[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 107 (Wednesday, June 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6446-H6480]
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}  1543


                     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.

[[Page H6447]]

  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, June 
27, 1995, amendment No. 17, offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
DeLay] had been disposed of, and title V was open for amendment at any 
point.
  Are there amendments to title V?


                    amendment offered by mr. porter

  Mr. PORTER. 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. Porter: Page 78, after line 6, 
     insert the following new section:


                   limitation on assistance to turkey

       Sec. 564. Not more than $21,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Economic Support 
     Fund'' may be made available to the Government of Turkey.

                              {time}  1545


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Has the bill been called up, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. The amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter] has been read?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's amendment has been designated.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Then, Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order at this 
point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman want to proceed with his point of 
order at this point?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I will just reserve the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] reserves his 
point of order, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know the gentleman's point 
of order. If he has one, what point of order is he making?


                             point of order

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment adds a limitation to a 
general appropriation bill. Under the revised clause 2, rule XXI, such 
amendments are not in order during the reading of a general 
appropriation bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the revised rule states in part:

       Except as provided in paragraph (D), no amendment shall be 
     in order during consideration of a general appropriation bill 
     proposing a limitation not specifically contained or 
     authorized in existing law for the period of the limitation.

  The gentleman's amendment adds limitation and is not specifically 
contained or authorized in existing law, and, therefore, is in 
violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI, and I will ask for a ruling of 
the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hansen). The Chair rules that the amendment does 
contain a limitation and, therefore, would have to wait until the end 
of the bill to be offered.


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. VOLKMER. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I ask, Would the amendment not be in order if the motion 
to rise at the end of the bill after all amendments are completed is 
defeated?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is not making that ruling at this particular 
time.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Well, I mean at that time an amendment with a limitation 
is in order only after the motion to rise is defeated; is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. That would be correct, except if the motion to rise and 
report is not offered.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment merely changes the level of 
funding in the bill by making a cut of $25 million. It has no 
limitation that I am aware of if we are talking about amendment No. 34.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will tell the gentleman from Illinois that it 
does limit funds in the bill, and the Chair has ruled on the form of 
the amendment. It would have to wait until the end of the bill.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I might inform the gentleman that it is 
certainly not our intention to deny him the ability to introduce his 
amendment or the opportunity to debate it to its fullest extent. It is 
just being introduced at the wrong time because the rule puts in point 
of order three amendments prior to his, so we do intend to afford the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] every opportunity that he needs to 
present his amendment, and there will be no indication, coming from me 
at least, there is no indication that I will deny him the----
  Mr. PORTER. If the gentleman would yield, then why not take it up 
right now?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Because the rule says we are going to take up the three 
bills that the Committee on Rules approved----
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title 5?
  Mr. DEUTSCH. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Would it be our understanding that this amendment coming 
into order, that we would have to defeat the motion to rise?
  The CHAIRMAN. Unless the motion to rise and report is not made, the 
gentleman is correct.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. So the fact is the Porter amendment would not 
automatically be made in order at the end of this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Except, Mr. Chairman, if I might be recognized, I would 
just like to inform the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] that under 
no circumstances is this committee going to rise and vote on final 
passage of this bill until such time as he has had the opportunity to 
fully debate his amendment regarding Turkey, so it is not our intention 
to----
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, could we 
make a unanimous-consent request that that would be done at this time? 
As I understand, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] would be 
willing to do that, but it would not prevent any other Member to make 
that motion.
  The CHAIRMAN. Has the gentleman made a unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Well, I would not if the gentleman would just make clear 
that we would have the opportunity to debate the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has the opportunity to make his 
unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we take up the 
Porter-Wolf-Smith amendment immediately following the three amendments 
that the rule makes in order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly object. I have given the 
gentleman my word. I have told him we are going to give him full 
opportunity for as much time as he likes to debate his amendment. We 
are not going to do anything to preclude him this opportunity. We are 
going to do it as the rule permits, and that is the three amendments 
that were allowed under the rule, we are going to debate them this 
afternoon, and then immediately following the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Porter] can offer his amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard from the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Callahan].


              amendment offered by mr. smith of new jersey

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.,
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Page 78, 
     after line 6, insert the following new section:


                  prohibition of funding for abortion

       Sec. 564. (a) In General.--
       (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or 
     other law, none of the funds appropriated by this Act for 
     population assistance activities may be made available for 
     any private, nongovernmental, or multilateral organization 
     until the organization certifies that it does not and will 
     not during the period for which the funds are made available, 
     directly or through a subcontractor or sub-grantee, perform 
     abortions in any foreign country, except where the life or 
     the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to 
     term or in cases of forcible rape or incest.
       (2) Paragraph (1) may not be construed to apply to the 
     treatment of injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal 
     abortions or 

[[Page H6448]]
     to assistance provided directly to the government of a country.
       (b) Lobbying Activities.--
       (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or 
     other law, none of the funds appropriated by this Act for 
     population assistance activities may be made available for 
     any private, nongovernmental, or multilateral organization 
     until the organization certifies that it does not and will 
     not during the period for which the funds are made available, 
     violate the laws of any foreign country concerning the 
     circumstances under which abortion is permitted, regulated, 
     or prohibited, or engage in any activity or effort to alter 
     the laws or governmental policies of any foreign country 
     concerning the circumstances under which abortion is 
     permitted, regulated, or prohibited.
       (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to activities in 
     opposition to coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
       (c) Coercive Population Control Methods.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of this Act or other law, none of the 
     funds appropriated by this Act may be made available for the 
     United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), unless the President 
     certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that 
     (1) the United Nations Population Fund has terminated all 
     activities in the People's Republic of China; or (2) during 
     the 12 months preceding such certification there have been no 
     abortions as the result of coercion associated with the 
     family planning policies of the national government or other 
     governmental entities within the People's Republic of China. 
     As used in this section the term ``coercion'' includes 
     physician duress or abuse, destruction or confiscation of 
     property, loss of means of livelihood, or severe 
     psychological pressure.

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering 
today is both pro-life and anticoercion. It is essentially identical to 
the one that the House adopted to the American Overseas Interests Act, 
H.R. 1561, last month. The amendment would do nothing more and nothing 
less than reinstate the ``wall of separation'' between family planning 
and abortion, and particularly coercive abortion, which was torn down 2 
years ago by the Clinton administration.
  The prochild, provoluntarism policy that my amendment would reinstate 
was the law of the land for a decade. It was repeatedly upheld by the 
Federal courts against a wide range of both statutory and 
constitutional challenges brought by the abortion industry. Recent 
experience suggests that this policy is needed now, more than ever 
before.
  Mr. Chairman, the government of the People's Republic of China, as I 
think more and more Members are realizing, routinely compels women to 
abort their, quote, unauthorized children. The usual method is intense 
persuasion, using all of the economic, social, and psychological tools 
a totalitarian state has at its disposal. When these methods fail, the 
women are taken physically to abortion mills, often in handcuffs, and 
coerced to have abortions. Sometimes this happens very late in the 
pregnancy: the baby's skull is crushed with forceps, or lethal chemical 
shots are administered into the soft part of the skull.
  Mr. Chairman, forced abortion was properly construed to be a crime 
against humanity at the Nuremberg war crime tribunals, and again it is 
being used pervasively throughout the People's Republic of China. 
Population control organizations, with the United Nations Population 
Fund at the helm, are promoting population control in China and have 
had a hand-in-glove relationship with the hardliners in the PRC.
  As a matter of fact, I would remind Members that during the Reagan 
and Bush years we did not provide funding to those organizations 
because of that kind of complicity in these heinous crimes against 
women. It is not just that the child is being killed. It is also that 
the woman is being exploited in this very cruel manner.
  I would ask all of my colleagues to take a look at the report by 
Amnesty International, released just yesterday. It is under the heading 
``Human Rights Violations Resulting from Enforced Birth Control.'' They 
point out that birth control has been compulsory in China since 1979. 
Women must have official permission to bear children.
  Mr. Chairman, the report in its entirety is as follows:

 Women in China--A Preliminary Report From Amnesty International, June 
                                  1995


     human rights violations resulting from enforced birth control

       Birth control has been compulsory in China since 1979. . . 
     . Government demographers set a target for the stabilization 
     of the population by the year 2000. The target currently 
     stands at 1.3 billion, which they claim can only be achieved 
     through ``strict measures''.
       The policy involves the strict control of the age of 
     marriage and the timing and number of children for each 
     couple. Women must have official permission to bear children. 
     Birth control is enforced through quotas allocated to each 
     work or social unit (such as school, factory or village). The 
     quotas fix the number of children that may be born annually 
     in each unit. Local party officials (cadres) have always 
     monitored the system, but since 1991 they have been held 
     directly responsible for its implementation through ``target 
     management responsibility contracts''. A cadre's performance 
     is now evaluated not just on the region's economic 
     performance but also on its implementation of the birth 
     control policy. Cadres may lose bonuses or face penalties if 
     they fail to keep within quotas.
       The policy has become known as the ``one-child'' policy. In 
     fact, it is more complex than that and is applied differently 
     in various areas. While the authorities issue ideological 
     directives, targets and guidelines, at present the detailed 
     regulations, sanctions and incentives are left almost 
     entirely to the county level administration, who determine 
     them ``according to the local situation''. In most regions, 
     urban couples may have only one child unless their child is 
     disabled, while rural couples may have a second if the first 
     is a girl. A third child is ``prohibited'' in most available 
     regulations. Regulations covering migrant women indicate that 
     abortion is mandatory if the woman does not return to her 
     home region. Abortion is also mandated for unmarried women.
       The authorities in Beijing initially insisted that ethnic 
     groups with populations of less than 10 million were exempt 
     from the one child policy or even from family planning 
     entirely. It is clear, however, that controls have been 
     applied to these groups for many years, including more 
     stringent sanctions for urban residents and ``prohibitions'' 
     on a third child. There have also been reports since 1988 of 
     controls extending to enforcement of one-child families, in 
     particular for state employees. Currently, as with the rest 
     of the population, specific regulations and their 
     implementation are decided by ``Autonomous Regions and 
     Provinces where the minorities reside''.
       Couples who have a child ``above the quota'' are subject to 
     sanctions, including heavy fines. In rural areas, there have 
     been reports of the demolition of the houses of people who 
     failed to pay fines. Peer pressure is also used as work units 
     may be denied bonuses if the child quota is exceeded. State 
     employees may be dismissed or demoted. Psychological 
     intimidation and harassment is also commonly used to 
     ``persuade'' pregnant woman to have an abortion. Groups of 
     family planning officials may visit them in the middle of the 
     night to this end. In the face of such pressure, women facing 
     unwanted abortions or sterilization are likely to feel they 
     have no option but to comply.


                    amnesty international's concerns

       Amnesty International takes no position on the official 
     birth control policy in China, but it is concerned about the 
     human rights violations which result from it, many of which 
     affect women in particular. It is concerned at reports that 
     forced abortion and sterilization have been carried out by or 
     at the instigation of people acting in an official capacity, 
     such as family planning officials, against women who are 
     detained, restricted or forcibly taken from their homes to 
     have the operation. Amnesty International considers that in 
     these circumstances such actions amount to cruel, inhuman and 
     degrading treatment of detainees or restricted persons by 
     government officials.
       The use of forcible measures is indicated in official 
     family planning reports and regulations, and in Chinese press 
     coverage. Amnesty International also has testimony from 
     former family planning officials as well as individuals who 
     were themselves subjected to such cruel, inhuman and 
     degrading treatment.
       Details of county level regulations are difficult to 
     obtain. Most available documents are ambiguous and full of 
     euphemisms such as the ``combined method'' (abortion and 
     sterilization) or ``remedial measures'' (abortion). Despite 
     this, some insight can be gained into the use of coercion 
     from provincial, as well as county reports. For example, in 
     1993 family planning officials in Jiangxi Province stated: 
     ``Women who should be subjected to contraception and 
     sterilization measures will have to comply''. Regulations 
     published in January 1991 for Gonghe county in Qinghai (which 
     has a substantial Tibetan population) state ``the birth 
     prevention operation will be carried out before the end of 
     1991 or in any case within the year 1992 and no excuses or 
     pretexts will be entertained''.
       In a 1993 interview with Amnesty International, a former 
     family planning official described the threat of violence 
     used to implement the policy:

[[Page H6449]]

       ``Several times I have witnessed how women who were five to 
     seven months pregnant were protected by their neighbors and 
     relatives, some of whom used tools against us. Mostly the 
     police only had to show their weapons to scare them off. 
     Sometimes they had to shoot in the air. In only one case did 
     I see them shoot at hands and feet. Sometimes we had to use 
     handcuffs.''
       Several family planning officials who worked in Liaoning 
     and Fujian Provinces from the mid-1980's to the mid-1990's 
     are now in exile and have given testimony. They say they 
     detained women who were pregnant with ``out of plan 
     children'' in storerooms or offices for as long as they 
     resisted being ``persuaded'' to have an abortion. This could 
     last several days. One official reported being able to 
     transfer such women to the local detention centre for up to 
     two months if they remained intransigent. Once a woman 
     relented, the official would escort her to the local hospital 
     and wait until the doctor performing the abortion had signed 
     a statement that the abortion had been carried out. Unless 
     the woman was considered too weak, it was normal for her to 
     be sterilized straight after the abortion.
       A refugee from Guangdong Province described how he and his 
     wife had suffered under the birth-control policy. The couple 
     had their first child in 1982 and were subsequently denied 
     permission to have another. In 1987 the authorities 
     discovered that his wife was pregnant and forced her to have 
     an abortion. In 1991 she became pregnant again and to conceal 
     it, the couple moved to live with relatives in another 
     village. In September that year local militia and family 
     planning officials from the city of Foshan surrounded the 
     village in the middle of the night and searched all the 
     Houses. They forced all the pregnant women into trucks and 
     drove them to hospital. The refugee's wife gave birth on the 
     journey and a doctor at the hospital reportedly killed the 
     baby with an injection. The other women had forced abortions.
       The implementation of the birth-control policy has also 
     resulted in the detention and ill-treatment of relatives of 
     those attempting to avoid abortion or sterilization. 
     Significantly, the Supreme People's Court felt the need to 
     specifically outlaw the taking of hostages by government 
     officials in a directive in 1990. However, the practice 
     continues, as shown by a series of reports since late 1992 
     from Hebei Province.
       Journalists from Hong Kong visited Zhao county, Hebei 
     province, in November 1992 while a birth-control campaign was 
     in progress. They saw villagers detained outside the county 
     government offices in freezing temperatures who were under 
     arrest for non-payment of fines for illegal birth. Villagers 
     reported that those who could not pay the heavy annual fine 
     had their property confiscated or that their relatives were 
     held hostage until the money was paid.
       In January 1994 an official Chinese newspaper published a 
     letter from Xiping county, Hebei Province, complaining that 
     the reputation of the People's Emergency Militia (minbing 
     ying ji fendui) was being ruined because cadres were misusing 
     them to enforce unpopular family planning policies.
       In April 1994 the annual review of family planning work in 
     Hebei Province mentioned the use of ``law enforcement 
     contingents'' and admitted that some cadres believed that any 
     method was acceptable in pursuit of the family planning 
     policy. Such cadres had ``resorted to oversimplified and 
     rigid measures and even violated laws . . . thus affecting 
     the party-populace and cadre-populace relations''. It is not 
     clear what, if any, action was taken against these abuses, 
     and violations have persisted in the province since then.
       For example, villagers in Fengjiazhuang and Longtiangou in 
     Lingzhou country, Hebei Province, alleged they were targeted 
     in a birth-control campaign initiated in early 1994 under the 
     slogan ``better to have more graves than more than one 
     child''. Ninety per cent of resident in the villages are 
     Catholic and many have been fined in the past for having more 
     children than permitted because they reject on religious 
     grounds abortion and sterilization.
       An unmarried woman was one of those targeted. One of her 
     brothers had fled the village with his wife fearing 
     sterilization as they had four children. The sister had 
     adopted one of their children and was detained several times, 
     including once in early November 1994 when she was held for 
     seven days in an attempt to force her brother and his wife to 
     return and pay more fines. She was taken to the county 
     government office and locked in a basement room with 12 to 13 
     other women and men. She was blindfolded, stripped naked, 
     with her hands tied behind her back, and beaten with an 
     electric baton. Several of those detained with her were 
     suspended and beaten, and some were detained for several 
     weeks.
       A report by the Union of Catholic Asian News stated that 
     other villages had been targeted in a similar way. Despite 
     complaints to the county and provincial government and to the 
     people's procurator, the family planning teams ignored the 
     procurator's order to stop their actions, blaming the 
     Catholics for ``causing problems''.
       The taking and ill-treating of hostages by family planning 
     officials was also reported in Fujian Province, in 1994. An 
     elderly woman who lived near Quanzhou city was detained for 
     three months when her daughter-in-law fled from family 
     planning officials; they had found out she was pregnant with 
     her second child one year earlier than local regulations on 
     both spacing allowed. The elderly woman was reportedly kept 
     in a cell with little ventilation or light, with 70 other 
     people, and was only released when she became ill.
       Despite assurances from the State Family Planning 
     Commission that ``coercion is not permitted'', Amnesty 
     International has been unable to find any instance of 
     sanctions taken against officials who perpetrated such 
     violations. This is in stark contrast to the treatment of 
     those who assist women to circumvent the policies, or who 
     shelter women from the threat of forced abortion and 
     sterilization.
       In December 1993 a district court in Guangzhou reportedly 
     sentenced a man to 10 years' imprisonment and three years' 
     deprivation of political rights for his part in a ``save the 
     babies and save the women group'', which had assisted 20 
     women to give birth in excess of the plan. The court 
     reportedly claimed that by his actions he had entered into 
     rivalry with the party and state, and had therefore committed 
     counter-revolutionary crimes as well as jeopardizing social 
     order.
       The same month Yu Jian'an, the deputy director of the No. 2 
     People's Hospital in Anyanbg, Henan Province, was sentenced 
     to death for collecting bribes of 190,000 yuan for issuing 
     bogus sterilization papers. The hospital affairs director, 
     Sun Chansheng, was sentenced to death with a two-year 
     reprieve, and four others were given sentences of five years' 
     to life imprisonment in connection with the offense.
       In the light of the information available about serious 
     human rights violations resulting from the enforcement of the 
     birth control policy and the lack of explicit and unequivocal 
     prohibition in published regulations of coercive methods 
     which result in such violations, Amnesty International calls 
     on the Chinese Government to include such provisions in 
     relevant regulations. It also calls on the authorities to 
     take effective measures to ensure that officials who 
     perpetrate, encourage or condone such human rights violations 
     during birth control enforcement are brought to justice.
  Let me just remind Members we are talking about a country where 
children are declared illegal simply because they do not fit into a 
certain quota that has been articulated and promulgated by the 
government. Couples who have a child above the quota are subject to 
sanctions, Amnesty International writes, including heavy fines. They 
talk about psychological and physical pressure. They talk about 
degrading treatment, the use of handcuffs, detentions. They also get 
into the fact that not only are they just focusing on the women and 
their husbands, they also go after other relatives who try to shield 
and protect some kind of safe haven for their sisters or daughters who 
are the object of a forced abortion, and throw them into jail as well.
  This report from Amnesty International, which takes no position on 
the right-to-life issue, the defense of the unborn, is another nail in 
the coffin of the PRC's heinous practice of forced abortion and forced 
sterilization.
  As my colleagues know, they also point out there is a movement under 
way in some of the provinces where they say--and this is a slogan used 
by the government--``Better to have more graves than one more child.'' 
Children are treated very cruelly in China, not by their parents, but 
by the government, and they are the subject of forced abortion.
  Let me also remind Members, too, there is a growing disproportionate 
number of baby boys vis-a-vis baby girls and young people because of 
this. When you've only allowed one child, what happens is that many of 
the families, when they are told that they can only have one, have a 
sonogram. If a baby girl is detected, that baby girl is killed, and now 
there are tens of millions of missing girls in the People's Republic of 
China.
  Where are the feminists on this? Why are they not speaking out 
against this cruel practice of targeting baby girls for extinction in 
the People's Republic of China? They have been abysmally silent in this 
regard.
  Let me also point out, there were some people that were recently, as 
the Amnesty report points out, thrown into prison for, quote, 
initiating a save-the-babies and save-the-women's group. The man got 10 
years in prison because he tried to defend some of the women in China 
against this terrible practice. Please read this.
  The United Nations Population Fund meanwhile applauds the Chinese 
programs against all of this evidence, and let me remind Members that 
it is indeed overwhelming evidence.

[[Page H6450]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Smith of New Jersey was allowed to proceed 
for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, just let me remind Members 
that Dr. Sadik and UNFPA has spent over $150 million. They have people 
and personnel on the ground. As part of this terrible program they have 
said, and I quote, ``China has every reason to feel proud of and 
pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its family planning 
policy and control of its population growth over the past 10 years. Now 
the country could offer its experiences and special experts to help 
other countries.''
  Just what we need, a world of one child per couple where forced 
abortion and forced sterilization is the rule rather than the 
exception.
  Mr. Chairman, let me also point out that the amendment contains a 
provision that would essentially reinstate what was known as the Mexico 
City policy, and that, too, was rescinded by President Clinton in 1993. 
This policy, and the amendment, would prevent foreign aid from going to 
nongovernmental organizations unless the organizations certify that it 
does not and will not during the term for which funds are made 
available perform abortions as a method of family planning or undermine 
the laws of other countries with respect to abortion. It clarifies that 
this does not apply to the treatment of injuries or illnesses caused by 
legal or illegal abortions or to assistance provided directly to 
governments. Moreover, the amendment contains a limited exception for 
attempting to establish universally recognized standards such as 
opposing forced abortion.
  Mr. Chairman, this policy worked for almost a decade, it worked well 
for the American taxpayer, for unborn children, and for responsible 
family planning organizations. Most recipients of U.S. aid during the 
two previous administrations accepted the policy and said, ``We will, 
indeed drive that wall between abortion and family planning and just do 
family planning and not take the lives of innocent, unborn children by 
way of abortion.''

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Chairman, I hope Members will accept this amendment. They did so 
just about a month ago. I hope when Mrs. Meyers offers the amendment on 
behalf of the abortion rights people, that that will be defeated by 
this body. I suspect we will get to that momentarily.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith amendment. Recently, a 
woman in my district called my office to let me know that her 12-year-
old daughter was in her room crying. My young constituent was upset 
because she had recently learned about 13 Chinese women being held in 
Bakersfield, CA, who had fled the brutal birth quota system imposed by 
the totalitarian government in the People's Republic of China. My young 
constituent was shocked to learn that these women were in danger of 
being sent back to China by the Clinton administration where they would 
face possible arrest and forced sterilization.
  This is a very distressing situation and it is even more distressing 
when we take into account that our tax dollars are being used by the 
United Nations Population Fund for so-called family planning activities 
in China.
  The Smith amendment will ensure that none of the moneys will be 
available to the United Nations Population Fund unless the President 
certifies that the UNPF has terminated all activities in China or, 
during the 12 months preceding, there have been no abortions as the 
result of coercion by government agencies.
  The Smith amendment would also ensure that none of the moneys sent to 
the UNPF may be used to fund any private, nongovernmental, or 
multilateral organization that directly or through a subcontractor 
performs abortions in any foreign country, except to save the life of 
the mother or in cases of rape and incest.
  Now some may claim that this is a gag rule on family planning 
assistance. However, this is not the case, abortion is not considered a 
family planning method and should not be promoted as one, especially by 
the United States. Recently, the State Department decided that the 
promotion of abortion should be a priority in advancing U.S. 
population-control efforts. This is unacceptable to the millions of 
Americans who do not view abortion as a legitimate method of family 
planning and do not support Federal funding of abortion except to save 
the life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest.
  We also need to reinstate what was known as the Mexico City policy 
which prohibits funds to organizations unless they certify that they do 
not perform abortions in any foreign country except in the cases cited 
above. Most recipients of U.S. population assistance readily agreed to 
these terms from 1984 to 1993 and we are not reducing the funding level 
for real international population assistance.
  In a time when 69 percent of the American public opposes Federal 
funding for abortion we desperately need to clarify congressional 
intent so that it cannot be disregarded by those who seek to fund 
abortion on demand throughout the world. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Smith amendment as written. Vote ``no'' on the Meyers 
amendment, which will strike two of the three subsections of the Smith 
amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Smith amendment and 
in support of the Meyers amendment. Mr. Smith's amendment is an extreme 
piece of legislation that aims to end family planning aid overseas.
  Mr. Smith claims that his amendment simply cuts abortion funding. 
What Mr. Smith has not told you is that abortion funding overseas has 
been prohibited since 1973. His amendment would cut abortion funding 
from its current level of zero to zero.
  Therefore, Mr. Smith's amendment must be after something more. That 
something is family planning.
  One of the most important forms of aid that we provide to other 
countries is family planning assistance. No one can deny that the needs 
for family planning services in developing countries is urgent and the 
aid we provide is both valuable and worthwhile.
  The world's population is growing at an unprecedented rate. In
   40 years our planet's population will more than double. As a 
responsible world leader, the United States must do more to deter the 
environmental, political, and health consequences of this explosive 
growth.

