[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 111 (Tuesday, July 11, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6756-H6769]
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} 1228
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1868) making appropriations for foreign operations,
export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hansen in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on the legislative
day of Wednesday, June 28, 1995, the bill was considered read through
page 78, line 9.
Pursuant to House Resolution 177, further consideration of the bill
for amendment shall proceed without intervening motion except the
amendments printed in House Report 104-167. Those amendments may be
considered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member
designated in the report, are considered read, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, each amendment shall be
debatable for 30 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent of the amendment.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request
for a recorded vote on any amendment.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less
than 5 minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any
postponed question that immediately follows another vote by electronic
device without intervening business, provided that the time for voting
by electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not
be less than 15 minutes.
{time} 1230
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House
Report 104-167.
amendment offered by mr. engel
Mr. ENGEL. 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. Engel: Page 63, after line 4,
insert the following new section:
SEC. 540A. RESTRICTIONS ON THE TERMINATION OF SANCTIONS
AGAINST SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO.
(a) Restrictions.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no sanction, prohibition, or requirement described in
section 1511 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160), with respect to Serbia
or Montenegro, may cease to be effective, unless--
(1) the President first submits to the Congress a
certification described in subsection (b); and
(2) the requirements of section 1511 of that Act are met.
(b) Certification.--A certification described in this
subsection is a certification that--
(1) there is substantial progress toward--
(A) the realization of a separate identity for Kosova and
the right of the people of Kosova to govern themselves; or
(B) the creation of an international protectorate for
Kosova;
(2) there is substantial improvement in the human rights
situation in Kosova;
(3) international human rights observers are allowed to
return to Kosova; and
(4) the elected government of Kosova is permitted to meet
and carry out its legitimate mandate as elected
representatives of the people of Kosova.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] and a Member opposed will each be
recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, for too long ethnic Albanian citizens of Kosova, who
comprise 90 percent of the province's population, have been dominated
and repressed by Serbia. Today I rise to offer an amendment which will
demonstrate support for Kosova and serve America's interests by helping
prevent a regional spreading of the Balkan conflict.
The people of Kosova voted overwhelmingly for the independence of
their state in September of 1990 and chose Ibraham Rigova, a professor
of literature, who recently met with Secretary of State Chirstopher, to
be the first President of the newly declared republic. Serbia, however,
has not seen fit to recognize these valid and legitimate acts of self-
determination. Belgrade has prevented the new government from meeting
in the capital of Pristina and strictly from meeting in the capital of
Pristina and strictly controls the media and all speech.
The human rights situation in Kosova is grave and worsened with the
July 1993 expulsion of international monitors according to Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch. Ethnic Albanians are denied
access to education, health care, and legal process solely on the basis
of their ethnicity.
I might say, by the way, Mr. Chairman, that with the events happening
in Bosnia, we can say that those events will look like a tea party
compared to what might happen in Kosova if Belgrade gets its way.
The security situation in Kosova is also very troubling. If Serbia
escalates its aggressive behavior in Kosova the Balkan conflict may
expand into Macedonia, drawing in Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, and
possibly Turkey. I support statements by the U.S. Government
threatening a stern American response ``in the event of conflict in
Kosova caused by Serbian action.''
In recent months, however, negotiations with Serbia have progressed
to the point where the international community has offered to ease
sanctions against Belgrade if it recognize Bosnia. While this policy
may produce some positive results in Bosnia, it will turn over all
leverage we have on Kosova.
I fully agree with President Clinton when, on January 4 of this year,
he wrote to the gentlewoman from New
[[Page H 6757]]
York [Ms. Molinari] and myself and said, ``There are a large number of
issues, including Kosova, that must be addressed before Belgrade should
be freed of U.N. sanctions.''
The amendment I offer today would condition the lifting of sanctions
against Serbia upon improvement in human rights in Kosova. Until
Milosevic, the leader of Serbia, gives Kosova the right to self-
determination, ends human rights violations, allows international
monitors to return, and permits the elected government of Kosova to
carry out its mandate as representatives of the people of Kosova, we
should not lift sanctions on Belgrade. Considering the intensified
persecution of the ethnic Albanian majority in Kosova, I strongly
believe that sanctions should remain in place until the situation in
Kosova improves. I urge Members to support this important amendment.
I might say that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the
chairman of the Committee on International Relations, is fully in
support of this amendment. It has very deep bipartisan support.
Let me finally add, in view of the actions of the Serbs in Bosnia
today which led to U.N. and NATO air strikes on them, is it any wonder
that they continue to thumb their nose at the world and continue to
think they can slide away from the international sanctions that have
been imposed on them? We must not let this happen. I urge my colleagues
to support this amendment.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate him
allowing me to intervene at this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the gentleman's
amendment. I have been to Kosova and Pristina, the capital. I have
talked to the Serbian leadership in Kosova. They have no appreciation
for human rights and no appreciation of the individuals there who have
a right to practice their own religion, pursue their own culture, use
their language of choice, and to enjoy the human rights which are
guaranteed by the Helsinki final act.
I congratulate the gentleman from New York for this amendment, which
is critical. Frankly, the Milosevic regime is a regime which has been
assessed to be a criminal regime by our former Deputy Secretary of
State, Larry Eagleburger. I think he was correct.
Kosova is a specific example of where the Milosevic government in
Belgrade tramples upon the rights that they are pledged to protect
under the Helsinki final act. We ought not to consider lifting
sanctions. We ought not to consider making the Milosevic regime's life
one whit better without the human rights situation in Kosova very, very
substantially improving.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Alabama opposed to the amendment?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] will be
recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I rise in
opposition more to the amendment than to the philosophy.
If this Congress is going to micromanage the executive branch of
government with respect to foreign affairs, I think it is a tremendous
mistake. The Constitution very clearly gives the authority and the
responsibility for foreign affairs to the administrative branch of
government. Congress has the right to provide or deny funds.
It seems that every time a Member of Congress, and certainly this is
no reflection upon the gentleman from New York, but every time a Member
of Congress travels to some foreign nation, they come back with an
adopted country and they start trying to demand through legislation the
direction that they want the administration to work. I think it grossly
interferes with the ability of the administration to have an effective
foreign policy.
I am at a distinct disadvantage on Kosova. I have never been to
Kosova. I do not even know exactly where Kosova is. I know it is
somewhere over near Bosnia and I know it is somewhere in the former
Yugoslavia, but nevertheless I am not familiar with it.
I do not deny that there are human rights abuses there. I do not deny
that we ought to be concerned about that, but I am concerned about the
fact that we in Congress are beginning to be 435 little Under
Secretaries of State traveling all over the world and coming back and
telling the administration that you cannot do this, you should not do
that.
So I am sure that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] is very
sincere in his desire to improve human rights situations in Kosova and
I respect that. And I certainly want human rights protected all over
the world. I want them protected here in the United States of America.
Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to it, because the administration has
contacted me this morning. The Assistant Secretary of State told me
that this amendment will seriously interfere with the ability of the
administration to have an effective solution to the problems in Bosnia.
I have to respect the administration's decision in opposing the
amendment, while at the same time respecting the gentleman's concerns
about human rights violations in Kosova.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, but still in
opposition to the Engel amendment.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to answer the
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
The administration has also lobbied this Congress against lifting the
arms embargo and this Congress has voted overwhelmingly on a couple of
occasions to lift the arms embargo.
I do not think that the administration is proposing effective
solutions at all in this area and I think it behooves us in Congress to
state very, very strongly that we will not stand for human rights
abuses in this part of the world. Perhaps if we had been showing a
little gumption over the past few years, the Serbs would not be acting
the way they are acting in the Balkans.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Olver].
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, this is a mild and a bipartisan amendment that I do
support. It provides a little bit of protection to Kosova. If you
wonder why is it that Kosova needs protection, what is the risk for
Kosova? All you need do is remember Bosnia. Remember that Serbia, the
last communist dictatorship in Europe, will stop at nothing in pursuit
of their goal of a greater Serbia.
Remember the ethnic cleansing and slaughter of whole families in
Bosnia. Remember the elected Vice President of Bosnia dragged from a
U.N. vehicle and summarily shot by the Serbs. Remember U.N. resolutions
for safe areas unenforced by the U.N., ignored by the Serbs.
As we speak here today, one of those safe areas, Srebrenica, is under
attack. Remember the old man recovering in a hospital bed from surgery
in Sarajevo who was shot by a Serb sniper. Remember the funeral
processions that were bombarded; the school yard full of 10- and 11-
year-olds playing soccer, bombarded by the Serbs.
Remember the women and children standing in water lines because the
water had been cut off to Sarajevo. Remember the bombardments of those
water lines.
When the U.N. accepts its humiliation in Bosnia at the orchestration
of Milosevic, the last communist dictator in Europe, then it will be
Kosova's turn. Because the Serbs, under Milosevic in Serbia, will stop
at nothing to achieve Greater Serbia.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that we have before us will not make it
easier for Serbia to strangle Kosova, but it is a start by making
certain that those sanctions are not lifted too early in the process.
So I hope very much that this amendment will be adopted.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not think we have any more speakers,
because probably 90 percent of the Congress does not know where Kosova
is. But, nevertheless, I do stand by my philosophy; that I think it is
a very serious mistake for this Congress, or any Congress, to interfere
this way in the ability of the administration to have a foreign policy.
