[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 33 (Tuesday, March 12, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2084-H2095]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1561, FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, 
                       FISCAL YEARS 1996 AND 1997

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 375, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1561) to consolidate the 
foreign affairs agencies of the United States; to authorize 
appropriations for the Department of State and related agencies for 
fiscal years 1996 and 1997; to responsibly reduce the authorizations of 
appropriations for U.S. foreign assistance programs for fiscal years 
1996 and 1997, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution, 375, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Friday, March 8, 1996, at page H1987.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] will each be recognized for 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I bring before the House, the conference 
agreement on H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for 
fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
  We bring to the floor a bill that eliminates at least one Federal 
agency, cuts spending $500 million before FY 1995 levels, and achieves 
savings of $1.7 billion over four years.
  The conference agreement requires the abolition of at least one 
agency from among the four international affairs agencies--the Arms 
Control and Disarmament Agency, the Agency for International 
Development, and the United States Information Agency and its 
consolidation into the Department of State.
  This consolidation--and the President is certainly encouraged to 
consolidate more than one agency--together with other provisions of the 
bill, will result in a savings in fiscal years 1996 through 1999 of at 
least $1.7 billion in the authorizations for programs under the control 
of the Committee on International Relations.
  The bill reauthorizes the Department of State and related agencies 
for fiscal years 1996 and 1997. Further, it authorizes, at reduced but 
manageable levels, the salary and expense accounts for the Departments 
of State, USIA, ACDA, and AID through 1999.
  In this manner we are able to ensure that savings in these accounts 
are planned for and achieved, as will be seen in the accompanying 
spreadsheet.
  Regrettably, the President already has stated his intention to veto 
this bill, which provides for the first measure of reform in our 
foreign affairs agencies in 50 years, including reforms his own 
administration proposed.
  With regard to consolidation, Secretary of State Warren Christopher 
last year suggested consolidating three outdated foreign affairs 
agencies into the State Department. Our bill requires the consolidation 
of only one agency.
  Our bill also provides for a number of foreign policy principles 
important to U.S. national interests.
  Our bill puts the Taiwan Relations Act at the center of our 
relations, allowing the United States to fully support Taiwan. The 
President, siding with the Chinese Communist government, seeks to limit 
our support for Taiwan by asserting that an Executive Agreement takes 
precedence over legislation by the U.S. Congress.
  On Vietnam, our bill conditions the expansion of United States 
relations with Vietnam on POW-MIA progress. The President, by 
disagreeing with this bill, stands with the Vietnamese Government and 
against the families of missing Americans.
  On the international housing program, our bill follows the GAO's 
advice and ends the AID Housing Guarantee Program, except in South 
Africa. By vetoing our bill, the President would continue this 
``international S&L,'' despite the GAO's warnings that the program will 
cost the taxpayers over $1 billion in loan losses.
  Our bill, for the first time, also provides that recipients of grants 
from the International Fund for Ireland abide by the MacBride 
Principles of fair employment in the North of Ireland.
  Our bill condemns Turkey's misguided policy of obstructing aid to 
Armenia by prohibiting assistance to any country that bars or obstructs 
delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid.
  Our bill contains a bipartisan provision requiring that foreign aid 
funds not spent after three years following their appropriation be 
returned to the U.S. Treasury.
  Our bill also contains 20 provisions to improve management of the 
State Department that the administration requested.
  They include authority to collect fees for visas and use the funds to 
improve our border security operations, and authority to collect from 
insurers for providing free health care to U.S. diplomats and their 
families at overseas posts, to name a few.
  We also provide higher spending levels for a very few programs, such 
as the Peace Corps and International Narcotics Control programs.
  H.R. 1561 also provides for reforms in the United Nations to refocus 
the U.N. on its traditional development and peacekeeping roles, 
preserves organizational flexibility for the agencies, provides for the 
humanitarian assistance and resettlement for refugees, promotes the 
rapid implementation of broadcasting into the non-democratic countries 
of Asia, and terminates United States participation in obsolete 
international organizations.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference agreement reflects a number of 
compromises between the House and the Senate and accommodates many of 
the most serious concerns raised by the administration and the 
minority.