  And let us not forget what family planning assistance means to women 
around the world. Complications of pregnancy, childbirth, and unsafe 
abortion are the leading killers of women of reproductive age 
throughout the Third World. One million women die each year as a result 
of reproductive health problems.
  Each year, 250,000 women die from unsafe abortions.
  Only 20 to 35 percent of women in Africa and Asia receive prenatal 
care.
  Five hundred million married women want contraceptives but cannot 
obtain them.
  Most of these disabilities and deaths could be prevented.
  The Smith amendment is extreme in that it would defund family 
planning organizations that perform legal abortions--even if
 the abortion services are funded with non-U.S. money.

  It would also impose a gag rule on U.S. based organizations and 
indigenous nongovernmental organizations that provide U.S. family 
planning aid overseas. The gag rule is written so broadly that it would 
prohibit the publishing even of factual information about maternal 
morbidity and mortality related to unsafe abortion.
  Finally, the Smith amendment cuts funds to the UNFPA, an organization 
that provides family planning and population assistance in over 140 
countries. The pretext for the Smith amendment is that the UNFPA 
operates in China, and therefore the funding must be cut. However, the 
law currently states that no United States funds can be used in UNFPA's 
China program. Mr. Smith is clearly using the deplorable situation in 
China as an excuse to eliminate funding for this highly successful and 
important family planning organization. The UNFPA is in no way linked 
to reported family planning abuses in China, and should 

[[Page H6451]]
not be held hostage to Mr. Smith's anti-abortion rhetoric.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Smith amendment. It is an extreme 
piece of legislation that, no matter how Mr. Smith tries to disguise 
it, is ultimately intended to end U.S. family planning assistance 
overseas. A vote for the Smith amendment is a vote against sensible, 
cost-effective family planning programs.
amendment offered by mrs. meyers of kansas to the amendment offered by 
                        mr. smith of new jersey

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Meyers of Kansas to the amendment 
     offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey: In the new section 
     proposed to be inserted in the bill by the amendment--
       (1) strike subsection (a) and (b); and
       (2) in subsection (c), strike the subsection designation 
     and caption.

  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, there are three parts to the 
amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]. My amendment 
would not change the gentleman's provision about UNFPA in China. So if 
you do not want to give family planning money to China, you can safely 
vote for my amendment. Neither Mr. Smith nor I would give money to 
UNFPA unless they totally cease activities in China.
  However, the remaining two parts to Mr. Smith's amendment are 
terrible in their impact on the poorest of the poor women of the world. 
The Smith amendment says that no matter how sick or malnourished these 
women are, no matter that they are carrying a seriously malformed 
fetus, they cannot have a health service in their poor women's clinic 
that others could have if they could afford to pay their doctor.
  It is not as if these women have any place else to go. In many cases, 
they could not afford to go to a hospital or another doctor, and in 
many cases, there is no hospital and there is no other doctor. The door 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] would slam shut in the face 
of poor, sick women is the only door there is.
  There are NGO's and there are health care professionals that will 
work under these circumstances. But think how hard it is for these 
health care professionals when they must sentence a woman to life-long 
health problems, or force a woman to carry a child for months that they 
know would probably live only a few hours. And they have to do this in 
order to receive American support.
  But those NGO's that are most efficient and that are located in most 
countries simply cannot and do not operate this way. And that is why 
the Smith amendment is not an antiabortion amendment, but an anti-
family planning amendment.
  I would ask my colleagues to focus on the fact that not one cent of 
American foreign aid money has been used to pay for an abortion since 
1973. Not one cent of foreign aid money has been used to pay for an 
abortion. But the Smith amendment is not satisfied with that, and the 
gentleman's amendment says you cannot provide an abortion for the 
sickest woman, even if it is paid for with private money.
  It is a harsh amendment, denying health services and limiting family 
planning services to those who need our help the most, those in 
Bangladesh and Cameroon, where the average number of children for a
 woman of child bearing age is five, five children; in Malawi, where 
the average number of children for a woman of child bearing age is 
seven; in Rwanda, where the average number of children is eight. This 
is a cruel and a harsh amendment.

  The other portion of the Smith amendment is a gag rule, and it would 
go far beyond what any supporter of free speech and the Democratic 
process could support. It would prohibit a group of Filipino women in 
the Philippines who suggest to their senator that abortion should be 
allowed in cases of rape or incest from helping us provide family 
planning. We could not give them money.
  It could prohibit a group of Indian women who urge the Indian Health 
Ministry to make legal abortions safer by requiring that they be done 
in licensed clinics or hospitals. They could not receive American 
family planning assistance. It could prohibit a Kenyan organization 
that tries to promote family planning by pointing out the risk of 
unsafe abortions from getting any family planning assistance from 
America on the grounds that opposing unsafe abortion could be construed 
as advocating change in Government policies.
  Mr. Chairman, I am leaving out the portion regarding China, because I 
know many Members feel divided on this issue. But the other two 
portions of this amendment are so onerous that I beg my colleagues to 
support my amendment to change the Smith amendment.
  I also must comment, Mr. Chairman, that if my amendment does not 
pass, I am going to be forced to oppose this bill. I do not want to. I 
have supported foreign aid every single time since I have been here, 
but I cannot do it in the face of these two terrible affronts to the 
women of the world.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number or 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, before I do so and speak as to the amendments, this is 
an issue that we have just previously discussed when we had the 
authorization bill. We have discussed it in this Congress many times. I 
do not believe that it would be fair to the House if we took an 
elongated time to rehash what has already been said many times.
  Therefore, I am going to ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment, the Smith amendment and the Meyers amendment to the 
Smith amendment, end in 1 hour.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Wilson], is there a reason why he wants to prolong the 
debate?
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, there are many Members on our side that 
want to speak. I would advise the gentleman also that the ranking 
member of the full committee is at the White House at a meeting, and he 
has specifically requested that we provide time for him to speak.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I will just briefly say that if you are in 
favor of supporting abortions in foreign lands, basically with taxpayer 
money, then you should vote for the Meyers amendment. I am not. I am 
going to vote against the Meyers amendment.
  If you are not in favor of using taxpayers' money in foreign lands 
for abortions, then support the Smith amendment, which I plan to do. I 
am not going to take a lot of time of the House. I think I have 
previously done that as to my position and why. But I would say that I 
feel very strongly on the issue. I do believe that the House, I hope, 
will vote in favor of life and not abortion.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Smith amendment. My 
friend from New Jersey is offering essentially the same amendment which 
was adopted in this House on May 24, during consideration of the 
American Overseas Interests Act. It is a much-needed amendment. I hope 
this House will continue to support it.
  As my colleagues know, the music had barely stopped playing at the 
inaugural ball when President Clinton kicked off his international 
abortion campaign. Literally hours after assuming office, the new 
President sought to overturn long-standing pro-life policies espoused 
by both the Reagan and the Bush administrations. The Smith amendment 
seeks to bring that 2\1/2\-year campaign to a halt.
  It makes it less likely that United States tax dollars will pay for 
coerced abortions in China and in other countries. Voluntary abortion 
is bad enough, but forcing a woman to have an abortion is an absolute 
crime against humanity. It is an abomination.
  Mr. Chairman, the Smith amendment will restore some of the well-
reasoned pro-life policies that the U.S. Government insisted on before 
President Clinton was sworn into office. I urge my colleagues to 
resoundingly support the Smith amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  
[[Page H6452]]

  Mr. CHABOT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to bring to 
the attention of the Members that one of the provisions that my good 
friend from Kansas strikes reads as follows: Funds would not be 
provided to any private, nongovernmental, multilateral organization 
until that organization certifies that it does not and will not, during 
the period for which the funds are made available, violate the laws of 
any foreign country concerning the circumstances under which abortion 
is permitted, regulated or prohibited.
  I am astounded that my good friend would offer an amendment that 
tries to protect U.S. taxpayers from providing funds to an organization 
that would willfully and knowingly violate laws in a sovereign nation 
vis-a-vis its abortion policy.
  There was a working group, a report on the working group that was put 
out by the IPPF federation, based in London, that had language that 
went like this in one of their recommendations: Family planning 
associations and other nongovernmental organizations should not use the 
absence of law or the existence of an unfavorable law as an excuse for 
inaction. Action outside of the law, and even in violation of the law, 
is part of that, is the process for stimulating change.
  In other words, IPPF has admonished its affiliates to break the law. 
The Smith language that would be gutted by the gentlewoman from Kansas 
[Mrs. Meyers] said that if we give money to those organizations that 
violate the sovereign laws of nations, let me also remind Members, 95 
to 100 countries around the world, including the overwhelming majority 
in our hemisphere, protect the lives of their unborn children from the 
violence of abortion. All of Central America, virtually, South America 
have laws or constitutional amendments on the books that protect their 
unborn children.
  IPPF says violate those laws. It is right here in black and white as 
a recommendation from the IPPF based out of London. Mrs. Meyers would 
cut that.
  I would like to ask the distinguished gentlewoman, why does she want 
to cut language that says, let us not violate the law of other nations?
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHABOT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, as I said, no abortions have 
been performed with American money since 1973, and NGO's follow the 
laws of the country that they are in. We have not had problems with 
people breaking laws of the country that they are in. If the country 
allows abortions, NGO's, some of them will, in order to get American 
money, will not provide abortions. Some simply cannot operate that way. 
So they cannot receive our money so they cannot do as effective a job 
with family planning, which certainly leads to more abortions.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the 
gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, that was not an answer. IPPF 
has said to its own affiliates, action outside of the law and even in 
violation is part of the process of stimulating change. They are 
telling their people to violate the law. Again, my amendment simply 
says, we do not want to contribute to an organization that gets 
involved in that kind of law breaking.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith amendment and in 
support of the Meyers amendment. I think that it is very important on 
all issues that we debate in this House that we have some truth in 
advertising. This issue that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] 
has raised zeros and zero. Since 1973, the taxpayers of this Nation 
have not funded abortions overseas. Let me repeat that. Since 1973, the 
U.S. taxpayer has not funded abortions overseas. We are not going to 
start doing that now.
  What Mr. Smith is proposing is to go after family planning. Any 
thinking person in this country and around the world recognizes that 
one of the great environmental issues that faces not only this Nation 
but around the globe is the issue of overpopulation. If, in fact, if, 
in fact, we want abortions reduced, then we should recognize that 
around the world, especially the greatest and the most powerful nation 
on the face of this earth should give leadership on the issue of family 
planning.
  When family planning takes place, then that begins to resolve so many 
of the problems that we extend our hand in aid for.
  So every Member of this House, regardless of where they are on the 
issue of abortion or choice, should understand that it is not a debate 
about public dollars going to fund abortions overseas. That is not what 
this issue is about.
  Mr. Smith seeks to knock out family planning. And people in this 
country overwhelmingly understand and appreciate what the issue of 
family planning can bring about.
  So I rise in support of the Meyers amendment. I think it is 
important. I think that it is straightforward. I think it speaks to the 
direction that we need to move. I applaud the leadership that she had 
given on it. I think that every Member of the House should again 
understand that Mr. Smith is not going after stopping any U.S. tax 
dollar for abortions. For my entire 5 minutes I should have repeated 
one sentence and one sentence only. He is going after family planning. 
No tax dollar was used since 1973 for abortions overseas.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I do not know how the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith] can make it any clearer. These are not difficult 
ideas. Abortion is not a proper part of family planning. Family 
planning has to do with getting pregnant or not getting pregnant. But 
once you are pregnant, it is a different situation. Then if you want to 
move into abortion, you are killing a life once it has begun.
  Now, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], nor myself, nor 
Members speaking on this side of the issue, are not against family 
planning. We are against dollars going to organizations that promote 
abortion, that counsel abortion, but we are the biggest supplier of 
family planning around the globe. We have been, and we still will be. 
But we want to help organizations that do not counsel nor perform 
abortions, whether it is with the money we give directly or whether it 
is with fungible funds.
  We are for family planning, properly understood, which does not 
include killing an unborn child once it has begun. That ought not to be 
too complicated. I congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Smith]. I hope his amendment prevails, and I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the bill provides $25 million to the 
UNFPA, but we should not send one penny to an organization that not 
only condones, but praises China's brutal family planning program. In 
1991, the executive director of the UNFPA, Dr. Nafis Sadik, referring 
to China's population control policies, said that she ``was deeply 
impressed by (China's) efficiency.'' She wanted to, and I quote, 
``employ some of these (Chinese) experts to work in other countries and 
popularize China's experiences in population growth control and family 
planning.''
  With that attitude, I do not think the United States should provide 
any aid to the UNFPA until it quits China policy. The American people 
do not want to subsidize an organization which not only collaborates 
with forced abortions and sterilizations, but heartily condones such 
policies.
  Nor do the American people want their tax dollars spent in support of 
organizations that perform abortions in other countries or engage in 
activities to alter existing laws on abortion in these countries.
  I commend the language adopted in the recently passed authorization 
bill that restores the restrictions on abortion funding. Now, I urge 
the support of my colleagues for the Smith amendment to restore 
consistency between what we say and what we do. The Smith amendment 
will send a clear message to the UNFPA and other organizations: The 
United States will not condone coercive family planning policies. This 
is not an issue of pro-life or 

[[Page H6453]]
pro-choice--it's an issue of whether American taxpayer dollars should 
be used for forced abortions. I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
Smith amendment and against the Myers amendment.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding, and I would like to 
ask the gentleman if it is his understanding, and also the gentleman 
might want to ask the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers]. It is my 
understanding that the Meyers amendment to the Smith amendment is 
identical in its language as far as China is concerned, that in regard 
to China there is no issue. The gentleman addressed the China issue, 
but we are talking about the Meyers amendment, which, as I understand 
it, is identical to the Smith amendment as far as China is concerned.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, it goes to the overall funding of the 
UNFPA.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, we are actually debating the 
underlying amendment and the Meyers amendment. The gentlewoman from 
Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] would cut two-thirds of the amendment out of the 
underlying amendment.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, as 
far as China is concerned, it is the same.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. It leaves that alone, but it goes after the 
Mexico City policy and the lobbying policy.
  Mr. WILSON. But China is not an issue.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. For some Members there will be no time after 
the vote on the Meyers amendment where my underlying amendment will be 
debated. So all the debate has to be now, while both amendments are 
pending.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. The reason that I did not address UNFPA and 
China is because I recognized that a number of Members are truly 
divided on that issue and so I left the Smith provision just as it is. 
If they vote for my amendment, the Smith provision will remain.

                              {time}  1630

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Smith amendment to 
H.R. 1868 and to support the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it is important that my colleagues truly 
understand that the goal of the Smith amendment is not to prohibit U.S. 
funds from being spent on abortion activities. Current law already 
prohibits U.S. funds from being spent on abortion activities, and this 
has been the case for over 20 years. The true aim, Mr. Chairman, of the 
Smith amendment is to totally eliminate family planning aid overseas.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an extreme amendment. It is extreme because it 
would take U.S. funds away from organizations that perform legal 
abortions or participate in any other abortion-related activities, 
using their own funds, not using Federal funds, using their own funds.
  The implication of this staggering U.S. aid
   amendments, Mr. Chairman, would be doing away with U.S. aid to 
organizations for pre- and postnatal care, as well as for programs to 
reduce unwanted pregnancy, combat childhood diseases, prevent the 
spread of HIV and AIDS. All of this would be cut off completely if the 
organizations provide legal abortion-related services, paid for with 
their own funds, not paid for with Federal funds.

  How can proponents of this amendment claim that they are interested 
in the welfare of children and women when this amendment will harm 
critical programs that prevent unwanted pregnancy and improve the 
health of needy children around the world? If anything, this amendment 
will result in more unwanted pregnancies and sick children, not less.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people do not want the U.S. Congress to 
support extreme amendments which endanger the health of the world's 
children increase unwanted pregnancies, and force women to resort to 
unsafe abortions. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this extreme and dangerous amendment, an amendment that would 
eliminate family planning aid overseas, and vote in support of the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Meyers amendment and 
against the Smith amendment. Discussion has occurred a little earlier 
about the fact that this bill would not ban the UNFPA money, and as has 
been explained and I will reiterate, it does retain the ban on the 
UNFPA, so it is unlike the defense authorization that has been stated 
earlier.
  The amendment that is offered by the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. 
Meyers] does not affect the restrictions the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey has proposed for the U.N. population fund. I also want my 
colleagues to be aware that these amendments have nothing to do with 
abortion funding.
  Under the Helms amendment, U.S. law already forbids the use of U.S. 
funds to perform abortions or to lobby on abortion policy. This has 
been mentioned earlier. It does need to be reiterated, so we understand 
what we are discussing and voting on today. The effect of the amendment 
is to gut U.S. family planning programs. The result will be more 
abortions, not fewer.
  The Smith amendment would deny funds to women's health groups which 
use their own funds to perform abortions or lobby their governments on 
abortion policy, but the effect would be to kill family planning 
programs. As a matter of fact, none of those groups violate the laws of 
the foreign countries. That has been authenticated. For example, in 
terms of the effect of killing family planning programs, a university 
providing contraceptive training to hospitals in the former Soviet 
Union to counter the high rate of abortion would be ineligible for 
funding because the hospital provides legal abortions funded from other 
sources. An Indian women's health clinic lobbying that nation's health 
ministry with its own funds to provide safer conditions for legal 
abortion would be funded.
  A recent Los Angeles Times article demonstrated how family planning 
clinics in the Ukraine reduced the number of abortions, reduced the 
number of abortions. Ukrainian women average two abortions for every 
live birth. The average woman will have four of five abortions during 
her lifetime. Some will have as many as 10 or more. By making available 
safe and reliable family planning information and contraceptives, a 
Kiev clinic reports that only 25 of pregnant women coming to the clinic 
had abortions, a high number, of course, but the average for the rest 
of the country was 60 percent. Sixty percent. This is but one example.
  However, there are a number of similar clinics around the world which 
we are helping to fund, and by giving women the opportunity to regulate 
their own fertility, we have reduced the number of abortions, while 
empowering women to manage and space their pregnancies as best suits 
their needs and the needs of their families. It helps them also to 
educate their family.
  The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] will say that family 
planning money will still be available, and that is true, but the 
effect of his amendment will be that the money will be channeled 
through foreign government health ministries, with all of the problems 
of corruption, mismanagement, and bureaucracy which they entail. This 
approach would also run counter to the philosophy of this Congress, 
which has been seeking to reduce the intrusion of government into 
people's lives and families' lives.
  The Smith amendment, an international gag rule indeed, endangers 
women's health and will deny women and couples access to family 
planning information, and will increase, not decrease, abortions. Mr. 
Chairman, I urge 

[[Page H6454]]
Members to join me in support of the Meyers amendment and against the 
Smith amendment.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, this entire discussion of the Meyers amendment is a 
good one in that it explains to the Congress what family planning is 
all about. The Meyers amendment I strongly support. I strongly oppose 
the Smith amendment. Let me tell the Members why, Mr. Chairman.
  The Meyers amendment ends U.S. funding for the U.N. Family Planning 
Agency unless it ends its activities in China or the President 
certifies there have been no coerced abortions in China in the 
preceding 12 months. The amendment language on the UNFPA in China is 
identical to the language in the Smith amendment.
  The Congress should be aware of the fact that U.S. law for over 20 
years has prohibited U.S. funding for abortions overseas. The Meyers 
amendment would in no way affect this ironclad policy.
  The Smith amendment goes beyond current law and imposes restrictions 
on this kind of organization, on the kind of organization that can 
receive U.S. funds for family planning. What that essentially says, Mr. 
Chairman, is that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] my dear 
colleague, he went to Washington and now he wants to go out of the 
country with the imposition of this rule.
  It says that the United States cannot provide any money to any 
organization that performs legal abortions, even if the organization 
does not use U.S. funds. The Meyers amendment strikes these 
restrictions, which go beyond current law.
  Let us look at the practical effect of the Smith amendment. The 
reality is that a lack of adequate access to family planning tragically 
often leads to abortion. I came up through a day where women went into 
back rooms and into corners and into alleys and performed illegal 
abortions. It was a travesty on the health of these women. The Smith 
amendment would cut off some of the most effective family planning 
organizations, because they provide legal abortions with their own 
funds. It would cut off clinics and hospitals that provide family 
planning if they also provide safe and legal abortions.
  Mr. Chairman, this whole approach is shortsighted and 
counterproductive, particularly in Third World countries and in the 
poor areas of the world, with
 only limited medical services of any kind. The law of unintended 
consequences is alive and well in the Smith amendment. It is 
unintended, Mr. Chairman, but yet it is there. Therefore, I strongly 
support the Meyers amendment, and I strongly oppose the Smith 
amendment, and I am asking of the Congress to please vote against the 
Smith amendment and for the Meyers amendment.

  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of the Smith amendment and 
against the Meyers amendment. I think that one important thing to look 
at is that this bill does not cut international family planning, this 
amendment, by one red cent. I merely goes back to the 1980's, when we 
had the Mexico City policy. Under that policy, and I want to take a 
look, because we hear all family planning is going to go away, and I am 
a strong advocate for family planning. We hear it will all go away.
  However, during the 1980's, every budget cycle under the Mexico City 
plan, every year family planning went up, every year under the Mexico 
City plan. That did not gut it, and all the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith] is saying is let us go back to the Mexico City plan.
  I listened, and Members would think that both sides of the aisle, all 
the people speaking, agree that abortion should not be performed with 
Federal American folks' money in other countries. however, we support 
family planning. The Mexico City policy, for Members that maybe do not 
remember, went into effect in 1984 under a plan of action which was 
adopted by the International Conference on Population that was held in 
Mexico City. They basically said that in no case should abortion be 
promoted as a method of family planning. All this does is say that 
again.
  President Clinton took those words out, and made our dollars 
available for abortion funding. We hear about radical discussions and 
things being radical and gutting. Let us come back to what is really 
happening. The American people, and I will tell the Members, in the 
early 1970's, I supported abortion. I supported Roe versus Wade, 
because I believed abortion should be rare, and in the case of the 
mother's life, should be allowed. I was promised it would never be, 
never be for family planning, never be for convenience, and never 
replace personal responsibility.
  Today, Mr. Chairman, it is now family planning. If Members agree with 
me that it should not be, no matter where Members are on abortion, 
should not be family planning, then vote for the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]. The amendment just says we 
all agree in different places on the abortion issue and disagree in 
other places,
 but we do not want our money especially sent to foreign countries to 
pay for abortion.