[[Page H 6758]]
I think that the President has selected Warren Christopher to be the
Secretary of State, and I do not think we need pseudo--Secretaries of
State trying to dictate policy. Although I still respect what the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] is saying with regard to his
concerns for human rights, I still oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I insert the following for the Record:
U.S. Department of State,
Washington DC, July 11, 1995.
Hon. Sonny Callahan,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Committee on
Appropriations, House of Representatives.
Dear Mr. Chairman: As the House continues its deliberations
on H.R. 1868, the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and
Related Programs Appropriations Bill for FY 1996, I wanted to
provide you with the Department's views on the four
amendments that may be offered during floor consideration and
seek your support in defeating them.
While the Administration supports the goals of the Kosovo
amendment, we believe its effects would be counterproductive
to our efforts to achieve a regional peace settlement in the
former Yugoslavia, which offers the best hope for protecting
the rights of Kosovar Albanians.
It is already U.S. and Contact Group policy that some
sanctions on Belgrade should remain in place until the
autonomy of Kosovo is restored. However, making Kosovo the
linchpin for any easing of the embargo would seriously
undermine the President's ability to negotiate a regional
settlement in Bosnia. Current diplomatic efforts, for
example, center on the possibility of limited sanctions
suspension in exchange for key Serbian concessions in
recognizing Bosnia and improving the border monitoring
regime.
At the same time, we are concerned that this new provision
could bar the democracy promotion program in Serbia that many
in Congress have been encouraging us to expand. Programs such
as recent U.S. efforts to establish a democracy commission in
Serbia provide an important counterweight to reactionary,
anti-democratic forces that are responsible for so much of
the current tragedy in the former Yugoslavia.
We object as to the amendment that would cut off assistance
to Ethiopia if the government there has not made progress on
human rights. In the last year, the Government of Ethiopia
took a number of steps to improve its human rights practices.
Procedurally fair elections were held. Several thousands
persons detained without charge were released and the camps
in which they were confined were closed. The concept of
respect for the rule of law is gaining acceptance, and open
and procedurally fair trials have begun for defendants
charged with committing crimes against humanity during the
Mengistu regime. Terminating aid would undercut our
ability to encourage further human rights progress and
would penalize ordinary Ethiopians, who are among the
world's poorest people. Of $153 million in U.S. aid
provided in FY 1994, $120 million was food aid, which was
crucial in feeding approximately 2.5 million Ethiopians.
We also object to the amendment that would prohibit aid to
the Government of Kenya because it denies its citizens the
right to free and fair elections. While we share Congress'
concern about Kenya's human rights record, much of our
assistance is directed to projects to improve Kenya's human
rights performance, including its electoral practices.
Passage of this amendment would undercut our efforts to build
democratic institutions and promote good governance. This
amendment would undercut our efforts to build democratic
institutions and promote good governance. This amendment
would also adversely affect our ability to use International
Military Education and Training (IMET) funds to train the
Kenyan military, an apolitical force that has not been
implicated in human rights abuses.
Finally, we oppose the amendment that would prohibit the
availability of funds provided in the bill for the salaries
and expenses of personnel implementing the Migration and
Refugee Assistance Act (MRA). While the Department agrees
that none of the funds appropriated for refugees should be
spent on population activities, our budget request for FY
1996 proposed consolidating program funding and
administrative costs into one account in an effort to
simplify the management of the Bureau of Population, Refuges
and Migration (PRM). An added benefit would be a reduction of
Appropriations Committee oversight responsibility to one
rather than two subcommittees. This amendment would divide
oversight responsibility and would have the effect of cutting
funding for the State Department's already strained
operations by another $12 million, as PRM's administrative
expenses would be borne by the Department's Salaries and
Expenses account.
Thank you for considering the views we have outlined above.
We look forward to continuing to work with you and your
colleagues to achieve the passage of a bill which garners
wide bipartisan support.
Sincerely,
Wendy R. Sherman,
Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] has 8 minutes
remaining.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me say most respectfully to my friend, the
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], that this bill which we have
previously debated all night long contains many statements in policy,
which we in Congress have seen fit to put in, involving human rights
violations all over the world. And, certainly, when we talk about human
rights violations all over the world, Kosova ranks up there,
unfortunately, with the best, or should I say with the worst.
On a trip to Kosova a couple of years ago with my colleagues, the
gentleman from New York [Mr. King], the gentlewoman from New York [Ms.
Molinari], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon], we were all
appalled at what we saw. Truly, people under occupation. And it is
certainly something I think that we cannot turn a blind eye to,
particularly when we are making statements throughout this bill on
human rights violations all over the world.
Mr. Chairman, I might also add that we have had extensive hearings on
Kosova in the Committee on International Relations, previously the
Foreign Affairs Committee. We have had witness after witness from the
administration tell us that they would not lift sanctions on the
Belgrade regime until the human rights situation in Kosova improved.
Yet, we see a slipping back of those solemn promises made by
Secretary of State Christopher and other administration officials. So I
think it is very, very important at this point in time that we stand up
very, very strongly, as this Congress has on this bill in many other
places all around the world, and say that the United States is not
going to stand for human rights violations.
{time} 1245
We have witnessed the tragedy in Bosnia. We have witnessed what
happens when aggression goes unchecked. We have witnessed what happens
when the world turns a blind eye.
We do not want it to happen in Kosova. There are 2 million ethnic
Albanians living in Kosova. They have been denied the basic principles
of freedom. They do not have schools. They cannot speak their own
language. They cannot do what they need to do.
People are summarily fired because they are Albanian, and there are
elements in the Serbian regime that would like nothing more than to
drive a million or a million and a half ethnic Albanians out of Kosova,
out of the border into Albania or over the border into Macedonia and
again making what happens in Bosnia look like a tea party by
comparison.
I urge my colleagues to stand up. Again, the chairman of the
committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] is in full support
of this amendment. This amendment mirrors legislation that he has, the
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman],
has submitted this year; the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari],
my colleague, and I for many years have cosponsored such legislation;
and other members of the committee such as the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Smith] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher]
and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] have all supported this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to my colleague
and friend, the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari].
Ms. MOLINARI. I thank the gentleman for leading the charge here
today, and certainly historically, toward the betterment of the quality
of life and the sanctity of life and doing all he possibly can to
restore some semblance of sanity in the area called Kosova. A time when
most people prefer to turn a blind eye, the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Engel], has really been a leader in human rights in that area of
the country, and I am extremely grateful.
Mr. Chairman, while the Balkan spotlight is focused on Bosnia today,
a
[[Page H 6759]]
tragedy of immense proportions is happening just 120 miles southeast of
Sarajevo in the Republica of Kosova.
The amendment which we offer today will address what is an urgent
crisis. Serbian police terrorism, directed at the 92-percent Albanian
majority in Kosova, has been skyrocketing. The Prishtina-based Council
for the Defense of Human Rights and Freedoms, reported last week that
during June alone 918 Albanians in Kosova were subjected to various
forms of Serbian repression. Some 384 were arrested, 87 had their homes
raided, 379 were subjected to arms searches, 243 were beaten with 9
requiring medical treatment after having been tortured, 62 were
detained, 210 were summoned for police interrogation, all in 1 month.
Complete abrogation of human, civil, and national rights of the 2
million Albanians in Kosova have been perpetrated by the Serbs since
1989. How much longer can the Albanians live under the most brutal,
diabolical form of marshal law? It started in Croatia, Mr. Chairman, it
moved to Bosnia, and unless this Congress and the United States and
maybe, pray God, someday the United Nations rises up against Serbian
aggression in this area of the world, Kosova will be next, and we do
not know where it goes from there.
Today we have an opportunity to make a very important statement
against the communist Serbs that have terrorized so many innocents in
that area once called the former Yugoslavia. It is happening also in
Kosova. They have no friends, they have no one watching. Today we send
a message that as Americans we care and we will do all that we can in
this democracy to make sure that some day they may live free also.
Mr. Chairman, I urge reply colleagues to join me in supporting this
important amendment which at the very least will send a strong message
to the Milosevic regime: Stop the siege of Kosova.
I thank the gentleman again for leading this all important effort.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment my
colleague, the gentleman from New York on the leadership he has
provided on this issue, but also on human rights issues across the
spectrum.
The fact is this is an issue that should unite Republicans and
Democrats and does to the degree that Republicans and Democrats in this
body are aware of the human rights abuses that are going on in this
world.
What we are saying today is that we recognize that the Serbian
oppression in Kosova is unacceptable and that we see what is going on
and that we will view further human rights violations of these people
as not only just a slap in the face of the Congress but an attack on
the basic values of the American people. We represent, yes, the
interests of the United States, but also the values of the United
States, and we are demanding today by this resolution that the Serbian
regime recognize it is dealing with people who have rights in Kosova
and that they refrain from the terrible violations and the repression
that has been going on with these people.
If we do not send this message, the people there will pay a horrible
price, and we are on the people's side, not the repressors' side.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, would it be possible to ask unanimous
consent for an additional 1 minute? We have two colleagues here that
would like to speak. I would like to give them each 1 minute.
The CHAIRMAN. It would be imperative that both sides have additional
time.
Mr. CALLAHAN. What was the gentleman's request?
Mr. ENGEL. I would ask for an additional minute. We have two Members
who would like to speak for 1 minute each, and I only have 1 minute.
Mr. CALLAHAN. I would like to remind the gentleman we have already
extended debate time 10 minutes at your request, but we have got to
move on with this. We have other bills.