  While the minority chose not to participate in the process, we made a 
sincere effort to meet their concerns.
  It was disappointing that we could not build within the 
administration and among many of our colleagues a consensus to organize 
the foreign affairs functions to meet the coming century.
  While we are bringing a solid Department of State and related 
agencies bill to the floor, many of us are disappointed that we could 
not build a consensus within the administration and among our 
democractic colleagues to organize the foreign affairs functions to 
meet the coming century.
  Because of bureaucratic inertia and a lack of vision, the Clinton 
administration has engaged in an all-out assault on any effort to 
revitalize, reinvigorate, reorganize, reform, restructure, or 
reconsider the foreign affairs programs of our Nation.

[[Page H2085]]

  The tragedy is that this bill reflects the failure of the Clinton 
administration to provide the foreign policy leadership in the early 
years of the post-cold-war era that was once provided by another 
Democratic administration--Harry Truman's--in the early years of the 
cold war era.
  Truman's administration--including the President, the Secretary of 
State, the Secretary of Defense, and hundreds of other competent and 
courageous public servants--were concerned with building institutions 
and about the quality and effectiveness of the institutions of 
government entrusted to them.
  The Truman years were years of an openness to new ideas and a 
willingness to experiment.
  Faced with a world situation and an American role in the world 
radically different from those that existed before the Second World 
War, President Truman, Secretary Marshall, Secretary Forrestal, 
Secretary Acheson, and others did what was necessary to adapt to the 
new era.
  This was the era in which the State Department was reformed from top 
to bottom, in which new agencies like USIA and the foreign aid agency 
were created, in which the Air Force was created, and authority over 
the Army, Navy, and Air Force was consolidated into one new Department 
of Defense. Intelligence matters were consolidated and placed in a 
newly created Central Intelligence Agency. The National Security 
Council was created.
  I could go on.
  The point is that in the years after the Second World War, our 
country was fortunate enough to have as the leaders of its foreign 
policy institutions great public servants who were concerned not only 
with creating a new policy for the new era, but in building the 
institutions to carry out the new policy.
  Today, the institutions of foreign policy built for the cold war era 
demand serious attention and will require hard work if the institutions 
are to serve our policy objectives in this post-cold-war era.
  The end of the cold war is not the only reason why these institutions 
need attention. Massive changes in the external environment in which 
these agencies operate also demand that these institutions be reformed 
and revitalized.
  The revitalization of the foreign policy institutions does not have 
to be an adversarial process with Congress imposing upon a reluctant 
bureaucracy reforms that the bureaucracy itself is unable to adopt.
  We were prepared, as the new Republican majority in Congress, to work 
collaboratively with the President and his Secretary of State to 
develop and carry out a program of reform and revitalization of these 
institutions.
  We in Congress were prepared to work in that great spirit of 
bipartisanship and executive-legislative collaboration that 
characterized the post-World War II era.
  Regretably our offers of cooperation were spurned.
  But the day will surely come--in less than a year, I believe--in 
which the leadership will be there to engage in a program of 
revitalizing the foreign affairs functions of our Government. There 
will eventually be leadership in foreign affairs who have the vision to 
create the foreign policy for the post-cold-war era and the courage to 
implement such a vision through institutional changes. Those whose 
vision is too unfocused and whose courage is too uncertain must give 
way to those who can provide the leadership that is so desperately 
lacking today.
  Those who oppose the reform and revitalization of the foreign affairs 
programs are the real isolationists because they have allowed 
themselves and their thinking to become isolated from the great changes 
that have taken place.
  They recognize the change in the world, but want to isolate 
themselves from the serious, hard work of adapting public institutions 
to the changes in the world.
  In a now-infamous memo, the A.I.D. Agency said its aim was to--and I 
quote--``delay, obfuscate and derail'' this bill.
  This conference report is a downpayment on our pledge to streamline 
and consolidate our foreign affairs apparatus for the first time in 50 
years to make them more effective and efficient.
  In his State of the Union speech 7 weeks ago, the President stated 
that, in his words, ``the era of big government is over.'' When 
Congress sends this bill to his desk in the Oval Office, we will see if 
the President truly meant what he said.