  Let us return to the Mexico City policy, reject, reject the Meyers 
amendment from a very nice lady who I just do not agree with, and 
support the final amendment, the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying how much I admire the integrity 
and advocacy that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] brings to 
all issues, and particularly to matters of human rights. My 
disagreement with him on his amendment in this case is simply as a 
matter of policy. I admire him greatly for his strength of character 
and conviction in matters that he feels very deeply about.
  However, Mr. Chairman, this is an appropriations bill. It is designed 
to determine funding levels for the upcoming fiscal year for various 
programs authorized elsewhere by the Committee on International 
Relations, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and others. 
It is not an authorizing bill, and authorizing language should not be 
part of it.
  Mr. Chairman, unfortunately while the Committee on Rules produced an 
open rule for this bill, it also specifically carved out protection for 
this amendment, which is clearly out of order without this 
extraordinary protection. Everyone in this Chamber has an interest in 
preserving the integrity of the system, and for procedural reasons, we 
should oppose the Smith amendment.
  Moreover, I oppose the Smith amendment on policy grounds. The United 
States is presently the largest international family planning donor, 
providing more than $600 million last year alone. U.S. voluntary family 
planning funds are being used to provide millions of couples access to 
safe, effective contraceptive services worldwide.
  The U.S. programs have worked. In Kenya, where the United States has 
had a very large program, there was a 20-percent reduction in family 
size in just 4 years. In Bangladesh, the contraceptive prevalence rate 
went from 5 percent in 1975 to 40 percent in 1993, and there was a 
decline in fertility from 6.7 births per woman to 4.9 during that time. 
In Egypt, the average number of children per family has declined from 
5.8 to 3.9 between 1960 and 1994.
  These family planning services also help decrease the demand for 
abortion all across the globe and help couples time and space 
pregnancies to enhance the chance of their baby's survival. And in 
allowing women to control their bodies, these programs save the lives 
of many women. Approximately 200,000 women die each year from unsafe 
abortions. Increased access to information and contraception is the 
only proven way to decrease unwanted pregnancies and give women control 
over their own lives and destinies.
  For example, in Ukraine, where a small Planned Parenthood clinic is 
providing scarce contraceptive education and services, there is 
evidence that the incidence of abortion is decreasing.
  The Smith amendment does nothing to help prevent abortion. When the 
same Mexico City policy was in effect between 1985 and 1993, there was 
no decrease in the number of abortions 

[[Page H6455]]
worldwide. Instead, more women resorted to unsafe abortions and 
hundreds of thousands a year died. The Smith amendment simply 
interferes with the delivery of effective family planning programs 
whose purpose is to reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancy and the 
need for abortion.
  The fact is that none of the funds in this bill may be used for 
abortion now. With the Smith amendment, none of these funds may be used 
for abortion, but the Smith amendment goes further. It aims to kill 
family planning overseas by gutting U.S. participation in multilateral 
and bilateral population programs.
  I urge Members to support the second degree amendment offered by 
Representative Meyers. The Meyers amendment strikes the section of the 
Smith amendment that prohibits NGO's from using their own funds to 
attempt to influence official policies in other countries or to provide 
legal, safe abortions in countries where they are legal. It is the 
equivalent of telling U.S. defense contractors that they may not use 
their own funds to lobby Congress if they receive any Federal defense 
contracts.
  I oppose the use of U.S. funds to perform abortions and I am a strong 
and consistent supporter of the Hyde amendment. I would not vote for a 
bill that allowed the use of any U.S. funding for selective abortions. 
I support the Meyers amendment because it retains tough safeguards but 
ensures that essential family planning programs are funded.
  I also oppose the Smith amendment whether the Meyers amendment 
prevails or not. The Smith amendment places restrictions so tough on 
the UNFPA that U.S. funds will almost certainly not go to it. UNFPA 
fills in the holes where AID does not work and even in nations like 
China, plays a constructive role. UNFPA is a multilateral organization. 
It does not have the discretion to simply pull out of China at will.
  The Smith amendment, I believe, is a thinly veiled attempt to stop 
the United States from working with other developed nations to provide 
voluntary family services to couples in developing nations because if 
we do not fund UNFPA, our funds do not go to 140 other nations beyond 
China that do not have forced abortions.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Members to support the Meyers 
amendment and oppose the Smith amendment.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and in 
support of the amendment of the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].
  Mr. Chairman, contrary to what proponents of this amendment argue, 
this is not about curbing abortion. It is about denying millions of 
women access to family planning services, the very services that help 
avert abortion. It is about cutting population funding in real terms to 
its lowest level in 25 years. It is about reinstating a policy that has 
proven to increase the incidence of abortion.
  The fact remains that without this amendment, U.S. funds do not pay 
for abortions. That has been said a number of times today, but it bears 
repetition. For over 20 years, Federal law has prohibited any U.S. 
funds from being used for abortions, or to promote abortion. H.R. 1868 
retains that prohibition.
  The only real impact of the Smith amendment would be the disruption 
of the delivery of effective family planning programs that prevent 
unwanted pregnancies. These are programs which help reduce the 
incidence of abortion.
  The effect of the amendment will be to deny millions of women access 
to family planning and along with that access to prenatal care, safe 
delivery services, maternal and infant health programs, treatments for 
infertility, and STD prevention services.
  And it will result in hundreds of thousand of abortions that would 
have been averted if these women had had access to the basic health 
services the Smith amendment would deny them.
  According to USAID, the funding reductions for population programs in 
this bill, together with this amendment, will likely result in an 
estimated 1.6 million unwanted pregnancies per year, resulting in 1.2 
million unwanted births, 8,000 maternal deaths, and more than 350,000 
abortion per year.
  All of us would like to reduce the incidence of abortion as well as 
the staggering number of maternal deaths due to unsafe abortions. The 
Smith amendment would do the opposite. During the years the so-called 
Mexico City policy was in effect, which from 1985 to 1993 prohibited 
funding to organizations that perform abortions with private funds, 
there was an increase in the number of abortions worldwide because in 
the absence of access to family planning services, more women resorted 
to abortion and in the absence of information about safe abortion, more 
women resorted to unsafe abortions which cause more maternal deaths.
  Proponents of this amendment assert that the only organizations that 
will be affected by this policy will be the International Planned 
Parenthood Federation [IPPF] and the Planned Parenthood Federation of 
America [PPF], two of the most effective and well-respected worldwide 
providers of family planning and reproductive health services. While 
both will survive the loss of U.S. funds, the real impact of this 
amendment will be felt by small local organizations in developing 
countries that rely on U.S. funds or on private funds from U.S. 
contributors who are forced to abide by this policy.
  When the Mexico City policy was in effect, over 50 grant-receiving 
affiliates of International Planned Parenthood Federation lost their 
USAID funding. In many cases, these family planning associations were 
the most uniquely important sources of services and information for 
their countries. For example, in
 India, which will soon be the most populous country in the world, 
family planning assistance was significantly curtailed because the most 
respected and effective Indian family planning organization was unable 
to comply with that policy.

  The Smith amendment would have the same disastrous effect. USAID 
would be unable to fund the best providers of services in many 
countries. Under the amendment, any hospital or clinic in the 
developing world that provides abortions, if they are legal in that 
country, such as Kenyatta National Hospital in Nairobi, Kenya would be 
prohibited from receiving United States assistance.
  United States assistance would also be denied to organizations that 
are involved in providing much needed contraceptive training to 
hospitals in the former Soviet Union in order to decrease the high 
abortion rate, because these hospitals also provide abortions with non-
United States funds.
  And local health care providers who urge their governments to assure 
safer conditions for legal abortions would be denied funds under this 
amendment.
  Finally, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] misstates the role 
in the involvement of the UNFPA in China. Nobody disagrees that the 
coercive Chinese population program is abhorrent, and that UNFPA 
categorically condemns the use of coercion in any form or manner in any 
population program, including China.
  Mr. Smith has said the UNFPA cannot say enough good things about the 
Chinese program, and that China could not ask for a better front than 
the UNFPA. But Mr. Smith relies on a 1989 quote from UNFPA executive 
director, Dr. Nafis Sadik, that was taken out of context, at a time 
when the Chinese seemed to be making progress toward improving the 
program. No evidence has ever been presented of complicity by 
international agencies, including the UNFPA, in Chinese human rights 
abuses and, as confirmed by USAID during the Reagan administration, 
UNFPA does not fund abortions or support coercive practices in any 
country, including China.
  Mr. Smith's amendment ignores the benefits of the UNFPA's presence in 
China and over 140 other countries. One of the reasons the 
international community knows about the horrors of the Chinese program 
is because of the presence in China of international organizations such 
as the UNFPA. Moreover, many countries believe that by providing 
assistance to China, UNFPA is in a unique position to influence 
positively China's population policies and to promote human rights. 
UNFPA is in constant dialog with Chinese officials at every level on 
matters pertaining to human rights, and exposes Chinese officials to 
international standards through international training in foreign 
institutions.
  Most importantly, denying funds to the UNFPA would have a drastic 
effect on the UNFPA's programs in the rest of the world. Out of its 
annual budget 

[[Page H6456]]
of $275 million, only $4 to $5 million goes to China. Why deny United 
States funding to UNFPA to be used in 100 other countries around the 
world where hundreds of millions of couples want to limit the number of 
children they have just because we abhor Chinese coercive practices?
  Mr. Chairman, family planning prevents abortions. As I stated 
earlier, the effect of the drastic funding reductions for family 
planning programs in this bill, together with the Smith amendment, will 
be an estimated 1.6 million unwanted pregnancies per year, resulting in 
1.2 million unwanted births, more than 350,000 abortions, and 8,000 
maternal deaths.
  Mr. Chairman, this is no time to cripple the ability of the United 
States to provide help to family planning services around the world. 
Global population is now nearly 5.7 billion people. It is growing by 
100 million a year, by 260,000 every 24 hours. Future prospects are 
even more staggering. If effective action is not taken in the next few 
years, the earth's population will double by the year 2040 and could 
quadruple to 20 billion people by the end of the next century.
  In much of the developing world, high birth rates, caused largely by 
the lack of access of women to basic reproductive health services and 
information, are contributing to intractable poverty, malnutrition, 
widespread unemployment, urban overcrowding, and the rapid spread of 
disease. Population growth is outstripping the capacity of many nations 
to make even modest gains in economic development, leading to political 
instability and negating other U.S. development efforts.
  For almost 30 years, population assistance has been a central 
component of U.S. development assistance.
  While much more remains to be done, population assistance has had a 
significant positive impact on the health of women and their children 
and on society as a whole in most countries. In many parts of Asia, 
Latin America, and Africa, fertility rates have decreased, often 
dramatically. Couples are succeeding in having the smaller families 
they want because of the greater availability of contraceptives that 
our assistance has made possible.
  Today, approximately 55 percent of couples worldwide use modern 
methods of contraception, compared with 10 percent in the 1960's. 
Despite this impressive increase in contraceptive use, the demand for 
family planning services is growing, in large measure because 
populations are growing. Indeed, over the next 20 years, the number of 
women and men who wish to use contraception will almost double.
  Similarly, population assistance has contributed to the significant 
progress that has been made in reducing infant- and child-mortality 
rates. Child survival is integrity linked to women's reproductive 
health, and specifically to a mother's timing, spacing, and number of 
births. Despite substantial progress, a large proportion of children in 
the developing world--particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and some Asian 
countries--still die in infancy.
  And, while many countries in the developing world have succeeded in 
reducing maternal mortality rates, the incidence of maternal death and 
disability remains unacceptably high, constituting a serious public 
health problem facing most developing countries. According to the World 
Health Organization, an estimated 500,000 women die every year as a 
result of pregnancy and childbirth.
  U.S. population assistance is preventive medicine on an international 
scale. Congress has long recognized this to be the case and over the 
years has reaffirmed the importance of population assistance in 
securing U.S. interests abroad. By addressing the basic health and 
educational needs of women and their families, population assistance 
provides building blocks for strong democratic government and sets the 
stage for economic growth. Furthermore, it helps prevent social and 
political crises, thereby averting the need for costly relief efforts.
  At the International Conference on Population and Development [ICPD], 
held in Cairo last year, the United States was instrumental in building 
a broad consensus behind a comprehensive program of action, which was 
signed by almost all of the 180 countries that participated in the 
conference, and which will help guide the population and development 
programs of the United Nations and national governments into the next 
century. Central to this plan is the recognition that with adequate 
funding this decade for family planning and reproductive health 
services, as well as educational, economic, and social opportunities 
necessary to enhance the status of women, we can stabilize world 
population in the first half of the next century.
  Mr. Chairman, under this bill, H.R. 1868, unfortunately funding for 
our efforts to stabilize global population growth is cut by almost 50 
percent.
  This amendment would be additionally destructive of our national 
interest in continuing to play a central and leading role in addressing 
the most fundamental challenge facing this and future generations, the 
soaring rate of human population growth which underlies virtually every 
environmental, developmental, and national security problem facing the 
world today.
  I urge Members to vote against the Smith amendment and for the Meyers 
amendment.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of the Smith amendment.
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to give my strong support to 
the Smith amendment to the bill which prohibits funding Mexico City 
policy and prohibits funding to the U.N. fund for population activities 
unless that organization discontinues all activities in China.
  During the 1970's and early 1980's, foreign nongovernment 
organizations were the major source of funding for a number of groups 
which promoted abortion and the legalization of abortion in developing 
countries. Adopted in 1984, the Mexico City policy substantially 
changed the United States' position on funding such organizations by 
stipulating that the Agency for International Development will not fund 
any private organization which participates in performing or promoting 
abortion as a method of family planning.
  A year later, in 1985, the House approved the Kemp-Kasten amendment 
which denies funds to organizations that support coercive population 
programs. Funding is denied the UNFPA due to its active participation 
in China's population control program--its one-child-per-family 
program.
  Today, the Clinton administration is conducting an ideological 
crusade to expand access to abortion throughout the developing world. 
The Clinton administration's policy was announced by Under Secretary 
Tim Wirth in a speech to a U.N. population meeting in 1993. Mr. Wirth 
stated that the Clinton administration's position was to, ``support 
reproductive choice,'' including abortion access and to make such 
``reproductive choice'' available to every woman by the year 2000.
  During House consideration of the American Overseas Interest Act--a 
bill which attempts to support basic human rights across the globe--the 
House adopted the Smith amendment which reaffirmed the most basic human 
right, Life.
  Mr. Smith's amendment today will prohibit funding for the Mexico City 
policy and ensure that United States tax dollars do not support China's 
coercive population control policies. The Smith amendment will simply 
ensure that the United States will not pay for abortions or impose a 
pro-abortion doctrine in foreign countries.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Smith amendment. The right to 
life is the most fundamental human right--both here and abroad.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, it is with the highest regard for the maker of this 
amendment, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and with the 
greatest respect for the role that he plays in this Congress and in 
this country for promoting human rights throughout the world that I 
reluctantly rise in opposition to his amendment and in support of the 
Meyers amendment. We all certainly share the goal of the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Smith] of decreasing the number of abortions performed 
in this country and throughout the world. The fact is that the Meyers 
amendment would keep the current prohibition on U.S. funding for 
abortions. It would allow the United States to continue to fund 
organizations that effectively reduce the number of abortions by 
providing access for family planning. It would cut off U.S. funding for 
the UNFPA unless they pull out of China or China stops coercive 
abortions.
  I think that the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] has captured 
some of the concerns of this body and indeed of the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith] in her amendment.
  I would like to say, though, Mr. Chairman, that existing law already 

[[Page H6457]]
  prevents the use of U.S. funds for abortion activities abroad and has 
done so under the Foreign Assistance Act since 1973. This amendment, 
the Smith amendment, would restrict effective women's health and family 
planning organizations and interfere with efforts to provide safe and 
legal reproductive health care for women in developing countries. That 
is why I do not support the Smith amendment and prefer the Meyers 
amendment.
  I understand that a great deal of concern in this debate has centered 
on China's coercive policies and that that is a reason why many people 
would support the Smith amendment. Let me say that all that I have 
heard the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] say about coercive 
abortions and coercive family planning procedures in China is 
absolutely well-documented. We stipulate to that, that the family 
planning practices there are repulsive to us and we do not want to be a 
partner to them, and indeed we are not and will not under the Meyers 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment is unnecessary in that respect, because 
no United States funds can be used in the U.N. population fund's China 
program. Current appropriation law already denies foreign aid funding 
to any organization or program that supports or participates in the 
management of a program of coerced abortion or involuntary 
sterilization in any country under the so-called Kemp-Kasten amendment.
  Further, current appropriation law also ensures that none of the 
United States contribution to UNFPA may be used in its China program. 
No U.S. funds may be commingled with any other UNFPA funds and numerous 
penalties exist in law for any violation of this requirement.
  UNFPA is in no way linked to reported family planning abuses in 
China. Anyway, I have not seen any evidence presented of complicity by 
international agencies, including UNFPA, in China's human rights 
abuses, and I do follow that issue quite closely.

                              {time}  1700

  UNFPA does not condone or cover up coercion in China. At the 
International Conference on Population and Development last year, the 
world community strongly condemned the use of coercion in national 
population programs. UNFPA's current 5-year program in China is ending 
this year.
  In light of the solid, international consensus that has developed in 
opposition to the use of any form of coercion, the governing council 
will review any future country program proposed for UNFPA assistance, 
including any involvement in China, for compliance with the principles 
adopted at the ICPD.
  I think, Mr. Chairman, it would be the cruelest act of all of the 
Chinese Government, in addition to depriving their own people of access 
to appropriate family planning information, if they were able by their 
coercive practices to influence decisions that we make here about 
family planning support throughout the developing world.
  According to the World Health Organization, 500,000 women die each 
year of pregnancy-related causes; 99 percent of them in the developing 
world. Up to one-third of these deaths can be attributed to
 septic or incomplete abortion.

  Restrictions on family planning organizations proposed in this 
amendment represent a threat to the health and safety of the women's 
world. I would think if my colleagues hate and abhor abortion, as I do, 
they would love family planning. And that is what the Meyers amendment 
presents.
  I would like to also add that Mr. Smith, the maker of this amendment, 
is not only a champion for human rights, not only an important and 
internationally recognized advocate to stop the coercive kinds of 
programs that exist in China. The gentleman is a man who follows up on 
his commitment.
  He is also a champion for child survival funding and programs 
throughout the world. I want to make that point of my regard for the 
gentleman in opposing his amendment and urging my colleagues to support 
the Meyers amendment.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate is about more than just family planning in 
China or other countries. This debate is about the United States of 
America and a consistent policy that has been established from the 
beginning of this country and has been held forth until now.
  But through a weakening of the commitment and the resolve to never, 
never allow for public funding for abortions, especially overseas, just 
through the rhetoric, and through a potential treaty, that consistent 
policy could be seriously, seriously diminished.
  Even as late as 1994, the General Conference on Population and 
Development held in Cairo reiterated that in no case should abortion be 
promoted as a method of family planning.
  Mr. Chairman, we take great pride in the fact we have established a 
new vision for America and we have begun to establish a new trust for 
this Congress by laying out promises that were made; promises that were 
kept. And I think in all cases we ought to be able to say to the 
American people, ``This is a promise that we have made and we will make 
it into the future; that there shall not be this kind of foreign policy 
that shall be initiated.''
  Mr. Chairman, all kinds of fears are being raised in the debate. For 
instance, the gag rule has been brought up. Well, the prohibition on 
lobbying activities contained in the Smith amendment, like the 
virtually identical provision the House passed as an amendment to the 
authorization bill, is another application of the wall of separation 
principle between abortion and the U.S. tax dollars.
  Specifically, it makes clear that U.S. funds should not subsidize 
nongovernmental organizations which violate other country's laws on 
abortion or which actively work to undermine the laws of a foreign 
country with respect to abortion.
  Mr. Chairman, the pro-abortion forces have once again carted out the 
tired old slogan that any restriction on U.S. tax dollars for lobbyists 
is a gag rule. But there is no gag rule. This amendment does not affect 
counseling. It does not affect medical advice. It merely applies the 
wall of separation principle to abortion lobbyists.
  It says to organizations on both sides of the abortion question that 
they have choices to make about what businesses they are going to be 
in, but if they want to provide family planning services, they can 
receive family planning money, and that happens to the tune of about 
$585 million last year.
  But if they want to be a foreign lobbyist, they must get funding from 
somebody other than the U.S. taxpayers. The Smith amendment, which I 
strongly support, recognizes that money is fungible and that U.S. 
taxpayers do not want their money going to organizations actively 
engaged in nothing less than cultural imperialism for their own profit.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that my colleagues will agree with me that 
subverting the laws of another country concerning the legality or 
illegality of abortion is not one of the United States' foreign policy 
objectives.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. I will not take the whole 5 minutes. It is getting late and I 
know the hour has gone on.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Smith amendment. 
The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and I had the opportunity to 
visit China together and the stories that we were told with regard to 
coercive abortion were unbelievable.
  I would also urge Members, I have a film that I watched in my office 
yesterday. I have a copy in my office whereby in China they are getting 
young girl babies and putting them in what they call the dying rooms. 
They put them in these rooms and they just allow them to stay there for 
days, upon days, upon days.
  The film ends with a young child called Mei Ming, which means ``No 
Name,'' and she is left in the room for about 10 days and they go in 
and they open up the blanket and she dies.
  Mr. Chairman, we know what they are doing. We have had women tell us 
of tracking down to require abortions. UNFPA money does go to China. 
For that one purpose alone the Smith amendment is the right thing to 
do.
  So, I strongly urge the defeat of the Meyers amendment and strong 
support of the Smith amendment.

