[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 170 (Tuesday, October 31, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H11521-H11541]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1868, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, 
             AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the 
conference report on 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, and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the conference report 
is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
October 26, 1995, at page H10974.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Wilson] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].


                             general leave

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the conference report to accompany H.R. 1868, now under 
consideration, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to bring back to the House the 
conference report on H.R. 1868, the fiscal year 1996 appropriations for 
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs.
  The conference agreement represents a reduction of approximately $1.5 
billion, or 11 percent, below the 1995 enacted level. It is also a cut 
of almost $2.7 billion, or 18 percent, below the President's request.
  In addition, we are below the budget allocation for this bill by $156 
million in discretionary budget authority.
  The agreement protects important child survival and disease programs, 
as we had proposed in the House bill. The Senate bill contained no 
protections whatsoever for these programs. The conferees also direct 
that $100 million be provided for UNICEF, instead of a cut as assumed 
in the Senate bill.
  In general, the House bill did not include authorization provisions 
that were not cleared by the relevant authorization committees. I can 
honestly say that I did not want authorization language on our 
appropriation bill. I have great respect for Chairman Gilman and his 
colleagues on the International Relations Committee and I did my utmost 
to eliminate objectionable authorization language when the House 
considered H.R. 1868. However, the Senate included dozens of 
legislative provisions in the 193 amendments it made to the House bill. 
We were successful in deleting many of these in conference.
  We also worked with the authorization committee to modify or retain 
those provisions of most interest to them. In particular, we worked 
closely with them on the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act and the 
NATO Participation Act amendments.
  As I stated earlier, we had 193 Senate amendments to contend with in 
conference, and we were able to reach an agreement on all but one. The 
Senate conferees refused to accept the will of the House of 
Representatives on population funding and abortion.
  Once the House has acted on the conference report, under the rule, I 
will ask the House to send back to the Senate the substance of a 
compromise amendment I offered in conference on the Mexico City 
abortion policy. This compromise has the support of the author of the 
amendment that was approved by the House, Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
  There are several matters in the conference agreement that merit 
further comment and clarification today.
  With regard to concerns about conference report language on 
Azerbaijan, I want to repeat the statement I made before the Rules 
Committee: As chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I expect 
to be consulted in advance and notified in writing on a case by case 
basis each time the President uses the limited waiver provided by the 
Wilson amendment.
  Until the parties involved meet and agree to reduce the tension in 
the Caucasus region and terminate all blockades, which I believe is 
possible in 

[[Page H11522]]

coming months, this provision is a temporary, highly conditional waiver 
of aid to refugees and displaced persons only in Azerbaijan. It in no 
way overturns the much more extensive limitations on aid under current 
law, all of which are currently subject to a Presidential waiver.
  Once Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia agree to open railroads, 
pipelines, and other communications in the region, the President will 
be in a position to make the determination required under section 907 
of the Freedom Support Act, and the Wilson provision will no longer be 
relevant.
  With regard to language prohibiting the Agency for International 
Development's move to the elaborate and expensive new Federal Triangle 
Building, the language means just what it says. Before the 
Administrator of AID undertakes any other move that may be required, I 
expect him to fully consult with the Foreign Operations Subcommittee 
and make the reports requested by the conferees.
  No funds are provided in this conference agreement for AID's move to 
the Federal Triangle. No other funds should be used for a move to the 
Federal Triangle. As far as this committee is concerned, that proposal 
is denied.
  In conclusion, I'd like to thank my ranking minority member, Mr. 
Wilson, for his invaluable assistance in reaching a conference 
agreement on this bill. I'd also like to pay tribute to Mr. Obey, the 
ranking Democrat on the full committee, for his assistance and advice 
throughout this process. I'm happy to say that they and all the other 
House and Senate members of the conference have signed the conference 
report.
  In closing, I would remind the House that other members and the 
administration are ready and willing to add millions to this bill. 
Defeating this conference agreement would leave the door open for 
another bill that would cut less than this one.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following material:

[[Page H11523]]
  TH31OC95.006
  


[[Page H11524]]
  TH31OC95.007
  


[[Page H11525]]
  TH31OC95.008
  


[[Page H11526]]
  TH31OC95.009
  

  
[[Page H11527]]


                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise with a mixed recommendation on the foreign 
operations appropriations for fiscal year 1996.
  On one hand I support passage of the conference report on the bill. 
Although I am not fully happy with every aspect of the conference 
report--especially with the large number of earmarks included under the 
account funding the former Soviet Union--based on the funding available 
it is as good as we can do. The $12.1 billion bill is $2.7 billion 
below the President's request, $1.6 billion below last year, $202 
million above the House-passed bill and $310 million below the Senate 
bill.
  Therefore I urge Members to support the conference report.
  On the other hand, the conference was not able to come to an 
agreement on how to handle language in the bill concerning the so-
called Mexico City policy language that Representative Smith had added 
on the floor. The administration has informed me that if this language 
remains in the bill, the President will veto the bill.
  In addition to the Presidential veto that would be created by this 
language, the Senate appears totally unwillingly to accept this 
language--therefore we can't even get a bill to the President with this 
language included in the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, if Congress is serious about sending a signal to the 
President for fiscal year 1996 foreign operations, then I urge Members 
to reject the amendment by Mr. Callahan adding the Mexico City language 
back into the bill.
  Finally, I want to thank Chairman Callahan for his cooperation and 
manner in handling the conference on the bill. I believe we have been 
able to come up with a bipartisan agreement on foreign assistance for 
fiscal year 1996, and therefore one that is in the best interest of the 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this 
time. I commend both he and the ranking minority member, the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Wilson] for their splendid work.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the fiscal year 1996 Foreign 
Operations Appropriations Conference report. We are continuing the 
downward trend in foreign aid spending that has occurred over the last 
decade.
  We spent $18.3 billion on foreign operations in fiscal year 1985, 
which is $25 billion in today's dollars. This bill is $12.1 billion. We 
have cut foreign aid in half over 11 years.
  Mr. Callahan worked with members of the subcommittee, the authorizing 
committee, the administration, and our Senate counterparts to allocate 
the shrinking foreign assistance dollars in the fairest manner 
possible. The conference report was signed by every member of the 
conference committee. This bipartisan support is a great tribute to the 
spirit of compromise exhibited by the subcommittee chairman and the 
members of the committee.
  This bill cuts $1.5 billion from last year's level, and $2.8 billion 
from the President's request. We are 11 percent below last year and 18 
percent below the President. Despite the cuts, we have protected the 
most vulnerable--the world's children.
  The conference report provides $300 million for child survival 
programs, which is $25 million more than current year funding.
  This bill reduces old-style government-to-government foreign aid. 
Instead, we invest in programs that allow private companies to expand 
exports and foreign investment to make broad-based economic growth a 
reality in developing free markets.
  We have avoided the temptation to score political potshots with this 
bill. We vastly curtailed the numerous Senate earmarks which would have 
interfered with our Nation's foreign policy. We cut spending, but we 
provide the President with the resources to conduct a global foreign 
policy.
  We have accepted the reorganization savings made by the authorizing 
committee, and kept the funding levels in line with the levels provided 
in H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interests Act.
  We have maintained the funding levels to meet our Camp David 
commitments for Egypt and Israel.
  And, we've made children a priority.
  This is a responsible and balanced bill and I urge your support for 
Mr. Callahan's good work.
  I also want to address a few of the important foreign policy issues 
which were included in this appropriations bill.
  Brown amendment:
  The conferees agreed to the Brown amendment which brings some 
fairness to our relations with Pakistan.
  Because of the Pressler amendment, the United States currently holds 
F-16's and other military equipment that was purchased by Pakistan in 
the 1980's, and we hold the money Pakistan paid for the equipment.
  President Clinton stated that it is ``unfair to keep both Pakistan's 
money and its equipment.''
  Under the Brown amendment, we will sell the F-16's to a third country 
and reimburse Pakistan's investment, and we will deliver the 5-year-old 
equipment that Pakistan purchased before the Pressler sanction took 
effect.
  This is an important compromise which keeps in place the Pressler 
amendment restrictions against military assistance and military sales, 
but allows assistance for counternarcotics control, humanitarian 
assistance, and antiterrorism.
  The Brown amendment will go a long way to repair relations with 
Pakistan which has a long history of support for United States, 
especially during cold war:
  Pakistan signed Mutual Defense Treaty with the United States and 
allowed United States bases to conduct reconnaissance flights over the 
Soviet Union during cold war.
  Pakistan joined anti-Communist alliances such as CENTO and SEATO 
which were designed to contain Soviet Union.
  Pakistan joined the United States in to rolling-back Soviet invasion 
of Afghanistan.
  Pakistan supported the United States in Persian Gulf.
  Pakistan contributes U.N. troops to Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, and 
others.
  Pakistan is a moderate, Islamic ally.
  The Brown amendment doesn't resume military assistance to Pakistan, 
it merely allows return of military equipment which had been purchased 
more than 5 years ago.
  KEDO;
  We have also reached a compromise with the administration over 
promises the administration made to encourage North Korea to 
discontinue its dangerous nuclear program.
  The conference report provides that the United States may contribute 
funds to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization [KEDO] 
for administrative expenses and heavy fuel oil costs associated with 
the agreed framework. However, none of the funds in the bill may be 
used to contribute to the lightwater nuclear reactors being provided to 
North Korea under the terms of the agreed framework.
  Turkey:
  I would also like to note that the conference committee limited 
economic support funds to Turkey in recognition of the strong concerns 
over Turkey's human rights record. However, we avoided more onerous 
language which would have damaged our important bilateral relationship 
with Turkey.
  I want to bring my colleagues attention to an important article in 
yesterday's Washington Times. As the article indicates, Turkey is at a 
crossroads. Turkey's leaders are trying to direct Turkey to align with 
the western nations, but Islamic fundamentalists are working to push 
Turkey away from the European Union and NATO, and associate more 
closely with Islamic nations in the Arab world and central Asia.
  We must be careful to urge Turkey to adopt basic human rights in 
their counterterrorism efforts against the PKK, but we must not push so 
hard that we drive Turkey into the Islamic fundamentalist fold.
  Turkey is making efforts to improve its record. The State Department 
report on situation in Turkey contends that Turkey has started human 
rights training for military, made public the Code of Conduct for the 
military, and it has passed democracy-expanding proposals in the 
parliament. The State Department stated in July, ``We can and should 
expect progress.''
  Just this week, Turkey adopted amendments to Article 8 of the 
controversial antiterrorism law. The State Department spokesman 
Nicholas Burns stated:

       The United States is pleased to note that on October 27, 
     Turkey's Parliament approved legislation amending Article 8 
     of the Anti-Terror Law. We congratulate the Turkish 
     Government, Parliament, and people on this important and 
     positive step forward for democracy and human rights.