Mr. ENGEL. Would the gentleman be able to yield an extra minute? We
had a vote in the Committee on International Relations.
Mr. CALLAHAN. I have already yielded back my time. I will not object
to 1 additional minute, but we are not going to continue this on. I
promised the Committee on Rules if they would not object to my
unanimous-consent request to extend your time limitation, that we would
move through this expeditiously, so I gave up all of my time, and now,
I will not object to the 1 additional minute.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, both sides are given 1 additional
minute.
There was no objection.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Smith].
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment offered by my friend and colleague on the Committee on
International Relations, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].
It would require the retention of sanctions currently imposed against
Serbia until the Serbian Government implements specific improvements in
the human rights situation in Kosova. The amendment implements the
Kosova Peace, Democracy and Human Rights Act of 1995, which was
introduced by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], cosponsored by
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] and myself, among others.
The amendment recognizes the people of Kosova are a captive nation.
These ethnic Albanians, who take great pride in their own history,
language, and culture, have been forced to submit to a foreign rule,
first by great power politics and then by a communist tyranny.
The amendment also recognizes the harsh conditions, and we have had
hearings on the Helsinki Commission on this, Mr. Chairman, and it is
very, very, very harsh, and they have been imposed by the Serb state.
It further recognizes that until basic justice is done, Kosova will
always be a place not only of oppression but also of potential
conflict.
Finally, the Engel amendment recognizes the potential of the Kosova
conflict to affect relations among a large number of states, including
not only Serbia but also Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Turkey.
It is a good amendment. I hope the body will accept it.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to rise in support of the
gentleman's amendment. I think it is long overdue that we take a strong
stand and not lift the sanctions of Serbia until human rights in Kosova
improve.
I support the amendment proposed by the gentleman from New York, [Mr.
Engel], whom I wish to commend for his initiative. This amendment
essentially mirrors language contained in H.R. 1360 which I introduced
earlier this year. Ordinarily, I would oppose such a measure being
attached to an appropriations bill, but I am convinced that the
situation in Kosova is an extraordinary case, and requires urgent
action by this body in order to ensure that in the fast-breaking events
of the Balkan crisis we do not overlook the suffering of the Kosovar
population.
Adoption of this amendment will help ameliorate in an important way
an apparent gap in United States policy concerning the conflict in the
former Yugoslavia. It will require the administration to be mindful of
the deplorable situation in Kosova whose people have had their
political and cultural identity brutally stripped from them by Serbian
overlords. The amendment establishes a specific set of conditions aimed
at restoring the political autonomy enjoyed by the people of Kosova
prior to 1989. It requires the President to certify to Congress that
the conditions have been met prior to the relaxation by our Government
of all the U.N. economic sanctions imposed upon Serbia.
Regrettably, it has become necessary to consider this amendment at
this time because the administration, while it has focused on the
debacle in Bosnia, forgets that the situation in Kosova needs to be
redressed before a true and just peace can be restored to the former
Yugoslavia. That conflict springs from complex roots and sources, but
we should not forget that the current campaign of ethnic cleansing by
Serbia began in Kosova. Until the people of Kosova are again able to
exercise their political, cultural and social rights, as they had
[[Page H 6760]]
when Serbia recognized the autonomous status of Kosova prior to 1989,
there can be no lasting peace in the Balkans.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and send
a strong signal that the Congress has not forgotten Kosova and its
long-suffering people.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
Mr. MORAN. I thank my friend from New York and my friend from New
Jersey.
I was recently in Kosova. It is an unbelievable situation. There are
60,000 paramilitary people, military officers, policemen, who are
controlling 2 million Albanian Kosovans. They are controlling them in
the most brutal way possible, with constant murders, beatings, rapes,
wholesale thefts of property.
In fact, when President Milosevic of Serbia, who represents only 5
percent of the population, forced the withdrawal of the CSCE human
rights monitors in July 1993, the incidents of beatings, rapes, and
murders has gone up by 85 percent.
We went to the office that documented all of these atrocious,
indescribable, brutal acts, and, you know, the police had just been
there, had beaten up the staff, had stolen all the documentation. The
lawyer who attempted to intervene to complain, he was visited at his
apartment and bludgeoned on the head for it.
This has to change. I support the amendment very strongly.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Engel].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now is order to consider amendment No. 2, printed
in House Report 104-167.
amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. 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 Ms. Jackson-Lee: Page 78, after line
6, insert the following new section:
Sec. 564. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
made available to the Government of Ethiopia if it is made
known to the State Department that during fiscal year 1996
the Ethiopian government has not made progress on human
rights.
modification of amendment offered by ms. jackson-lee
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my
amendment be modified.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment, as modified, offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee: Page
78, after line 6, insert the following new section:
Sec. 564. The Department of State should closely monitor
and take into account human rights progress in Ethiopia as it
obligates fiscal year 1996 funds for Ethiopia appropriated in
this act.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], and a Member opposed will
each be recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me first of all, Mr. Chairman, thank the gentleman from Alabama
[Mr. Callahan] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] for the very
cooperative spirit on the trend and direction of this amendment.
Let me also acknowledge the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] and
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa for their cooperation and
the spirit of support that they have given the direction of this
amendment.
Likewise, I want to acknowledge the task force work that included Mr.
Payne and Mr. Hastings and the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Kingston, in
working with the country of Ethiopia.
For a moment let me share some background on this matter and on my
concern. Certainly, I pay great tribute to a Congressperson who served
in this great body and, in fact, gave his life for his concern abut
humanitarian needs in Ethiopia, and that is the Hon. Congressman Mickey
Leland, who served the 18th Congressional District in Texas in the
1980's. His concern was that of freedom and justice, and certainly it
was a concern for those who could not speak for themselves. And he
repeatedly went back to the nation of Ethiopia to provide food for the
children, but at the same time he wanted to extend to them his arm of
help but also the understanding of the freedoms and democracy of this
Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that strives to improve
the conditions in this poverty-stricken land. It is, yes, to applaud
the progress that has been made, but it is to acknowledge that we do
have a moral commitment in this Nation to be able to join in with our
allies and our friends and to encourage them to move toward human
rights progress.
Let me also applaud Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, George
Moose, for he has worked vigorously with Ethiopia, along with
Ambassador Hicks, and the emphasis that we had in discussing this
amendment was to emphasize we wanted to have the country of Ethiopia
move forward, to improve its stand greatly after the massive periods of
starvation and civil war.
There is much more to be done, Mr. Chairman, and my amendment
proposes to encourage the government of Ethiopia, throughout the State
Department, to continue
its progress toward human rights for the citizens of Ethiopia.
This amendment is the best of all worlds. It moves Ethiopia along
toward a path of self-sufficiency and a period of fairness for all of
its citizens. Ethiopia has just completed a period of transitional
government and recently held elections. Though the elections were not
elections without incident, they were elections nonetheless.
Ethiopia is moving on the path, and the right path, and I am
proposing that we help ensure Ethiopia's continued growth by
encouraging a greater attention to human rights by this new and
fledgling government.
Are we trying to dictate foreign policy? No, we are not. What we are
simply trying to do is to be a partner in this movement toward human
rights progress. Is it not the right and the role of those of us who
would argue and speak for human rights in this nation to be able to
join in with our friends, yes, our friends, and encourage their
progress?
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to rise to join with the
gentlewoman from Texas to praise the modification of her amendment, and
I think that her proposal of monitoring what is going on in Ethiopia
will be extremely helpful, and I thank the gentlewoman for working on
this amendment so that it has language we can all agree upon.
Mr. Chairman, I join with the gentlewoman from Texas to praise the
modification of her amendment.
Ethiopia represents an enormous humanitarian challenge. From 1984 to
1991, we spent over one billion dollars on disaster relief for
Ethiopia. Famines in 1984 and 1990 killed thousands of Ethiopians. All
of this occurred while Ethiopia was ruled by one of the most brutal
communist dictatorships in the world.
Today, Ethiopia faces a structural food deficit. Millions of
Ethiopians are dependent on the international community--particularly
the United States--for food and basic services.
Fortunately, the current government in Ethiopia is actively assisting
us in these humanitarian efforts. This is a vast improvement from
previous regimes which actively opposed our relief efforts and used
starvation as a weapon against its domestic opponents. Our assistance
program in Ethiopia must be seen in this context.
The Government of Ethiopia does not measure up to our high standards
of democracy, human rights and economic reform. The largest ethnic
groups in Ethiopia have not been sufficiently included in the
government, and the ruling party often uses coercion to manipulate the
political process.
The concerns must be addressed, but I believe they are best addressed
by a close relationship between the Government of Ethiopia, which has
shown remarkable competence in other areas, and the United States,
which provides the bulk of humanitarian assistance.
Mr. Chairman, I now support this amendment and commend the
gentlewoman for the modification of the amendment.
[[Page H 6761]]
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I thank the gentleman so very much for your very
kind words. Let me also pay tribute to you for the hard effort that has
been made towards human rights throughout this entire world on behalf
of those who believe in those issues.
If I might finish and conclude, Mr. Chairman, my remarks, I would
hope, as we move in friendship with Ethiopia, affirming again the
progress but looking toward more progress, we will see prospectively an
integrated military, we will see future elections that will come
voluntarily, free and open, all political viewpoints will be heard, as
we know they are moving toward, and, yes, we would hope that political
prisoners whatever their perspective, that they will come out in
freedom but as well in support of an administration and regime that
supports human rights.