[[Page H6458]]

  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, as a matter of principle, when I disagree 
with a colleague I make it a point not to always talk about what great 
affection I have for them and all of that. In this case I do want to 
make an exception to my rule and say that I respect the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf] very much. The gentleman has never, ever, in the 
times we have served together, ever misled me in any way.
  But this is an important point. The gentleman is talking about China. 
Is the gentleman opposing the Meyers amendment?
  Mr. WOLF. Yes, I am opposing the Meyers amendment.
  Mr. WILSON. Does the gentleman understand that the Meyers amendment 
is not any different than the Smith amendment on China?
  Mr. WOLF. I do. I am very, very strong pro-life. And also let me say 
that I strongly support family planning. I strongly support birth 
control. But I supported the Mexico policy and I think with regard to 
China it would be absolutely wrong, any time we would have an 
opportunity to shut down giving any aid to them in any way, it would be 
the appropriate thing.
  Mr. WILSON. But the gentleman would agree that China is not an issue 
here?
  Mr. WOLF. China is an issue. It is a major issue. They are tried 
together. There will be the vote on the Meyers amendment and then the 
vote on the Smith amendment.
  Mr. WILSON. Either way, China is not in the picture.
  Mr. WOLF. But Mexico City policy is. And I will bring the film around 
to the gentleman's office today
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the Meyers amendment is about 
promoting abortion. It is not about family planning. Members have said 
over and over again on the other side, and I do not know how they can 
say this with a straight face, that we want to kill family planning 
with this amendment.
  That same argument was made in the mid-1980's, and during the 1980's 
and into the 1990's population control funding doubled. Just look at 
the numbers that are provided by AID. I will make them a part of the 
record. It doubled under the Mexico City policy.
  As a matter of fact, in 1980, for example, over 350 family planning 
organizations signed the Mexico City clauses, including 57 
international Planned Parenthood Federation affiliates.
  The problem that this gentleman has, and that I think the American 
people have, is that groups like IPPF based in London have in their 
vision statements--even though most of the countries in the world 
protect their unborn children--they have as their objectives 1, 2, and 
4, to increase the right of access to abortion, and to remove barriers, 
political, legal, and administrative.
  So, Mr. Chairman, the point is by providing money to these 
organizations, we are effectively empowering this lobby organization 
with U.S. funds to go out there and bring down these very important 
protective statutes that provide basic protections for unborn children.
  Mr. Chairman, let me also ask the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. 
Meyers], my good friend, if she might respond to this. That working 
paper that I talked about earlier by IPPF has this point: The right of 
everyone to have full access to fertility regulation services applies 
equally to young people, including those in the adolescent group, age 
10 to 19.
  As we all know, the World Health Organization defines fertility 
regulation in four ways, one of which includes abortion. This was a big 
issue in Cairo. When people realized that is what it meant, they wanted 
that word taken out. But here we have, under the rubric of the rights 
of young people, IPPF promoting abortion on demand as a matter of birth 
control for 10-year-olds. How would the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. 
Meyers] respond to that in terms of IPPF?
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I have no idea what the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] is reading from.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Smith of New Jersey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Wolf was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I do know that the other working 
paper that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] was reading from 
was something that was drafted 15 years ago, was considered and 
specifically rejected by the Planned Parenthood board. I don't know 
what the gentleman is reading from now; if it is the same kind of 
thing.
  Mr. Chairman, I must mention also that money for family planning 
decreased during the Mexico City policy; reference 1986 through 1992, 
and I would just mention several people have said that it doubled and 
it went up. It went down.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. These are AID's own figures. In 1984, $264 
million; in 1986, it was $295 million; by 1992, it had jumped to $325; 
by 1993, it was up to $447 million. On a graph this would show a steady 
growth. And, again, this was under the Mexico City policy.
  So again it is a red herring that my good friends are floating here 
today that we want to kill family planning. We want to separate 
abortion from family planning.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Meyers amendment. With 
all this gray hair, I am probably one of the few people who attended 
the Mexico City conference in this body. I was there when the Mexico 
City policy was adopted and I am listening to this debate wondering 
what in the world is going on.
  It is a little ironic. Let me just remind people of what really 
happened. First of all, one of the strongest international supporters 
of family planning was Richard Nixon. You know, if Richard Nixon could 
come back here today, he would be considered, I guess, way to the left 
on that side of the aisle. It is positively amazing.
  Richard Nixon understood how critical family planning was 
internationally, because no one can be an environmentalist if we are 
going to keep doubling the world population every 20 years. At some 
point the world collapses.
  So having international family planning was very critical. Therefore, 
it was indeed a great shock to many of us when the Reagan 
administration, at the U.N. family planning meeting in Mexico City, 
rolled back the Nixon doctrine and put in the Mexico City doctrine.
  Mr. Chairman, here we are going to say to the most vulnerable women 
in the world, the women in Bangladesh and other such places, we are 
shutting off access to real family planning. When we listen to all 
these words, there are a lot of words flying around here. But what I 
consider family planning and what most reasonably prudent people 
consider family planning, some people call abortifacient.
  I consider the pill family planning. I consider IUD's family 
planning. I consider all sorts of other such things that are out there 
in the mainstream and the mainstream considers family planning.''
  But what really happened is in Mexico City, people said we will just 
do natural family planning, which is really the rhythm system. And in 
my State in Colorado, we call people who use that ``parents.''

                              {time}  1715
  And that is not really family planning, and what we had was a period 
of time when we were spending taxpayer money on something that was 
called family planning, but when you go around and find out what it 
really was, taxpayers got really mad, and they just said, ``Don't spend 
money on that stuff, or spend it on the real stuff. If you are going to 
do family planning, do real family planning.''
  Because we had an awful lot of people around the world very angry 
that they 

[[Page H6459]]
could not get access to the real information, and as one of the senior 
women on this floor, I must tell you that I meet all sorts of visiting 
delegations from parliamentarians from Third World countries, and woman 
after woman in those things would come to me and say, ``American women 
have let us down by not standing firmly for our right to the same kind 
of family information, family planning information you get.''
  So the gentlewoman from Kansas is trying very hard to basically 
reinstate the Nixon doctrine. That is really all this is about.
  The gentlewoman from Kansas is trying to go back to what the Nixon 
doctrine was. I never thought I would be standing on the floor and 
saying let us go back to the Nixon doctrine; that would be a breath of 
fresh air. That is basically what I am saying. We ought to support her 
amendment because it is a sane amendment, an amendment that all of us 
sharing this globe together realize how important it is and let us be 
very clear about the words being thrown around here.
  If you go to a family planning clinic funded with U.S. dollars or 
funded by international agency dollars, you assume you are going to get 
real information, the same information people get at those clinics in 
western developed countries, and to remove that and to go back to where 
we were after Mexico City would be a great embarrassment.
  I must tell you, even when I was in Mexico City, the Ambassador who 
was there at the time was so embarrassed by what our country did, as 
were many other people, so I think it is time we closed that chapter 
and that we stay with the Nixon policy and that we realize that all the 
dreams we have for this next century are not going to work, and that we 
allow women internationally, and we will be doing this if we pass the 
gentlewoman's amendment, to choose. They get to choose between whether 
they get to be productive and reproductive rather than have it be 
mandated that they only get to be reproductive over and over and over 
and over again, that that is our real only other role for them, and 
that is where it goes.
  But we phony it up under the name of family planning. Natural family 
planning and the rhythm system is not family planning.
  Vote for the gentlewoman from Kansas. She is telling it like it is.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  As one of the junior fathers on the floor of the House right now, I 
am still trying to recover from the gentlewoman from Colorado wrapping 
herself with Richard Nixon. I was not quite prepared for that in the 
debate here.
  We cannot lose track that the fact is that this is an amendment by 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and an amendment to modify 
his amendment that really relates to the abortion issue. It has been 
confused as we have gone through this. The principle is the same.
  Very few people, whether pro-life or pro-choice, want their tax 
dollars to be used to fund a procedure that is so objectionable and 
controversial.
  If anything, the American public has even less tolerance for U.S. 
taxpayer-funded abortions carried out in other countries. After all, 
Americans, particularly those in Indiana, do not care much for foreign 
aid spending, to begin with. When this foreign aid is used to pay for 
abortion, support falls through the floor.
  A commonsense position of not paying for abortions overseas was 
official U.S. policy throughout most of the last decade and a half, but 
it came to a screeching halt the third day of the Clinton presidency 
when he nullified the Mexico City policy with a stroke of pen.
  There has been debate on the floor whether or not, in fact, we do 
abortions. Listen to some folks we heard earlier, Tim Wirth, 
Undersecretary for Global Affairs, May 11, 1993, said, ``Our position 
is to support reproductive choice, including access to safe abortion.'' 
On March 16, 1994, the State Department action cable was sent to 
overseas diplomatic and consular posts. It called for ``senior-level 
diplomatic interventions,'' in support of U.S. population control 
priorities. ``The priority issues for the U.S. include assuring access 
to safe abortions. The United States believes access to safe, legal and 
voluntary abortion is a fundamental right of all women.''
  Since rescinding the Mexico City policy, the Clinton administration 
has committed $75 million to International Planned Parenthood 
Federation [IPPF], which performs and actively promotes abortion as a 
method of family planning around the world.
  During the time the Mexico City policy was in effect, International 
Planned Parenthood Federation was one of only two organizations that 
refused to sign an agreement stating they would not perform or actively 
support abortion as a method of family planning. The other organization 
was Planned Parenthood Federation of America, by far the largest 
abortion provider in the United States. Of course, there is the U.N. 
Population Fund, which, as a matter of course, supports and 
collaborates with countries that use abortions as birth control.
  Opponents of the Smith amendment would have you think the Mexico City 
policy hurts family planning efforts worldwide. This is not true. In 
1990, over 350 foreign family planning organizations signed the 
agreement, unlike Planned Parenthood. So what we are talking about here 
is whether or not to fund three organizations that countenance 
abortions, out of the hundreds of others that carry out successful 
planning, family planning, without supporting abortion.
  Now, there is a question whether Planned Parenthood directly uses 
their funds for abortion. For those of you who do not understand basic 
accounting and the ability to move money around, all you need to do is 
look at the U.S. Government. For those who think one division of 
Planned Parenthood cannot fund abortion and another division can fund 
abortion, I want to show you the Social Security trust fund. We do that 
all the time here in Congress where we claim it is set aside and is 
not. Money that goes to a company merely can be shifted between 
divisions. It is a cost accounting question.
  I believe it is somewhat a little bit of a sleight of hand to claim 
Planned Parenthood does not fund abortions in those countries, because 
they are merely playing games with their funds.
  Now, as to the China question, I want to point out that the amendment 
offered by my friend from Kansas only addresses UNFPA funds, not the 
International Planned Parenthood funds which are addressed in the first 
and third clauses. While the first and third clauses alone in the Smith 
amendment would not solely address the China policy, for example, it 
would require ceasing abortion funding in all countries, not just 
China, it nevertheless guarantees that the money will not go to China, 
whereas the International Planned Parenthood funding for China is not 
affected by the Meyers amendment.
  At best, the Meyers amendment, substitute, assumes a very rosy 
scenario. International Planned Parenthood would not fund the 
reprehensible policies in China or China will change their policies. In 
other words, it is not inappropriate for us to raise the China policy, 
because it does matter, because the Meyers amendment, while it takes 
clause 2 from the Smith amendment, it does not cover International 
Planned Parenthood in clauses 1 and 3.
  I would like to make a point or two on China even though that is not 
the primary reason I oppose the Meyers amendment and support the Smith 
amendment, and what I would like to make sure gets in the record is not 
only have we heard about the forced abortions and a lot of what 
traditionally we conservatives have criticized about China, but the new 
development of what has concerned us, the unborn babies that are being 
sold for human consumption. According to United Press International, a 
Hong Kong magazine, and this is quoting UPI, recently revealed the 
latest health fad in the southern boom town of Shenzhen to be the 
consumption of human fetuses, which are believed to improve complexions 
and general health. Unlike the serving of endangered reptiles, a human 
embryo as food trade is not illegal or underground in China.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.

[[Page H6460]]

  Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is anything that can be said that 
has not already been said, but I will say one more time that we are not 
talking about China.
  I rise in support of the Meyers amendment. We are not talking about 
China. It is simply not an issue.
  The Smith amendment, without the Meyers amendment, would freeze in 
place a situation in developing countries where somewhere in the range 
of 100,000 to 200,000 women die due to abortions performed under unsafe 
conditions. We all know, the Smith amendment strikes at the very heart 
of international family planning programs.
  It is far worse than previous or existing policies. It is an 
intrusion on the free speech and legal action of organizations, both 
those in the United States and those operating within the laws and 
policies of their own countries.
  Implementation of the amendment would actually, in many cases, be an 
impediment to the prevention of abortion. Apart from its efforts to 
preclude funding for a number of affected providers of family planning 
services, the amendment would make it impossible to assist or work with 
organizations providing or improving contraceptive service for women 
who have had abortions in order to prevent future or repeat abortions.
  I would voice strong support for the Meyers amendment and opposition 
to the Smith amendment.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take my whole 5 minutes. I just want to come 
down to the well to support the Smith amendment and oppose the Meyers 
amendment.
  As I watched this debate, I saw that there is a lot of misinformation 
about this amendment. Let us not be deceived.
  The Smith language does nothing to reduce U.S. funding of 
international family planning programs. It merely prevents taxpayer 
money from going to fund promotion or funding of abortion, a principle 
that the majority of the American people support. The American people 
have risen time and time again against Federal funding for abortion.
  Let us not be deceived about what this amendment does.
  Now, I heard earlier said on this floor that we have too many people 
in this world. How elitist can you be to make a statement like that?
  We have too many people in this world? Ladies and gentlemen of the 
House, if you took every person in the world, you could put them in the 
State of Connecticut, and they would still have 5 square feet to stand 
on. It is not that we have too many people in this world. It is that we 
have governments that oppress people and destroy the free market 
system, that does not allow the system to feed the people. That is what 
is the problem in the world, not that we have too many people.
  If you all remember the book ``The Population Bomb,'' by Paul Erlich, 
that has been disputed, ridiculed and thrown out years ago. Yet some 
people, as I saw today, still quote from that ridiculous book. ``the 
Population Bomb.'' This is not the problem.
  As the gentleman from Indiana has said, what the fight is here is to 
allow Planned Parenthood to use these funds to perform abortions, 
whether they are through fungible funds or not. We know what the 
Planned Parenthood is and what it is all about. They do it here in the 
United States as well as overseas. That is what this is all about.
  I just ask that you vote ``no'' on the Meyers amendment and keep the 
Government and the American taxpayer out of the business of abortion 
and restore the Reagan-Bush policy.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind Members, 
too, the International Planned Parenthood Federation out of London, not 
only supports abortion globally, but considers it their goal to lobby 
to bring down pro-life statutes throughout the world.
  But this is from the Chinese news agency:

       Dr. Halfdan Mahler, a top official of the International 
     Planned Parenthood Federation, today praised China as a model 
     for all countries, particularly developing countries in 
     family planning. ``China has set a good example for 
     developing countries to follow in controlling the population 
     growth,'' he said.

  The date of that quote is August 27, 1994.
  These are the kind of organizations that, if they decide to put up 
that wall of separation, yes, we will provide money to them, as we have 
in the past. Again, that money has gone up during the Reagan-Bush years 
under the Mexico City policy.
  But that kind of statement about the Chinese policy is contemptible, 
where women are being exploited, where forced abortion is the rule, not 
the exception, and where now we see such egregious practices as 
infanticide, where children are killed right at birth, primarily 
because they are girls, and where just recently, as Members know, a 
nationwide policy went into effect that is absolutely reminiscent of 
the Nazis: a eugenics policy where if even the one child is found to be 
defective in some way, that woman is forcibly aborted because they want 
to have a master race. That is absolutely sick.
  I ask for a ``no'' vote on the Meyers amendment and a ``yes'' vote on 
the underlying Smith amendment.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. I would just like to make it clear that no 
American funds are provided for abortion. What my amendment says is 
that NGOs who see very sick women or women who have serious problems of 
some sort with the fetus would be able to provide abortions with 
private money; no American money is provided for abortions.
  Mr. DeLAY. Reclaiming my time, I understand the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Small Business and her approach, and I am 
sure she is sincere in it. We all know how these organizations shift 
funds around.
  We feel very strongly that they are taking our taxpayers' money, or 
they are either taking it or they could very well take taxpayers' 
money, and put it in one account while they are using their private 
funds to perform abortions.
  I do not want my taxpayer money, and most Americans understand, to be 
used in any way.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Meyers amendment and in 
strong support of our country's commitment to give men and women the 
option of family planning as well as the right to free speech.

                              {time}  1730

  I think this issue clearly has no place in this debate. Right now the 
law of the land is that Federal taxpayer dollars cannot be used for 
abortion. I support that. I voted for the Hyde amendment in the last 
Congress. But this issue goes far beyond this. This would tell 
organizations around the world that, if a woman comes to them seeking 
an abortion, and if that woman seeks to pay for it with her own money, 
or if a private entity seeks to pay for it, the United States will not 
allow any funding of that organization to go on.
  Mr. Chairman, for me this is a very cynical and mean-spirited attempt 
to undermine family planning around the world. Without the United 
States' assistance----
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. It is absolutely not mean-spirited in its 
attempt. This is to build that wall between abortion and family 
planning because I happen to believe, and I believe the majority of 
Americans believe, that the killing of an unborn child is a very, very 
serious act. We do not want to provide money to those groups that do 
it.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Reclaiming my time, there is a separation now for 
U.S. funds which cannot be used for abortion either here at home or 
abroad. I think everyone has to agree to that.
  Now some people may say organizations will use money for family 
planning and for educational purposes. That is the way the law is now. 
I think 

[[Page H6461]]
that is the way the law should be in the future. Without the United 
States assistance, many of these facilities could not exist, and I 
think that underscores perhaps what is an unspoken attempt by some 
supporters of this amendment.
  I think women deserve the right to make the choice about their own 
personal bodies. It should not be left up to the taxpayers. I would 
hope the U.S. Government could get out of this very personal decision. 
I would hope that all Members would vote for the Meyers amendment.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers]. I will 
not take my full 5 minutes, but I simply want to state three reasons 
why I am supporting the Smith amendment and why I am opposing the 
amendment.
  I think what the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] has done makes 
eminent sense. It restores a policy that worked, the Mexico City 
policy. That is all it is doing. It is going back to a policy from 1984 
to 1993 that worked. We saw family planning funds increase during that 
time. It was a policy that was very much mainstream. Hundreds of 
organizations signed onto that. The 150 family planning organizations 
signed the Mexico City clauses, and so it is quite mainstream, it is 
quite common sense, to return to that policy.
  It was on June 22 in 1993 that President Clinton gave the green light 
to renewed funding for international organizations that perform and 
promote abortions. It is time that we return to that policy in the 
1980's/early 1990's that was so successful.
  The second reason I am supporting the Smith amendment and opposing 
the Meyers amendment is that I believe what the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith] is attempting to do in this legislation, and this 
attempt is supported by the American people. While the American people 
are strongly, and very forcefully and emotionally divided on the 
abortion issue, they are overwhelmingly opposed to public financing, 
and what we have, and we have tried to kind of smoke the issue, cloud 
the issue; it is simply a matter of shifting funding, and so to talk 
about private funds being used and no taxpayers dollars being used is 
really quite disingenuous, I think. If I take taxpayer dollars with my 
left hand, and I perform abortions with my right hand, it does not 
really fool anybody. It is a shell game being played by these 
organizations, and the American people do not want their taxpayer 
dollars being used to promote, and to perform and to support abortion 
policies around the world.
  I think finally I would just say that it defends, it defunds, only 
the most radical pro-abortion organizations. Under the Mexico City 
policy, 350 family planning organizations signed it while only the most 
radical, pro-abortion organizations refused to sign that policy.
  It makes eminent good sense for us to return to a policy that worked. 
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Smith amendment and 
oppose the Meyers amendment.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Just in the interest of accuracy, Mr. 
Chairman, I would like to say that the Mexico City policy was in 1984 
and in 1985, the amount of money was $290 million. It dropped 
immediately to $239, to $234, to $197, to $197, and then went back up 
to $216, but still not up to----
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Reclaiming my time, I do not know where the 
gentlewoman is getting these figures. I heard the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith] just a moment ago cite very exact figures on where 
that funding has increased during those years in which the Mexico City 
policy----
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. These are the population line items from our 
appropriations bills.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Once again I would say that the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith] just a few moments ago cited specific funds on how 
those funds increased under the Mexico City policy and that in fact 
there was not any decrease in family planning programs.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. To get an accurate picture of how population 
funds are used one has to know they come from a variety of spigots, 
including the African fund, including some ESF funds, including the 
actual population account, and only a reading which says, ``You're 
looking at all these accounts, what is the aggregate'' can tell you 
whether or not that funding is going up or down. Since 1984 that figure 
has gone up dramatically, and I cite those figures for the record. They 
were produced by the Agency for International Development.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. So, in the interests, Mr. Smith, of accuracy, funding 
for family planning actually increased during the----
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The United States remained. like it or not, 
during the 1980's and into the 1990's, the No. 1 provider 
internationally for population assistance, and I remember so well in 
1984, if the gentleman would continue yielding, when Members stood up 
on the floor and said that there is no way that any family planning 
organization would accept the Mexico City clauses. How wrong they were. 
One after another said they wanted to do family planning, and they got 
out of the abortion business, and that wall of separation was intact. 
That is what this is all about.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Reclaiming my time, I think everybody is ready to 
vote, and I just wanted to thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Smith] as many on both sides have expressed their admiration for him. I 
want to express my appreciation for his leadership on this issue, and I 
think we are going to take a very good step in the passage of the Smith 
amendment today in defunding these organizations that are doing so much 
wrong in the promotion of abortion policies around the world.
  I urge support for the Smith amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIII, the Chair may reduce 
to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the 
underlying Smith amendment. This is a 17-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201, 
noes 229, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No 432]

                               AYES--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink

[[Page H6462]]

     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Pryce
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Studds
     Tanner
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     White
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--229

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Fox
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Stokes
     Tauzin

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. ZELIFF changed his vote for ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment to 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 New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 243, 
noes 187, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 433]

                               AYES--243

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NOES--187

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Pryce
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Studds
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     White
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Stokes
     Tauzin

                              {time}  1808

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Stokes against.

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page H6463]]



                   amendment offered by mr. menendez

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Menendez: Page 78, after line 6, 
     add the following:


withholding of assistance to countries supporting nuclear plant in cuba

       Sec. 564. The President shall withhold from assistance made 
     available with funds appropriated or made available pursuant 
     to this Act an amount equal to the sum of assistance and 
     credits, if any, provided on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act by that country, or any entity in that 
     country, in support of the completion of the Cuban nuclear 
     facility at Juragua, near Cienfuegos, Cuba.

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we have another 50 pending amendments. At the rate we 
are going, we will finish this bill about August 25, unless we do 
something about curtailing the debate. We do not want to deny anybody 
the opportunity to speak on any of the issues that are so important to 
them, but we are going to have to start putting some time limit on some 
of these amendments or else we will never get through with this bill.
  I would like to know if the gentleman would agree to a time 
limitation, a reasonable time limitation on this amendment with the 
gentleman controlling his side of the argument.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's predicament. 
However, this is an issue that I and others have been working on for 
2\1/2\ years. To be very honest with you, I do not want to curtail 
anybody's ability to speak. I cannot gauge that. I do not anticipate 
that it will be as long as some of the other debates that we have had, 
but I do believe that it will take a decent hour or so. But I do not 
want to limit it to that.
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, there is a certain urgency to this 
amendment. Russia and Cuba have announced a joint stock company to 
finish construction of a dangerous nuclear plant located in the 
southern coast of Cuba. I am offering this amendment with several of my 
colleagues, the gentlewoman from Florida [Mr. Ros-Lehtinen], the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Deutsch], and others, to reduce dollar for dollar U.S. aid to any 
country which financially helps the Castro dictatorship prospectively 
build a nuclear plant.
  The Castro dictatorship has decided that a dangerous and mothballed 
Soviet-era nuclear plant in Juragua near Cienfuegos, Cuba should be 
completed and operated. We believe that it should not. Let me explain 
why not in some detail.
  In a letter to me, dated April 12, 1993, President Clinton stated:

       The United States opposes the construction of the Juragua 
     nuclear power plant because of our concerns about Cuba's 
     ability to ensure the safe operation of the facility and 
     because of Cuba's refusal to sign the nuclear 
     nonproliferation treaty or ratify the treaty of Guadalupe.