  I think this Congress should recognize Turkey's positive steps to 
reform their human rights policies.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter]. Mr. Speaker, the 

[[Page H11528]]

gentleman from Illinois is rock rib in his perseverance of his ideals 
and philosophies. The gentleman is a valuable member of our 
subcommittee. I do not know what we would do without the gentleman.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report.
  I commend the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] and his capable 
subcommittee staff for their hard work on this conference report--it 
represents the product of thousands of hours of work and 10 hour 
conference with the other body.
  And I would note, in light of the bill totals that we today consider, 
that foreign aid spending has clearly made its contribution to deficit 
reduction.
  I also want to particularly note a number of matters addressed in 
this conference report:
  First, I am pleased that we have maintained our commitment to the 
Camp David peace partners, and also to the ongoing peace process while, 
at the same time, including reasonable accountability requirements on 
recipients of peace process assistance. These provisions represent a 
sensible approach to accountability and one that will not impede the 
peace process.
  Second, I am also pleased that we have maintained our commitment to 
the reunification of Cyprus with a continuation of $15 million in 
support for bicommunal efforts on the island.
  Third, similarly, I rise in strong support of the full funding for 
Armenia that we have included. Armenia is proving itself to be a model 
for other Newly Independent States in developing democratic 
institutions and practices and resisting extremist views. The $85 
million in humanitarian assistance, together with the other funds for 
Armenia requested by the administration are included in this conference 
report. These funds are vitally important and I am pleased that they 
are included.
  Fourth, unfortunately, the levels of support for some activities in 
this bill are not what they should be.
  First, I note that the conference report contains $35 million toward 
the global environment facility, a project initiated by President Bush. 
While I am glad that we are maintaining support of this activity, I 
think all members should note that the GEF has done more than its share 
toward deficit reduction.
  Second, I am pleased that we were able to somewhat restore the 
reductions in assistance to international organizations, with language 
allowing administrative flexibility in this account. I encourage the 
President to maintain a strong level of commitment to the United 
Nations Development Program, as the resources to do so are available. 
The UNDP is headed by a very capable American, Mr. Gus Speth, and we 
should give him our strong support. Similarly, the President must also 
maintain support for the U.N.'s fund for victims of torture.
  I also am pleased that we have included language to reauthorize the 
Au Pair Program for 1 year to end the crisis that ensured on October 1 
when this program expired. This program never should have been allowed 
to expire. I plead with the authorizing committees to move forward on a 
longer term reauthorization of this activity so that this sort of 
crisis can be avoided in the future.

  This report also contains certain important policy decisions, 
including those respecting Turkey that I have already discussed.
  In particular, I believe that the landmine moratorium provisions that 
we have included will prove exceptionally valuable in controlling the 
indiscriminate violence perpetrated by these weapons.
  I am also pleased that we have expanded sanctions against the Thai 
military to force them to stop their cross border mahogany trade with 
the Khmer Rouge. Not only does this trade bolster one of the most 
genocidal groups to ever terrorize the planet, but it does so at an 
immense price to our environment--the Khmer Rouge are destroying 
ancient rainforests with the same disregard for nature that they have 
shown for human life. For reasons of foreign policy and environmental 
protection, these sanctions are badly needed.
  In addition, I am pleased that we have stepped up the pressure on 
Guatemala to bring to justice those who are covering up gross human 
rights violations and continuing to perpetrate new violations to this 
day. This month's massacre of Mayan civilians by the Army make clear 
that the Guatemalan military is not reforming itself and is not 
respecting human rights. The recent beating of American Sky Callahan 
shows that the Guatemalan military retains no respect for standards of 
human rights. We should not support these butchers with U.S. assistance 
and we should not allow them to enter our country. In this regard, I 
call on the Judiciary Committee to move swiftly on legislation to 
rescind visas for members of the Guatemalan military who have been 
complicit in gross human rights abuses.
  Finally, I want to mention the issue of satisfaction of certain 
obligations to Pakistan. I support the action of the conferees, 
although I would personally prefer to provide nonlethal aid to 
Pakistan. I would, however, caution the Government of Pakistan and its 
lobbyists here in town not to read too much into the conferees' action. 
This does not represent a retrenchment of our concerns about nuclear 
proliferation in Pakistan and it does not represent our picking sides 
in the tensions between Pakistan and India.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). The gentleman yields back 1\1/
2\ minutes.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the full 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill continues a 10-year downward trend 
in financing for foreign aid, and that downward trend is unavoidable, 
given the existing budget crunch that we face. I think the gentleman 
from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] has done a fine job under the 
circumstances, as has the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], and I 
salute them both.
  Mr. Speaker, I think there are some mistakes in this bill. I, for 
instance, do not believe that we should earmark funds for any country. 
I think that the Congress, unless we are facing extraordinary 
circumstances, should not be in a position to require the President to 
spend money on any country. I certainly do not oppose where these 
earmarks go. Israel, for instance, deserves great credit for 
steadfastly trying to move toward a resolution of the turmoil which we 
have seen in the Middle East for many, many years. I think that Egypt 
has cooperated fully in that process. I recognize in the past we have 
earmarked those Middle Eastern countries because we have not wanted to 
undermine the peace process, and I have no objection to that.
  But I do question the wisdom of earmarking over 50 percent of the 
funds that go to countries that were within the former Soviet Union, 
even though, again, I have no objection if the President wants to 
support those initiatives to those countries, because I think we need 
to be engaged in that region. I would simply say that I have defended 
Republican Presidents for 8 years against earmarks by the Congress, and 
I feel obligated to do the same for a Democratic President of my own 
party.
  There are some other problems I have with the bill, as anyone might, 
but, overall, I think that the bill is not a bad bill, and I intend to 
vote for it.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a problem: The bill as structured, provides for 
a return to the Mexico City language, which the administration 
strenuously objects to, and the administration has indicated that the 
President will veto the bill. I would not personally veto the bill over 
that item, but the administration intends to do so. So I will simply be 
offering a motion to recommit to try to find a middle ground.
  The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] will be providing an 
amendment, the language of which would cut off family planning funds to 
organizations with which the committee disagrees with respect to 
abortion. It would also cut off aid to the UN Population Agency because 
they have a program in China who the committee feels is conducting 
forced abortions.

  My amendment would contrast with that amendment in this way: First of 
all, and I will simply read this language, it provides that none of the 
funds made available under this act may be used to lobby for or against 


[[Page H11529]]

abortion. I think everyone agrees with that.
  Second, it would drop the language on the cutoff of family planning 
assistance, because I believe that we ought to keep a very firm line 
between the issue of abortion and the issue of family planning.
  Third, it would provide the same cutoff that the Callahan amendment 
would provide in China, except for changing the date. It would read as 
follows:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this act or other 
     law, none of the funds appropriated by this act may be made 
     available for the United Nations Population Fund unless the 
     President certifies to the appropriate Congressional 
     committees that, (1), the United Nations Population Fund will 
     terminate all family planning activities in the People's 
     Republic of China no later than May 1, 1996; or, (2), during 
     the 12 months preceding such certification there have been no 
     abortions as a result of coercion associated with family 
     planning activities of the national government or other 
     governmental entities within the People's Republic of China.
       As used in this section, the term ``coercion'' includes 
     physical duress or abuse, destruction or confiscation of 
     property, loss of means of livelihood, or severe 
     psychological pressures.

  I think it is important for us on both sides of the aisle to send a 
signal to the United Nations population program that we are firmly 
convinced that the so-called population program in China is in fact 
coerced abortion, or at least it is facilitating coerced abortion. 
Anyone who takes a look at the record understands that is exactly what 
is going on in China.

                              {time}  1615

  So all my amendment would do is give the agency 2 additional months 
to end their involvement in China or else face a total cutoff of funds. 
I think that is more realistic administratively and it would remain 
identical with respect to the rest of the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond to my 
friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  No one agrees with him more than I do about earmarking funds. The 
gentleman taught me well when I served in the minority and he was 
chairman of this committee, or this subcommittee. I agree with the 
gentleman wholeheartedly that we make big mistakes, and when this bill 
left the House there was no earmarking in our bill. So we both share 
philosophically the same idea with respect to earmarking.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that we had to agree to any, but this is a 
body of compromise and in this compromise we had with the Senate we had 
to agree to some things, but then they had to agree to some things. 
They wanted to come back and increase the amount of money, and I felt 
by earmarking some of the money for some of the countries that they 
insisted upon that the American people were better served by the 
reductions that we were able to save in spending in foreign countries.
  With respect to the Mexico City language, this language that I intend 
to introduce is modified to meet some of the demands of the 
administration. I think we are at a point that the President must 
recognize that if he vetoes this bill because of the Mexico City 
language that is going to be therein that he will have to veto the CR, 
which will contain this language. So he will have to face it one way or 
the other.
  Mr. Speaker, we have compromised with the President. We have given 
him every latitude. We have preserved for him the ability to have an 
effective foreign policy. But the President must recognize and live 
with the fact that the Smith language no doubt is going to be in 
whatever foreign operations bill we pass this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Lightfoot], my friend and former freshman Member 11 years ago in this 
House, a member of this subcommittee and certainly a good friend and 
big contributor to our efforts on foreign operations.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me 
time. It is nice to be an 11 year old freshman, I guess.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. Let me 
commend Chairman Callahan and our ranking Member Charlie Wilson, for a 
job well done. The conference report we are presenting to the House 
today demonstrates that we can produce a foreign aid bill which 
advances the foreign policy interests of the United States and plays a 
role in our Nation's highest national interest--balancing the Federal 
budget.
  The conference report reflects a dramatic 11-percent reduction from 
the previous year spending in foreign aid. Despite this reduction we 
maintain our commitment to the Middle East peace process by fully 
funding the Camp David Accord countries. In addition, the conferees 
have added language which updates and strengthens funding to the P.L.O. 
and demonstrates our desire that the P.L.O. continue to be engaged 
constructively and responsibly in the peace process.
  House conferees also accepted language which allows for a one time 
lifting of the prohibition against military aid to Pakistan. I voted in 
favor of this language because it has been demonstrated to me that the 
weapons in question will not alter the military balance in the region. 
In addition, the administration believes this language will facilitate 
an improvement in United States-Pakistan relations.
  However, I believe the spread of nuclear weapons, particularly in 
regions of heightened ethnic tensions, represents the post-cold-war 
world's most profound security concern. I want to make quite clear that 
I will not support any future arms sales or arms transfers to Pakistan. 
And I am pleased the managers added, at my request, a reporting 
requirement on nonproliferation and conventional force reduction in all 
of south Asia. I think this kind of report will aid us in making future 
policy decisions about the area.
  In order to meet the 7-year commitment to a balanced budget, it is 
clear that we will have to continue to reduce the size of this bill. We 
must resist the temptation to try and fund all programs at diminished 
levels and continue the process begun in this bill, to prioritize and 
fund what works and zero out what does not work, no matter how well 
meaning or high sounding the program may be.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the House that we are 
well represented in conference by Chairman Callahan and Mr. Wilson. 
They pressed hard to maintain House positions. Most importantly, Mr. 
Callahan fought hard to keep this bill's spending as low as possible. 
They and the subcommittee staff; Charlie Flickner, Bill Inglee, John 
Shank, Nancy Tippins, Kathleen Murphy, and Terry Peel, did an excellent 
job in getting us to this point.
  Foreign aid is not something for which you look forward to voting. 
But this is a good responsible bill and I urge the House to accept it 
and then to reaffirm its commitment to banning the use of taxpayer 
dollars to fund worldwide abortion.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Torres].
  (Mr. TORRES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
report on the fiscal year 1996 foreign operations appropriations bill 
and urge its approval. I want to commend Chairman Callahan and the 
distinguished ranking member, Mr. Wilson, for their diligent work in 
crafting a very responsible bill within tight budgetary constraints.
  I am pleased to note that the conferees have provided the full 
funding level of $56,250,000 for the U.S. contribution to the North 
American Development Bank created under the NAFTA agreement. Because 
the NADBank is a new player in the international capital markets, 
obtaining full funding was critical to ensuring the Bank's financial 
strength and ultimately, its success. I want to point out that it is 
the one development bank that will directly assist U.S. citizens.
  While the NADBank's primary focus will be on financing environmental 
infrastructure projects along the United States-Mexico border, it will 
also help individuals and businesses throughout the United States make 
adjustments to ever-changing global trade realities. The Bank's 
Community Adjustment and Investment Program [CAIP] is designed to 
address NAFTA related trade dislocation issues.
  To that degree, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this will enhance the 
ability 

