, and the reasons for furnishing 
     such assistance: Provided further, That nothing in this 
     subsection shall be construed to alter any existing statutory 
     prohibitions against abortion or involuntary sterilizations 
     contained in this or any other Act.
       (b) Public Law 480.--During fiscal year 1996, restrictions 
     contained in this or any other Act with respect to assistance 
     for a country shall not be construed to restrict assistance 
     under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act 
     of 1954: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated to 
     carry out title I of such Act and made available pursuant to 
     this subsection may be obligated or expended except as 
     provided through the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.
       (c) Exception.--This section shall not apply--
       (1) with respect to section 620A of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act or any comparable provision of law prohibiting assistance 
     to countries that support international terrorism; or
       (2) with respect to section 116 of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 or any comparable provision of law prohibiting 
     assistance to countries that violate internationally 
     recognized human rights.


                                CEILINGS

       Sec. 545. Ceilings and earmarks contained in this Act shall 
     not be applicable to funds or authorities appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by any subsequent Act unless such 
     Act specifically so directs.


                        EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES

       Sec. 546. (a) The authority of section 519 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, may be used in fiscal 
     year 1996 to provide nonlethal excess defense articles to 
     countries for which United States foreign assistance has been 
     requested and for which receipt of such articles was 
     separately justified for the fiscal year, without regard to 
     the restrictions in subsection (a) of section 519.
       (b) The authority of section 516 of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961, as amended, may be used in fiscal year 1996 to 
     provide defense articles to Jordan, except that the provision 
     of such defense articles shall be subject to section 534 of 
     this Act.


                 PROHIBITION ON PUBLICITY OR PROPAGANDA

       Sec. 547. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within 
     the United States not authorized before the date of enactment 
     of this Act by the Congress: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act may be made available to carry out 
     the provisions of section 316 of Public Law 96-533.


                       USE OF AMERICAN RESOURCES

       Sec. 548. To the maximum extent possible, assistance 
     provided under this Act should make full use of American 
     resources, including commodities, products, and services.


           prohibition of payments to united nations members

       Sec. 549. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act for carrying out the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961, may be used to pay in whole or in part any 
     assessments, arrearages, or dues of any member of the United 
     Nations.


                          consulting services

       Sec. 550. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures 
     are a matter of public record and available for public 
     inspection, except where otherwise provided under existing 
     law, or under existing Executive order pursuant to existing 
     law.


             private voluntary organizations--documentation

       Sec. 551. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act shall be available to a private 
     voluntary organization which fails to provide upon timely 
     request any document, file, or record necessary to the 
     auditing requirements of the Agency for International 
     Development.


  PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS THAT EXPORT LETHAL 
   MILITARY EQUIPMENT TO COUNTRIES SUPPORTING INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM

       Sec. 552. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be available to any foreign 
     government which provides lethal military equipment to a 
     country the government of which the Secretary of State has 
     determined is a terrorist government for purposes of section 
     40(d) of the Arms Export Control Act. The prohibition under 
     this section with respect to a foreign government shall 
     terminate 12 months after that government ceases to provide 
     such military equipment. This section applies with respect to 
     lethal military equipment provided under a contract entered 
     into after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Assistance restricted by subsection (a) or any other 
     similar provision of law, may be furnished if the President 
     determines that 

[[Page H 6376]]
     furnishing such assistance is important to the national interests of 
     the United States.
       (c) Whenever the waiver of subsection (b) is exercised, the 
     President shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report with respect to the furnishing of such 
     assistance. Any such report shall include a detailed 
     explanation of the assistance to be provided, including the 
     estimated dollar amount of such assistance, and an 
     explanation of how the assistance furthers United States 
     national interests.


 withholding of assistance for parking fines owed by foreign countries

       Sec. 553. (a) In General.--Of the funds made available for 
     a foreign country under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961, an amount equivalent to 110 percent of the total 
     unpaid fully adjudicated parking fines and penalties owed to 
     the District of Columbia by such country as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act shall be withheld from obligation for 
     such country until the Secretary of State certifies and 
     reports in writing to the appropriate congressional 
     committees that such fines and penalties are fully paid to 
     the government of the District of Columbia.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee 
     on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the Committee on International Relations and 
     the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives.


    limitation on assistance for the plo for the west bank and gaza

       Sec. 554. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     obligated for assistance for the Palestine Liberation 
     Organization for the West Bank and Gaza unless the President 
     has exercised the authority under section 583(a) of the 
     Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1994 (part E of title V 
     of Public Law 103-236) or any other legislation to suspend or 
     make inapplicable section 307 of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 and that suspension is still in effect: Provided, 
     That if the President fails to make the certification under 
     section 583(b)(2) of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act 
     or to suspend the prohibition under other legislation, funds 
     appropriated by this Act may not be obligated for assistance 
     for the Palestine Liberation Organization for the West Bank 
     and Gaza.


                 export financing transfer authorities

       Sec. 555. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation 
     other than for administrative expenses made available for 
     fiscal year 1996 for programs under title I of this Act may 
     be transferred between such appropriations for use for any of 
     the purposes, programs and activities for which the funds in 
     such receiving account may be used, but no such 
     appropriation, except as otherwise specifically provided, 
     shall be increased by more than 25 percent by any such 
     transfer: Provided, That the exercise of such authority shall 
     be subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.