  In fact, Cuba has yet to ratify either treaty, the letter of which 
establishes Latin America and the Caribbean as a nuclear weapons free 
zone. The State Department, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the 
Department of Energy have also expressed concerns about the 
construction and operation of Cuba's proposed nuclear reactors.
  Recently, Dr. Edward Purvis, who headed the Department of Energy's 
investigation about Cuba's reactor stated, ``an accident in this 
reactor is probable. It is just a question of when. I do not know if 
they are the most dangerous reactors in the world, but they are the 
most dangerous reactors anywhere close to the United States.''
  In a September 1992 report to Congress, the General Accounting Office 
outlined concerns among nuclear energy experts about deficiencies in 
the Cienfuegos nuclear plant. They included lack in Cuba both of a 
nuclear regulatory scheme and inadequate infrastructure to ensure the 
plant's safe operation and maintenance.
                              {time}  1815

  Reports by a former technician from Cuba, who by examining with X-
rays weld sites believed to be part of the auxiliary plumbing system 
for the plant, which is what would have operated to stop Chernobyl from 
where it was going, found that 10 to 15 percent of those were 
defective, and this technician was quoted as saying ``The operation of 
this reactor will be criminal.'' The construction was being performed 
in a completely negligent manner.
  Since September 5 of 1992 the construction was halted. There has been 
prolonged exposure to the elements of the primary reactor components, 
including corrosive salt water vapor. The possible inadequacy of the 
upper portion of the reactor's dome retention capability, the one that 
is supposed to withstand, in case of a nuclear accident, to withstand 
only 7 pounds of pressure per square inch, given that normal 
atmospheric pressure is 32 pounds per square inch, and that the United 
States reactors that we are designing accommodate 50 pounds per square 
inch, 50 pounds versus 7 pounds per square inch, and according to the 
U.S. Geological Survey, the Caribbean plate, a geological formation 
near the south coast of Cuba, poses seismic risks to Cuba and the 
reactor site, and may produce large to moderate earthquakes. In fact, 
on May 25 of 1992 the Caribbean plate produced an earthquake measuring 
7 on the Richter scale.
  Mr. Chairman, I want Members who may be listening in their offices to 
listen carefully. It is a result of this map by the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration, and if Members are from Texas, 
Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, 
South Carolina, North Carolina, Maryland, Virginia, and the Nation's 
capital, please be warned, we are talking about 80 million Americans 
here, Mr. Chairman, almost 1 in 3 Americans who, according to a study 
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said that 
summer winds could carry radioactive pollutants from a nuclear accident 
at the power plant throughout all of Florida and parts of the States on 
the gulf coast as far as Texas, and northern winds could carry the 
pollutants as far northeast as Virginia and Washington, DC, and more 
States would be affected in time.
  Mr. Chairman, finally, Fidel Castro has over the years issued threats 
against the United States government. In 1962 he advocated the Soviets'
 launching of nuclear missiles to the United States, and brought the 
world to the brink of a nuclear conflict. We are talking about perhaps 
the most anti-American dictator in the world. Can we trust him with 
nuclear power? Can we trust him with an unsafe nuclear plant? Do we 
need another Chernobyl type incident 90 miles away from the United 
States?

  I strongly suggest that we do not, as do 130 of our colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle, who signed the letter to the President saying 
``Do everything possible to stop the nuclear plant that is being 
proposed in Cuba.'' We should not permit any dollars to be used 
directly or indirectly to help those who would put our country at risk 
and our fellow citizens at risk at the same time.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members, in the interests of the national 
security of the United States, and on behalf of those 80 million people 
in those States that I have suggested, that this amendment needs to be 
passed and it needs to be passed now.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to oppose the 
gentleman's amendment, but certainly not his intent. I our conference 
on our side of the aisle this morning, and on this floor this entire 
week, all we have been hearing is that the Committee on Appropriations 
is violating the House procedures because we are authorizing in an 
appropriation bill. We have strived long and hard not to violate that 
rule.
  Now the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] has an amendment 
that is an authorization within an appropriation bill. All these people 
that have been coming to the floor, like the two gentlemen from 
Indiana, who have raised so much ruckus over the fact that we are 
violating some of the procedures, will come here and recognize that 
what we are doing in opposition to this bill is in no way against the 
mission that the gentleman from New Jersey wants to carry out.

[[Page H6464]]

  Mr. Chairman, I live in one of those States, in the beautiful and 
great State of Alabama, on the beautiful Gulf of Mexico, as a matter of 
fact, so I am
 pretty close to Cuba. I am not going to do anything or permit anything 
that would injure our environment or the environment of Florida or any 
other place in the world.

  I am just saying that the gentleman's message is good, his intent is 
good. I think he ought to rush over to the Senate, where the 
authorization bill is, he ought to tell the Members of the Senate how 
crucial this is, he ought to insist that the Members of the Senate put 
this in the authorization bill. It does not belong in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope the gentleman would accept a perfecting 
amendment, which I understand is going to be offered by the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Wilson]. If indeed the gentleman does, then we can 
support it. Mr. Chairman, we should send the message we want to send.
  I am not one for giving Russia money anyway, much less giving them 
money that might ultimately be channeled to Cuba, or even if they are 
not channeling that money, if they are going to help Cuba, we ought to 
cut off all aid to Russia, the gentleman is absolutely right. He is 
just on the wrong bus. He ought to get on the bus that is going down 
that road to stop Russia from doing this, and to deny the 
administration the authority to permit Russia to do that. I would 
support that with the gentleman 100 percent.
  However, I cannot support it and go back tomorrow and listen to all 
of these people on the authorizing committee saying ``You violated the 
committee once again. You violated the rules of the House. You are 
having authorizing language in an appropriation bill.'' So we support 
what the gentleman is trying to do. I commend the gentleman. I share 
his concerns. However, he is in the wrong bill at the wrong time.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  In anticipation of this, having heard these objections made during 
the rules debate, I asked the IRS to look at the whole question of what 
the gentleman suggests is happening in this bill. In fact, they have 
shown me that for over a long period of time, and I have a whole host 
of citations, including changes in the application of existing law in 
this bill that we are considering right now, where there are 
approximately between 30 and 70 different changes in existing law that 
would be considered the same exact effect as what I am proposing.
  Therefore, that is why I think the Committee on Rules, seeing that in 
fact there are so many changes in the application of existing law that 
would be considered legislating in an appropriation bill instead of in 
an authorizing bill, that in fact they saw it in their wisdom to permit 
the amendment to go forth, to make it in order, to waive points of 
order against it, as well as understanding the urgency of the timing.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that when we see so many other things being 
considered in the bill, and the other amendments for which we just 
voted on that equally have the same impact, I would hope that the 
application would be made across the board. I do not believe 
necessarily that it is being made across the board.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would say that I support 100 percent 
the gentleman's mission; we just feel this is not quite the right 
vehicle in which to carry forth the gentleman's mission.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say how, as a member of the committee, I 
appreciate the gentleman's concern with the process of legislating in 
an appropriation bill. It is indeed a long-standing problem and a 
regular complaint of those of us on the committee. It is, of course, 
the world's most violated rule. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, it does not 
mean it should always happen.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the chairman that both the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] and the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen], as members of the committee, are for this amendment, in 
spite of that fact, and our appreciation for your concern about 
jurisdiction.
  We do so in part, as the gentleman from New Jersey suggested, because 
there is a problem of timing. The Cuban and Russian Governments have 
announced this construction only 2 weeks ago. We would like the 
administration to act before construction actually begins and the 
Russians become committed.
  Mr. Chairman, it is our feeling that this vote on this day can send 
that message. Therefore, I think it may be a worthwhile exception to 
what is a good rule and the gentleman's own commitment to uphold it.


   Amendment Offered by Mr. WILSON as a substitute for the amendment 
                        offered by Mr. MENENDEZ

  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. Menendez: In lieu of the matter 
     proposed to be inserted, insert:
       Sec. 564. The President shall withhold from assistance made 
     available with funds appropriated or made available pursuant 
     to this Act an amount equal to the sum of assistance and 
     credits, if any, provided to the government of a country 
     under this Act that, on or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, is used by that country, or any entity in that 
     country, in support of the completion of the Cuban nuclear 
     facility at Juragua, near Cienfuegos, Cuba.

                             point of order

  Mr. MENENDEZ. I reserve the right of a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Menendez].
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right of a point of order, 
I would ask the parliamentarian if the substitute as proposed is within 
the purview permissible to be applied within the purview of the rules 
by the Committee on Rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman making the point of order?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. That is the point of order that I am making, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Wilson, wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
  Mr. WILSON. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Wilson].
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, the amendment narrows, it does not expand, 
the pending amendment. It requires the funds withheld relate only to 
U.S. assistance. The amendment, therefore, is within the House rules.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Continuing on my point of order, Mr. Chairman, my point 
of order to the parliamentarian is that the amendment as is proposed 
and promulgated by the Committee on Rules, Mr. Chairman, is to say that 
any monies used by a country in investing in the nuclear power plan in 
Cuba would trigger a reaction of a reduction dollar for dollar of U.S. 
funds to that country.
  My point of order is, is this within the ambit of the rule. Is it 
permissible under the rule?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point 
of order, if I may.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Diaz-Balart].
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, the substitute amendment varies 
substantially and significantly the amendment that was ruled in order 
by the Committee on Rules.
  The Committee on Rules made in order the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Mendendez, which, as he has stated, 
calls for a dollar for dollar reduction in aid if Russia gives credits 
or assistance for the completion of a power plant.
  What the substitute says is totally different. It says that the 
actual dollar, the actual dollar that we give to Russia, this dollar, 
if we give it to Russia, Mr. Chairman, we have to trace it and find 
that it goes to Cuba in order for us to ask for it to bet back to us. 
That is a totally different amendment, Mr. Chairman. This is not the 
amendment 

[[Page H6465]]
that was made in order by the Committee on Rules, and I would submit to 
the Chair that it would violate the rules.
  They did not go to the Committee on Rules with this amendment. It is 
a totally different amendment. The one we made in order in the 
Committee on Rules is the Menendez amendment, which is totally 
different. This one is out of order, therefore.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hansen). The Chair is prepared to rule.
  Under the precedents, legislation permitted to remain by a waiver of 
points of order may be perfected by an amendment which does not add 
further legislation. This amendment is a narrowing of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], to restructure 
the prohibition of funding only to assistance provided to the 
government of a country which uses that assistance to support the Cuban 
facility, rather than use any sum to assist Cuba, and is merely 
perfecting the Menendez amendment, and it does not add additional 
legislation to that permitted to remain. The Chair overrules the point 
of order.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] still has time remaining.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult for me to be in 
opposition to the four most active proponents of this amendment, 
because I have been on their side in these matters ever since all of 
them got here. I take a back seat to nobody in my opposition to Castro, 
in my opposition to everything that he has done since he has been in 
power.
  However, Mr. Chairman, if we do not adopt the substitute, and the 
amendment passes as presented, and it becomes part of the final bill. 
Members have to think these things through a little bit. What we are 
really doing if we tell Russia that we are going to withhold our 
foreign assistance to them, which we grant to them because we think it 
is in our own interest, we are forcing them to go forward with this 
reactor. It is just forcing them to do it. It is forcing them to do it, 
because of their dignity and their self-respect.
  Nobody in this Chamber, nobody that I know of in the United States, 
wants a nuclear reactor built in Cuba. We have to think about the best 
way we can stop it. And we certainly have to consider that we do not 
want to do anything that will cause it to go forward.

                              {time}  1830

  The action that we can take that would be most likely to cause this 
to go forward is the passage of this amendment, that my good friend 
from New Jersey has introduced.
  The political situation in Russia is very fragile. It is very 
difficult. The Democrats are not in an extremely strong position. For 
the United States to try to dictate to Russia this sort of policy is 
not the way to accomplish the policy. The way to accomplish the policy 
is through diplomacy and through persuasion.
  I submit to the House that my substitute should be adopted. I submit 
that it is the most likely way to stop the construction of a nuclear 
reactor that nobody wants to see built. I do not want to push the 
Government of Russia against the wall, or take away their dignity and 
make them think they have to do this. This amendment would only 
encourage the nationalistic trends in Russia and would not add to East-
West stability.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Wilson 
amendment and in strong support of the Menendez amendment.
  The Menendez amendment would cut aid to Russia by the same amount of 
money that it provides to the Castro regime for the construction and 
operation of the unsafe and dangerous Juragua nuclear plant in 
Cienfuegos, Cuba. This amendment is an important step to serve notice 
to Russia that the United States Congress will not tolerate its helping 
the tyrannical Castro regime introduce a national security threat of 
this magnitude just a few hundred miles from our shores.
  Mr. Chairman, on May 4 of this year, Russia and the tyrannical Castro 
regime announced that they were in the process of forming a 
multinational consortium that would finance the estimated $800 million 
needed to complete the Juragua plant. The completion of this plant 
would constitute the introduction of a grave threat to the national 
security of our United States.
  A 1992 GAO report detailed the numerous faults in the infrastructure 
and the serious equipment problems which former plant technicians and 
experts state that the plant suffers from. Among the most glaring
 deficiencies are the statements by former technician Vladimir Cervera, 
who states that up to 15 percent of the pipe welding in the Juragua 
plant's cooling system is deficient. Furthermore, the small resistance 
capability of the nuclear plant's containment dome can only resist 
pressure of up to 7 pounds per square inch, while U.S. reactors must 
sustain pressure of up to 50 pounds per square inch.

  These and other technicians as well as experts have denounced the 
lack of appropriate training of those Cubans who will monitor the 
plant, and the serious lack of infrastructure inside the island to 
operate the Juragua plant.
  Mr. Chairman, this type of VVER plant has already been banned in 
countries like Germany, where four similar plants were shut down after 
reunification and which environmental groups have called to be closed. 
When asked about the plant, Dr. Edward Purvis of the Department of 
Energy states,

       An accident in the reactor is probable. it's just a 
     question of when . . . I don't know if they are the most 
     dangerous reactors in the world, but they are the most 
     dangerous reactors anywhere close to the United States.

  Although the technology is different from the infamous Chernobyl 
plant, the Cuban nuclear plant poses similar dangerous and indeed 
horrific risks and grave consequences. Do we want a Chernobyl in our 
backyard, subsidized with U.S. taxpayer dollars? I think not.
  Mr. Chairman, the Clinton administration has remained quiet and 
indeed deadly silent about the Juragua nuclear plant because it 
presents a roadblock on their path of normalization of relations with 
Castro. It is inconceivable that the administration has remained 
dangerously silent while this national security threat is constructed 
just 180 miles from our shores, a threat that would affect a large part 
of the United States with radiation if an accident or a provoked 
accident would take place.
  Indeed, studies by NOAA concluded that depending on the direction of 
the wind, radiation from the plant could affect Central America, the 
Caribbean, the United States, as far as Washington, DC, and Virginia, 
and, of course, Cuba itself.
  The threat of the Juragua plant is indeed further increased when we 
consider that it would be at the hands of a tyrant who has no respect 
for human life and who has not hesitated in the past to destroy human 
life to achieve his evil purposes. Already Castro has entered into an 
agreement with another pariah and terrorist state, Iran, to exchange 
information about these reactors.
  Yet, while the Clinton administration denounces Russia for 
transferring nuclear technology to that Middle Eastern country, it has 
not raised a finger to help stop construction of Juragua. The inaction 
of the administration raises the ante on us in Congress to take action 
and warn Russia that we will not stand idly by while Moscow helps 
Castro and his Communist thugs introduce a new threat to our 
hemisphere.
  Passage of this Menendez amendment will signal Moscow that American 
taxpayers will not be suckered into having their hard-earned money help 
in the completion of this national security threat.
  Castro once called the Juragua project Cuba's greatest accomplishment 
of this century. However, this plant could also become Castro's 
greatest security threat to our hemisphere unless we in the Congress 
take action to stop Russia from aiding and abetting the Cuban tyrant. I 
urge my colleagues to defeat the Wilson substitute and adopt the 
Menendez amendment.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Menendez amendment and 
rise in opposition to the Wilson substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I support foreign aid to Russia. I think foreign aid to 
Russia is very important. I think that the relationship between the 
United States and Russia is a very, very important relationship.
  But, Mr. Chairman, one cannot turn a blind eye to the conduct of 
Russia. 

[[Page H6466]]
One cannot turn a blind eye to what we have seen come out of Russia 
during the past several months. One cannot turn a blind eye to 
Chechnya, one cannot turn a blind eye to the selling of nuclear 
reactors or nuclear technology to Iran, and one cannot turn a blind eye 
to Russian help in terms of Cuba completing this nuclear powerplant.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue here is not merely the Cuban dictatorship, 
although it has been a brutal dictatorship and has been a dictatorship 
that I have never supported, and certainly I think that the Cuban 
people would be much better off with democracy and political pluralism 
and look forward to the day when Cuba does have democracy. The issue 
here is also
 about the safety of American citizens.

  I have in front of me the GAO report, the U.S. General Accounting 
Office report to the chairman, Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation, 
Committee on Environmental and Public Works of the U.S. Senate. They 
express tremendous reservations about this nuclear powerplant. There 
are subdivisions, I would like to read some of them:
  Safety concerns raised by former Cuban nuclear power officials; 
allegations of problems and defects in construction; allegations of 
inadequate simulator training; assertions of adherence to safety rules; 
United States prefers that reactors not be completed; United States 
policy and concerns of United States officials about the safe 
construction and operation of Cuba's nuclear reactors; NRC officials 
concerned about allegations of safety deficiencies; Department of 
Energy official concern about quality of reactor's construction and 
components; assessment of risks from earthquakes and radioactive 
pollutants.
  It goes on and on and on. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Menendez] mentioned all the States, one-third of the American 
population, that could be put in jeopardy for this.
  I think it is very, very important that we support the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Menendez]. My worry about my good friend from Texas, 
his substitute, is what this would simply allow is, it would allow 
Russia to take our money, manipulate the funds through the back door, 
continue to build the powerplant and continue to have our money. I do 
not think that is what we want.
  We talk about the dignity and self-respect of Russia, and I am 
sensitive to that. What about our own dignity and self-respect, that we 
could have a calamity 90 miles from our shore and it could be built 
with the help of American money? That is adding insult to injury.
  I support the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez]. I think this 
is something we ought to put into this bill. We ought to stand up and 
take notice.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WILSON. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Everything the 
gentleman says about the undesirability of the Cuban nuclear powerplant 
is true, but I believe that the gentleman mentioned the two nuclear 
powerplants that Russia has contracted to build for Iran. Is that 
right? Did you mention that?
  Mr. ENGEL. I mentioned Russia helping Iran in building nuclear 
technology and I know that our administration, our Government has made 
a plea with them not to continue. I know that they have said that they 
would look at it again, but they have not unequivocally stated that 
they will not help Iran in attaining nuclear power.
  Mr. WILSON. Assuming that an announcement was made that Russian was 
going to assist Iran in building two powerplants, would the gentleman 
then want to cut off funds as a result of that?
  Mr. ENGEL. Well, I think that would be a step in the right direction, 
but I would like them to couple that with an announcement that they 
will not help Cuba build this nuclear powerplant. If they did that, 
then I would certainly be opposed to cutting off funds.
  Mr. WILSON. Is the gentleman basically saying that if Russia builds a 
nuclear powerplant for anybody, then we ought to reduce the amount of 
aid to them?
  Mr. ENGEL. No, I think that when Russia is active in helping 
countries that are our adversaries, like Iran and like Cuba, increase 
their nuclear technology, I think it is very appropriate that we in 
turn pull out dollar-for-dollar that they are putting into building 
those powerplants.
  Mr. WILSON. So the gentleman would favor reducing assistance to 
Russia by the amount of funding they spend on the Iranian plants?
  Mr. ENGEL. That is not the amendment that is being done here. If I 
could just say, I pointed out Iran as showing that this is a behavioral 
pattern on the part of Russia with Iran and with Cuba.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the substitute amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Wilson].
  Mr. Chairman, I want to preface my remarks by saying that I respect 
extraordinarily the patriotism of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] 
and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], who has also expressed 
here his support of this substitute, but I think that they are 
extremely incorrect by supporting this substitute.
  Let's be clear with regard to what we are talking about. The Menendez 
amendment, Mr. Chairman, simply states that there will be a deduction, 
a dollar-for-dollar deduction of our aid to Russia if Russia--if and 
when, if and when, it conditions that--if and when Russia gives aid for 
the completion of this powerplant that, as the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Menendez] has pointed out, is extraordinarily dangerous; as 
the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] pointed out, the same 
kind of powerplant, that same model, it was called VVER, they were the 
export powerplants that the Soviets used to build throughout Eastern 
Europe, those same model power plants were closed in Germany 
immediately after reunification because of their inherent danger.
  Now, last month Castro and the Russians announced that they have come 
up with a formula to get the money to complete the first of those two 
plants, that same model that was closed down in Germany because there 
was an explosion of protest by the environmental movement in Europe and 
they closed down those plants. By the way, the remaining plants in 
Eastern Europe, the environmental movement in Europe has mobilized to 
close them down because they are ticking time bombs for explosions, for 
accidents, those plants. Castro announces, as I say, Mr. Chairman, that 
he has found the formula with the Russians to complete the first of 
these plants.
  The Menendez amendment says if they do that, if they provide 
assistance, we will then deduct dollar-for-dollar our assistance, our 
taxpayer money, for the completion of that powerplant which is a risk, 
as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] pointed out, to half of 
the United States, just about. If you look at the map, you see that 
just about all the southern States, all the way, and especially up the 
eastern coast, all the way to the Nation's capital are directly 
threatened if there is an accident or an incident at the nuclear 
powerplant.
  Then my dear friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], gets up 
and he says his amendment is so as to not insult the dignity of the 
Russian democrats. Wait a minute. How do we get the message across to 
the Russians? Do we vote for the amendment that says we do not want the 
plant built with our money? Or do we vote for the amendment that says 
we do not want to insult the sensitivities of the Russian democrats?
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], my good friend, great American 
patriot, I know he is a ranking member. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Callahan] is the chairman of the subcommittee, and they have to fulfill 
a roll. I understand that. I respect that.
  But their amendment, the Russian democrats' sensitivity amendment, is 
not the way to convey the message that we cannot be more concerned 
about the completion of this power plant than we are. The Menendez 
amendment, the reason we have to defeat the substitute and vote for the 
Menendez amendment is because this is not an issue of Russian 
sensitivity.
  This is an issue, the Clinton administration has got to understand, 
it has got to be at the top of our agenda in 

[[Page H6467]]
our dealings with Russia and we have got to tell them they cannot build 
the plants that were closed down in Germany, that we are closing down, 
that are being closed throughout eastern Europe and yet Castro wants to 
complete them in Cuba.
                              {time}  1845