[[Page H11530]]

of workers, whether they are in Kenosha or somewhere in Seattle or 
Texas or California, to adjust to any job losses that are brought about 
by the NAFTA process.
  In conference, I recommended that additional statutory and report 
language be included to limit and further define the direction of the 
CAIP. The language adopted by the conferees was intended to ensure that 
the implementation of the CAIP closely adheres to legislative intent. 
It was further intended to address a number of concerns that were 
raised by the conferees regarding eligibility criteria, personnel and 
operating expenses, and administrative accountability.
  Specifically, the language regarding personnel and operating expenses 
was intended to ensure that the NADBank serve not simply as a pass-
through for existing Federal programs, but that it fully utilize its 
authority to make loans and loan guarantees directly. The use of such 
authority by the Bank is clearly conveyed in both the implementing 
legislation and statement of administrative intent. The language 
adopted by the conferees acknowledges the authority of the Bank to 
utilize existing Federal loan and loan guarantee programs to implement 
the CAIP. However, failure by the Bank to utilize its direct lending 
authority would constitute noncompliance with congressional intent.
  The language was further intended to ensure that the agencies 
involved in implementing the CAIP only assess the Bank reasonable and 
minimal administrative fees directly associated with processing of the 
loans or guarantees. Nor should a disproportionate amount of the Bank's 
budget for direct loans be used for administrative expenses. The Bank 
was never intended to supplement existing Federal credit programs and 
should itself be frugal in setting overhead costs.
  The language adopted by the conferees regarding accountability was 
intended to ensure that the NADBank make the final determination 
regarding both CAIP eligibility and endorsement of projects for 
financing. It further recommends that each project should be endorsed 
for financing on a case-by-case basis. The language was intended to 
prevent Federal agencies from leveraging CAIP funds through credit 
programs that are not specifically tailored through guidelines 
developed by the NADBank to assist communities with foreign trade-
induced economic impact. Finally, by recommending that projects be 
endorsed for financing on a case-by-case basis, the conferees wish to 
prevent any blanket endorsement of loans or loan guarantees made by 
participating agencies. Instead, it expects each loan or loan guarantee 
recommended for financing to be carefully evaluated by the NADBank to 
ensure compliance with its eligibility criteria.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg] who is a member of our committee, and 
who is quiet but he is strong in his convictions and he is a tremendous 
complement to our effort.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time and thank him for those kind comments. I will pay back by saying 
that I think the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] has done an 
outstanding and remarkable job at being the compromiser in the final 
minutes and all the way through, but especially in the final moments.
  I also want to pay tribute to the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Texas, [Mr. Wilson], because I truly think this committee has done a 
great deal to work together.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for this conference 
report which reflects the careful crafting by the House and Senate 
conferees. Balancing fiscal restraint and the needs of foreign policy, 
H.R. 1868 reflects the reasoned compromise and considerable cooperation 
that took place between the two bodies. It deserves bipartisan support. 
H.R. 1868 recognizes the fiscal situation we face and reduces the 
amount of money we spend on foreign assistance. But H.R. 1868 also 
reflects our continued belief in the importance of maintaining our role 
as a leader in global events.
  This bill does not blindly slash foreign aid. We make serious cuts 
that reflect careful consideration and the review of every program. We 
have eliminated and reduced funding to those programs that have failed 
to justify continued support. This conference report is below the 
Foreign Operations Subcommittee 602(b) allocation. This bill will help 
us move towards a balanced budget.
  Foreign aid is a crucial component of our foreign policy. The United 
States has a direct interest in promoting the expansion of capitalism 
and democracy throughout the world. Accordingly, I feel it is 
beneficial to American interests to aid countries which have shown a 
commitment to the ideals of free enterprise and individual freedom.
  With the end of the cold war, there exists a sentiment in our country 
to place foreign affairs on the back burner and focus on domestic 
problems. We cannot ignore the domestic problems of crime, health care, 
education, and the economy, but I believe that recent events in the 
former Soviet Union, North Korea, and Bosnia illustrate that America 
must not insulate itself from the international community.
  Faced with a national debt that is strangling our economy, Congress 
is operating under severe pressure to reduce spending and rightfully 
so. I am very committed to reducing the deficit, lowering taxes, and 
empowering individuals and business by reducing the size and scope of 
our Federal Government. But we must work toward these goals as the 
world's only superpower and the greatest proprietor of democracy. We 
have reduced foreign aid in this bill but we have not eliminated our 
ability to participate in the world.
  Foreign aid which makes up less than 1 percent of our Federal budget 
is a good investment and has benefited our interests around the globe 
by furthering the development of economic and political stability in 
the international community.
  H.R. 1868 allows us to continue to remain active in world events 
while it reflects our budgetary constraints. This conference report 
reflects the joint work of the House and Senate. I support this 
conference report very strongly and urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place a statement 
in the Record concerning administration policy.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The information referred to follows:

                              Office of Management and Budget,

                                 Washington, DC, October 31, 1995.

                   Statement of Administration Policy

 H.R. 1868--foreign operations, export financing and related programs 
appropriations bill, fiscal year 1996--Sponsors: Livingston, Louisiana; 
                           Callahan, Alabama)

       This Statement of Administration Policy provides the 
     Administration's views on the item reported in disagreement 
     by the conference on H.R. 1868, the Foreign Operations, 
     Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 
     FY 1996. Your consideration of the Administration's views 
     would be appreciated.
       The conferees have reported in disagreement provisions 
     related to population assistance to non-governmental 
     organizations. This is an issue of the highest importance to 
     the Administration.
       The Administration opposes coercion in family planning 
     practices, and no U.S. assistance is used to pay for abortion 
     as a method of family planning. The House provision, however, 
     would prohibit any assistance from being provided to entities 
     that fund abortions or lobby for abortions with private 
     funds, thus ending U.S. support for many qualified and 
     experienced non-governmental organizations providing vital 
     voluntary family planning information and services. The 
     provision would also end U.S. support for the United Nations 
     Population Fund (UNFPA). This would sharply limit the 
     availability of effective voluntary family planning programs 
     abroad that are designed to reduce the incidence of unwanted 
     pregnancy and thereby decrease the need for abortion. The 
     Administration also has serious concerns about the 
     constitutionality of the House provision. If the House 
     language were included in the bill presented to the 
     President, the Secretary of State would recommend to the 
     President that he veto the bill.

  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
  (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I add my congratulations to the gentleman 
from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] as well as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Wilson] for crafting what I think is a good bill under very difficult 
circumstances.
  However, I rise to continue to express my sharp opposition to a 
provision in the conference report that would rewrite current United 
States law by severely weakening section 907 of the Freedom Support 
Act, which prohibits direct United States Government assistance to the 
Government of Azerbaijan until that country lifts its blockade of 
Armenia.
  Mr. Speaker, I successfully offered an amendment on this issue on 
June 29, 

[[Page H11531]]

and the House approved it after 2\1/2\ hours of debate. The Senate also 
refused to include any language on section 907. Unfortunately, the 
conference committee, acting without a mandate by either the House or 
the Senate, decided to reinsert this provision into the bill; and I am 
strongly opposed to their actions in this matter.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] has suggested, correctly, that 
his language is different, correctly, as a matter of form, not of 
substance. The substance of the issue is to prohibit direct payments to 
the Government of Azerbaijan until they remove the blockade. That is 
the essence of the issue.
  Mr. Speaker, the sanctions on Azerbaijan were imposed because of that 
country's ongoing blockade. When the Azerbaijan blockade is lifted, the 
United States prohibition on direct Government assistance can also be 
lifted. Countries that violate the conditions that Congress attaches 
for receiving U.S. assistance should not be rewarded.