{time} 1300
As we move toward human rights, we hope the trade unions will be
recognized, and its members should not be subjugated. We want the
action commissions to be supported in their dissent and also the
journalists.
Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to bring about overnight change for
the people of Ethiopia. However, I wish to support the current process
of democratization in Ethiopia and empower its citizens through free
speech, recognition of human rights, and the diversification of the
military. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the people of
Ethiopia and the continued growth of their nation.
Let me also thank my esteemed colleague, no longer with us, the
honorable Congressman Mickey Leland, for his service to human rights
and his commitment to human rights as his life exemplified through the
time he served in Congress.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, two of the three remaining amendments, ironically, are
amendments that impact a possible cut to aid in Ethiopia and to Kenya,
two nations in Africa. I find that rather amusing, but let me
compliment the gentlewoman from Texas.
I chastised this House a few minutes ago about Members of Congress
becoming pseudo-Secretaries of State, and travelling all over the
world, and coming back here and dictating policy to the administration.
I explained my philosophy about the lessons that civics teaches us--
that the executive branch has the authority and the responsibility for
foreign policy, apart from appropriations.
The gentlewoman's amendment does not dictate to the administration.
She has a legitimate concern that she has brought here, and she wants
to make certain that the administration hears her message. In her
amendment she states that the State Department should closely monitor
and take into account human rights progress in Ethiopia.
Mr. Chairman, that is what the Congress should do. We should give
these types of messages when we have a concern, but, at the same time,
not dictate policy, and recognize that the administration has to weigh
all of the involvements of all the nations in the world in determining
their policy.
So, I am not going to object to the amendment, Mr. Chairman, because
she has corrected it with her modification.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding,
and I thank him so very much for both his cooperative spirit and the
direction that I think speaks well of this entire body.
Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield to me, I would appreciate
having the opportunity to yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Johnston] on this matter for 2 minutes.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] to do whatever she wants
to do.
Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the gentleman
and the gentlewoman yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I have probably been the most severe critic of Ethiopia
and, on the next one, Kenya, under human rights. Last year I visited
both countries, spoke to President Moi at length of Kenya, spoke to
President Meles at length in Ethiopia. Also, I met with President Meles
here in Washington last year and tried to go over the items that I am
sure the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] has already
enumerated.
I will say this though in Ethiopia: Everything being relative, if you
check what happened in the Mengistu regime versus what has happened in
the Meles regime, it is light years advancement there. No. 2 is
Ethiopia has helped tremendously in our conflict in Sudan, and has
intervened there, and has shown that they would like to come into the
community of nations.
There is a task force that has met with the opposing parties in
Ethiopia, in Washington here, in the early winter, in which the State
Department, and the Carter Center, and myself, and Congressman Hastings
met with these parties for 3 days, and I think we are about to arrive
at a breakthrough there in which human rights will be observed better
than it has been in the past, and I look forward. I appreciate the
gentlewoman's understanding here in her ability to come to, I think, an
excellent compromise with the State Department, with AID, and with the
other factions, and I strongly support the bill.
Mr. Chairman, again I congratulate the gentlewoman on the fine work
she has done.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 1 minute.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I will not use all of that; simply I
want to conclude by thanking all of those who have had the opportunity
to work on this bill and to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Johnston] and his work in the task force and to affirmatively firm up
the position that we take, and that is for human rights and for the
support of Ethiopia moving and making progress in human rights.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered
from the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed
in House Report 104-67.
amendment offered by mr. volkmer
Mr. VOLKMER. 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. Volkmer: At the end of the bill,
add the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
made available to the Government of Kenya already known to be
a country which denies its citizens the right to free and
fair elections as identified in the Department of state
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Provided, That
this section may be waived if the President determines such
waiver is in the United States national interest.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] and a Member opposed will each be
recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I doubt very much if we will take the full
15 minutes on this side, but, as we look at the world in which we live,
it is we in this country who enjoy the liberties of a democratic
society, and under our Constitution, and we try to provide that same
type of freedom throughout the world for other peoples and re-review
what is going on in other parts of the world, in other countries, and
we have some reservations about the democratization process that is
evolving in those countries, and at the same time we are asking our
taxpayers to provide funds to those countries even though the people,
many of them, do not have the freedoms that we believe that they should
enjoy.
One of the main reasons I say that I offer to develop this amendment
on
[[Page H 6762]]
Kenya, and we can do it on Indonesia and several others countries in
the world, is that early on in debate on this bill we had an amendment
up concerning a very small Caribbean nation of Haiti, and, as a result
of that, we had a long discussion, about 6 hours, on the
democratization process that is ongoing in this small nation, a few
people, and it just started, and yet we can look around the world, as I
have done, and I find that we have a process, been ongoing for a longer
period of time, that is not near the part and the place where it is in
Haiti, and yet no one on this committee, no one in this Congress, not
one person, has offered to say, ``Hey, we should cut off aid unless
such and such is done.''
So for that reason I decided that since, in my observation, we have
severe human rights violations in Kenya, that I would offer the
amendment that would stop the development assistance and the military
aid to the country of Kenya because of the violations that are
occurring and continue to occur. Even under the constitution of Kenya
one would think otherwise.
They are, I will agree, in Kenya; they have some improvement in human
rights, but I think they have a long way to go. We still have serious
human rights problems persisting there. The government continues to
intimidate and harass those opposed to the government party, the Kenya
Africa National Union known as KANU. These actions included violations
of civil liberties like freedom of speech, freedom of press, assembly,
and association in an attempt to silence critics. Security forces
continue to arrest and temporarily detain opposition parliamentarians
and journalists. They also harassed voters in several by-elections and
have broken up lawful public gatherings.
The arrest of 15 opposition members of parliament after they brought
relief supplies to a displaced persons camp; the government
characterized the trip as an unlicensed meeting in which they uttered
words calculated to incite the public against the President, President
Moi.
As my colleagues know, the League of Women Voters attempted to hold a
seminar in Kenya, and approximately 100 armed police chased
participants from the place by beating them with clubs. Freedom of
assembly is provided in the constitution, but is seriously limited by
the Public Order Act which prohibits unlicensed meetings of 10 or more
persons without an approval from the district commissioner, and the
government denied the right to assemble by not granting the permits.
As my colleagues know, the Kenya citizens theoretically have a right
to change their government through free and fair elections if they have
free and fair elections. But their ability to do so is yet to be
demonstrated fully. Their presidential and
parliamentary election in 1992 were marked by violence, intimidation,
fraud, other irregularities, but opposition candidates still won 63
percent of the vote. Diplomatic observers have viewed the 10 by-
elections that have been held in 1994 as generally more free and fair
despite some minor irregularities, however the government continued to
harass and intimidate the political opposition.
The President, Moi, exercises sweeping powers over the local
political structure as well as the National Assembly, and the KANU
Party he heads controlled 118 out of the 200 National Assembly seats
even though the opposition got 63 percent of the vote.
The President appoints both the powerful provincial and district
commissioner, as well as a multitude of district and village officials.
At the district and village level these political parties are
responsible for security as well as disbursement of Federal development
funds. At the national level a constitution authorized the President to
dissolve the legislature and prohibits assembly debate on issues under
consideration by the courts, and this very interesting:
This law, in conjunction with the Speaker of the Assembly's ruling
that the subject of the President's conduct is inappropriate for
parliamentary debate--reminds me a little bit of this place--has
severely limited the scope of deliberation on many controversial
political issues.
Members of the Parliament are entitled to introduce legislation, but
in practice it is the attorney general who does so. As the head of the
KANU, the President also influences the legislative agenda. He has also
bolstered KANU's majority by acting on its constitutional authority by
appointing 12 members of Parliament.
Three opposition parties, the Democrat Party, the FORD-K, and the
FORD-A, hold the majority of the opposition's 82 seats. KANU used a
variety of pressure tactics--and I would like for the gentleman to
listen to this one--used a variety of pressure tactics to entice
opposition, Members of Parliament, to defect to KANU, and by year's end
six opposition Members of Parliament had done so. As a result, there
were 10 by-elections including two forced by the death of two members
of Parliament.
During the seven by-elections held in June, last year, there were
credible reports that government and KANU officials bribed voters,
purchased voters' cards, forcibly removed an election observer from a
polling station. There was also violent incidents at public rallies
prior to the June elections involving both opposition and KANU's
reporters. Street skirmishes between supporters of contending parties
also broke out on the day of two by-elections in October. A U.S.
Embassy observer witnessed an assault in front of a polling station on
a FORD-A candidate, who was later hospitalized. The assailant, who
struck the candidate to the ground with repeated blows as armed police
looked on, came to the polling station in a convoy of vehicles
escorting the KANU Secretary General.
I wonder what President Moi has to say about that following the
announcement of October's election results in which two opposition
candidates won parliamentary seats. Fights again erupted resulting in
the death of at least six people.
Another round of by-elections were held in January 1995--were to be
held following the high court's decision in November that nullified
opposition majorities, victories, in two 1992 parliamentary elections.
{time} 1315
It appears that in Kenya, if you do not win at the ballot box, then
they control the supreme court and you will win there and get rid of
the opposition that way. The court overturned the result of one
election because the opposition winner had allegedly administered
tribal oaths to supporters, although the decision was based on
contradictory testimony given by witch doctors.