  That is not acceptable to the national security of the United States 
of America.
  So, let us keep in mind what the Wilson-Obey substitute is, the 
Russian sensitivity amendment. That is what it is, the Russian 
sensitivity amendment. That we do not want to disturb their sensitivity 
on balance the Democrats versus the whatever.
  Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is if we vote in favor of the 
sensitivity amendment, what we are saying is that we are not concerned 
about that powerplant; that we will deal with it, like the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Wilson] said, diplomatically.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard enough of diplomatically. Let Warren 
Christopher convince, with sensitivity, the Russians that we are 
concerned about this plant, even if we vote against the Menendez 
amendment. Let us see if that makes sense. If we vote for the 
substitute, the sensitivity substitute, then we are putting our faith 
in Mr. Warren Christoper that he will say: The Congress did not support 
the amendment to cut, dollar for dollar, Russian aid if you go ahead 
and build. They were more concerned about sensitivity. That is why they 
sent me here, to sensitively tell you Russians that even though the 
Congress did not support the Menendez amendment, we are, I think, 
concerned about the plant. I guess that is what the sensitivity 
amendment means.
  What the Menendez amendment is, and we have to vote down the Wilson-
Obey sensitivity amendment, is very clear. It is on the highest 
priority for our national security. That plant cannot threaten the 
people of the United States, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think I have heard any more demagoguery on 
this floor today than I have in most days, but let me try to set the 
facts straight. I think the worst thing that a politician can do in 
public life is to try to mislead the voting public about serious 
issues. And so what I would like to try to do is to separate fact from 
fiction. Russian aid for this plant began in 1983 when Russia was still 
a communist country. It stopped in 1992, when the Russians demanded 
hard currency payment from Cuba. The only subsidy from Russia since 
that time was a $30 million credit to mothball the plant that so many 
Members suggest that they want to see mothballed and stopped.
  The only thing the Russians have done recently is to spend their own 
money to put this plant in mothballs, not to run it. Now, the Cuban 
Government says they want to conduct a feasibility study. Nothing is 
feasible under Castro. Nothing rational will happen under Castro. So I 
think we have had a lot of rhetoric about a plant that nobody wants to 
see built.
  What Mr. Wilson was trying to say is that the best way to see to it 
that Russia does not reverse its position and to begin funding this 
plant once again is to see to it that we do not damage reformers in the 
Soviet Union who are trying to keep the old horses at bay. What Mr. 
Wilson is trying to say is that Russian society is rampant with 
paranoia; not the only place I have seen paranoia recently, I would 
say. But they are certainly rampant with paranoia. That has been the 
history of Russia.
  And rejectionist and reactionary forces routinely in that country use 
innocent actions of the West in order to feed the paranoia in that 
society in order to do in Russia what Hitler did when he came to power 
in Germany, which is to feed on fears and feed on resentment against 
outsiders, against being dictated from the outside in order to build 
your own political power. Again, not the only politicians have I seen 
do that recently, but they do it very well.
  And so what the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] is trying to say is 
that if you want to be most effective in preventing Russia from taking 
a course that we do not want them to take, then do not take an action 
which through inadvertence would weaken the hand of the reformers in 
Russia.
  That is what the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] is trying to say. 
Mr. Chairman, I am going to suggest something to my colleague, Mr. 
Wilson. I am going to suggest that because this amendment is chasing a 
ghost, I would suggest that the gentleman withdraw his amendment and 
that the committee accept the amendment being offered by the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] because it is stopping something that is 
not happening.
  Mr. Chairman, if we make more of it than it is, what will happen 
today is we will feed that very paranoia in Russia which we do not want 
to feed. So what I would suggest is that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Wilson] withdraw his amendment to the amendment, and we accept this 
amendment, which is justifiably aimed at something that we do not want 
to occur, but which I think has generated a debate which will leave the 
American people thinking that black is white and vice versa.
  The facts remain that the only thing that has been happening so far 
is that the Cubans want to do a feasibility study. No money has been 
provided. The Russians have indicated no intention of providing any. 
And I want to make quite clear that if the day ever come when the 
Russians would provide it, I would be the first one in this well 
offering an amendment to eliminate the same amount of funds.
  However, Mr. Chairman, I do not think that this debate has really 
added an awful lot to the public's understanding of this issue. It has, 
in fact, wound up condemning Russia because they provided $30 million 
to mothball a plant we want mothballed. But I know how politics works 
and how often issues get misconstrued. And, so, I think to do the least 
damage possible, that what we ought to do is to withdraw the Wilson 
amendment.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Wilson 
substitute and in support of the Menendez amendment. My aim is to send 
a strong signal that completion of the nuclear reactor in Cuba, just 
180 miles from Key West, is not acceptable to the American people.
  There is no doubt that the United States has a strong interest in 
promoting positive relations with Russia. We should continue to support 
that forward momentum.
  However, as a Representative from Florida I am particularly concerned 
about plans to proceed with the Cienfuegos plant. Aside from my 
objections to providing support to the repressive Castro regime, I am 
deeply worried about safety issues that could impact the people of 
Florida, as well as the citizens of Cuba and the rest of the Caribbean. 
The safety standards established for the plant are simply insufficient. 
According to one Cuban engineer who worked on the plant, fully 15 
percent of the pipes he inspected were flawed.
  This project could not proceed without Russian technical assistance, 
training, and capital. Accordingly, we must send the strongest possible 
message. I urge my colleagues to support the Menendez amendment.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Menendez 
amendment. The President has not acted and time is short.
  Let me be brief: The last thing we need is a Chernobyl in the 
Caribbean. Cuba is a mere stone's throw from the shores of my home 
State of Florida. If, God forbid, the inconceivable happens, it is 
certain Americans would suffer the devastating effects of nuclear 
exposure. We do not want this on our conscience.
  It is amazing that even as the news reports show that Russia's 
Chernobyl plant is now leaking deadly radiation, that same substandard 
Russian technology is being used to build a nuclear plant in our 
backyard.
  Completion of this plant would constitute a real and permanent threat 
to the health and safety of our country. The Menendez amendment needs 
to be passed. It is imperative that we take the proper steps to ensure 
that this type of security and safety threat is not brought to 
fruition.
  Mr. Chairman, it is wrong that we give any money to Russia. It is 
horrendous that we should even consider giving money to Russia for the 
purpose of building of a nuclear power plant in Cuba. Simply put, Mr. 
Chairman, we cannot let this happen.
  We cannot let this happen. I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
Menendez amendment and to oppose any weakening amendments.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  
[[Page H6468]]

  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, with the withdrawal of the substitute, 
and with the importance that we know the Florida delegation and others 
sense with respect to this, we will accept the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     amendment offered by mr. goss

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Goss: Page 78, after line 6, 
     insert the following new section:


                     limitation on funds for haiti

       Sec. 564. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     made available to the Government of Haiti when it is made 
     known to the President that such Government is controlled by 
     a regime holding power through means other than the 
     democratic elections scheduled for calendar year 1995 and 
     held pursuant to the requirements of the 1987 Constitution of 
     Haiti.


             modification to amendment offered by mr. goss

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
modified in the new form at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
  The Clerk read as follows:

     amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Goss: Page 78, after 
     line 6, insert the following new section:


                     limitation on funds for haiti

       Sec. 564. Effective March 1, 1996, none of the funds 
     appropriated in this Act may be made available to the 
     Government of Haiti when it is made known to the President 
     that such Government is controlled by a regime holding power 
     through means other than the democratic elections scheduled 
     for calendar year 1995 and held in substantial compliance 
     with the requirements of the 1987 Constitution of Haiti.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss]?
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It is about 
Haiti and it says, ``No democracy, no taxpayer money.''
  The intent is to encourage both the Clinton administration and the 
Haitians in Haiti to ensure that this year's parliamentary and 
Presidential elections are as free, open, and democratic as possible.
  Simply put, the Goss amendment says that in the event of a new regime 
assuming power in this fiscal year in Haiti through means other than an 
election in substantial compliance with the Haitian Constitution of 
1987, the United States would halt aid to Haiti.
  I believe this amendment is of significant value, if not necessary, 
because I believe the American people would draw the line at funding a 
regime in Haiti that gained power through a nondemocratic or an 
antidemocratic process.
  We saw some serious problems with the electoral process in this past 
weekend's parliamentary elections. Today, we have new reports of 
trouble, including the assassination of a mayoral candidate in the 
coastal town of Anse d'Hainault.
  Others have noted that the electoral council we have there is 
provisional, not permanent as required by the Constitution. The 
international community has looked at that and the international 
community and Haiti have accepted that a necessary compromise for this 
past weekend's election. It was necessary to do it that way because we 
had to have the elections and I think that makes sense.
  The natural follow-on question is whether or not building a more 
permanent electoral administrative mechanism will be a priority once 
the new parliament is in place. There are, arguably, more important 
Haitian issues than the electoral council.
  The Haitian Constitution also prohibits President Aristide from 
running again and prohibits the new parliament from changing the laws 
to allow him to do so. Whether or not that standards holds should be of 
particular interest to this House, to the Clinton administration, and 
to the Haitian people themselves.
  Ultimately, this amendment is, in part, about adding incentives to 
keep the evolution of democracy in Haiti on track by holding elections 
in a manner as consistent with the Haitian Constitution as possible, 
despite the realities of holding elections from scratch in what is a 
poverty-stricken, infrastructure-challenged Third World country.
  The larger issue for us is deciding what our job as Members of 
Congress is all about. Members of Congress are the keepers of a trust 
for the American taxpayers. We are responsible for knowing whether our 
tax dollars are used for priority spending and whether there is value 
in return.
  Let us be clear about this. No one knows exactly how much the Clinton 
administration has spent on operations in Haiti. What we do know is 
that before American soldiers leave, the cost of this effort is 
projected to be well over the $2 billion mark. That is a tremendous 
amount of money.
  Why have we committed this level of resource of Haiti? Because the 
White House has placed a priority of building democracy there. And this 
is an admirable goal I think all of us support in principle.
  But if at end of the election cycle this year we find that the 
process has drifted or been jolted far from democratic standards, then 
we should stop pouring money into that small Caribbean nation. When I 
say pouring money, it is about $300 per capita, which is about $50 per 
capita per year more than the average income.
  This amendment says ``No'' to United States assistance for any new 
regime in Haiti that comes to power via an antidemocratic process. If 
building democracy is not about that kind of commitment, then what is 
it about? This amendment is good for a democratic Haiti; it is good for 
the American taxpayers.
  Also I would like to point out that we have checked it out with the 
Committee on International Relations and we have made it in modified 
form today, after checking with the Department of State, to try and 
relieve some problems they were concerned about.
  I have added the words ``substantial compliance'' with regard to 
observing the Haitian Constitution, because obviously they are not 
going to be able to cross every T or dot every I.
  We have also tried to make this effective as of March 1996, well into 
the fiscal year, to allow plenty of opportunity for adjustment in case 
there are technical glitches with the election process.
  We have tried to accommodate in every way possible the concerns of 
the administration. I think we have done that. I think we have a very 
clear, simple amendment that says as long as Haiti stays on the track, 
they are eligible for foreign assistance. If they get off that track, 
then we better take another look.
    amendment offered by Mrs. Meek of Florida to the Amendment, as 
                     Modified, Offered by Mr. Goss

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
amendment, as modified.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Meek of Florida to the amendment 
     offered by Mr. Goss, as modified: In the matter proposed to 
     be inserted by the amendment, strike ``when it is made 
     known'' and all that follows and insert the following: 
     ``except when it is made known to the President that such 
     government is making continued progress in implementing 
     democratic elections.''

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

                              {time}  1900

  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I join with my colleagues Mr. 

[[Page H6469]]
  Owens, Mr. Rangel, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, and Mr. Alcee Hastings 
of Florida in offering this amendment to the amendment offered by my 
friend, Mr. Goss.
  Our amendment is simple and concise. For Haiti to continue to get 
U.S. aid, the President has to be sure that Haiti is making progress in 
implementing democratic elections.
  The United States has fostered and nurtured democracy in Russia and 
in Central America and in Eastern Europe. We should do no less for 
Haiti.
  Our amendment provides a strong, clear incentive to the leaders of 
Haiti to continue on the path to democracy.
  Mr. Goss says that he wants to hold Haitians to the standards they 
set for themselves in the 1987 Constitution. So do we.
  But we must also recognize that Haiti has had very little experience 
in governing itself. Let us move them in the right direction. Let us 
encourage them in the right direction, but let us not threaten them 
with disaster if they cannot immediately meet the lofty standards they 
have set for themselves. Mr. Chairman, in the world of international 
diplomacy, words are extremely important. Our amendment encourages 
democracy in Haiti without presupposing its failure.
  Every person in this body today has a strong--and, I hope, 
unshakable--commitment to democracy as a form of government. Democracy 
is a truly great form of government, but it is also one of the most, if 
not the most, difficult forms of government on the face of the earth.
  There is a line in the new movie, ``Apollo 13,'' when Tom Hanks says, 
``There's nothing routine about going to the moon.'' Well, there's 
nothing routine about making democracy work, either.
  Here in the United States, we have had over 200 years of experience 
with it. We have well-established democratic traditions. We probably 
make democracy work as well as anybody in the world.
  And yet democracy works imperfectly in our own country. If you want 
proof, just look at the contested Maryland governor's election. Or the 
contested California Senatorial election. Just look at how many 
elections have been challenged right here in our own House of 
Representatives.
  This should be a vote to insure that our tax dollars help support 
democracy, and that is why I ask for your support for our amendment.
  Our amendment makes further funding for Haiti contingent on the 
progress of Democracy in Haiti.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a vote on whether or not last weekend's 
election in Haiti was without problems.
  The fact is that the vote on Sunday in Haiti was far from perfect. 
There were organizational problems and confusion. Polls opened late, or 
not at all. There were untrained poll workers, and lapses in voter 
secrecy.
  Was the baby's first step shaky? Absolutely.
  But as yesterday's Miami Herald reports, quote:

       Although the election was organizationally flawed, there 
     was little indication of an effort to tilt the vote. And it 
     was certainly the most peaceful of any since the Feb. 7, 
     1986, fall of the Duvalier family dictatorship.

  The Canadian election specialist in charge of the 300 observers from 
the Organization of American States said, quote: ``The overall picture 
was much more positive than reflected by some.'' He also noted that, as 
the day wore on, ``the conduct of the voting process significantly 
improved.''
  Keep in mind that this election was in Haiti, the very poorest nation 
in the entire Western Hemisphere, a nation that until last fall was 
under the control of a military dictator. In fact, for most of its 
existence, Haiti has struggled under the rule of dictators.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. MEEK of Florida was allowed to proceed 
for 1 additional minute.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, democracy, like everything else 
in life, takes practice. And this election in Haiti was a very clear 
and positive step in the right direction--toward democracy.
  Would America's allies in the Revolutionary War have forced the Goss 
amendment upon the struggling little United States? Did our allies, in 
the difficult days after our liberation from our own colonial masters, 
make their assistance contingent on our implementing the Articles of 
Confederation? Of course not.
  Why, then, should we so burden Haiti, which is struggling mightily to 
meet the high standards of self government that we have set for the 
world?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of our amendment to the Goss 
Amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say that we do have occasionally here in 
the United States voting irregularities, but they are not really 
widespread.
  I was one of the monitors sent by President Bush to monitor the 
elections in Namibia, and that was a very, very big election on 
independence and freedom and democracy over there, and there was a lot 
of opportunity for vote fraud, but very, very little of it occurred in 
Nambia.
  In South Africa, likewise, there were some irregularities, but it was 
very minimal. I think in many, many of the developing countries, there 
have been some minor voting irregularities.
  But the problem we saw in Haiti last week was there were widespread 
voter irregularities. Ballots were lost. People could not vote. Polls 
were closed. And as a result, the entire election was tainted.
  For that reason, I rise in support of the Goss amendment and in 
opposition to the gentlewoman's substitute.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Indiana for yielding to me.
  The problem with the amendment offered by my colleague from Florida 
is that it simply bases the question of how we judge democracy on some 
unknown. There is no particular standard for it. It is sort of in the 
eye of the beholder.
  We are very particular about how we do that in our amendment, by 
design. We measure democracy by the Haitian Constitution. That is the 
way we measure democracy in this country, and we believe specific 
reference to the Haitian Constitution is also extremely critical 
because that is the path they have announced they are taking and that 
is the path that the dollars of our tax support are committed to 
pursuing, in helping them pursue.
  If we get that off that path and create some new direction, we open 
the door for a lot of mischief, and I am sad to say that there was some 
mischief in Haiti this past weekend, and I am sorry that my colleague 
from Florida has felt it necessary to shoot the messenger for reporting 
that.
  But in the words of the mayor of Port-au-Prince, who called the 
election, and incidentally the mayor of Port-au-Prince is a member of 
the former coalition of elected President Aristide, called the election 
a massive fraud. The minister of culture said he was ashamed. Quoting 
from the New York Times on this, he said, ``As a member of the 
Government, I am not proud of this at all.'' These are serious 
challenges.
  The political parties are calling for a re-vote. They are calling for 
re-elections.
  This is not Porter Goss saying this, this is Porter Goss bringing the 
message. I am sorry, it is the Haitians who have said this, who 
participated in this. It is not Porter Goss who has created this.
  The fact that we have brought it to your attention may be 
distressing, but it is important that when we represent first and 
foremost the United States taxpayers, we have a higher obligation to 
make sure their money is properly and wisely spent than any other 
obligation in a foreign country. I think that is an extremely important 
point.
  I would say that one of the problems I have with the Meek amendment 
is that it clearly weakens accountability to the American taxpayers.
  I think that not specifying that we stick to the Constitution in 
Haiti is a serious flaw in the Meek amendment, and I am afraid that 
leaving it up to somebody, presumably the spokespersons for the liberal 
left, as who have 

[[Page H6470]]
been speaking widely on this, to define what democracy is and how well 
it is doing in Haiti is a dangerous mistake and would not pass muster 
with the United States taxpayers.
  Having said all of this, I urge definitely a ``no'' vote on the Meek 
amendment, and I urge support for the Goss amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I say to the gentleman from Florida, to 
restate what he said, his amendment is consistent with the Constitution 
of Haiti and leaves no room for doubt, and for that reason I think we 
should support his amendment and vote down the substitute.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I have read the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida, and 
I really do not understand what his objective is here except to try to 
embarrass President Aristide and especially the people of Haiti.
  I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I do so because it 
represents a slap in the face to the millions of people who voted in 
Haiti on Sunday.
  I have investigated; I have gotten reports from people who were 
there. The reports that I have received were that there was practically 
no violence; there was practically no intimidation, no fraud. These 
things were practically nonexistent.
  Yes, there were lost ballots. It was the first election allowed in 
that country in many, many years. There were some irregularities, but 
there are irregularities in almost every free election.
  What really we should have to look to find out is what was really 
Haiti's government before our forces returned democracy to Haiti? It 
was a gang of military thugs and criminals who controlled that nation. 
They took control, and President Aristide, who was elected by almost 70 
percent of the people of that nation, was forced to leave his office 
and his country under threat of death.
  Politically motivated violence and murder reigned. Two elections were 
rigged by the gang in power, Cedras, Biambe, Francois. Do you want them 
back in power? Terror was the form of government in Haiti.
  But that changed when President Aristide returned last October. 
Democracy has replaced terror. Democracy has replaced terror in Haiti, 
and that was demonstrated on Sunday.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have harped on the 
logistical difficulties surrounding Sunday's election in Haiti. There 
was not an extraordinary multitude of problems or widespread 
disturbances. There were problems, admittedly. President Aristide has 
publicly acknowledged that there were problems.
  In the United States elections, which is the bedrock of a 200-year-
old system, there are problems. Coming from the city of Philadelphia, I 
can assure you that we still have elections in this Nation tainted with 
controversy, irregularities, and problems. But
 this was only Haiti's second free election ever.

  Furthermore, most of the 3.5 million Haitians who were registered to 
vote in Sunday's election are illiterate and require special attention.
  Despite these difficulties, people were able to participate in a free 
and fair election. According to the report issued by the election 
observers with the Organization of American States, problems related to 
the election were attributed to Haitian inexperience, not widespread 
fraud, not abuse or not violence.
  The seed of democracy has been planted in Haiti. While it will take 
time and hard work for democracy to establish firm roots, we witnessed 
positive, tangible progress toward this goal on Sunday.
  Can the people on the other side not accept success? We have created 
a democracy in Haiti. Now is not the time to send this negative 
message. Now is not the time to hold critical development funds which 
could further guarantee the success of Haitian democracy.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. I would want to comment particularly with the 
gentleman's reference to Philadelphia elections because in Detroit we 
lost a city clerk as a result of problems, and we have been holding 
pretty good elections the whole time.
  May I just say that I agree with you. The Meek amendment to Goss is 
absolutely essential, and I am hoping that our Republican friends will 
understand what we are trying to do is give Haiti a chance. Let us not 
put them under an increasing burden. Their difficulties are much, much 
graver than some people think, and I want to give them a chance.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in enthusiastic support of the amendment by the 
gentlelady from Florida. It is a much needed modification to the 
amendment by the gentleman from Florida. That amendment is deeply 
flawed in content and intent. Despite its seemingly harmless wording, 
it will curtail democracy in Haiti, where peaceful governance can ill 
afford such a setback.
  The gentlelady's amendment offers some simple but critical changes. 
Her amendment in its entirety reads:

       None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be made 
     available to the Government of Haiti except when it is made 
     known to the President that such Government is making 
     continued progress in implementing democratic elections.

  Rather than tearing the carpet out from under Haiti's painful steps 
toward democracy, this amendment allows aid to that country as long as 
it is continuing those steps toward democracy. I have traveled to Haiti 
several times, and have witnessed myself the pain that this country had 
to bear in anticipation of peaceful enfranchisement and they are closer 
now than ever before.
  The absence of systemic fraud and organized violence in Haiti's 
elections this week showed that this nation is working diligently for 
democracy, even without an adequate transportation network to get 
people to the polls and extremely limited resources. Nevertheless, 
those who disagree with the results in favor of the ruling party such 
as the International Republican Institute have sought to impose the 
same standards on this infant democracy as they would in the United 
States.
  The truth of the matter about IRI is that it received nearly half a 
million United States taxpayer dollars to observe the elections in 
Haiti this spring. Have no illusions about IRI so-called non-
partisanship. One IRI document for the electoral study states: ``IRI 
will conduct local leadership training exclusively for non-Lavalas 
centrist political party representatives from all 83 electoral 
districts.'' Lavalas is the opposition party. That's not observing 
democracy that's interfering with it. IRI is supporting political 
parties they happen to agree with. This organization also apparently 
has a crystal ball that allowed them to state in a fancy report the day 
before the elections that the elections were unfair. We should give 
democracy in Haiti a chance and not be in such a hurry to pass 
judgment, but instead continue to encourage this young democracy's 
growth.
  For the first time this week, voters could let their political voice 
be heard out of freedom and not out of fear. Democracy is a process and 
not a standing status. We have to maintain our commitment to Haiti at 
the early stages of its process now that it is on course.
  America's commitment to Haiti is an integral part of America's pledge 
to democracy and peace worldwide. Other nations of the world, who are 
still struggling under the bloody boot of oppression, have to see that 
peace and freedom can and must coexist. Without the gentlelady's 
modifications, the amendment is a vote of no confidence to this 
blossoming democracy and an endorsement of the IRI's delusions.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for the 
amendment by the gentlelady from Florida in the name of a stable 
democracy and a real democracy.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. I thank the gentleman.
  I just want to say there are 6 million people in Haiti. They have 
suffered tremendously over the years by dictatorial government. They 
have suffered from people who have indiscriminately killed, maimed and 
injured people to keep control of that nation.
  They are finally achieving democracy. They are finally achieving 
freedom. Give them a chance. Do not hamstring them. Do not threaten to 
take the funds back.
  I urge my colleagues to understand the problems of the people of 
Haiti. They want democracy. Let us help them achieve that goal.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Meek amendment and against the 
Goss amendment.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Meek amendment. I think the 
amendment that Meek seeks to amend, Mr. 

[[Page H6471]]
Goss, places the process of Haitian democratization under a vague and 
mischievous standard. The question is how do we define a democratically 
constituted government, how do we define a democratic election process? 
The Meek amendment makes it pretty clear that the responsibility would 
be fixed upon the President. It must be made known to the President. 
Otherwise the President will certify whether the democratic process 
took place and whether the regime in power is a result of a democratic 
process.
  Yes, I agree with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss]. We should 
say no. We should not support any regime that is in power as a result 
of a process that is not democratic. But what is the definition of the 
process, what is the definition of staying on track? As the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Goss] said, they must stay on track. I agree they 
must stay on track toward democracy and maintain the democracy. Let the 
President determine what staying on track means. The President, the 
executive branch, is in charge of foreign policy. Let us make it clear 
the Meek amendment makes it clear that they will determine that. 
Instead we have in the Goss amendment a rather vague situation where it 
is not clear who will determine whether or not they are on course.
  We should bear in mind that the liberation of Haiti marks a high 
point in United States foreign policy. The liberation of Haiti sends a 
message to all of the nations in the Caribbean area and this 
hemisphere, all throughout the world, that we stand well on the side of 
democracy, and when it is clear that a democratic government has been 
deposed, we will have the strength and the resources of the American 
Government on the side of the democratic government. We have, step by 
step, supported a process which the Haitian people themselves began in 
1987.
  Let us understand the context in which the presidential election has 
just taken place. First of all, the election was an election which 
involved 11,000 candidates running for everything from village council 
up to the national legislature. That is very difficult for anybody to 
run. They have no machines,
 no election machines. They do not have boards of elections that have 
existed for decades. Their constitution only came into existence less 
than 10 years ago. So they are carrying out a process under the worst 
of circumstances in an economy that does not even have the 
infrastructure to support electricity on a 24-hour basis. All of this 
is taking place within less than 10 years in the Haitian society.