                              {time}  1630

  Any attempt to remove section 907 must be viewed as support for 
Azerbaijan's blockade of Armenia as a legitimate weapon of war as well 
as support for their hostile position in the ongoing peace 
negotiations.
  In closing, if we allow American dollars to flow to the Government of 
Azerbaijan, we will be turning our backs on the people of Armenia at a 
time when they desperately need and deserve our support. The true facts 
of this case are simple. The Government of Azerbaijan should act in 
peace, lift the blockade, and everyone can be made whole.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, seldom is a freshman Member appointed to 
the Committee on Appropriations, but even more seldom is it possible 
for a freshman Member of Congress to grasp the complexity of the 
appropriations procedure. But, the gentleman from Long Island, NY [Mr. 
Forbes] is one who has done both. His insistence as a promoter of the 
Middle East peace process, his concern about Mr. Arafat and the 
distribution of the moneys to Mr. Arafat, I think, is a very strong 
compliment to his efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Forbes].
  (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today out of respect, obviously, for 
the finished product, but also I must express a grave reservation and 
concern that I have.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in memory of Leon Klinghoffer, and the events of 
the Achille Lauro. I rise in memory of the young woman from New Jersey 
and the young woman from Connecticut and so many Americans and Israelis 
who died at the hands, at the bloody hands of Chairman Arafat.
  Mr. Speaker, I must tell my colleagues that I rise today because I am 
extremely concerned. I am concerned because the taxpayers of the United 
States of America are going to be asked over the next 5 years to spend 
$500 million to help Chairman Arafat build infrastructure in accord 
with the Oslo Agreement for Peace in the Middle East.
  I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, because I believe that Mr. Arafat, 
through noncompliance, systematic noncompliance, through a lack of 
accountability and because of his transparency in perhaps trying to 
talk the talk, but not walk the walk of the Middle East peace accord, 
is really disingenuous in this process.
  I am concerned that the taxpayers of this Nation are going to be 
asked to funnel $500 million to Chairman Arafat when, in fact, the PLO 
has not amended provisions of its charter which declare Israel to be 
illegitimate and calls for its elimination through armed struggle. The 
PLO has not legally banned terrorist organizations such as Hamas and 
the Islamic Jihad, and has done very little to discipline them.
  Mr. Speaker, the PLO has failed to prevent incitement to violence 
and, in fact, PLO officials continue to advocate holy war against 
Israel. These are not the activities of a peacemaker. I must rise in 
strong concern for funneling of this taxpayer money, this U.S. taxpayer 
money to Chairman Arafat and the PLO.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, the State Department made a backdoor deal 
in extending the Middle East Peace Facilities Act 18 months. So we are 
now pushing accountability 18 months out so that the Middle East peace 
accord could perhaps move forward. But some of us believe so that for 
political considerations, we can move this whole issue beyond the next 
Presidential election. I find that abhorrent. I find the fact that we 
are now going to say they must be accountable in 18 months, as opposed 
to 12 months, wrong.
  Moving this accountability from 12 to 18 months is wrong, as it is 
wrong not to require Chairman Arafat to live up to the Oslo accords 
before he gets one thin dime from the United States taxpayers.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is important to be able to discuss 
this appropriations bill with an eye toward appreciating some of the 
very hard work that went into the ultimate bill that we now have before 
us. I do want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] and I want 
to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], and 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Johnston] for working with me on some very important crucial 
issues.
  Mr. Speaker, let me view the cup as being at least half full, 
inasmuch as we were gratified that in this bill that has cut foreign 
appropriations to the bone, almost, to be able to support a valuable 
program, the African Development Foundation, with my amendment on the 
floor of $11.5 million.
  This, to the American people, I would say, is a constructive 
utilization of our dollars, because it relates to the grassroots that 
would be working with grassroots in Africa, teaching them and teaching 
the various nations and instructing them in how to produce, how to 
create jobs, and how to create income.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I am gratified that that support was given, and I 
think the American people will find that though they have concerns 
about foreign appropriations, that this is well and a good investment.
  Mr. Speaker, I do have, however, extreme concern about another 
bipartisan effort that I can proudly say was supported by the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Wilson], the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], and the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Johnston].
  I think it was supported in that context because they recognized that 
the American people say other things as well. They do understand that 
as moneys are appropriated for foreign aid, it is important that the 
values of this Nation, though we do not handicap our international 
friends, that we, in fact, do not abandon them and leave missing our 
values; our values of justice, social justice and human rights.
  Mr. Speaker, we attempted to respond to those concerns expressed by 
many Ethiopian citizens in this Nation. Ethiopia is a great nation with 
a great history going through periods of great turmoil. Rather than to 
strap that leadership, we applauded what progress has been made, but we 
also acknowledged that human rights should be respected and that 
there should be a practice that would exclude or ensure the stopping of 
firing university professors because of their beliefs; that we should 
stop imprisoning journalists and magazine editors; that we should 
release Dr. Asrat Woldeyes, a surgeon, a champion of human rights; that 
officials of the previous Government should not be sitting in prison; 
and, that the military must be integrated to include all the people of 
Ethiopia.

  Mr. Speaker, my good friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Johnston] had the opportunity to visit Ethiopia and remarked that there 
were great concerns that he saw that needed to be addressed. It is 
unfortunate that the very moderate language that we had included to 
save lives and to enhance the efforts already being made in Ethiopia, 
that someone and somehow in this conference saw fit to make many steps 
backward for human rights and not allow that language to go forward as 
it relates to Ethiopia.
  Mr. Speaker, I might add that I am very pleased with the assistance 
and the recognition of this issue by both 

[[Page H11532]]

the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] and the gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Callahan], recognizing that it is important that the State 
Department be forever vigilant on these issues and that the American 
people would not want us to abandon our dollars and not provide our 
values.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield just a moment to the gentleman 
from Alabama to engage in a colloquy on this issue. I appreciate the 
work of the gentleman.
  I note in the conference report that it says the managers expect the 
Department of State to continue to be attentive to this important issue 
as it relates to the monitoring of Ethiopia's human rights progress. 
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he could help me to 
understand that we are going to view this in a very serious manner, 
recognizing that there are some great needs of improvement in Ethiopia 
and also acknowledging their progress.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, I agree 
with her. And in deference to her concern about Ethiopia, I offered the 
amendment, along with the gentlewoman, to include it in the House bill. 
But, when it got to the Senate, they had 192 changes and in this 
compromise they requested, as did the administration, it be taken out.
  So, in a spirit of compromise we took it out. But to ensure and to 
protect the views of the gentlewoman, we did insert the strongest 
protection we could put in there saying that the managers expect the 
Department of State to continue to be attentive to this important issue 
and we as managers of this bill will certainly express to the 
administration our continued support accordingly.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman for that and I take from the gentleman's statement that that 
will mean a continuing monitoring by the State Department of Ethiopia. 
I request that the State Department provide us with continuous reports. 
It is an important issue, although we encourage the progress that may 
have been made in Ethiopia we should never abandon the human rights 
issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I do understand the spirit of compromise. I would have 
hoped that we would not have compromised on the back of human rights 
causes, but I thank the gentleman from Texas as well for his help and I 
look forward to the monitoring of human rights in Ethiopia on behalf of 
the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record:
  Mr. Speaker, I must rise to express my concern about this foreign 
operations appropriations conference committee report. I am concerned 
that the conferees decided to strike an amendment to the House version 
that would require the State Department ``to closely monitor and take 
into account human rights progress in Ethiopia as it obligates funds 
for fiscal year 1996.''


                further human rights abuses in ethiopia

  Mr. Speaker, Ethiopia is a great nation with a rich history. 
Recently, it has gone through periods of turmoil and unrest. It should 
be U.S. policy to bolster this nation and to monitor the actions of the 
new government.
  We should all be pleased that there have been elections in Ethiopia. 
However, we must be diligent in ensuring that the new government does 
not follow the same path of the many governments that have preceded it.
  Human rights must be respected.
  Stop the practice of firing university professors because of their 
beliefs. Many of these professors have been educated in the United 
States and have strong ties to this country.
  Stop imprisoning journalists and magazine editors.
  Release Dr. Asrat Woldeyes. He is a surgeon in who has championed 
human rights and is a prisoner of conscience. The people of Ethiopia 
are suffering because he cannot provide health care services while he 
is detained.
  Officials of the previous government are still sitting in prison and 
have not yet been charged.
  The military must be integrated. Right now, the military is comprised 
of primarily only one minority ethnic group. It is a military of 
elites.
  This issue will not die. If it is not contained in this bill, we will 
have to insert this language in future bills.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the Committee on 
International Relations, I had an opportunity to read recent statements 
by Yasser Arafat regarding Israel and the peace process. Some of the 
statements that I read were hair-raising, to say the least.
  He talked about things that fly in the face of the peace accords. He 
talked about war and torture and retribution. All of these things are 
not harmonious with the peace accords that we are talking about in the 
Middle East.
  We extended in this legislation the accountability factor by 18 
months. There really is no more accountability for Yasser Arafat to 
contend with for the next 18 months, and yet we are going to give him 
$500 million of American taxpayers' money--$500 million.
  Mr. Speaker, while we are giving him this money we realize or know or 
believe from British intelligence that the PLO has between $8 billion 
and $12 billion in Swiss bank accounts and other bank accounts around 
the world. Eight billion dollars to $12 billion, and we are giving them 
$500 million for infrastructure.
  Mr. Speaker, while we are doing this, there was a murder committed. 
The security forces for the PLO in Jericho took an American citizen, 
52-year-old Azem Musllh, an American citizen. They took him out of a 
restaurant and took him to a jail. His wife went to get him out of jail 
and they said he was not there. She came back a second time and they 
said she would have to come back the next day.
  Mr. Speaker, when she came back, he was dead. They said he died of a 
heart attack. When they saw the body, his jaw was broken. He had 
lacerations on his face. He had burns on the bottoms of his feet that 
looked like cigarette burns. The man had been literally tortured to 
death.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an American citizen of Palestinian descent. Yet, 
we are going ahead and giving Yasser Arafat, even though he has talked 
against the peace process in some of his speeches, we are giving him an 
18-month extension, $500 million, and there has been no accountability 
as far as this man's life has been concerned.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill provides $75 million; 
not $500 million.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the $500 
million is the long-term agreement.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
but this bill is $75 million.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, $75 
million is the first tranche. Does the gentleman disagree that he is 
going to get $500 million?
  Mr. BERMAN. I think it should depend on what happens and how he 
performs.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman if he agrees 
it is going to be $500 million?
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, no, I do not. I agree this bill has $75 
million.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the long-term 
agreement is $500 million bill. While the bill has a lot of merit, this 
is one thing with which I take issue.
  Mr. Speaker, before we give them one dime, there should be complete 
accountability about this man's death and those who tortured him and 
murdered him, who are members of the security forces of the PLO, should 
be brought to justice before one dollar of taxpayers' money should go 
to the PLO.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). The gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Wilson] has 14 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Callahan] has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone] reluctantly.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Wilson] for reluctantly yielding me 4 minutes to discuss the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say in starting out that this is a good bill 
which I intend to vote for, but it has two points which I think are bad 
and which I would like to address at this point.

[[Page H11533]]

  First of all, with regard to aid to Azerbaijan, which I talked about 
previously under the rule, I am hopeful that if this bill is vetoed by 
the President, and it does come back to conference, that there will be 
an opportunity in conference to address the issue of aid to Azerbaijan 
again.

                              {time}  1645

  I know the gentleman from Texas has in fact submitted slightly 
different language from what was rejected by the House. However, the 
substance of the language is the same. And basically what the language 
does is allow direct American Government assistance to the Government 
of Azerbaijan.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] previously pointed out that the 
difference in the language, the way he sees it, is essentially that 
now, unlike before, the aid can go strictly to refugees, does not 
include democracy building, and basically allows the President to 
determine whether the aid is appropriate. But I would submit that when 
we had the debate on the floor back in June on the old language, it was 
understood and it was part of the debate that it was understood that we 
were talking about humanitarian aid to refugees, that we understood 
that the President would make a determination as to whether or not this 
aid would be given to Azerbaijan. So essentially there really is no 
difference here. The language is substantively the same.
  The reason why those of us are opposed to this aid to Azerbaijan is 
because a decision was made with section 907 of the Freedom Support Act 
that it was wrong for Azerbaijan to continue its blockage of Armenia 
and Nagorno-Karabakh. That blockade continues. There has not been and 
cannot be a certification by the President that the blockade is over or 
that any progress has been made to end it. And so it is inappropriate 
for us at this point to simply reward the Azerbaijan Government which 
continues the blockade of Armenia by saying that we are going to give 
you some direct government assistance.