Although there are no legal restrictions on participation of women
and minorities in politics, the role of women in the political process,
nonetheless, remains circumscribed by traditional attitudes. In 1994
there were six female members of parliament, no female cabinet
ministers, and one female assistant minister. Within the political
opposition, women figure most significantly in the Democratic Party,
where 25 percent of the party's national office holders are women.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 15
minutes.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
(Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly urge my colleagues to vote against
the Volkmer amendment. I want to address the issue raised in this
amendment by speaking primarily from experiences I have personally
gained through my involvement with our programs providing basic
humanitarian assistance.
This amendment is counterproductive. In my judgment, it does not
honor what has been a long-standing and supportive relationship between
the governments of Kenya and the United States.
Speaking from personal experience, I recall having first met
President Moi during a 1984 trip with the late Mickey Leland to address
the famine relief operations in drought-stricken Ethiopia. Moi and his
Government were entirely responsive to our requests that relief into
Ethiopia be headquartered in Kenya. It was my experience then, as it
[[Page H 6763]]
has been consistently since, that President Moi and his Government, for
over a decade, have provided first-rate cooperation in meeting the
requests of the humanitarian community, in including ours, as it mounts
emergency relief operations within the Greater Horn of Africa.
As many of my colleagues concerned with humanitarian issues know,
almost all national and multinational humanitarian relief organizations
working in the region have retained their headquarters in Nairobi for
many years. Kenya consistently has welcomed the humanitarian community
and has afforded it the necessary political environment as well as
dependable communication and logistical capabilities needed to do its
work. Our operations providing emergency food and basic medical care in
Somalia and to the refugees of Rwanda have all been headquartered in
Nairobi.
Many of you are aware of Operation Lifeline Sudan through which the
United Nations has airlifted food relief into southern Sudan to the
victims of the decades-long Sudanese civil war. Begun in 1989, this
life-sustaining operation could never have been possible, not to
mention sustained, if Kenya had not consistently granted permission to
the U.N. to base its operations within Kenya at a place called
Lokichokio, just inside its border with Sudan. The border proximity of
Lokichokio has made an airlift viable in terms of cost and flying
conditions. With Kenya's unfaltering help, thousands of Sudanese lives
have been saved.
Kenya has demonstrated its commitment to being a responsible member
of the international community in other ways as well. For example,
Kenya is the second largest contributor of peacekeeping troops in
Africa, after Ghana. Kenya peacekeeping troops continue to assume
significant roles in Iraq and Bosnia.
We must give full measure to the fact that Kenya has been a staunch
supporter of the United States. For over a decade, with no questions
asked, Kenya has always agreed to United States military requests to
use Kenyan airports, roads, and port facilities. Specifically, during
the Persian Gulf war, Kenya provided important logistical support to
the United States military, and kept its critical facilities opened to
support our military operations, with no questions asked.
This amendment aims to punish Kenya. Yet, to my mind, Kenya has been
and continues to be one of the most valuable United States allies in
Africa.
I am particularly concerned about the potential consequences of the
Volkmer amendment because it comes at a time when we currently are
renegotiating the access agreement. How irresponsible our Government
would appear should we pass the Volkmer amendment while in the same
breath request Kenya to continue to allow our military their free
access to its ports, airports, and roads which it has enjoyed for more
than a decade. It is incredibly irresponsible for such a proposal to
even be put under floor consideration.
This amendment alleges that Kenya denies its citizens the right to
free and fair elections. Yet, the facts show that Kenya is one of a
handful of countries in Africa that kept a relatively open political
system in an era where most countries opted for Marxism and Leninism.
Since gaining independence in 1962, Kenya has held competitive
elections six times, a record very few African countries can match.
In the recent 1992 general elections eight candidates competed for
the presidency. President Moi won because the opposition was unable to
unite behind one candidate and was deeply divided along ethnic lines.
These opposition parties are now actively engaged in Kenya's
parliament. And, I contend that our aim should be to encourage these
opposition parties in their reform efforts rather than attempting to
punish the entire country through a distorted review of an election
which is by now 3 years old.
I say we should be supportive of such a strategic ally as Kenya has
consistently been to us. Rather than punish her unfairly by threatening
to cut this modest amount of $18 million aid, I urge this body to
properly evaluate our long-standing and significant relationship with
Kenya. Far better that we do not vote to diminish our valuable
relationship with Kenya by inaccurately inflicting a punishment or
threatening the embarrassment of requiring a presidential waiver.
Rather, our vote should be to clearly support an even more active
relationship, promoting more direct involvement both politically and
economically, between our two countries.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the Volkmer amendment.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Wilson], the ranking member of the subcommittee.
Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would point out to all of my colleagues that the
subcommittee has already cut assistance to Africa in general by 50
percent. That will, of course, affect Kenya. The gentleman's amendment
relates human rights to the ability to receive funds in Kenya, and I
submit that is a standard that could not be met by many other countries
in Africa, and, indeed, many countries around the world.
I would add to what the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] said
about Kenya being an important staging area for humanitarian relief
into other countries in Africa, and certainly it has been an important
staging area for our operations in Somalia, as well as other African
countries. Mombasa is a very important logistics center for the United
States.
We should continue to work with Kenya to improve its human rights
record, but certainly this is an ill-advised amendment. We should not
sever relations. We should certainly not have the funding cut off at
this time.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the Committee on
International Relations.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I join with the gentleman from Alabama,
Chairman Callahan, in opposing this amendment.
Nevertheless, I am sympathetic to the concerns expressed by Mr.
Volkmer. The Government of Kenya's respect for human rights is, at
best, erratic. Lately, the use of ethnic clashes--encouraging violence
between different ethnic groups--has been a sad characteristic of the
Moi regime. Under President Moi, the Government of Kenya has repressed
political activities, the freedom of speech and other basic civil
rights. This is the inevitable result of a government that does not
have the support of a majority of the population.
But we must also look at the positive side of Kenya. For all of its
faults, the Moi government held elections in 1992. But for the division
of the opposition into competing parties, there would be a different
government in Kenya today. In addition, Kenya has made a number of
important and difficult economic reforms that we and other donor
nations have encouraged.
Our assistance program reflects both the good and the bad in Kenya.
Permit me to remind the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] that in
response to human rights abuses, we have reduced our assistance from
$34 million in 1990 to $18 million next year. This level of assistance
allows us to remain engaged in Kenya and to help bring reformist
elements to the fore.
Mr. Chairman, the United States has had a strong bilateral
relationship with Kenya for many years, including during the cold war.
We have cooperated with Kenya on a number of issues, from military base
rights to humanitarian relief efforts in the Horn of Africa. While
Kenya's human rights record has deteriorated recently, I do not believe
that we should disengage from Kenya at this time. Kenya has strongly
supported our Navy's deployments to the Persian Gulf and for that I
must oppose the Volkmer amendment.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Johnston].
Mr. JOHNSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
Callahan]. I went to him 2 weeks ago at the conclusion, when we
buttoned down then, and told him what an incredible job I thought he
and the ranking member were doing under a lot of strain here. The
gentleman felt it ironic that two out of four amendments were cutting
Africa. I felt it ironic that the Committee on Rules authorized only
four amendments, half of which cut money from Africa.
I have visited Kenya, talked to Moi. The election in 1992 was not
perfect, but it at least gave them a chance to vote there. In Nairobi I
had an opportunity to meet all the factions in southern Sudan which
were killing each other down there. It was set out by the Kenyan
Government there.
I strongly oppose the amendment proposed here, for a lot a different
reasons, but the government has started
[[Page H 6764]]
auditing their banks and things of that nature. While I was there they
closed down one of the newspapers. They allowed me to approach and talk
to the attorney general of that country and complain.
The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Emerson, and the ranking member, the
chairman of the committee, Mr. Gilman, mentioned the fact of what we
did in Somalia through Kenya. I visited a refugee camp in Mombasa,
where there were 50,000 Somalians, and they were principally there at
the behest and at the consent of the Kenyan Government.
The Development Fund for Africa does not spend that much money in
this country, and there was already a cut to $18 million from $34
million. Finally, I would like to point out that only 6 percent of the
money goes to the government. The rest of it goes to NGO's and PVO's.
And I strongly recommend that we seriously consider our future in this
country, the fact that it has helped us in the adjoining countries, and
the fact they are making some progress, though small I would admit, but
I think they are making some progress. To cut them off now I think
would be counterproductive.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the amendment.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I also am opposed to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, let me start off by saying that everyone in this
Chamber and everyone in this Congress, if not everyone in this country,
is concerned about human rights violations throughout the world. Some
come before us and talk as if we are not concerned about that when they
offer these amendments.
Let me assure you that we are all just as concerned as the gentleman
from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] about the possibility of any human right
violations anywhere. So this is not the issue. The issue is whether or
not we are going to tell Kenya that we disagree with what they have
been doing with respect to improving the position of human rights
violations.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that the Department of State has contacted
me as late as this morning and they say to me, ``We object to the
amendment that would prohibit aid to the Government of Kenya because it
denies its citizens the right to free and fair elections. While we
share Congress' concern about Kenya's human rights record, much of our
assistance is directed to projects to improve Kenya's human rights
performance, including its electoral practices. Passage of this
amendment would undercut our efforts to build democratic institutions
and promote good government. This amendment would also adversely affect
our ability to use international military educational training funds to
train the Kenyan military as a political force that has not yet been
implicated in any human rights violations there.''
