[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.
  

                          ____________________