  It is also true that through nongovernmental organizations aid does 
go to the Azerbaijan refugees for humanitarian purposes. They are 
receiving that. I am just hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that if this bill comes 
back to conference we can address this again because we did not have an 
opportunity today.
  The other bad point in the legislation refers to assistance to 
Pakistan. I object to the language that permits the transfer of seized 
military equipment to the Government of Pakistan. This provision was 
not part of the House-passed bill. I am concerned that this language 
would undermine our Nation's commitment to stop the proliferation of 
nuclear weapons, will heighten regional instability in South Asia. And 
as the New York Times stated recently in an editorial, send the wrong 
message to Pakistan. Why should we be rewarding Pakistan with $370 
million worth of conventional weaponry when Pakistan deliberately lied 
to the United States about its nuclear program.
  It is important to remember that Pakistan has not agreed to do 
anything in exchange for the release of the seized equipment and the 
language in the conference report imposes no new conditions on 
Pakistan. In 1993, President Clinton offered to return all or a portion 
of the weapons if Pakistan would agree to cap its nuclear program but 
Pakistan rejected this offer. This language should not be in the bill.
  Having noted those two bad points or two bad provisions in the bill 
or mentioned them, I did want to thank the chairman and the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Wilson] and also the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter] and others for including some provisions in the conference 
report that are very favorable to Armenia. There is an $85 million 
earmark for Armenia. There is the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, which 
we have been pushing for a long time. There is also the transcaucasian 
enterprise fund which is recalculated. I would be supportive of the 
bill.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
   Mr. Speaker, lest someone be confused about what is in this bill and 
what is not, there is no money and I repeat, no money anywhere in this 
bill that is earmarked for the PLO, for Mr. Arafat or anyone else in 
that regard. And we insisted upon that.
  Included in the bill also, it says, new accountability number one, 
``New language which states that in providing assistance to 
Palestinians living under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian authority 
the beneficiaries of such assistance should be held to the same 
standard of financial accountability and management control as any 
other recipient of United States assistance.''
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, as I understand it from talking 
to the gentleman, the President has discretion on the $75 million.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. The President has discretion on nearly $600 million.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, and that money will go forward for infrastructure for the PLO?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, we give that discretion to the President. 
They have earmarked some of that Economic Support Fund for Israel. They 
did earmark some of it in the Senate for Egypt, and we accepted those 
amendments. The balance of it, as it has been, I suppose, since the 
Economic Support Fund was established, is left to the discretion of the 
administration. If the administration wants to do it, yes, they can. 
But they have to do it under the guidelines and some of the 
accountability provisions that we have put in here at the gentleman's 
insistence.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, I appreciate the accountability features that he has put in 
there. The fact of the matter is, the administration supports strongly 
the peace process, as we do and as I do. So that money will go forward.
  My point is, and I know the gentleman can put a hold on this money if 
he sees fit, as some others may, I hope that he will do everything in 
his power to get accountability for this American that was murdered.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I will do everything in my power to insist 
on accountability. I will do everything in my power to insist that the 
administration does not give the PLO anything. But I just want this 
body to be fully aware that there is nothing earmarked, as two previous 
speakers have indicated, for the PLO in this bill.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman].
  (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me 
this time.
  There are a number of points I would like to make. I rise in strong 
support of the bill and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
bill. If you oppose the Smith amendment, like I do, understand the 
Smith amendment is not part of this conference report. The Smith 
amendment will be debated after the adoption of the conference report. 
I have strong feelings in opposition to that amendment, and I will 
express them at the time that the Smith amendment is up. My colleagues 
can vote for this report. If they vote for this report, they will not 
be voting for the Smith amendment.
  The second point with respect to the administration and the veto, 
should the Smith amendment be adopted, it is not quite that simple. The 
Senate has taken a contrary position. The reason the Smith amendment is 
not in the conference report is because the Senate thought it was wrong 
to stop all funding of UNFPA and to stop funding for any voluntary 
family planning organizations. They realized that that action will 
contribute to a greater number of abortions rather than reduce the 
number of abortions. If the Senate does not agree with the Smith 
amendment, this bill will not even get to the President.
  Third, this is a funny bill in a way. I am strongly in support of it 
because it does not cut foreign assistance as much as some would have 
wanted it to. The fact is, thanks to the work of certain Members on the 
other side, the efforts of the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
to reduce this function by $5 billion were thwarted. While I believe 
this bill is not commensurate in terms of its funding with what should 
be America's role in the world and, 

[[Page H11534]]

while I am concerned that this bill will leave the United States as the 
least foreign assistance contributor of any other industrialized 
country in the world as a percentage of gross national product, the 
fact is this bill, given the context of the year we are in, given what 
others wanted to do, provides enough assistance, I think, to continue 
the merits of the program. I support it.
  The bill is significantly above what the bill was when it left the 
House. The bill provides more for the very important international 
financial institutions account and particularly IDA, to help the lowest 
income people than it did when it left the House.

  The bill provides special programs for children and earmarks. One of 
the few earmarks in the bill is $484 million of bilateral economic 
assistance for programs aimed at child survival and disease. The bill 
fully funds Israel and Egypt. It would be a tragedy at this time in the 
peace process for us to do anything that would diminish America's 
historic support for Israel's security as it enters into this peace 
process. I am very happy to say that the bill fully funds that aid.
  One feature of the peace process, which this bill recognizes, I am no 
fan of the PLO. I am no fan of the way they have handled a variety of 
things. I have no doubt that there are aspects of the governance of the 
Palestinian authority that violate the human rights and liberties of 
the people living in the areas it now controls. The one thing I know is 
this peace process cannot succeed if the life of the individual who 
resides in the Gaza Strip or in the West Bank is not improved. The $75 
million in this bill will help to make that happen. It supports the 
peace process. I think it should be supported.
  The bill has some features I do not like. As I indicated, I would 
rather see a higher level of overall funding. We are significantly 
below the administration's request. We are significantly below last 
year's level of funding. While I have tremendous respect for the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], my friend, and a great deal of 
respect for his perspectives on these issues, and I like him quite a 
bit, I do disagree with his conclusions on two areas of the bill, 
Armenia and Pakistan.
  I think the effort to economically strangulate the small country, 
when we allow assistance to go to Azerbaijan, one of the participants 
in that strangulation, I am afraid we remove a leverage point to stop 
that from happening.
  I also think the consequence of some of these arms shipments to 
Pakistan that will be allowed by this bill, my fear is, will reignite 
and accelerate an arms race in the South Asian Peninsula. Believe me, 
the Government of India will be here looking for compensatory treatment 
with additional arms. Pakistanis will be back. There will be economic 
pressures from our defense contractors to provide those arms. My fear 
is that an already dangerous situation in the South Asian Peninsula 
will be accelerated. Notwithstanding those disagreements, there is very 
little question in my mind that this bill deserves our support, and I 
urge my colleagues to pass it.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Packard], a member of our Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of committee 
for yielding time to me.
  This is a very good piece of work. It is the first foreign operations 
funding bill that I will support. We are cutting our foreign operations 
funding by a significant amount, 11 percent. If every part of 
government cut to that level, we would balance our budget in a very 
quick hurry in this place.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Alabama, Chairman Callahan. 
This is his first year as chairman. He has done a super job.
  It has been a real pleasure to work with the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Wilson]. I am sorry to see that this will be his last term to 
serve, but it has been a real pleasure to work with him. He is a real 
expert on foreign affairs, and it has been a pleasure to work with him.
  I compliment the work of the committee. I am proud to be able to 
serve on it because we have put out a good product, one that the 
Congress should pass overwhelmingly and send to the President.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Payne].
  (Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House 
Committee on International Relations, I rise to express my concern and 
disappointment over several provisions of the foreign operations 
appropriations bill.
  It is unfortunate that while Congress continues to spend heavily on 
weapons of destruction, funding is being slashed for constructive 
programs which generate international goodwill and help make poor 
countries more self-sufficient. I have had the opportunity to visit 
Africa on many occasions and have seen first-hand the positive results 
produced by the Development Fund for Africa.
  Vital programs help address the scourge of hunger, illiteracy, and 
poverty. In fact, through foreign aid provided by American and other 
countries, the death rate for children under 5 has been cut in half.
  Now, three accounts, including the Development Fund for Africa, have 
been combined and funded at a level which is $450 million less than 
last year's level and less than the President's request.
  The measure also cuts $9 million from the President's request for the 
Agency for International Development, which administers U.S. foreign 
economic and humanitarian assistance programs in more than 100 
countries throughout the developing world. I believe these cuts are 
counterproductive and fail to live up to America's tradition of 
humanitarian assistance to the people of struggling nations.
  On the issue of Haiti, I am determined to see democracy succeed in 
that nation. I visited Haiti many times during the effort to reinstate 
President Arisitide. I had the opportunity to talk with ordinary 
citizens of Haiti who are excited that at last they are in control of 
their country's destiny. I think it is important that impartial 
observers be sent to Haiti to monitor elections and determine the 
fairness of the process.
  Other items in this bill which I find disturbing are the $15 million 
cut in the Peace Corps budget, $2 million cut in peacekeeping efforts, 
and $1 million reduction for the Trade and Development agency.
  Let me add that I was also disappointed, as one who is deeply 
concerned about human rights in Northern Ireland, that the conference 
report does not require that U.S. assistance be provided only to those 
who comply with the McBride principles which protect religious 
minorities. The fund was also cut below the $30 million the President 
requested to a level of $20 million.
  Mr. Speaker, I recognize the need for fiscal responsibility, but I 
believe that it is in America's best interest to invest globally. These 
cuts are short-sighted and will undermine America's stature 
internationally.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the foreign operations appropriations 
conference report.