So let me just say there is going to come a time in the future when
we need Kenya once again, when we are faced with a situation like in
Rwanda or Somalia, and we are going to have to utilize the bases and
help that Kenya provides to the United States and to other areas that
are just as concerned about human rights violations as the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, let me also say that this money, most of this money,
that is not earmarked but that would be approved for Kenya, does not go
to the Government of Kenya. It goes toward the humanitarian needs of
the people of Kenya.
So while I appreciate where the gentleman is coming from with respect
to his concerns of human rights, this is not the issue. I certainly
take a back seat to the gentleman with respect to his knowledge of
international affairs. I know that he is well informed and well read on
that. I know of his personal concerns about Kenya. But I would
respectfully submit once again that the gentleman go back to basic
civics and understand that the people of this country elected President
Clinton as President of these United States.
I did not vote for him, but he is my President, and the Constitution
tells to the President, you select the Secretary of state that you
think is the best person to run all of our international affairs, all
of our foreign policy. He selected Mr. Christopher, and I think Mr.
Christopher has done a tremendous job. I am a great admirer of his.
So I did not vote for the President, thus Mr. Christopher would not
have been there if my candidate had won. But we have a responsibility
to the President because he is the President of the United States, and
the charge that the American people have given him includes an
effective and humanitarian foreign policy. I think he is doing the best
he can do, and I think to hamstring him further will be a tremendous
mistake.
So I would respectfully request that we vote against this amendment,
that we adhere to the request of the President and we adhere to the
request of the Secretary of State, and recognize that we are also
helping the people of Kenya.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Ackerman].
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I regrettably rise in strong opposition to the
amendment offered by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]. Simply put, this is an unhelpful amendment
proffered at the wrong time. While I can understand the gentleman's
motivations, I certainly cannot agree with the approach.
Yes, Kenya's human rights record is blemished. Yes, democratic
principles have not completely taken root there. And, yes, they have a
long way to go before they achieve a full-fledged free market economy.
Yes, we must continue to work to improve the situation there. However,
by adopting this amendment, we will do serious damage to the important
relationship between the United States and Kenya.
In the past few years we have seen unsteady progress in human rights,
but in a telling sign, the press has remained sufficiently free, and
that has been a consistently critical voice of dissent against the
government. Whereas in years past we have overlooked Kenya's human
rights violations, as we did similarly with other countries in order to
keep their support during the cold war, we no longer tolerate these
violations.
In fact, our assistance program has built in performance-based
budgeting systems, and aid to Kenya has actually decreased over the
past several years. Not only has development aid to Kenya dropped from
$34 million in 1990 to $18 million today, but only 6 percent of this
aid now goes through government channels.
There is no doubt that Kenya still has a long journey toward
fulfilling democratic principles and we should continue to press for
improvements in individual freedoms and human rights, but we must also
keep in mind our overall relationship and Kenya's key role in the
region as well as the loss of influence which will occur if we
eliminate all government-to-government aid.
{time} 1330
I stand prepared to work with the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Volkmer] in pressing for future and further reforms, but cutting off
all aid to this government would eradicate the remaining lever we have
preserved through a very small amount of aid, 6 percent of our DFA
funding which is funneled through the government.
I urge our colleague to consider withdrawing this amendment. And in
the absence of that, I urge its defeat.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think that everybody should read the amendment
because the opponents talks like we are cutting off all aid. The
gentleman from Alabama, he is correct, I agree with him completely,
that the President should run the foreign policy. I think we should
have some input into that, but basically it is up to the administration
to do so.
The amendment, the last phrase of the amendment says, ``This section
may be waived if the President determines such a waiver is in the
United States national interest.''
I do not see how you can make it anymore easy for him to say, no, we
[[Page H 6765]]
are not going to do this. That is all he has to say. So it really does
not really cut off anything, as long as the President says we need to
do it. I think that is probably what the President would do.
Basically what this amendment is attempting to do, and I think the
gentleman from New York and maybe the gentleman from Florida really
caught it better than anybody else, I am just trying to tell President
Moi, the people of Kenya, especially the Kanu party, that, hey, let
democratization take place, that as we have shown in this country, you
do not have to have one party rule for the rest of your life for a
country to survive, for a country to persevere.
As long as the people of the country work within the constitution
that provides for a process in which you have a government
continuation, as we have in this country, they could have the same
thing in Kenya and other places in the world, that you do not have to
use physical force and violence perfected by the Government and
controlled to stymie, to stifle opposition. That you should actually,
for the good of the country, permit that opposition to speak, to be
able to gather, to be able to discuss, to be able to vote, to elect
whoever they want to elect. That is up to them to decide. That is the
voters' choice and the voters should be supreme in any nation as they
are in this Nation. That is basically what I am trying to send a
message.
I know that the country of Kenya has done well, as far as
facilitating the supplies that are necessary
for humanitarian relief in that part of Africa. I want to commend them
on that. I want to thank them for that. But I want to tell them also,
hey, wake up. President Moi, you do not have to be president forever.
You are not going to be forever. I will guarantee you, you will not be
forever. Somebody else is going to be president. Why do you not make it
so that when that transition does come about that there is not the big
breakup within the country as we have seen in other countries where one
person tries to be the strong man and control it all himself. I think
that you should be able to say, hey, there is somebody else in this
country that can do this job, too.
Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this is a friendly
observation, and I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
In the previous amendment on Ethiopia, I made a commitment to the
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] that I hoped to be in Ethiopia
and in Kenya in 3 weeks and that I would hand deliver a letter jointly
by her and me to president Meles. I would make the same commitment to
the gentleman that he and I sit down and draft out a letter to
President Moi, which I will hand deliver to him, giving him my concerns
but principally the gentleman's concerns.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much. I will be
glad to do it.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed
in House Report 104-167.
amendment offered by mr. smith of new jersey
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. 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. Smith of New Jersey: Page 20, line
25, strike the semicolon and all that follows through
``Code'' on page 21, line 5.
Page 21, line 7, strike the final comma and all that
follows through line 9 and insert the following:
: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated under this
heading shall be available for salaries and expenses of
personnel assigned to the bureau charged with carrying out
the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] will be recognized for 15
minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
This amendment is designed to achieve several simple but important
goals. First, it erects a firewall to ensure that money in the refugee
assistance budget will be used for protecting refugees, not for general
operating expenses at the State Department, which are adequately funded
elsewhere.
Second, it avoids a back-door $12-million cut in the refugee
assistance budget. We were very proud, in the Subcommittee on
International Operations and Human Rights, to have been able to hold a
few programs level with last year. One of those was child survival. And
I am very pleased that the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations,
Exporting Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on
Appropriations has likewise looked to protect this important program.
Another was refugee assistance. It was not easy, and I think we all
know in these times of deficit reduction, holding anything harmless is
very, very hard. But it was done.
Third, my amendment would avoid a corresponding $12-million back-door
increase in the general operating budget for the State Department for
which, again, we have authorized adequate funds. There is no need for
the State Department to raid the refugee budget to pay its operating
expenses. It already has $2.1 billion in the two largest operating
accounts alone.
Under current law, the PRM Bureau gets its salaries and expenses from
these accounts just like every other bureau in the State Department.
The State Department operating accounts have not taken the steep cuts
that the operating budgets of USIA or AID and other agencies have
taken.
Finally, the refugees really do need the money more than the
bureaucrats.
Let me cite three examples. In the current fiscal year at the height
of the Rwanda refugee crisis, UNHCR found it necessary to reduce food
rations in the camps that were holding Rwandan refugees. This was
because the World Food Program had run out of food. The UNHCR said it
had no money to pay for the food program, in large part because the
State Department said there was not enough money in the refugee account
to make a contribution for this purpose.
Surely an extra $12 million, perhaps even a smaller amount, would
have made it unnecessary to cut those rations.
In Thailand, the State Department decided to shut down an English-
language school for the Hmong refugees in order to save money. This
will make it more difficult for these refugees to assimilate in the
U.S., if they are resettled here. Shutting down the language school may
also have had the effect of encouraging the Thai Government in its
belief that the United States is not serious about accepting those
people.
Finally, in the refugee centers in Croatia that hold victims of
ethnic cleansing from Bosnia, the facilities are inadequate and the
screening process is slow and it is erratic. Thousands of people have
been in these centers for years. The United States claims it cannot
find more than a handful of refugees who are eligible for resettlement.
Refugee advocates point out that if you cannot find genuine refugees in
Bosnia, we will never be able to find them anywhere else in the world.
Many of these people can never go home. Their villages have been
destroyed. Their families have been massacred. We have been unable or
unwilling to commit the resources to do the job right.
Mr. Chairman, we all know we cannot solve all of
the world's problems. There are over 40 million refugees and
displaced persons in the world. We cannot accept more than a tiny
number of them here in the United States, but we can at least keep our
priorities right.
In this case, those priorities are so obvious that my amendment has
been endorsed by human rights organizations as diverse as the U.S.
Committee for Refugees, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services,
the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Council of Jewish Federations, the
Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council.
[[Page H 6766]]
The refugee budget has already absorbed real cuts this year, Mr.
Chairman, both from inflation and from the dramatic decrease in the
value of the dollar against European currencies. The money they are
spending this year will buy 15 percent to 20 percent less overseas,
less protection, less food, less water, fewer sanitary facilities than
the same amount that we spent last year.
We could not afford to raise the refugee budget not even to keep our
own spending power even with last year. My amendment, let me remind
everyone, does not add a penny to the budget. It simply prohibits a
back door transfer that would fund $12 million of spending here in
Washington, DC.