                          war crimes tribunals

       Sec. 556. If the President determines that doing so will 
     contribute to a just resolution of charges regarding genocide 
     or other violations of international humanitarian law, the 
     authority of section 552(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, as amended, may be used to provide up to $25,000,000 of 
     commodities and services to the United Nations War Crimes 
     Tribunal established with regard to the former Yugoslavia by 
     the United Nations Security Council or such other tribunals 
     or commissions as the Council may establish to deal with such 
     violations, without regard to the ceiling limitation 
     contained in paragraph (2) thereof: Provided, That the 
     determination required under this section shall be in lieu of 
     any determinations otherwise required under section 552(c):  
     Provided further, That 60 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, and every 180 days thereafter, the Secretary of 
     State shall submit a report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations describing the steps the United States 
     Government is taking to collect information regarding 
     allegations of genocide or other violations of international 
     law in the former Yugoslavia and to furnish that information 
     to the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal for the former 
     Yugoslavia.


                   nonlethal excess defense articles

       Sec. 557. Notwithstanding section 519(f) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, during fiscal year 1996, funds 
     available to the Department of Defense may be expended for 
     crating, packing, handling and transportation of nonlethal 
     excess defense articles transferred under the authority of 
     section 519 to countries eligible to participate in the 
     Partnership for Peace and to receive assistance under Public 
     Law 101-179.


                               landmines

       Sec. 558. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     demining equipment available to any department or agency and 
     used in support of the clearing of landmines for humanitarian 
     purposes may be disposed of on a grant basis in foreign 
     countries, subject to such terms and conditions as the 
     President may prescribe.


   report on the salaries and benefits of the imf and the world bank

       Sec. 559. The Comptroller General shall submit a report to 
     the Committees on Appropriations not later than November 1, 
     1995, on the following--
       (1) a review of the existing salaries and benefits of 
     employees of the International Monetary Fund and the 
     International Bank for Reconstruction and Development; and
       (2) a review of all benefits paid to dependents of Fund and 
     Bank employees.
     Such report shall include a comparison of the salaries and 
     benefits paid to employees and dependents of the Fund and the 
     Bank with salaries and benefits paid to employees holding 
     comparable positions in the public and private sectors in 
     member countries and in the international sector.


           restrictions concerning the Palestinian authority

       Sec. 560. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     obligated or expended to create in any part of Jerusalem a 
     new office of any department or agency of the United States 
     Government for the purpose of conducting official United 
     States Government business with the Palestinian Authority 
     over Gaza and Jericho or any successor Palestinian governing 
     entity provided for in the Israel-PLO Declaration of 
     Principles: Provided, That this subsection shall not apply to 
     the acquisition of additional space for the existing 
     Consulate General in Jerusalem: Provided further, That 
     meetings between officers and employees of the United States 
     and officials of the Palestinian Authority, or any successor 
     Palestinian governing entity provided for in the Israel-PLO 
     Declaration of Principles, for the purpose of conducting 
     official United States Government business with such 
     authority should continue to take place in locations other 
     than Jerusalem. As has been true in the past, officers and 
     employees of the United States Government may continue to 
     meet in Jerusalem on other subjects with Palestinians 
     (including those who now occupy positions in the Palestinian 
     Authority), have social contacts, and have incidental 
     discussions.


               prohibition of payment of certain expenses

       Sec. 561. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act under the heading ``international 
     military education and training'' or ``foreign military 
     financing program'' for Informational Program activities may 
     be obligated or expended to pay for--
       (1) alcoholic beverages;
       (2) food (other than food provided at a military 
     installation) not provided in conjunction with Informational 
     Program trips where students do not stay at a military 
     installation; or
       (3) entertainment expenses for activities that are 
     substantially of a recreational character, including entrance 
     fees at sporting events and amusement parks.


 limitation on assistance to countries that restrict the transport or 
           delivery of united states humanitarian assistance