                              {time}  1700

  Let me finally add that I was also disappointed, as one who is deeply 
concerned about human rights in Northern Ireland, that the conference 
report does not require that United States assistance be provided only 
to those who comply with the McBride principles which protect religious 
minorities. The fund was cut below $30 million; the President requested 
to a level of $20 million.
  Mr. Speaker, I recognize the need for fiscal responsibility, but I 
believe that it is in America's best interest to invest globally. These 
cuts are shortsighted and will undermine America's stature 
internationally. I urge my colleagues to oppose the foreign operations 
cuts.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon [Mr. Bunn], who is a member of our Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs.
  Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan] for yielding this 

[[Page H11535]]

time to me, thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Wilson], and the subcommittee staff for all their hard work on this 
vital bill. We worked together to protect aid to our friends like 
Turkey, one of our most important and loyal NATO allies. Although this 
bill cuts over $1.6 billion from last year, it does retain important 
programs like child survival, peace programs for the Middle East, and 
military financing for our allies. Foreign aid promotes U.S. national 
interests and gives the President the diplomatic tools necessary before 
resorting to any military force.
  I am proud to support this bill, and I think it moves us forward in 
being the key player in the world, and I think that we have done a 
terrific job with the limited resources we have to maintain that role.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
urge the passage of the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I have only one other request for time; 
that is the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke], and he is not here, so, 
with that, I will agree to close.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say this is the best bill we can get. It 
cuts spending. It gives the administration the flexibility that they 
need to have an effective foreign policy, and I would encourage an 
``aye'' vote on this.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to a provision in the 
foreign operations appropriations for fiscal year 1996 conference 
report that weakens current law prohibitions on direct aid to 
Azerbaijan.
  During conference, a provision was added that will weaken section 907 
of the Freedom Support Act, prohibiting direct government-to-government 
assistance between the United States and Azerbaijan until that country 
lifts its blockade of Armenia.
  This provision was stripped from the House version of this bill after 
a lengthy floor debate that went on for over 2\1/2\ hours. In 
recognition of the House's firm action on this matter, the Senate opted 
not to include similar language in their version. The disregard of the 
will of both the House and Senate on this matter by the conferees is 
simply unacceptable.
  Until the devastating blockade being imposed on Armenia by its 
hostile neighbor Azerbaijan is lifted, we cannot afford to compromise 
our principles by relaxing restrictions under section 907 to allow aid 
to Azerbaijan. The government of Azerbaijan has taken no steps to lift 
the blockade or even allowed the transport of humanitarian aid to 
Armenia through its borders. Given these facts, I firmly believe that a 
change in the law is unwarranted.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker I rise in opposition to the provision lifting 
the ban on direct United States aid to the Government of Azerbaijan, as 
long as Azerbaijan continues its brutal blockade of Armenia and 
Nagorno-Karabagh.
  Just 4 months ago the House of Representatives passed the Visclosky 
amendment with overwhelming support. The Visclosky amendment would 
continue the current ban on direct United States aid to the Government 
of Azerbaijan, as long as Azerbaijan continues its blockade of Armenia 
and Nagorno-Karabagh. The Visclosky amendment did not forbid 
humanitarian assistance to the people of Azerbaijan, only direct United 
States aid to the Government of Azerbaijan.
  How can it be, Mr. Speaker, that the conference report provides 
direct United States aid to the Government of Azerbaijan, when this 
House overwhelmingly rejected such aid, and the Senate bill preserved 
the current ban? I will tell my colleagues the simple truth of the 
matter, as I did when the House debated the Visclosky amendment 4 
months ago. It is greed, simple greed. It is the oil of Azerbaijan, and 
the desire of some to profit from that oil by helping the Government of 
Azerbaijan to build the infrastructure to extract and transport that 
oil.
  Since 1992 the United States has said that the Government of 
Azerbaijan will not receive direct Untied States aid as long as 
Azerbaijan continues its blockade of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh. This 
blockage has prevented the delivery of assistance to 300,000 Armenian 
refugees and obstructed the rebuilding of earthquake damage which left 
500,000 people in Armenia homeless. The blockade by the Government of 
Azerbaijan has cut off the transport of food, fuel, medicine and other 
humanitarian assistance to the people of Armenia. Unless and until 
Azerbaijan removes its blockade of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh and 
stops its oppressive conduct toward the Armenia people, the United 
States should continue to forbid direct United States aid to the 
Government of Azerbaijan.
  I strongly supported the Visclosky amendment when it was before the 
House 4 months ago. The House spoke clearly on this issue by passing 
the Visclosky amendment with overwhelming support. I joined with many 
of my colleagues in the House and wrote to the members of the 
conference committee to urge them to preserve the Visclosky amendment. 
I also wrote to the chairman of the Rules Committee in support of the 
Visclosky amendment. I deeply regret that the rule accompanying the 
conference report protects a provision lifting the ban on direct United 
States aid to the Government of Azerbaijan.
  Mr. Speaker, in this time of crisis the people of Armenia need our 
strong support. As long as the Government of Azerbaijan continues to 
strangle the Armenian people by this blockade, the United States should 
stand resolute and firm in the position that we will not provide 
assistance to the Government of Azerbaijan.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
conference report on Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996 
(H.R. 1868). This bipartisan legislation passed the House last July 11 
on a vote of 333 to 89 and passed the Senate on September 21 by a vote 
of 91 to 9. The overall bill appropriates $202 million more than the 
House bill, but $2.7 billion less than President Clinton's request and 
$1.5 billion less than the fiscal year 1995 appropriations level.
  As our Nation's only democratic ally in the region, it is important 
for the United States to continue to play a role in assisting Israel's 
fight against terrorism, radicalism and the proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction. It should be noted that this assistance is of help 
not only to Israel, but 70 percent of the aid is spent in the United 
States, and thus creates new jobs, economic expansion and opens up new 
markets for United States exports. While being ever mindful of ways to 
find efficiencies within the Federal budget, the foreign operations 
budget consist of less than 1 percent of the Federal budget and yet 
helps create nearly 1 million domestic jobs.
  I also want to take time to congratulate both the House and Senate 
for its leadership and swiftness in overwhelming passage of S. 1322, 
The Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act of 1995. With over 
180 United States Embassies around the world, only Israel has been 
denied the right to have its American Embassy located in its capital 
city. While Jerusalem is a holy city for three major world religions 
and home to thousands of religious worshipers, the state of Israel has 
never denied people of any faith from worshiping in Jerusalem. Now that 
the peace process is progressing, relocating the U.S. Embassy from Tel 
Aviv to Jerusalem will hopefully strengthen that peace process.
  Israel has been a trustworthy ally in a troubled and unstable region 
of the world, and it is my view that passage of these two bipartisan 
bills will help the United States reconfirm its strong commitment to 
Israel, to human rights, and to peace.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, it is with truly mixed 
emotions that I today will vote in support of this conference report.
  There is much in this report that is good, and for the most part of 
those measures which prompted me to support the bill when it was on the 
House floor remain.
  This bill continues our historic and important commitment to 
advancing peace in the Middle East. Israel is our strongest ally and is 
the only democracy in an unstable, volatile, and important region.
  The American people have been partners with Israel in difficult days, 
and today as the prospects for peace appear more promising, we must 
continue to be a steadfast ally.
  This bill also makes important refinements in the Middle East Peace 
Facilitation Act, toughening standards that apply to actions by the 
PLO.
  As well, this bill includes several provisions which continue our 
commitment to support the people of Armenia. I applaud the inclusion of 
the earmark for Armenia, the cap on aid to Turkey, and the inclusion of 
the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Relief Act.
  These are good provisions. The United States must be beside the 
people of Armenia in their struggle against aggressors.
  Unfortunately, the conference ignored the will of the House on 
section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. After two and a half hours of 
debate, on June 29 the House voted to maintain a strong Freedom Support 
Act and says to Azerbaijan, that we will not give you aid until you end 
your unjust blockade of Armenia.
  This was right then. And it is right today.
  What is wrong, in fact unconscionable, is to have Conferees turn 
their back on the expressed will of the House.
  Democracy is based upon the simple idea that votes matter, that when 
people freely express what they believe, and the majority speaks, that 
they will be heard. By ripping the heart out of the Freedom Support 
Act, the conference report cavalierly said that votes do not stand for 
anything.
  This back room deal is beneath this Congress. As people in struggling 
democracies 

[[Page H11536]]

look to us to set an example, it is tragic that we set such a poor 
example in the very bill that defines how we relate to the rest of the 
world.
  Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill. I support much that is in it, 
but deplore what has been added and how that was done.
  Those of us--and I remind you that it is the majority of us--who 
believe in a strong Freedom Support Act, will take our fight to another 
day.
  We will not give up.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, Chechnya has entered the stage of a 
precarious balance between war and peace, one which is likely to 
continue for some time. The peace negotiations are currently 
deadlocked. The discussion of political issues, including the status of 
Chechnya, is supposed to take place once the military agreements have 
been implemented. However, the key military elements of the cease-fire 
agreement--the decommissioning of Chechen weapons, the withdrawal of 
Russian troops and the release of prisoners--are far from complete. And 
given the size of the chasm that exists between the two sides on these 
issues, it is unlikely that the basic armistice agreements will be 
implemented anytime soon.
  Therefore, I am very encouraged by the fact that the conference 
report's statement of managers calls for no more than $195 million for 
aid to Russia, with the remaining $446 million in the Newly Independent 
States account to be used for aid to the other republics. My amendment, 
which was adopted as part of the original House-passed bill, cut and 
then placed limits on the use of funds for Russia in response to its 
continued aggression in Chechnya.
  Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the discussion of political issues is 
important for us to consider as we conclude our deliberations of this 
year's foreign aid appropriation to Russia. Relating to the issue of 
prisoner exchanges, Russian and Chechen negotiators in Grozny agreed 
initially to exchange all prisoners of war and other people forcibly 
detained during the conflict. However, this argument began to unravel 
when it became clear that the two sides could not agree on the actual 
number of prisoners held. With all of the charges and countercharges 
and confusion on both sides, it does not appear that this exchange will 
be resolved anytime soon.
  In the area of decommissioning weaponry, the Russian-Chechen 
armistice agreement provisions have created a truly confusing and 
frustrating situation. Russian forces continue to confiscate weapons 
while the armistice clearly stipulated that Chechens were to be 
compensated for turning over their weapons. But this was not the most 
serious post-armistice harassment perpetrated by the Russian military. 
On August 19, when the decommissioning of arms began, Russian soldiers 
opened fire on the village of Achkhoi-Martan, killing two children. The 
Russian military falsely informed the media that the children had been 
killed by an exploding mine.
  However, we should be thankful that gradually, the Chechens are 
gaining control over this situation. Not only are the rank and file 
paramilitary Chechens returning to their homes, but also the commanders 
for whom the Russian intelligence services continue to search. While 
the head of the new National Salvation government says that he controls 
90 percent of the Chechen territory, their authority in fact extends 
over Grozny only in the daytime. At night it is reported, that their 
power does not extend beyond the territory of Russian troops quarters, 
check points and commandant's offices.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to remain mindful of the delicate 
balance between war and peace in Chechnya. I further urge my colleagues 
to be cognizant of Russia's continued presence in Chechnya when voting 
to provide $195 million to the Government of Russia.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time to reassess our national budgetary 
priorities. In the past U.S. tax dollars have fostered democracy and 
fought poverty and disease throughout the world. I cannot in good 
conscience, however, vote for aid to foreign nations when America faces 
severe problems here at home. Thirty-seven million Americans lack 
health insurance, too many students are graduating from school 
unprepared to compete in the world market, and the United States is 
facing a huge Federal deficit. We cannot send aid to every corner of 
the world, and also make a serious commitment to tackling our problems 
at home. We simply cannot afford it all, and our U.S. foreign 
assistance program must therefore be restructured and returned.
  While I support foreign aid in instances where there is a 
demonstrated humanitarian need, or when U.S. national security dictates 
protecting strategic and regional interests, I believe that we must 
take a serious look at the ways in which the United States has provided 
aid in the past. Simple cash or military aid that does not directly 
foster economic growth abroad may not be in our long-term interests. We 
must consider restructuring our foreign aid program to emphasize 
expanding U.S. exports, developing future markets for our products and 
encouraging economic development in other countries that are important 
to our national security. As long as we face demanding problems here at 
home and fail to reform the outdated manner in which we give foreign 
aid, I cannot support this foreign aid bills.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, having no further requests for time, I 
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on 
the conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.