I hope Members will vote ``yes'' on this pro-refugee, pro-fiscal
responsibility amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following letter:
U.S. Committee for Refugees,
Washington, DC, June 21, 1995.
Hon. Chris Smith,
Chairman, House International Relations Subcommittee on
Foreign Operations, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Smith: This letter is to inform you and your
colleagues of our strong support for your proposed floor
amendment that would prohibit using the Migration and Refugee
Assistance (MRA) account to pay for the State Department's
general salaries and administrative expenses.
The Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, H.R. 1868,
would, as currently written, use $12 million of MRA funds to
pay for salaries and expenses. This would be a damaging
change from current law and would effectively result in a $12
million reduction in direct assistance to refugees. Your
amendment would wisely retain current law, which allows all
MRA expenditures to go toward programs, and pays for salaries
and expenses by drawing from the Diplomatic and Consular
Programs account.
Your amendment would prevent a backdoor cut in U.S.
assistance to the world's 16.2 million refugees. H.R. 1868
should be amended. We wholeheartedly endorse your amendment
and urge other Members to give it bipartisan support on the
House floor.
Sincerely,
Roger P. Winter,
Director.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] is recognized
for 15 minutes.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, again, while I know what the gentleman from New Jersey
wants to do, he wants to provide more money for the refugee assistance
program, and we all do.
However, what he is saying in his amendment is that we do not want to
provide out of the allocation of this appropriation bill any money to
the program. Instead, he wants to transfer the administrative cost over
to the State Department's jurisdiction, under the funding jurisdiction
of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
I am afraid that what the gentleman is doing is possibly just the
opposite of what he intends to be doing with respect to the refugee
funding program. The State Department may not be able to fund any of
the $12 million because the State Department will not have the money or
the authorization to administer the program.
I know where the gentleman is coming from. I know what the gentleman
wants to do. But I am afraid also when we get into this jurisdictional
problem through floor amendments, it is going to cause problems in the
future. I know that the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] has some
concerns about that. He is going to speak to it in just a few minutes.
So while we all would like to do what the gentleman from new Jersey
wants to do, transferring the responsibility of administering the
refugee program to another appropriations subcommittee is not the right
thing to do.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr.
Rogers].
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
I share the gentleman's sentiments. I know that we both agree with
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], the sponsor of the
amendment, emotionally, in that we want to provide as much aid as we
can. However, I think this amendment is counterproductive in that we
have already cut the State Department personnel account furiously. As a
matter of fact, the administration's request would have required a
reduction of 350 people from the State Department's personnel accounts
and the closing of 21 posts around the world. That was before we got
hold of it.
Our markup of the State Department accounts reduced the President's
request another $40 million. And we are looking at double the proposed
reductions. So if you want to administer this refugee and migration
account, it ought to be done internally, because we just do not have
the resources in the State Department to manage that kind of an
operation. Neither do we have the authorization.
So I would hope that the gentleman would reconsider his amendment
because, if it is successful, the only other place that the salaries
and
expenses to run this program could come from would be out of the State
Department regular accounts; and we have already slashed them
unmercifully and perhaps there is even more to come.
The amendment would transfer the costs of 90 employees from where
they are now to the State Department to an account that is already
requiring reductions of five times that number of people. The money is
not there. It was not requested there. It was not appropriated there.
And there is no room there for anything more.
So I would say to the gentleman from New Jersey, that if we want to
ensure that there are enough people to run the migration and refugee
program, we ought to leave the funding right where it is, in the
program account, under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee whose bill
is before us today. Otherwise, there may be a well-funded program but
nobody to run it.
So I support the chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, the
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan]. I commend him for looking out as
well as he has for the refugee programs, and I would hope that we would
reject this amendment.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the full committee.
{time} 1345
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
I would like to follow up and express my agreement with the comments
just made by the gentleman from Kentucky. Let me simply say, Mr.
Chairman, that I think everyone on this floor is concerned about decent
treatment of refugees. Certainly everyone in the subcommittee has
demonstrated that over a lifetime.
However, I do want to suggest that there is a certain aspect to this
amendment that bothers me, because what it in essence is saying is,
``Look, let us take in every possible refugee.'' But when it comes to
actually paying for the administration of those programs, they expect
somebody else to perform a magic loaves and fishes miracle in order to
produce the resources to run those programs in an efficient way. In the
real world, things do not work like that.
It just seems to me that whether we are asking the State Department
to perform miracles with no resources, or whether in fact we are asking
local communities who we have largely abandoned to take refugees
without having the Federal Government meet its fair share of the cost
for retraining and educating and resettling those refugees so that the
full burden does not fall on local taxpayers, we have the same sort of
unreality here.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman is going to
accept the amendment. I understand why. However, that does not mean
that this amendment does not have significant problems, both in equity
and in practicality. I would say we are going to have to do a lot of
work in conference to fix it up, because frankly, in its present form,
I simply do not agree with it.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Now that the chairman has resolved the issue of the Smith amendment,
I thought I would take a moment to once again commend him for his
leadership in bringing this bill to the floor, working with our ranking
member, the
[[Page H 6767]]
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson]. It was, indeed, very encouraging to
hear in the course of the debate on this bill, which was a long debate,
an overnight debate on the strong commitment to human rights expressed
in this House of Representatives.
I also want to point out to our colleagues, Mr. Chairman, as we move
to vote on the bill in another couple of motions, that the United
States, with all this talk about our foreign aid, the United States
gives .2 percent of our GDP to overseas development assistance. We rank
21st of the donor countries, behind countries including Portugal and
New Zealand.
Mr. Chairman, I think in some ways our country must examine our
priorities. I think in certain ways we are abdicating our
responsibilities to promoting freedom and raising the living standard
of people throughout the world. However, I do say that while commending
our chairman for doing the good job that he did with this legislation.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, let me join with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Smith] in urging Members to vote for this particular amendment. What we
are trying to do with this amendment is provide $12 million that was
already allocated for refugee and migration assistance and make sure it
goes for that particular purpose, to fund program expenses, not to fund
salaries and not to fund administrative costs out of monies that should
be spent for programming.
The biggest problem we have sometimes in Congress is making sure that
the money we allocate is spent the way it was meant to be spent as it
came out of committee. What we would have here, with the way that the
bill currently is drafted, is money going not for programs, when it is
earmarked for programs, but to pay for salaries and expenses. It may
even be spent on salaries and expenses for people who do not even work
on refugee and migration assistance issues.
It is $12 million. The State Department has over $2.1 billion to pay
for staff and administrative expenses already. This $12 million would
be taken from the program accounts for refugee assistance and would do
great damage to a program that is already underfunded to try to help
the refugees throughout this world.
There is no country that has been more generous when it comes to
trying to help refugees in this entire world than the United States. We
should not do it more harm by taking away $12 million to pay for things
that do nothing to help the people that we are saying in the bill that
we are going to try to do. The refugee assistance account needs the $12
million that would be cut so we can provide the assistance.
We should not let a back door attempt to get money to pay for
salaries and expenses be used to try to fund further State Department
salaries. We should make sure that the monies go where they are
supposed to go, program funding for programs, not for administrative
salaries and expenses.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Members to consider the Smith
amendment as one that just repeats what we have said we want to do, not
an authorization bill for foreign assistance. What we should be saying
in our appropriations bill, that when we allocate money, do what we say
we are going to do. If Members say they are going to give money to
refugees and migration assistance, give it to refugees and migration
assistance, they should not do a back door end around and give it to
administration and salaries instead and say that they are giving it to
refugees.
I urge Members to support the Smith amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for his very fine
statement. I urge Members to support this amendment. I think it is very
pro refugee. As the gentleman pointed out, there are over $2 million in
operating expenses for salaries for the State Department. We held seven
hearings in my subcommittee. A portion of those hearings were looking
at precisely that very point. There is room there, believe me, to fund
the salaries and expenses of the PRN Bureau as there is using those
proper spigots to fund the other bureaus and not take it away from the
refugees, which again we tried to hold harmless.
I hope this amendment, if passed, will survive in conference, because
again we are awash in refugees, and I think we need to recognize this
is a modest effort we are making, and there is nothing above and beyond
in preserving this $12 million.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for
development aid for Africa, and to register my concern over the deep
cuts in development assistance to that continent that are being
considered as part of current proposals to cut foreign aid. For
example, H.R. 1561, the American Oversees Interests Act, cuts funding
for the development fund for Africa [DFA] by over $170 million from the
$802 million requested by the administration for this important
program. As we continue to review our foreign assistance budget, DFA
stands to lose even more of its funding. Curtailing assistance to
Africa--aid that has saved lives, promoted democracy, and created
hope--is a bad decision.
Since its inception, United States development aid to Africa has been
a foreign policy success story. The DFA, funded at less than one-tenth
of 1 percent of the U.S. budget, has helped bring about great change.
Since the 1960's, infant mortality rates in Africa have fallen by one-
half, average life expectancy has risen by 17 years, and more than 24
countries on the African continent have graduated from foreign aid
dependents to U.S. trading partners.
Yet still more than half of Africa's population--54 percent--lives in
abject poverty, and as high as that number is, it is projected to grow
by 50 percent by the turn of the century if African development efforts
are deserted. If we abandon this cost-effective and successful program,
our conflict resolution efforts, microenterprise, agriculture, and
health care projects will be undermined. Forsaking the sustainable
development programs that have made such a difference in the lives of
Africa's poor and hungry will open the gates for hopelessness and
despair to come rushing right back in.