  They said they can never write a constitution, but they wrote a 
constitution. They went out and voted for that constitution. They said 
they can never have free elections, and it looked for a while as if 
they can never have free elections because people were gunned down at 
the polls in the first two elections.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, they had an election where they elected Jean-
Bertrand Aristide as President. After the election was certified as 
being a fair and free election, he was deposed by the army, and that 
situation lasted for over 3 years. Now some of the people who supported 
the criminals who deposed the democratically-elected President are 
trying to set a very high standard that they were never concerned about 
while Haiti was under the domination of criminal dictators.
  We have broken through; we have liberated Haiti. The process is 
moving in a very swift way.
  Mr. Chairman, they have had an election less than a year after the 
president was returned. The president who is there now has agreed to 
step down. He has made no claim to the fact that he was out of office 
for 3 years and, therefore, he ought to be continued. Some other people 
are making that claim, but Jean-Bertrand Aristide will step down. Jean-
Bertrand Aristide will play the role of George Washington and see to it 
that there is an orderly, peaceful transition of government.
  All of these things are moving on track, and they are moving in ways 
that most cynics said they can never move. Why do we want to introduce 
a vague standard here? Why do we want to place Haiti under scrutiny, 
which will not help the situation at all? Why not let the process go 
forward and let the State Department and the President, the executive 
branch of government, determine whether or not they are meeting the 
requirements of a movement toward democratization that is acceptable 
for the United States to continue to support?
  I hope that the gentleman will accept the amendment to his amendment 
because the difference is not so great. We only clarify and pinpoint 
the responsibility for defining what democratization is in Haiti.
  I urge that we support, all people to support, the Meek amendment.
  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 rise in support of the amendment offered 
by our colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], and in 
opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida 
[Mrs. Meek].
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's first-hand account of what transpired 
in the Haitian elections on Sunday offers compelling evidence that, 
despite our extraordinary investment and best intentions, much remains 
to be done to strengthen the democratic institutions there.
  Laboring in extreme heat, without food, water, or pay, Haitians made 
their best effort to cast and count ballots--in some cases by 
candlelight into the next day. However, Haiti's Provisional Electoral 
Council fell down on the job, failing to provide logistical support, 
training, and funds.
  Frankly, there is much ground to be covered if the Presidential 
elections in December are to be judged as free and fair. Also, the 
statement yesterday by a key Haitian politician that President Aristide 
should stay in power after his constitutional term expires on February 
7, 1996, casts further doubt on the democratic transition.
  President Clinton defended his extraordinary investment in Haiti as a 
move to restore constitutional order. It would be profoundly difficult 
to make the case to the American people and Congress that our 
assistance should continue to flow to an unconstitutional government in 
Haiti. That is the basis of the Goss amendment, which I hope my 
colleagues will support.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] who authored this 
original amendment had indicated that support for the Government of 
Haiti seemed to be coming from liberals or something that would denote 
that there was a different type of thinking with liberals, and 
conservatives, and people of different backgrounds, as related to a 
poor country that has really suffered tremendously over the last 
decades.
  It seems to me that the amendment is a political statement:
  I did not like Aristide when he first was elected. I did not like 
Aristide when he came to the United States. I did not like Aristide 
when we went in to restore the government, and, notwithstanding the 
fact that he has done each and every thing that everyone expected him 
to do, they could not find one thing to say except, ``Something must be 
wrong. I don't know what it is, but, if anyone finds out what it is, 
then we cut off aid.''
  As my colleagues know, I am more concerned about the politics of when 
it is made known to the President of the United States than anything in 
this statement because, as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] knows 
better than most Members of this body, everything that was made known 
to the Presidents of the United States was made known by the Central 
Intelligence Agency, and it really surprises me, with the type of 
information that was gathered out of the sewers of the intelligence 
community, that was made and proven to be false to misguide the 
President of the United States, that we would have this vague type of 
language as to the President would cut off any assistance to the 
Government of Haiti when it is made known to the President.
  I really would not want to start laughing here by asking the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida just who would he think, or what 
agency would it be, that would be mandated to make information known to 
the President of the United States as would be 

[[Page H6472]]
in Haiti sometime. If we take a look at the history of the CIA in 
condemning our country, in condemning a man, and continuously 
condemning someone that has been elected by the people, we will run 
down the line and say the man was psychotic based on what? Information 
collected. The man was addicted to drugs. The man was responsible for 
murder. There is no support for
 the man on the island of Haiti. It is the army, it is institutions, it 
is the people that were paid, the people that were on the payroll. 
Everyone that opposed the man when he was in this country was paid for 
by the CIA and other people that just could not tolerate the idea that 
they did not have a puppet controlled by the United States of America.

  And so I know, I know, that certain people are just born in this 
world that is going to have to carry a heavy burden, and I do not mind 
carrying it at all. I think it was our distinguished Speaker who said, 
``You just got to worker harder.'' So that goes for the gentleman that 
comes to become president of Haiti. But the question has to remain how 
much does a country have to suffer, how much does a man have to do, in 
order to get certain people off of his back?
  Now, until there is reason to believe that something was wrong, that 
the election was fraudulent, do my colleagues not think this body and 
the President has the power to move forward? The reason I support the 
Meek amendment is because it is done the way the United States of 
America should do business, and that is we are going to assume that 
things are done legally, we are going to assume that the Congress and 
the people have good intent, and if anyone, anyone, misuses that, then 
this Congress would respond.
  Well, what the gentleman is saying and what the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Meek] is not saying is that we make it a negative 
thinking that it is going to happen, and she is the American that has 
hope that, when our troops went over there, got rid of the tyrants, got 
rid of the CIA people that were on the payroll, that was actually 
stopping the United States ship from coming into it when they were 
chased out of the country because of the spirit of fine young American 
boys, we are going to send a message to them, ``Yes, you did a good 
job, but wait until you see what happens because we got an amendment 
that will take it all back.''
  This is not the U.S. Congress that I am proud to be a Member of. This 
is not the United States of America. We should laud our esteem for 
doing what the international community asked him to do, and I, for one, 
was proud that I supported him before, and I do now.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered 
by the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  Mr. Chairman, I was prepared to let this go unanswered, but it has 
gotten a little out of control here in the rhetoric. The gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Rangel] has just said when it is made known. He objects 
to that language, and that is the language in Mrs. Meek's amendment as 
well, so I guess he is opposed to Mrs. Meek's amendment as well.
  The question was raised by the gentleman: Who will make it known? Any 
number of people will make it known to the President. As I recall, the 
last person who made it known to the President that there was a problem 
in Haiti was the gentleman named Randall Robinson. Randall Robinson 
actually made it known by a protest in front of the White House, a 
starvation diet type of thing, a publicity stunt as it were. Well, I 
would suggest a very great way the president will know.
  Mrs. Robinson now works for the government of Haiti, as I understand 
is on the payroll of the Government of Haiti. Presumably she will tell 
Randall Robinson and Randall Robinson will tell the president again. So 
I am not concerned that we are not going to get the word to the 
President that the folks who are taking the Rangel position want to 
know. It is going to happen; there is no question there.
  I am a little bit offended by the statement that I did not support 
President Aristide. I was in Haiti for the election in 1990; I was in 
Haiti for the election in 1995, as an observer. As an observer in 1990 
I came back and signed on and said President Aristide is a duly 
popular, enthusiastically elected President of the country of Haiti, 
and I have stuck to that position the whole way through. When former 
President Carter, and General Powell and Senator Nunn negotiated the 
settlement that avoided the armed hostile conflict of war between the 
U.S. Armed Forces, and the Haitian army, and people, and the innocent 
bystanders that would have been hurt, I was the first Member in the 
well the next day to congratulate President Clinton for a negotiated 
settlement.
                              {time}  1930

  I think he was fortunate to get it at the last minute. He had good 
people working for him and made that come out. I met with President 
Aristide this Monday. We had a very nice discussion after this 
election. We agreed there are some very hopeful signs that we need to 
focus on. It was a courteous call, a pleasant call, there was no 
disagreement.
  There is no question that we have a challenge ahead. President 
Aristide said so and has been saying so publicly, frankly, in the past 
2 days. I do not think we have any disagreement about that. This is not 
about the election last weekend. Sure, there were tremendous logistical 
difficulties. Everybody knows that. Sure, there were some disturbances. 
Some were severe, some were not. In some areas there were no 
disturbances at all. I think everybody who was there understands that. 
Nobody would mischaracterize that.
  My problem is, what is going to be the standard? The gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Owens] said what is the standard. He said a vague and 
mischievous standard was my game. It is not. I am saying the standard 
of measuring democracy in Haiti is the Haitian Constitution. Is there 
anybody who would deny that that is about a bad idea? That is what we 
are measuring democracy by in Haiti, is their democratic Constitution. 
Can we get real here? What is wrong with that?
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. I would like to withdraw some harsh statements I made 
about the gentleman, because I am reminded by your statement that 
unlike so many others that are positioned in that side of the aisle, 
that you constantly have talked about the restoration of democracy in 
Haiti, even to the point that you had a place where you thought the new 
government should be.
  But I guess my point to you, sir, is that why would this little 
island government need your direction with its constitution as to when 
our great Nation cuts assistance?
  Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, the answer is very simple: Because I am 
first and foremost accountable to the American taxpayers for the wise 
use of their tax dollars, and I do not stand still for the proposition 
that we are going to put any money in any country, no matter what, 
unless they are proceeding in a properly democratic way.
  Mr. RANGEL. Is the gentleman saying he would hope that his amendment 
would apply to any country that is not abiding by the constitutional 
principles that is in their Constitution, and that this little island 
country was not singled out for this kind of treatment?
  Mr. GOSS. I have picked Haiti for two reasons: The substantial 
compliance question I think accommodates most of your concern. But the 
other reason is because we have $2 billion, B, billion, invested in 
Haiti in this 2-year frame, probably going to be more before we are 
through, and that is my foremost responsibility to the United States of 
America as a Representative here, is to make sure in the House of 
revenue, the people's House, we use dollars wisely.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me address my colleague most immediately with 
reference to the fact that we have $2 billion invested in Haiti, and 
put the question rhetorically: How much of that was used in the 
structuring of an election that would satisfy the so-called 
requirements of the Haitian Constitution?

[[Page H6473]]

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I do not know. I 
certainly hope we are all going to have that answer.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Let me suggest it was minuscule by 
comparison. I am fond of quoting my mother, and I choose at this time 
to do so. My mom says ``Give the prize to the one who tries,'' and she 
says that often. Haiti has tried over and over again to satisfy every 
single requirement that our government has put forward to require them 
to go forward in a meaningful manner. There has been but a year in the 
process of restoration of democracy, and I am fascinated by the little 
amount of resources that were devoted toward trying to help an 80 
percent illiterate country to understand the basic dynamics of voting. 
The 1,000-plus candidates that were on the ballot alone required an 
immense amount of resources in order for the various persons to be 
widely known. We spend in some of our districts $1 million, and that is 
about how much money we spent during that period of time in trying to 
assist in the election.
  Do you know what I am going to ask the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss] is what is the real agenda here? I mean, the election was just 
held Sunday and Monday, and I hear my chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations saying that some of the votes were counted by 
candlelight. Absolutely, Mr. Gilman,
 they were counted by candlelight, for the reason that the people do 
not have electricity.

  Give me a break. They do not have computers. They do not have the 
knowledge that we have with reference to how to conduct an election. 
And many of us sat on the sidelines and waited until Sunday to go down 
there and find out precisely what was going on before we would say 
anything.
  What has the international community done with reference to the 
donors that said they were going to come forward and help this country? 
The money has been slow in coming. There is no infrastructure. People 
stood in long lines waiting to have an opportunity to vote. They voted 
probably as good as we do in this country, in many of our areas, rich 
and poor. Therefore, it is unwise of us to thrust on them at this time 
such a nebulous, vague, and uncertain mandate from this country as to 
how it is to conduct itself as a national government.
  Let me make it very clear: You do not have any more concern than 
anybody else. The so-called liberal left you said, Porter. That is the 
language he used, Charlie, liberal left. Then I am a proud member of 
that liberal left, and I gather then that you must be something other 
than liberal left.
  You do not have any more reason to support the taxpayers of this 
country than do I. You cannot wrap yourself around a flag or hide under 
the rug of the CIA and expect that from somewhere on earth is going to 
come this rumination that is going to give you greater say about 
something that every Member of the liberal left struggled for these 
people to have, the opportunity to have a democratic election.
  Every Member of the liberal left stood by them and said, ``We do not 
want you dying out in the ocean.'' Every Member of the liberal left 
said that it was wrong to hold them in Guantanamo. Every Member of the 
liberal left said that we had dual America standards, and everybody on 
earth knows that we had dual standards.
  Who, other than a handful of you, have complained about this 
election? Were there problems? Yes. And there were problems in Fort 
Lauderdale, and there were problems in Immokalee in your district. So 
do not commence to tell me that problems now are going to be reported 
arbitrarily by somebody unknown to the President of the United States, 
and that is going to be pursuant to the Constitution of 1987.
  Who, other than you, have complained? Did Brian Atwood complain? I 
did not hear him say that the election was a fraud, and it is his 
agency that was involved. Did the military complain? Six thousand of 
our troops are still there, and they shepherded as best they could an 
election of a fledgling country.
  I am tired of standing in this well and in this body and hearing 
people refer to the people of the liberal left. One day I will come 
forward and tell you all the things that the liberal left has done. My 
concern is what the conservative right has done to us all.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the distinguished 
gentleman from Immokalee, the distinguished gentleman from Sanibel [Mr. 
Goss].
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague and friend from Florida, 
who has spoken with great passion and articulation on an issue that we 
all care very much about, I have been involved with Haitian affairs for 
30 years now, from many perspectives, all aimed toward building 
democracy and a better quality of life for Haiti, which is demonstrably 
the poorest, most impoverished, most backward part of the western 
hemisphere, a tragedy in history of many ways, of 200 years as the 
second oldest sovereign republic, free sovereign republic, in this 
hemisphere. They just have not been able to get it together down there. 
I think we all as good neighbors in this hemisphere want to do our best 
for them.
  I suspect that my colleague from Florida's impassioned speech was in 
part from the sense of frustration and disappointment that he feels and 
that I feel, that we all feel, that things are not going better more 
quickly. I suspect a little bit perhaps of his feeling comes from the 
same feeling that I have as an American, a little bit of the shame I 
feel that some of the poverty in Haiti today is a direct result
 of the embargo that we have advocated against, this economic embargo 
that has simply made Haiti, I hate to say this, but it is close, a 
place where there is too much garbage with too many pigs in the city 
streets going around. It is very hard to think that this is a civilized 
capital city of a great sovereign nation. Things have gotten so bad 
economically down there for anybody to come in and see. It is pathetic, 
and I feel badly about it.

  But that was our embargo, and as an American I feel very badly. That 
was unwise policy by President Clinton and his advisers, and I stood on 
this floor and many times said that. So that does not mean I am not 
sympathetic to Haiti. It means I am very sympathetic to the people of 
Haiti and to the country of Haiti. I do not think starving Haitians 
into democracy is a very smart way to go, and I have said so 
repeatedly.
  Now, apparently my colleague from Florida has some type of obsession 
with the CIA. I do not know what it is about, but, just to make the 
record clear, I will say I would presume that all of the President's 
horses and all of the President's men are the people and ways that he 
is going to get the message about what is going on in Haiti. That is 
how our government works, and how it should be.
  The final point I would like to make is that the question of 
constitutionality that I have raised, using the Haitian Constitution as 
the measure by which we judge, is not a new subject. It is, in fact, 
the way the OAS judges its own member states, and has been since June 
of 1991 per resolution 1080 of Santiago. The test is a sudden or 
irregular interruption of democracy creates a abrogation. And where was 
that ever tested? The first place, Haiti. It served Haiti already, and 
it can serve Haiti again. That is the standard I am asking us to adopt.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, last week when I heard about the Goss amendment I went 
to him to discuss with him that amendment and to try and determine what 
he was trying to do. I am surprised today when I hear the gentleman, 
because my discussion with him last week, well, he sounded a lot 
different.
  The gentleman said to me, ``Let me assure you, I do not want to do 
anything to harm Haiti. I would like to encourage them. I am with you 
all the way.'' He said, ``I was there, and I think they did a pretty 
good job.'' He said, ``I think there were a few problems.''
  So, having had that conversation with him one-on-one, I am surprised 
when I hear him on the floor today, because he sounds like a different 
person. 

[[Page H6474]]
He even said to me, ``I want to amend my amendment to put in 
substantial compliance, because I in no way believe that we should hold 
them to the strict standard of the 1987 Constitution.'' Because, he 
implied, ``I know what had to be done for the election. With Aristide 
only returning in October, to say that they had to put everything in 
place to comply with the Constitution was literally impossible, and we 
wanted these elections to be held. And yes, Ms. Waters, I agree, that 
ever since everybody, but everybody, signed off on the way that they 
should proceed. And recognizing that everything demanded by the 
Constitution could not be put in place, I think it has worked out 
well.''
  Well, you know, maybe I need to ask the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss] to revisit this conversation, because when he gets on the floor 
today, then he starts to go back and say some things that really do 
surprise me.
  Let me just say, this amendment should not be about refighting and 
getting involved in a struggle where there were some who did not 
believe we had any place in Haiti, that did not want us to assist 
Haiti, who made statements that pained us all, ``We are not going to 
and we do not wish to lose one good American soldier on their soil.'' 
We do not want to go back to talk about that.
                              {time}  1945

  Let us put that behind us. Let us at least conclude, as reasonable 
people can do, that we have helped Haiti, and they are grateful. Do 
they say to us over and over again how grateful they are? We must have 
had 200 CODELs to Haiti. Everybody has been to Haiti. Everybody from 
both sides of the aisle that has wanted to go. Those who did not want 
to go have been to Haiti. They have been received with warmth. They 
have been embraced. The president has thanked us profusely, and we know 
that they are grateful for what we have done.
  Having done all of that, the President has said over and over again, 
What else do you want me to do? How else can I make you believe that 
all that I want for my beloved country is freedom and democracy for its 
people? Everything that we have asked him to do he has done.
  I am pleased and proud, as I look at what took place with these 
elections. Now, if you recall what happened in South Africa, people 
stood in lines for hours. If you will recall, it took them a long time 
to count the ballots. If you will recall, there were some skirmishes. 
It will happen.
  Let us not talk about what happens in America but certainly in a 
third world country, where they do not have the computerization, they 
do not have the electricity and other things, certainly you expect 
there are going to be some problems. But why are you putting on them 
the kind of restrictions to box them in to say that if you do not 
comply with the 1987 Constitution for the 1995 elections coming up and 
somebody, God knows who, tells the president that they have not done 
it, then we are to withhold money. I do not think you mean that.
  Mr. Goss, I say to you now, I think that you are the man that I 
talked to last Thursday. I really do not think whatever has influenced 
you today is the real you. I want you to do what you told me you wanted 
to do. I want you to join with me in helping Haiti.
  Let me tell you how you can do it. We do not mind working with you to 
structure something that would encourage them, but, Mr. Goss, you need 
to pull this amendment back from the floor. You should not disrespect 
your colleagues from Florida. You work pretty well with them from time 
to time. Carrie Meek is here. She is pained by what you are doing. Mr. 
Hastings is also.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Waters] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Goss, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Waters was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Ms. WATERS. I would like to ask the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] 
to pull this back from the floor. Walk over here with your colleagues 
and friends from Florida, get together an amendment that will encourage 
Haiti that we can agree on and let us move forward as friends on this 
one because we are winning all the way.
  Would you please do that, Mr. Goss?
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to say that I filed this 
amendment way at the beginning of last week, way before the elections. 
It actually had very little to do with the elections. Second thing, I 
did confer with you, as you point out. Third, I want to assure you, it 
is the real me. I am definitely here. I am standing here and it is me.
  The third thing I want to say is this is not about the elections. The 
fourth thing I want to say is I have not made any allegations or 
charges that we should stop aid because it was not a democratic 
election. That would be a very foolish thing to do, I do not think you 
or anybody else over there would say right now that we have supported a 
nondemocratic election because they did not have their electoral 
council in place. I, at your request and others' requests, put in the 
words ``substantial compliance'' so we would know we are not talking 
about trickery or anything like that. I do not expect all the T's to be 
crossed or the I's to be dotted. I expect substantial compliance. I 
have said publicly, these elections are OK, on to the next ones.
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to say a few words. 
Let me say that I stand in strong support of the Meek amendment. I had 
the opportunity to travel to Haiti this time, about the seventh time in 
the last few years, to be a member of the interorganizational observer 
mission. We went there to try to get an opportunity to see what was 
going on.
  The first thing that was very surprising to me though was the day 
before we arrived on Saturday that a report had been concluded already 
by the IRI, the International Republican Institute, very colorfully 
done, very well done, very thorough. And a press conference was held 
the day before we got there, two days before the election, which 
already said, for all intents and purposes, that this is flawed, that 
this was going to be an election that did not work, that this is 
something--this was a press conference given two days before the 
election was even held.
  So, therefore, people going into the election were suspect because of 
an American organization. And it is the first time I have ever seen an 
American organization in a foreign country give a press conference of 
something that is not very easily made. This is a pretty fancy-looking 
agenda item here, to say for all intents and purposes it is a failure. 
To me, it makes me suspicious.
  Let us talk about the election very briefly. They said there was 
confusion. Let me tell you something. I would be the first to admit 
that there was some confusion. But let us take a look at the ballot.
  There were eight months since President Aristide had been back. What 
was on the ballot? You had their Senators, 177 running on a ballot with 
pictures, with symbols, with names. There were deputies, 859 Senate 
Congress types running on another ballot. You had 855 mayors running; 
not only themselves but on each mayor's slate there is a deputy mayor 
and a third assistance mayor on the same ballot.
  What else did you have? You had 2,688 council people who had three 
people on the site. There were close to 5,000 candidates. There were 
over 25 political parties. There were over 10,000 polling places. There 
were people who had to walk from 3 in the morning to 6 in the morning 
when the polls opened to get to the polling place.
  Ninety-two percent of the people were registered.
   And guess what? The representative giving the report for the 
International Republican Institute said that 92 percent registration 
was a step in the right direction; 92 percent of the people in this 
country registered. Sure there were flaws. There were flaws because 
when I went back with President Aristide on October 30, 1994, when we 
went to the presidential palace, the water was not running, the 
electricity was not running. They did paint the house the day before so 
it could look presentable.