                 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 conference 
report?
  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 Conference Report on the 
     bill H.R. 1868 to the Committee of Conference with 
     instructions to the managers on the part of the house to: 
     recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate 
     numbered 150, and concur therein with an amendment, as 
     follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert: : 
     Provided, That none of the funds made available under this 
     Act may be used to lobby for or against abortion.
       Sec. 518A. Coercive Population Control Methods.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or other law, 
     none of the funds appropriated by this Act may be made 
     available for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), 
     unless the President certifies to the appropriate 
     congressional committees that (1) the United Nations 
     Population Fund will terminate all family planning activities 
     in the People's Republic of China no later than May 1, 1996; 
     or (2) during the 12 months preceding such certification, 
     there have been no abortions as the result of coercion 
     associated with the family planning activities of the 
     national government or other governmental entities within the 
     People's Republic of China. As used in this section the term 
     ``coercion'' includes physical duress or abuse, destruction 
     or confiscation of property, loss of means of livelihood, or 
     severe psychological pressure.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of 
rule XV, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the period of time within which the automatic vote by 
electronic device will be taken on the question of agreeing to the 
conference report.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 179, 
nays 245, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 751]

                               YEAS--179

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

[[Page H11537]]

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

                               NAYS--245

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Coleman
     Fields (LA)
     Gephardt
     Moakley
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Tucker
     Weldon (PA)
     Williams

                              {time}  1727

  Messrs. JOHNSON of Texas, EWING, HOKE, FRANKS of Connecticut, 
BAESLER, and HAMILTON changed their vote for ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. PAYNE of New Jersey, FRELINGHUYSEN, GILMAN, FRANKS of New 
Jersey, GREENWOOD, MINGE, CRAMER, DAVIS, FOLEY, KLECZKA, EHRLICH, and 
KOLBE, Ms. DUNN, and Miss COLLINS of Michigan changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). The question is on the 
conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 351, 
nays 71, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 752]

                               YEAS--351

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     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
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     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
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heineman
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--71

     Barrett (NE)
     Becerra
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunning
     Chenoweth
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Everett
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Houghton
     Jacobs
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Lincoln
     Lucas
     Martinez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Myers
     Neumann
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Pombo
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Sanders
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Volkmer
     Watt (NC)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Coleman
     Fields (LA)
     Gephardt
     Hutchinson
     Moakley
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Saxton
     Torres
     Tucker
     Weldon (PA)
     
[[Page H11538]]


                              {time}  1734

  Mr. DOOLITTLE changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. RUSH and Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 752, I was inadvertently 
detained and missed the vote for final passage of the conference report 
on H.R. 1868. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''


  Limiting Debate on Motion Made in Order by House Resolution 249 to 
                    Dispose of Senate Amendment 115

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the 
motion made in order by House Resolution 249 to dispose of the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 115 be limited to 20 minutes equally 
divided and controlled as otherwise provided in the rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.


                       amendment in disagreement

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
disagreement.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Senate amendment No. 115: Page 44, line 19, after 
     ``lizations'' insert: : Provided, That in determining 
     eligibility for assistance from funds appropriated to carry 
     out section 104 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     nongovernmental and multilateral organizations shall not be 
     subjected to requirements more restrictive than the 
     requirements applicable to foreign governments for such 
     assistance: Provided further, That none of the funds made 
     available under this Act may be used to lobby for or against 
     abortion.


                     motion offered by mr. callahan

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The Speaker pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion.
  The text of the motion is as follows:

       Mr. Callahan moves that the House recede from its 
     disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 115, and 
     concur therein with an amendment, as follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert:
       : Provided, That none of the funds made available under 
     this Act may be used to lobby for or against abortion.


                  prohibition on funding for abortion

       Sec. 518A. (a) In General.--
       (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or 
     other law, none of the funds appropriated by this Act for 
     population assistance activities may be made available for 
     any foreign private, nongovernmental, or multilateral 
     organization until the organization certifies that it will 
     not during the period for which the funds are made available, 
     perform abortions in any foreign country, except where the 
     life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were 
     carried to term or in cases of forcible rape or incest.
       (2) Paragraph (1) may not be construed to apply to the 
     treatment of injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal 
     abortions or to assistance provided directly to the 
     government of a country.
       (b) Lobbying Activities.--
       (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or 
     other law, none of the funds appropriated by this Act for 
     population assistance activities may be made available for 
     any foreign private, nongovernmental, or multilateral 
     organization until the organization certifies that it will 
     not during the period for which the funds are made available, 
     violate the laws of any foreign country concerning the 
     circumstances under which abortion is permitted, regulated, 
     or prohibited.
       (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     paragraph (1) shall not apply to activities in opposition to 
     coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
       (c) Subsections (a) and (b) apply to funds made available 
     for a foreign organization either directly or as a 
     subcontractor or sub-grantee, and the required certifications 
     apply to activities in which the organization engages either 
     directly or through a subcontractor or subgrantee.
       (d) Coercive Population Control Methods.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of this Act or other law, none of the 
     funds appropriated by this Act may be made available for the 
     United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) unless the President 
     certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that 
     (1) the United Nations Population Fund will terminate all 
     family planning activities in the People's Republic of China 
     no later than March 1, 1996; or (2) during the 12 months 
     preceding such certification, there have been no abortions as 
     the result of coercion associated with the family planning 
     policies of the national government or other governmental 
     entities within the People's Republic of China. As used in 
     this section the term ``coercion'' includes physical duress 
     or abuse, destruction or confiscation of property, loss of 
     means of livelihood, or severe psychological pressure.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 249 and the 
order of the House, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] and a 
Member opposed will each be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am offering a motion today that is an attempt at a 
compromise on the Mexico City abortion policy. Except for a technical 
change, it is the same as I offered in conference. Unfortunately, the 
Senate rejected my offer.
  The original Mexico City abortion policy amendment was offered on the 
House floor by Mr. Smith of New Jersey, pursuant to the rule for 
consideration of the Foreign Operations bill.
  It passed by a vote of 243 to 187. However, my compromise proposal 
would modify the House language in the following ways:
  First, the Smith amendment as passed prohibited funding to both 
foreign and domestic organizations if they used non-Federal funds for 
abortions. The compromise would apply the funding limitation only to 
foreign organizations, either acting directly or as a subcontractor or 
subgrantee.
  Second, I would modify the provisions on lobbying to apply only to 
foreign organizations, acting in a foreign country. That would remove 
any hint of a constitutional problem with the amendment, as some have 
alleged.
  Third, I would modify the language on the U.N. Population Fund to 
remove the funding prohibition for UNFPA if the President certifies 
that the organization will terminate all family planning activities in 
China by March 1, 1996. The agreement between the U.N. Population Fund 
and China expires on December 31 of this year, and this proposal would 
give them 2 months to phase out any carry-over activities. Frankly, if 
China and the U.N. Population Fund sign a new agreement, then we should 
terminate funding for the organization.
  The modification to amendment no. 115 would also strike the Senate 
provision that puts into statute abortion policy that is contrary to 
the Mexico City policy. The language proposed by the Senate prohibiting 
the use of Federal funds to lobby for or against abortion would be 
retained.
  The effect of this amendment is to return to the original Mexico City 
policy as practiced by the Reagan administration.
  Frankly, I prefer the original House position on these matters. But I 
am interested in moving this conference agreement through the Congress, 
and I believe this proposal may be a way to do that.
  I would also like to note that this motion has the support of the 
original sponsor of the amendment, Mr. Smith of New Jersey. I 
appreciate his effort to work with the committee to fashion this 
language.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield my remaining time to 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Alabama yields the remaining time that he has to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith], which is 9 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Texas opposed to the 
motion?
  Mr. WILSON. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, family planning works and we should not 
allow differences in our domestic policy to interfere with foreign 
policy.
  The Mexico City policy allowed our country to make effective use of 
our foreign aid. Reimposing the Mexico City policy will hurt countless 
families throughout the world and increase the number of unintended 
pregnancies.
  Organizations like International Planned Parenthood offer basic 
health care screening and information on how to plan a family. Denying 
United States funds to organizations like International Planned 
Parenthood just does not make sense. It is arbitrary denial of 
assistance where it is needed.
  If we are serious, Mr. Speaker, about helping people not have 
unintended pregnancies, we should not impose the Mexico City policy. 
This policy works. Planned Parenthood works.

[[Page H11539]]