       Sec. 562. (a) In General.--None of the funds made available 
     in this Act may be used for assistance in support of any 
     country when it is made known to the President that the 
     government of such country prohibits or otherwise restricts, 
     directly or indirectly, the transport or delivery of United 
     States humanitarian assistance.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     assistance in support of any country when it is made known to 
     the President that the assistance is in the national security 
     interest of the United States.


                    references to authorization acts

       Sec. 563. The funds appropriated under the heading, ``Child 
     Survival and Disease Programs Fund'' are provided pursuant to 
     the Foreign Assistance Act, as amended: under sections 103 
     through 106 (Development Assistance Fund), in the amount of 
     $214,000,000; under part I, chapter 10 (Development Fund for 
     Africa), in the amount of $131,000,000; under the provisions 
     of section 498(6) (Assistance for the New Independent States 
     of the Former Soviet Union), in the amount of $15,000,000; 
     under the provisions of part I, chapter 1, section 104(c) of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act and the Support for East European 
     Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989, in the amount of $1,000,000; 
     under provisions of chapter 4, part II (Economic Support 
     Fund), in the amount of $23,000,000; under the provisions of 
     section 301, in the amount of $100,000,000 as a contribution 
     on a grant basis to the United Nation's Children's Fund 
     (UNICEF): Provided, That funds derived from funds authorized 
     under chapter 4, part II, shall be made available for 
     projects meeting criteria set forth in part I section 104(c): 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated under the heading 
     ``Child Survival and Disease Programs Fund'' shall be in 
     addition to amounts otherwise available for such purposes.

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, as I have said many times on this floor, 
the United States has a unique opportunity--in fact in my view a 
responsibility--to remain engaged overseas in the post-cold-war world. 
The reasons for promoting our interest overseas, including the 
development of overseas markets for United States goods, protection of 
the planet's environment, and United States strategic interests did not 
disappear with the break-up of the Soviet Union. If anything, the 
United States should focus its energies and resources on these issues 
now, when we can have the greatest opportunity for success any time in 
the last 50 years.
  The gentleman from New York is a good friend of mine and a person 
whom I greatly respect for his longtime dedication to enhancing the 
United States's role in the world through 

[[Page H 6377]]
development aid. I commend him for his leadership in passing the 
American Overseas Interests Act earlier this year. Unfortunately, he 
has been put in a very peculiar and difficult position by the foreign 
operations bill, which reflects his priorities, I believe, but exceeds 
his committee's authorization level by $24 million.
  While I understand the gentleman's dedication to protecting the 
prerogatives of his committee, I cannot support his amendment. The 
development assistance account is, in my view, the backbone of this 
bill. The bill already effectively cuts this account by 40 percent, 
devastating programs in the areas of population, education, 
agriculture, microenterprise, and others that promote our interests 
overseas. Further cuts like the ones proposed in this amendment are 
counterproductive and should not be enacted.
  I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from New York, but I 
must reluctantly encourage Members to oppose his amendment today.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to comment on an issue of 
vital strategic importance to the United States--the future of Ukraine.
  The Ukraine, situated in the middle of Sir Halford John Mackinder's 
celebrated ``heartland'' of the world, is of vital strategic 
significance to every nation in the region. Standing at the crossroads 
of Europe and Asia, the future of the Ukraine and its 52 million people 
will have a profound impact on the geopolitical complexion of Europe, 
Central Asia, and the Transcaucasus.
  Recently, the Ukraine has responded extremely well in its efforts to 
implement democratic principles, begin the conversion to a free market 
economy, and fulfill international treaty commitments. In particular, 
the period since the 1994 democratic election of President Kuchma has 
been a time of significant progress in several respects.
  However, the United States commitment to the Ukraine has not been 
commensurate with the pace of Ukrainian reform. I understand the 
reluctance of the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Foreign Operations to provide specific country earmarks in this bill. 
However, this administration has been negligent in providing 
proportionate funding for the Ukraine under the authority of the 
Freedom Support Act. Ukraine's size, geostrategic significance, and 
commitment to important treaty obligations have not been reflected in 
the administration's distribution of Freedom Support Act funds.
  Ukraine has fulfilled nuclear disarmament obligations, adopted 
democratic reform, made progress in economic reform, and boasts an 
excellent human rights record. In many ways, the Ukrainian record 
stands in stark contrast to that of the Russian Government.
  Russia is the overwhelming recipient of the Freedom Support Act 
account. In response to several regrettable actions undertaken by the 
Russian Government, Congress has justifiably reduced our commitment to 
that account. It is the expectation of Congress that these reductions 
will be borne by Russia and not the Ukraine.
  While I support the reductions in spending for the Freedom Support 
Act, these cuts should not come from the Ukrainian allotment. Congress 
will be watching the administration closely on this matter.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. 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. 
Diaz-Balart) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hansen, 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. 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.

                          ____________________