  When I went down to Haiti on my other trips and met with those 
murderous General Cedras and Biamby and 

[[Page H6475]]
Francois Michel, you saw people running and hiding. People were hiding 
in the bush. I went there six different times.
  When I went there this time, I could walk the streets. There was no--
I went to Cap Haitien, supposed to be the area that flew a one-engine 
plane all the way over the mountains to see what was happening over 
there. People were in line. They were waiting patiently. People were 
discussing the elections.
  This was one of the greatest democratic exercises that I have ever 
seen. I cannot believe that people of good will could go down, and we 
would look at the same thing and that these people would come back with 
a report saying that a polling place or so opened late.
  There were some people who seemed to be confused because of the fact 
that on every ballot you had about 30 or 40 or 50 different candidates. 
They looked at a glass being half empty. That glass was not only half 
full, it was bubbling over, because people were peaceful.
  The new police were up there in Cap Haitien, not the Army that used 
to control that country with 7,000 men with a gun, pointing the barrel 
down at people. These were policemen who were applauded by the people 
in Haiti. When they dispersed, the police group in Cap Haitien, they 
had a party. There was a celebration. People brought flowers and plants 
to the police.
  This is something that is unbelievable. I urge the support of the 
Meek amendment.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  The gentleman from New Jersey, I want to ask the gentleman a 
question. I want to ask a question about the group that was down there, 
because I received today a call from Bishop Cousin who is the presiding 
bishop of the African Methodist Church in the State of Florida and the 
Bahamas. He indicated that he was intimidated by some group, the 
International Republican Institute. In fact, he indicated to them that 
he did not work for the Government and he would not be intimidated.
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. I did meet the bishop and did have an 
opportunity to see him before I went up to Cap Haitien but did not see 
him after my return.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I had the good fortune and pleasure of 
meeting the bishop while we were there. We had a very pleasant 
conversation. If somebody who was one of my observers on the IRI team 
intimidated him, I would certainly like to know that person's name and 
know the circumstances. I have had no such report.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I will provide that for the gentleman.
  I am looking at the Washington Post story, and they indicated that 
this particular group was a very partisan group.
  I just want to close by saying this: I support my colleagues from 
Florida and other Members today that have spoken for the Haitian 
people. I, from Florida, have lived through what has gone on in Haiti 
for a number of years, the double standards. I support what President 
Clinton has done, what President Aristide has done, working with the 
Haitian people.
  Yes, Haiti is not what we want. I have been over there several times. 
But I am a part of what we can do to make that country work and work 
for the people. They are very grateful for everything that we have 
done; but they, as I told you earlier, are not a colony of the United 
States of America. They appreciate everything that we have done for 
them, but they need to govern themselves.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, 
that in fact was what I said in my remarks to the press on Monday 
morning.
  What paper said this was a partisan group?
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. The Washington Post.
  Mr. GOSS. The Washington Post reported that the IRI was partisan?
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Goss, you have specifically identified in your 
amendment that there would be substantial compliance with the 1987 
Constitution for the 1995 elections. What does that mean? As you know, 
there was an agreement for this election, to oversee and operate this 
election. Everything was not in place. So they had to put the electoral 
council in place, not as the Constitution identified.
  Would you agree that that agreement is sufficient?
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, the answer to the question is, by substantial 
compliance, I certainly think that if we have said that this election 
this weekend involves substantial compliance, that that gives us a 
pretty good idea of how far away we can get from the specific words and 
technical requirements because we were quite far away from them. And I 
do not believe anybody is--certainly I am not--saying that this last 
election was not in substantial compliance.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, 
so you believe that this election was in substantial compliance?
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, yes.
  Ms. WATERS. That the agreement that operated and oversaw this 
election was fine?
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I will not say it was fine. I will say it was 
substantial compliance for the purposes of this amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. And you are not asking for a higher standard than that?
  Mr. GOSS. I am not asking for a higher standard.
  Ms. WATERS. If they reach it, that is fine?
  Mr. GOSS. I am not asking for a higher standard than substantial 
compliance.
  Ms. WATERS. Let the record reflect, if I may, that this amendment is 
not asking for a higher standard than that standard which oversaw this 
election in Haiti, that the gentleman is not asking that they are in 
some absolute or letter perfect compliance with the 1987 Constitution, 
but, rather, what just took place is all right. That is what the 
gentleman just said.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I hope we are going to do better.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I rise today 
in support of the Meek amendment. The Meek language is a tremendous 
improvement over the badly crafted Goss language. The parliamentary 
elections that just took place in Haiti are a real accomplishment for 
the people of Haiti as they build a stable democracy. The Washington 
Post said that Haiti's elections, ``by any reasonable standard, were a 
success.'' The Washington Post acknowledges that Representative Goss 
observed the elections not as an impartial observer, but as a partisan 
participant of the Republican Party's International Republican 
Institute. This group's criticism of the elections, according to the
 Washington Post, was not constructive and was misinformed. I, 
personally, was informed by Bishop Cummings who is bishop for Florida 
and the Bahamas for the African-Methodist Episcopal Church, that the 
Republican Party's International Republican Institute participants were 
rude and threatening to him as he tried to explain that he was an 
impartial observer and not from the Federal Government. Bishop Cummings 
was outraged by the comments made about him, but refused to be 
intimidated.

  This should be one of America's proudest moments--our country did the 
right thing, we did not shirk our responsibilities to strengthen 
democracy as some would have had us do. We should be proud that we 
reached out to our close neighbor in their time of need to help them 
fulfill the promise of democracy and hope.
  I congratulate President Clinton and the brave young men and women of 
our armed services who have worked hard to create the safe and secure 
environment necessary for real democracy to take root in Haiti so that 
these elections could take place.
  I congratulate President Aristide for having the wisdom to lead his 
people into this era of healing, hope and redevelopment. He put 
together a government of inclusion and continues to reach out to other 
groups including the business sector and the political opposition--
including giving air time to opposition candidates.
  These elections faced challenges, especially many logistical 
challenges, but they occurred without bloodshed. Improvements will be 
made, especially in the area of civil justice and 

[[Page H6476]]
stronger democratic institutions. The international community must 
honor its commitments and ensure that donor nations' assistance 
reinforces Haitian electoral institutions in a nonpartisan manner. The 
elections this past weekend were a testament to the Haitian people's 
strong desire for a new beginning in Haiti. They were a testament of 
the international community's commitment, and Americans, especially 
those of us in Florida who are so close to Haiti, to support democracy 
for our neighbors.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of things that have been said today, 
but there are still a lot of questions existing. No. 1, there is no one 
in this Congress, all 435 of them, that know doodley-squat about the 
Haitian Constitution. They know absolutely nothing about it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. BONIOR and by unanimous consent, Ms. BROWN of 
Florida was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman I would like to ask a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary inquiry.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. I have a Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman, 
Mr. Chairman, I am trying to get recognized so I can move to strike the 
last work on the underlying amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown] requested 2 
additional minutes. The time is hers now. That was granted without 
objection. She has now yielded to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. 
Meek] in the well, so the chair would say to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Meek] the time is hers as long as the gentlewoman yields 
to her.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state her inquiry.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, after I have expended the 2 
minutes that she gives me, may I request 5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman may, under that circumstance.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. With unanimous consent, I can?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will tell the gentlewoman, after the 2 
minutes, yes.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, first of all, no one here knows 
doodley-squat about the Haitian Constitution. I have it in my hand. 
None of the Members know what it says. However, Members are in here 
doing a lot of rhetorical meandering around, saying that they know this 
and they know the other. My good friend, the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Goss] if he has his way. Aristide would be on some far distant 
island from where he is now, trying to govern Haiti.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to know, what does substantial compliance mean? 
If there is a hurricane on election day in Haiti, what do you do? Does 
that fit the standard of substantial compliance?
  Who decides what it means? It is my brother, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss] who decides what it means?
  These are rhetorical questions.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. I will not yield Mr. Chairman, because I am 
asking the gentleman rhetorical questions. I do not expect an answer.
  All of this is a disincentive for a democracy, a budding democracy. 
All day long all of you have been wrapping yourselves in the flag, and 
I am beginning to think you do not know doodley-squat about democracy. 
Democracy means that you want to see other countries see the American 
dream and realize what it means to have fair and free elections. I want 
to appeal, like my sister Maxine did, to the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown] 
has again expired.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. FOGLIETTA. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania will state the 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. I believe I heard the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. 
Meek] say that she moved to strike the requisite number of words on the 
underlying amendment. She has spoken on her own amendment. Now she has 
asked for 5 minutes on the underlying amendment. I think she is 
entitled to that 5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct, and the chair would recognize the 
gentlewoman for 5 minutes to strike the last word on the Goss 
amendment.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want my colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss], to realize that we all live on a peninsula called Florida. We 
are all being impacted by all the things the gentleman has said. I take 
umbrage to the fact that the gentleman has singled out Haiti and used a 
standard just for Haiti.
  I have never heard on the floor that any funds were limited because 
of an election in any country since I have been here. I want to hear 
more of that from those of the Members who are not flaming liberals. I 
want to hear them speak out for democracy. I want to hear them say that 
a small country like Haiti, regardless of what happens during the 
election, as long as it is free, and as long as it is fair, and that 
they do not have people poking guns in their ribs, that that is the 
time for a free election.
  When the Goss amendment says ``None of the funds appropriated in this 
act may be made available to the Government of Haiti when it is made 
known to the President that such Government is controlled by a regime 
holding power through means other than the democratic elections 
scheduled for calendar year 1995 and held in substantial compliance 
with requirements of the Constitution,'' I repeat again to the 
gentleman, what does the gentleman mean by ``substantial,'' rhetorical 
statement, ``compliance?'' What does the gentleman mean by saying that 
the people in Haiti are not ready? That is the inference the gentleman 
is making, that they are not ready for a free election.
  I say to the gentleman that they are. They fought for their freedom 
years ago, before any of us got free, before any of us came over here 
on the slave ships, they fought for freedom. What the gentleman is 
saying about Haiti upsets me. The gentleman is wrong.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentlewoman, is that a 
rhetorical question?
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am asking the gentleman only 
rhetorical questions, and I am trying to keep my intellectual composure 
as I speak to the gentleman. It is very difficult, because I have seen 
the gentleman go on a path since we got here of intimidation of this 
small republic. I have seen it.
  I ask the gentleman, forget about any kind of predisposing conditions 
he may have that causes him to want to attack this small nation. I 
speak to the Congress, not to the gentleman, but to the entire 
Congress. I do not believe you have one, you do not have one majority 
in this Congress who would want any small nation to have democracy 
threatened by saying to them we are going to hold back your funds if 
you do not do this election the way we want you to do it. You cannot do 
it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman may be alluding to 
some things. As I reminisce over the last year or so, when we have had 
legislation pertaining to Haiti, I remember other amendments that the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] had offered at previous times that 
appeared to me that he did not want democracy in Haiti; that when the 
junta was in control in Haiti, that there was language introduced by 
the gentleman from Florida that would have required that no U.S. troops 
ever go to Haiti, and we would still have the junta in 

[[Page H6477]]
Haiti, and there would be no democracy in Haiti; that the one amendment 
even said that the people who were fleeing Haiti to get away from the 
killers, the murderers that were there, that they should not come to 
the United States, they should not go to Guantanamo, they should not go 
on board ships, they should go to a little island off in the Caribbean, 
away from Haiti. That is where we should take them.
  These are amendments that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] has 
introduced previously. I also understand from the gentleman's own 
statements during this debate, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman has 
been active to some extent in Haiti endeavors for the last 20, 30 
years. That means that the gentleman was present and knew something 
about Haiti back when we had the juntas, back when we had the killers, 
so, Mr. Chairman, that makes me suspicious of what is being offered 
here today, because we do have a fledgling democracy.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to close by saying one thing. I was one of 
those who did say, and many of us did, and I think a majority of this 
House did, before the troops, before the agreement was reached with 
President Carter, before the troops went to Haiti, we all said no, we 
should do something.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, before it 
expires, I would like to ask this House to vote for democracy, vote for 
justice. Do not worry about what party the gentleman from Florida, 
Porter Goss, is in, vote for democracy and vote for freedom.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  It seems a lot of folks from Florida are interested in this, Mr. 
Chairman, and indeed, we are. We represent Haitians who are Haitian 
Americans. We represent Americans who are not Haitian Americans.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding, because there are a couple of 
points I feel I have to add to here, some things made that are getting 
a little bit on the edge of being ad hominem attacks.
  I am truly sorry for the distress of my colleague and friend, the 
gentlewoman from south Florida. We share the same goals. It is just a 
question that we are not sure we do. We do share the same goals. Mr. 
Chairman, in previous resolutions and pieces of business before this 
floor, I have taken a very, very strong position about not wanting to 
send our armed troops to make war on Haiti. I consider it a friendly 
neighboring country, and have said that almost every time I have 
referred to it. I do not believe in making war on friendly neighbors.
  As I have said before, I applauded very loudly, I applauded President 
Clinton for the negotiated settlement after President Carter, former 
President Carter, General Powell, went down there.
  Mr. Chairman, with regard to the embargo, I opposed the embargo 
because I felt it would bring suffering to the people of Haiti, 
innocent victims. It did. It did. There is no question about it. This 
tiny island in some far remote part of the Caribbean that the 
distinguished gentleman referred to, I do not remember who made the 
statement, apparently has not got much of an understanding of where 
Haiti is or what it looks like.
  This tiny island is a rather large island. It is in the central mass 
of sovereign Haiti, it is Haitian soil, it is bigger, bigger than 
Manhattan, and it has thousands of Haitian citizens living on it, and 
they voted on Sunday.
  To say that we were trying to create a problem in some tiny remote 
non-Haitian territory, I have only said the way to solve the problem in 
Haiti is by Haitians on Haitian soil with U.S. aid, appropriately 
expended and properly justified. That is what this is about.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the foreign appropriations bill we are talking 
about. We are talking about are we using American taxpayers dollars 
wisely. I think we are. We are trying to do the right thing. I am 
asking that we always keep asking ourselves that question, because 
Haiti has had a difficult history, as we all know.
  It is not more than that. It is not complicated. There is nothing 
sinister, there is nothing Machiavellian, there are no tricks. We have 
had this out in the open in this wonderful democracy. I do not know 
what more I could say.
  I think perhaps more is being read into this amendment than is there.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said two or three 
times that America did not want to make war on Haiti. I want him to 
know that the American people did a rescue. They saved the Haitian 
people. We are very grateful, the people in Florida.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I do not think the Goss amendment 
is needed. I do not think the Meek amendment to the amendment is 
needed. I spoke to my colleague, and I asked him, I said to him, we do 
not need either one of these amendments. I do not need to tell the 
Members what his answer was to me, because it is not relevant to what 
we are talking about here.
  However, I am willing, given the permission of the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss], if he withdraws his amendment, I will be more than 
happy to withdraw my objection to his amendment, my amendment to the 
amendment, because neither one of them does anything.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
will answer that very briefly. As I said before, the reason to this 
amendment is on my responsibility, our first responsibility on the 
foreign aid bill to provide proper oversight that the funds are spent 
in the proper priority areas with the proper governance and oversight 
and accountability back to the American taxpayers.
  Haiti we have put an awful lot of money in, pretty near $2 billion. 
It has come in different places and forms. That is a ton of money. I 
think we owe an accountability to the American people, and a statement 
to them that we are checking. I will not withdraw my amendment, but 
there is nothing more sinister to my amendment than what I have said.


               preferential motion offered by mr. bonior

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his motion.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the preferential motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

  Mr. Bonior moves that the Committee do now rise.

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the preferential motion offered by 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a quorum. Does the gentleman 
from Michigan withdraw his point of order?
  Mr. BONIOR. No, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Evidently a quorum is not present. Pursuant to the 
provisions of clause 2 of rule XXIII, the Chair announces that he will 
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote 
by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the pending question 
following the quorum call. Members will record their presence by 
electronic device.
  The call was taken by electronic device.
  The following members responded to their names:
                             [Roll No. 434]

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute

[[Page H6478]]

     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     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
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer
                              {time}  2032

  The CHAIRMAN. Four hundred thirteen Members have answered to their 
names, a quorum is present and the Committee will resume its business.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] for a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 231, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 435]

                               AYES--188

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                               NOES--231

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer
     
[[Page H6479]]


                             NOT VOTING--15

     Clyburn
     Cremeans
     Durbin
     Goodling
     Gunderson
     Harman
     Largent
     McNulty
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Salmon
     Stark
     Stokes
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2041

  So the preferential motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the distinguished majority 
leader, Mr. Armey.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, we have very carefully worked out a work 
schedule for this week; work that we believe is important to the people 
of this country.
  We knew when we planned the week that we had ample opportunity to 
complete that work, including finishing this bill between 10 o'clock 
and 11 o'clock this evening, assuming everything would go within the 
context of normal legislative process.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by making the point, in order to maintain 
the work schedule we have for this week, we will not adjourn this 
evening until we complete this bill.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. Chairman, I will encourage the floor managers of this bill to use 
whatever options are available to them within the context of a 
unanimous-consent request in conjunction with that cooperative effort 
between themselves and those offering amendments to expedite every 
amendment under consideration during the remainder of this time under 
consideration.
  Following the completion of this bill, Mr. Chairman, we will complete 
a budget conference report, a rescission and supplemental assistance 
report, a Medicare select conference report, and an additional 
appropriations bill, the energy and water appropriations bill.
  It is my intention, Mr. Chairman, for us to complete this work, and 
it is perfectly within the realm of reasonable work hours for us to 
complete this work, and to be out of here and on our planes home by 3 
o'clock on Friday.
  I am so committed to our making our 3 o'clock departure on Friday 
that I am prepared to remain here all through tonight, all through 
tomorrow, all through tomorrow night, until 3 o'clock on Friday, and 
should we not have completed the work that I have enumerated at 3 
o'clock on Friday, I am prepared for us to remain in session until that 
is done.
  Mr. Chairman, in the interests of moving this along, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Reclaiming the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman, I just 
want to address the House seriously just for 1 minute.
  As my colleagues know, I think that this foreign operations bill is 
something that we in a bipartisan manner are working toward in 
conjunction with and in cooperation with the administration. I think 
that President Clinton and Secretary Christopher are going to need some 
foreign operation moneys next year, and I recognize that the 
leaderships may have some differences of opinion about some other 
activities that do not relate to this bill in any way. But I would like 
very much for the leadership on this side to continue to dispute some 
things with the leadership on our side, but to let us continue to 
address this bill in a respectable manner tonight. Let us receive, in 
an open rule, which all of my colleagues wanted, let us receive these 
amendments, debate them tonight in a responsible, limited time, and get 
on with this bill tonight. Tomorrow we can go back to all the 
shenanigans. We can have all of the motions to rise, we can have all of 
the motions to adjourn, but let us get this out of the way for the sake 
of the leadership of this administration so they can have a foreign 
operations bill next year.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to my distinguished friend from Texas, the 
majority leader, that we are prepared to make the coffee and provide 
the No-Doz tablets for him this evening, and tomorrow evening, and the 
evening after that, and let us be clear that it is not this side of the 
aisle that is delaying the proceedings with respect to this bill.
  I say to my colleagues, If you would have done your bill correctly in 
committee, we wouldn't have 90 percent of the amendments being offered 
on the floor to this bill being Republican amendments.
  But let me further clarify for my friends on the other side of the 
aisle what the issue is here. The issue is that we want, will demand, 
our fair representations on the committees that govern this 
institution.
  Now, if the majority thinks that they are going to get away with 
putting an extra member on the Committee on Ways and Means, and skewing 
the ratios even further, and denying us our ability to fight for senior 
citizens against these Medicare cuts, they are wrong.
  This issue is about our ability to speak on that committee, defend 
seniors, and fight these egregious tax cuts for the wealthiest people 
in our society, make no mistake about it, and we will stay here until 
we get justice, and fair representations and ratios in that committee.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we have before us a 
substitute amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. 
Meek] that will not harm the democracy movement in Haiti. We also have 
the underlying amendment of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] that 
would probably undermine that movement of democracy in Haiti.
  Now I was one of those like the majority that was here back a year 
ago when we said, no, we should not send troops into Haiti.
  We should not be doing that. But the American public did not support 
it, and our President went ahead and did it anyway, and guess what, my 
colleague? Harold Volkmer, the gentleman from Florida, and others who 
were in opposition to that, we are wrong. The President so far has been 
right, and I say, ``so far.''
  And what I see happening in this small area in the Caribbean is a 
movement of democracy that is taking place. I am willing to admit I was 
wrong. I am willing to say, ``Let's help it now that it is ongoing,'' 
but I am afraid that the amendment of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss] could possibly put a stranglehold on that democracy movement in 
that small Caribbean nation, that very poor Caribbean nation.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it appears to me when there is a 
certain interim here some of my colleagues go out and get a little 
drink of water, and they do not make any sense when they come back. I 
say to my colleagues, Now you're back in this House now. You have got 
to recognize that this is a syndrome that goes on in some of these 
bodies. You go out and get a little drink of water, and then you come 
back in here and--and all of that. Well, there is no time for that.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very serious matter. I am asking my 
colleagues to please vote for the Meek amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, all I ask this House to do is forget about party, 
forget about any affiliation, but think about the fact that the Meek 
amendment softens a Goss amendment, what the Goss amendment did. It had 
an inference in it that the elections in Haiti were not fairly 
conducted, so he put an amendment together which said that there will 
be a limitation on the funds if the elections were not held and were 
not in substantial compliance, whatever that means.
  Now I have had some, some experience, with the nomenclature, but that 
is a part of the nomenclature no one understands. I do not know whether 
the Member understands it himself, substantial compliance with the 
Haiti constitution.
  I am asking my colleagues, When you vote tonight, vote for the Meek 
amendment because the Goss amendment isn't needed. Neither is the Meek 
amendment. The reason why I have to amend his, it was so wrong morally 
that I had to do something to soften it because the Goss amendment 
inferred that because the elections were a little bit--has a few 
problems, we should put some limitations.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not put limitations on any other country. We 
have 

[[Page H6480]]
not put any limitations on funds of any other country because of the 
elections.
  Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] yield to 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings]?
  Mr. VOLKMER. If I have any time remaining.
  Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Hastings].
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Missouri for yielding this time to me.
  We have a notorious tendency of not wanting to listen to certain 
people. I demand that the House be made in order, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, 9 years ago outside Lake Worth, FL, I walked over the 
bodies of Haitians who had washed up on the shore. One of them was a 
pregnant, nude woman, and that has stayed with me all of my life.
  All this little nation is asking of us is a little opportunity to 
restore democracy. That is all they are asking, and here we come with a 
superimposed notion, dictating our form of democracy within the 
framework of a year. It is absurd that we find ourselves in this 
position where democracy has to be according to our dictates in order 
for us to do business with even the most feeble of us.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had a habit in this body of addressing on the 
domestic front the most vulnerable among us, and now we move to the 
international front and continue that pattern. I say to my colleagues, 
``Shame on you.''
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, it is astounding to watch us 
trying to micromanage, a word I heard from my Republican colleagues for 
years, a policy that has been successful beyond anybody's imagination. 
When the President of the United States singlehandedly decided to bring 
down the generals because there was not a lot of support on our side of 
the aisle or the Republican side of the aisle, Democrats and 
Republicans were fearful of American casualties, as rightly we were.
  I think the President understood with his national responsibility 
that both for the United States, and particularly the State of 
Florida--that was dealing with refugees and crises on a regular basis 
on their social service network, the kind of scenes that my colleague 
from Florida just referenced in watching what had happened on that 
small island time and time again where the hope of the people of Haiti 
was dashed--that he understood how important it was for our hemisphere, 
for the United States, and for Haiti.
  The President's policy not only succeeded; it succeeded more than any 
of us dared dream. As that policy succeeded to remove the generals, to 
restore the rightfully elected president, the naysayers immediately 
began that there would be no election in Haiti. The president, freely 
elected, did not believe in democratic institutions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
                                                   N O T I C E                                                  
                                                                                                                
              Incomplete record of House proceedings. Except for concluding business which follows,             
                  today's House proceedings will be continued in the next issue of the Record.                  
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                          ____________________