  Why do we not just let the rest of the world do what they are going 
to do as we always do what we want to do?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith].
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I stand today to remind 
Members of the debate that we had not too long ago and in support of 
the Callahan amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, the United Nations Fund for Population Assistance has 
not had a history of which it should be proud in terms of its 
relationship with the Chinese Government. While they may choose to say 
otherwise, forced abortions and sterilizations do occur in China today. 
When Mrs. Clinton was in China last month, she condemned this practice. 
We can do no less than to back her up.
  Last July, I had the opportunity to hear the testimony of Chinese men 
and women who had fled China after having experienced either a forced 
abortion or sterilization. One of these women was forcibly sterilized 
by the Chinese Government because she had the courage to pick up an 
abandoned baby girl by the side of the road. By adopting this little 
girl, she violated her quota of children although this little girl was 
not her birth child. This is anti-woman, both adult and child. It is 
also anti-family.
  As Members, we have a responsibility to speak out for these Chinese 
girls who are abandoned on the side of the road and placed in literal 
death houses where they are left to starve to death. It is time to say 
to the UNFPA, enough is enough. No more dancing around the issue. 
Americans are sick and tired of being mocked.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion 
before us. This motion aims to completely eliminate family planning aid 
overseas.
  Proponents of this language claim that it simply cuts abortion 
funding. What they have not told you is that abortion funding overseas 
has been prohibited since 1973. This language would cut abortion 
funding from its current level of zero to zero.
  Therefore, this motion goes after family planning.
  The world's population is growing at an unprecedented rate. In 40 
years our planet's population will more than double. As a responsible 
world leader, the United States must do more to deter the 
environmental, political, and health consequences of this explosive 
growth.
  One of the most important forms of aid that we provide to other 
countries is family planning assistance. No one can deny that the need 
for family planning services in developing countries is urgent and the 
aid we provide is both valuable and worthwhile.
  And let us not forget what family planning assistance means to women 
around the world. Complications of pregnancy, childbirth and unsafe 
abortion are the leading killers of women of reproductive age 
throughout the third world. One million women die each year as a result 
of reproductive health problems.
  Each year, 250,000 women die from unsafe abortions.
  Only 20 to 35 percent of women in Africa and Asia receive prenatal 
care.
  Five hundred million married women want contraceptives but cannot 
obtain them.
  Most of these disabilities and deaths could be prevented.
  This motion would defund family planning organizations that perform 
legal abortions--even if the abortion services are funded with non-U.S. 
money.
  The motion also cuts funds to the UNFPA, an organization that 
provides family planning and population assistance in over 140 
countries. The pretext for this provision is that the UNFPA operates in 
China, and therefore the funding must be cut. However, the law 
currently states that no United States funds can be used in UNFPA's 
China program. Proponents of this language are clearly using the 
deplorable situation in China as an excuse to eliminate funding for 
this highly successful and important family planning organization. The 
UNFPA is in no way linked to reported family planning abuses in China, 
and should not be held hostage to extremist anti-abortion rhetoric.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion. No matter how its 
proponents try to disguise it, this motion is ultimately intended to 
end U.S. family planning assistance overseas. A vote for this motion is 
a vote against sensible, cost-effective family planning programs.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Callahan amendment represents a proposed compromise 
with the Senate on the codification of the Mexico City policy, a policy 
that is supported by the vast majority of the American people.
  I think it is important to note that this language does nothing to 
reduce U.S. funding of international family planning programs. It 
merely prevents taxpayer money from going to fund promotion or 
performance of abortion.
  What we are trying to do in this amendment is to stop clouding the 
issue. To talk about private funds being used and no taxpayers' dollars 
being used is really quite deceptive. It does not really fool anybody. 
It is a shell game being played by these organizations. The American 
people do not want their taxpayer dollars being used to promote, 
perform, and support abortion policies around the world.
  Since rescinding the Mexico City policy, the Clinton administration 
has committed over $75 million to International Planned Parenthood 
which performs and promotes abortion as a method of family planning, 
and they have refused to sign because of their radicalism to the Mexico 
City policy.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, just 2 months ago, women from different 
nations, cultures, and religions came together at the United Nations 
World Conference on Women, in Beijing.
  At the Beijing conference, Mr. Speaker, women from around the world 
spoke about the need to increase access to family planning, 
particularly in the developing world, where an unwanted pregnancy is 
often a matter of life or death.
  If you believe that women, rich and poor, should have the right to 
choose safe motherhood, you must vote down the Callahan motion. If you 
believe that women should have the right to choose how many children 
they have and under what conditions, you must vote down the Callahan 
motion. If you believe that the United States has the obligation to 
support the United Nations in its efforts to slow the Earth's exploding 
population, and the misery that comes with it, you must vote down the 
Callahan motion.
  Support international family planning; support the conference report 
language for the foreign operations appropriations bill; vote down the 
Callahan motion.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].

                              {time}  1745

  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I have said it once and I will say it 
again.
  This debate is about more than just family planning in China or other 
countries. This debate is about the United States of America and a 
consistent policy that has been established from the beginning of this 
country and has been held forth until now.
  But through a weakening of the commitment and the resolve to never, 
never allow for public funding for abortions, especially overseas, just 
through the rhetoric and through a potential treaty, that consistent 
policy could be seriously, seriously diminished.
  Even as late as 1994, the General Conference on Population and 
Development held in Cairo reiterated that in no case should abortion be 
promotion as a method of family planning.
  Mr. Speaker, we take great pride in the fact we have established a 
new vision for America and we have begun to establish a new trust for 
this Congress by laying out promises that were made; promises that were 
kept. And I think in all cases we ought to be able to say to the 
American people, ``This is a promise that we have made and we will make 
it into the future; that there 

[[Page H11540]]

shall not be this kind of foreign policy that shall be initiated.''
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
Callahan-Smith amendment. There are those who are trying to sell this 
as a compromise amendment. This is not a compromise. It is one side 
compromising with itself.
  This amendment is still terrible in its impact on the poorest of the 
poor women of the world. Remember our policy in this country has always 
been antiabortion. Not one cent of this money goes for abortions when 
it goes overseas.
  With the Callahan-Smith amendment, it becomes antifamily planning. 
The key to this amendment is that no matter how sick or malnourished a 
woman may be, no matter that she is carrying a seriously malformed 
fetus, she can not have a health service, maybe in the only women's 
health clinic that she has access to, like others could have because 
they can afford to pay their doctor.
  These women that we are talking about do not have the options that 
Americans do. They do not have the many choices of health care 
providers so that they can get a medically necessary abortion from 
another source if the woman's health organization to which we provide 
family planning assistance is restricted from doing so. There are 
NGO's, nongovernmental organizations, that simply cannot accept these 
conditions, because the local law forbids it.
  Mr. Speaker, there are countries in this world where the only 
organization providing family planning is International Planned 
Parenthood. This would say that International Planned Parenthood could 
not have money. It would take us out of countries where the average 
number of children per woman of childbearing years is 7; the average 
number of children produced by a woman in her childbearing years is 7, 
and we are going to take out the only family planning organization 
present.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Callahan 
amendment. One point must be reiterated in this debate--this amendment 
has nothing to do with abortion. Current law already prohibits the use 
of U.S. funds for abortion For 20 years, foreign aid policy and law has 
clearly stated that U.S. funds cannot be used to pay for abortion 
services or to lobby on the issue.
  What this amendment does do is gut family planning programs--
resulting in more abortions.
  The Callahan amendment would deny funds to women's health 
organizations which use their own funds to perform abortions or lobby 
their governments on abortion policy. I urge my colleagues to recognize 
that the effect of this provision would be to kill family planning 
programs.
  This amendment is an international gag rule. As democracy movements 
are opening up public involvement in policymaking throughout the world, 
we are seeing many private, local organizations becoming more vocal 
about the harsh reality of women's health. When I participated in the 
international women's conferences in Cairo and Beijing, I heard 
thousands of nongovernmental organizations speaking out, telling the 
world about the lack of access to decent health care in developing 
countries and of the obstacles women face in choosing how many children 
they want to have and can afford to care for. This international gag 
rule would inhibit these groups from providing health information to 
the public and prevent them from expressing concerns about women's 
struggles because--quite simply--they need foreign assistance to 
provide services.
  The Callahan amendment is not a compromise because the restrictions 
would still impact groups throughout the world--those providers who 
best understand the local needs and problems. Supporters of the 
amendment argue that it would not impact U.S. groups, but, in fact, it 
will, because U.S. groups work closely with family planning partners in 
other countries.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly urge my colleagues to join in opposing the 
amendment.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I would like to point out once 
more, just in case there is any misunderstanding, the statement of the 
administration policy, that if the House language were included in the 
bill presented to the President, the Secretary of State would recommend 
to the President that he veto the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great respect for the deeply 
felt commitment of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] and the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] for their position, but in strong 
opposition to their proposal.
  You have heard it over and over again, and I will say it again: 
Current law is already antiabortion. This Callahan-Smith provision only 
makes it antifamily planning. Existing law prohibits use of U.S. funds 
for abortion activities. Our colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland 
[Mrs. Morella], pointed out that for 20 years there have been adequate 
protections in foreign aid law and policy, the Helms amendment.
  The House language is extreme because it would defund organizations 
that provide legal health services. Legitimate and effective women's 
health organizations would be punished under this amendment simply for 
providing family planning information. The target of the House 
provision is the U.N. Population Fund.
  Operating in 140 countries, UNFPA is the principal multilateral 
organization providing worldwide family planning and population 
assistance. UNFPA assistance is used for family planning and assistance 
and maternal and child care in the poorest and most remote regions of 
the world.
  Since its founding, UNFPA has saved the lives of countless women and 
children. Further limitations on the U.S. contributions to UNFPA are 
unnecessary. No United States funds can be used in UNFPA's China 
program. No UNFPA funding is linked in any way to family planning 
abuses in China. UNFPA does not condone or cover up coercion in China. 
The United States Government should not, as a matter of principle, hold 
family planning and UNFPA hostage to the legitimate concerns we all 
hold and share about forced abortions in China.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, a little over 3 months ago the House voted 
overwhelmingly on two important pro-life policies, these anticoercion 
policies contained in the Callahan motion.
  First, we voted to condition our support for the U.N. Population Fund 
on an end to UNFPA support for the forced abortion policy of the 
People's Republic of China. In recent months, the government-imposed 
nightmare of forced abortion and involuntary sterilization in China has 
taken yet another turn for the worse.
  Mr. Speaker, the brutal one-child-per-couple policy has been around 
since 1979. This means quite literally that brothers and sisters are 
illegal.
  In February of this year, the government announced a new intensified 
campaign against women who attempt to have a child without explicit 
government permission. The arrogant leaders in Beijing have decreed 
children should not be born, so population control cadres march out in 
lockstep and they force abortions on these women throughout the 
country.
  Yet, and I beg to differ with my good friend from California, the 
UNFPA continues to laud this program as a totally voluntary program. 
Nothing, Mr. Speaker, could be further from the truth. Dr. Sadik, from 
time and time again on national television and in various fora, is 
saying the Chinese program is voluntary. She is whitewashing, 
unfortunately, these heinous crimes against women and children. She has 
even recommended that the Chinese program be replicated and reproduced 
elsewhere around the world.

  Unfortunately, we should be lampooning and bringing scrutiny to these 
terrible human rights abuses, rather 

[[Page H11541]]

than giving money to organizations that act as cheerleaders.
  I was in Beijing, Mr. Speaker, when First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton 
gave an excellent speech on forced abortion. Unfortunately, she did not 
mention China, but everybody knew about whom she was talking.
  We need to see the words matched with deeds. Unfortunately, rhetoric 
and condemnations are not enough. This kind of language, similar to 
what we had in effect during the Reagan and Bush years, will send a 
clear, unmistakable message that coercion has no place in family 
planning programs.
  The other program or policy is the Mexico City policy, which simply 
seeks to erect a wall of separation between abortion and family 
planning. Again, the other side has suggested this is antifamily 
planning. Not true.
  In effect since 1984, unfortunately repealed by Mr. Clinton, this 
program and policy sent money to groups, including International 
Planned Parenthood Federation affiliates who would sign on the dotted 
line that they would not promote abortion as a method of family 
planning.
  If we are serious that these children who are killed by abortion have 
worth and are priceless and have value, it seems to me that we should 
be giving money only to those organizations that are truly committed to 
family planning and not those that have an agenda of promoting abortion 
globally as well as in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say finally, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Callahan] has done an excellent job in crafting, as chairman of this 
subcommittee, language that is a compromise. We have given in on some 
points. The language before us, I think, should pass muster in the 
Senate, and we hope that the President--maybe not the first time, but 
sometime in the near future--will sign this into law, because it is 
right. Children have value.
  Family planning is not reduced by a dime. By this language, it is 
conditioned only to those that promote family planning and not those 
that promote abortion.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to vote for this 
amendment, and would announce on behalf of the leadership that this 
will be the last vote of the evening.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). Pursuant to the rule, the 
previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Callahan].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232, 
noes 187, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 753]

                               AYES--232

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

                               NOES--187

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

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Borski
     Coleman
     Davis
     Fields (LA)
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Pomeroy
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Tucker
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1818

  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________