Assistance to Africa enjoys widespread support among Americans. Two-
thirds of the American people believe that the United States has a
moral responsibility to help indigent nations. Over 60 percent deem it
in our economic interest to aid developing countries. And over 75
percent feel we have a responsibility to aid starving people regardless
of whether other foreign policy objectives will be promoted in the
process.
Now, one sentiment that my colleagues are well aware of is the
public's view that our Nation spends too much money on foreign aid. In
a public opinion poll conducted in January 1995, participants asked to
estimate the share of the Federal budget devoted to foreign aid
responded, on average, that 15 percent of the budget went overseas.
When asked what they thought the percentage should be, the average
answer was 5 percent, and when informed that foreign aid amounts to
less than 1 percent of the budget, fewer than 20 percent still thought
we were spending too much.
The reality is that less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the Federal
budget is spent on foreign aid to Africa. The reality is that U.S.
exports to developing countries have more than doubled in the past
decade, and that every additional $1 billion in exported goods creates
an estimated 20,000 U.S. jobs. The reality is that the bulk of the
money we budget for foreign aid is actually spent on goods and services
in the United States. The reality is that assistance promoting self-
help development and crisis prevention is cost-effective. And the
reality is that a stronger Africa is in the long-term interests of
America. I agree that we need to balance the budget. But balancing it
on the backs of Africa's impoverished is clearly not the way to do it.
Mr. Chairman, we have a chance to help Africa become a self-
sufficient, prosperous, democratic continent. We have the opportunity,
we have the ability, and we have the moral obligation to do so. Let us
rise and meet the call.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
initiative the House has approved against expropriation in the
Dominican Republic in the report accompanying H.R. 1868, the fiscal
year 1996 foreign operations appropriations bill.
[[Page H 6768]]
This initiative grew specifically from an egregious expropriation
executed by the Dominican Republic's military in April 1994 against
Western Energy, Inc. Western Energy is a United States company that was
then operating an important liquid petroleum gas facility in the
Dominican Republic, and operates a similar facility in my district.
The expropriation of Western Energy's property was clearly
premeditated, and, I understand, in total disregard of specific
Dominican contractual procedures for dispute resolution and without any
opportunity for Western Energy to be heard or defend itself. The loss
is very substantial for the company, but efforts to resolve the
situation have thus far been unavailing.
Mr. Chairman, if the initiative the House has approved does not lead
to a resolution of the expropriation Western Energy has suffered, then
I urge my distinguished colleagues to support further steps to achieve
that objective at the earliest opportunity. The United States must not
tolerate expropriation of United States property in the Dominican
Republic, and around the world.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to one
more in an inevitable series of highly restrictive rules that have
plagued this 104th Congress since its inception under the new
Republican majority, the new rule governing debate on H.R. 1868, the
Foreign Operations Appropriations for fiscal year 1996. I rise once
again to accentuate what is increasingly evident to anyone watching the
proceedings of this body over the last 6 months--accountability and
democracy have once again become captive to the irrational, frenzied
efforts of the Gingrich army to shove legislation through this House
for no apparent reason.
Despite the fact that several Members on both sides of the aisle
would like to have the opportunity to offer additional amendments to
this disastrous piece of legislation, the new rule before us allows
only four amendments, debateable for 20 minutes, and bars all others.
The last I checked, Mr. Speaker, this was still the United States
Congress, the outpost of free speech and open debate. Does the new
majority want to turn it into Tiananmen Square? If they keep up these
rules, they'll certainly continue to encounter vehement objects from
myself and my Democratic colleagues.
I urge my colleagues to stand by the historically democratic
processes of this institution and this Nation, vote against this rule,
and work to end the outrageous tape over the mouth tactics of those on
the other side of the aisle.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the issue of
corporate welfare. As we eliminate the fat from the federal budget, we
should recommit ourselves to making sure all projects and programs are
closely examined--not just the politically easy ones.
The Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) subsidizes loans and loan
guarantees to American exporters. These corporate welfare subsidies
have been appropriated $787 million for 1996.
The experts agree; Eximbank should be abolished.
The Congressional Budget Office makes the following observation:
Eximbank has lost $8 billion on its operations, practically
all in the last 15 years;
Little evidence exists that the bank's credit assistance
creates jobs;
Providing subsidies to promote exports is contrary to the
free-market policies the United States advocates.
The Congressional Research Service writes that:
Most economists doubt that a nation can improve its welfare
over the long run by subsidizing exports;
At the national level, subsidized export financing merely
shifts production among sectors within the economy, rather
than adding to the overall level of economic activity;
Export financing subsidizes foreign consumption at the
expense of the domestic economy;
Subsidizing financing will not raise permanently the level
of employment in the economy. . . .
The Heritage Foundation recommends Congress ``close down the Export-
Import Bank.''
Heritage further states:
Subsidized exports promote the business interests of
certain American businesses at the expense of other
Americans;
Little evidence exists to demonstrate that subsidized
export promotion creates jobs--at least net of the jobs lost
due to taxpayer financing and the diversion of U.S. resources
into government-favored export activities at the expense of
non-subsidized businesses.
According to Heritage, phasing out subsidies will save 2.3 billion
over 5 years.
The Director of Regulatory studies at the Cato Institute calls the
subsidy activity of Eximbank ``corporate pork.'' He stated, ``Even in
the face of unfair international competition, the U.S. government
doesn't have a right to use tax dollars to match equally stupid
subsidies.''
Eximbank's financial statements show that the bank has paid $3.8
billion in claims from 1980 to 1994. These dollars paid off commercial
banks who couldn't collect from foreign borrowers. American taxpayers
took the hit.
Export financed by Eximbank actually hurt competitive U.S. exporters
not selected for subsidies. The bank chooses winners and losers in the
economy. The only winners are selected foreign consumers and selected
U.S. corporations.
The Eximbank is a prime example of corporate welfare. The majority of
Eximbank subsidies go to Fortune 500 companies that could easily afford
financing from commercial banks:
Boeing--over $2 billion worth of loan guarantees
McDonnell Douglas--$647 million
Westinghouse Electric--$491 million
General Electric--$381 million
At&T--$371 million
To raise funds for its lending and guarantee programs, Eximbank puts
additional pressure on Treasury borrowing, driving up interest rates
for private borrowers. That's all of us. From a corner barbershop
wanting to expand to a young family trying to finance their first home.
We all pay the price.
Sadly, there's more.
Eximbank appears to have wasted money on frivolous items as well.
After 50 years with the same agency logo, Eximbank decided it needed a
new one. Designing a new logo--including creation, copyright search,
and the redesign of bank brochures and literature--cost nearly $100,000
last year.
And in 1993, Eximbank spent $30,000 to train 20 employees how to
speak in public--including chairman Kenneth Brody. An outside
consultant was paid $3,000 a day for this task.
Mr. Chairman, I believe government shouldn't choose winners in the
economy. With Eximbank, the big winners are foreign consumers, large
corporations and professional speech coaches. The losers are American
taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, it's time to derail this gravy train.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Dreier) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hansen, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill, H.R. 1868,
making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and
related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for
other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution No. 170, had directed him
to report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted in
the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the chairman
will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read third time.
motion to recommit offered by mr. obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the legislation?
Mr. OBEY. In its present form, I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Obey moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1868 to the
Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Insert at the end of the bill:
``Basic education for children
Sec. . Not more than $108,000,000 under the Agency for
International Development Children and Disease Programs Fund
may be used for basic education for children.''
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is really in essence a
bipartisan motion. I understand it will be accepted by the committee.
It simply clarifies that funds for basic education included under the
children's fund may only be used for basic education programs for
children. Other basic education programs for adults must be funded
through other accounts. The motion has bipartisan support, and I would
urge adoption of the recommital motion.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, we agree with the gentleman.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
[[Page H 6769]]
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House,
I report the bill, H.R. 1868, back to the House with an amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment:
Insert at the end of the bill:
``Basic education for children
Sec. . Not more than $108,000,000 under the Agency for
International Development Children and Disease Programs Fund
may be used for basic education for children.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and neas are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 333,
nays 89, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 482]
YEAS--333
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heineman
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mfume
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Molinari
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Riggs
Rivers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schiff
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Talent
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
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
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--89
Abercrombie
Barrett (NE)
Becerra
Beilenson
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunning
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Coburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
Dellums
Dingell
Doolittle
Duncan
Everett
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Goodling
Greenwood
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilliard
Jacobs
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
LaFalce
Lincoln
Lofgren
Lucas
Martinez
McDermott
Meyers
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Montgomery
Murtha
Oberstar
Olver
Orton
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pombo
Quillen
Rahall
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Royce
Sabo
Sanders
Schaefer
Schroeder
Sensenbrenner
Shuster
Stark
Stearns
Stump
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thornton
Traficant
Vento
Volkmer
Watt (NC)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--12
Foglietta
Frost
Gibbons
Jefferson
McKinney
Moakley
Peterson (FL)
Rangel
Reynolds
Richardson
Skaggs
Yates
{time} 1418
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Yates for, with Mr. Foglietta against.
Ms. McKinney for, with Mr. Peterson of Florida against.
. Richardson for, with Mr. Jefferson against.Mr. JONES, Mrs. CLAYTON,
Mr. ROYCE, and Mr. HILLIARD changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. WYNN, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Ms. WATERS, Mr. TIAHRT, and Ms. EDDIE
BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________