                                           FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1996 AND 1997                                           
                                                                    [In fiscal years]                                                                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         1995         1996         1996         1996         1996         1996         1997         1997         1997   
   International Affairs, Budget    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Function 150, Account            Actual      Request     H.R. 1561     Approps.      S. 908       Final      H.R. 1561      S. 908       Final   
                                      authority    authority    authority   conferences   authority    conference   authority    authority    conference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration of Foreign Affairs:                                                                                                                      
    Transition Fund................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........      125,000  ...........  ...........      100,000  ...........
    Diplomatic and Consular                                                                                                                             
     Programs......................    1,748,000    1,758,438    1,728,797    1,719,220    1,688,500    1,719,220    1,656,903    1,612,000    1,710,000
    Salaries and Expenses..........      383,972      374,350      366,276      365,146      368,000      365,146      335,287      373,000      357,000
    Capital Investment Fund........            0       32,800       20,000       16,400       32,800       16,400       20,000       32,800       16,400
    Protection of Foreign Missions                                                                                                                      
     and Officials.................        9,579        8,579        9,579        8,579        8,579        8,579        9,579        8,579       10,000
    Emergencies in the Diplomatic                                                                                                                       
     and Consular Services.........        6,500        6,000        6,000        6,000        6,000        6,000        6,000        6,000        6,000
    Payment to the American                                                                                                                             
     Institute in Taiwan...........       15,465       15,465       15,165       15,165       15,400       15,165       13,710       15,400       14,165
    Buying Power Maintenance.......      (5,223)            0            0            0  ...........            0            0  ...........            0
    Office of the Inspector General       23,850       24,250       23,469       27,369       23,350       27,369       21,469       23,000       27,000
    Security & Maintenance of U.S.                                                                                                                      
     Missions......................      391,760      421,760      391,760      385,760      401,760      385,760      369,860      401,760      380,000
    Representation Allowances......        4,780        4,800        4,780        4,500        4,500        4,500        4,780        4,500        4,500
    Repatriation Loans Program                                                                                                                          
     Account.......................          776          776          776          776          776          776          776          770          776
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................    2,579,459    2,647,218    2,566,602    2,548,915    2,674,665    2,548,915    2,438,364    2,577,809    2,525,841
                                    ====================================================================================================================
Assessed Contributions for                                                                                                                              
 Peacekeeping......................      518,687      445,000      445,000      225,000      445,000      445,000      300,000      375,000      375,000
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................      518,687      445,000      445,000      225,000      445,000      445,000      300,000      375,000      375,000
                                    ====================================================================================================================
International Conferences and                                                                                                                           
 Contingencies.....................        6,000        6,000        6,000        3,000        7,000        3,000        5,000        5,000        3,000
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................        6,000        6,000        6,000        3,000        7,000        3,000        5,000        5,000        3,000
                                    ====================================================================================================================
Assessed Contributions to                                                                                                                               
 Internat'l Orgs...................      872,661      923,057      873,505      700,000      777,000      850,000      828,388      777,000      840,000
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................      872,661      923,057      873,505      700,000      777,000      850,000      828,388      777,000      840,000
                                    ====================================================================================================================
Payment to the Asia Foundation.....       15,000       10,000       10,000        5,000        5,000        5,000        9,000        3,000       10,000
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................       15,000       10,000       10,000        5,000        5,000        5,000        9,000        3,000       10,000
                                    ====================================================================================================================
Migration and Refugee Assistance:                                                                                                                       
    Refugee Assistance.............      591,000      591,000      590,000      671,000      591,000      590,000      590,000      671,000      590,000
    Refugees to Israel.............       80,000       80,000       80,000  ...........       80,000       80,000       80,000  ...........       80,000
    Burmese Refugees...............  ...........  ...........        1,500  ...........  ...........        1,500        1,500  ...........        1,500
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................      671,000      671,000      671,500      671,000      671,000      671,500      671,500      671,000      671,000
                                    ====================================================================================================================
International Narcotics Control....      105,000      213,000      213,000      115,000  ...........      115,000      213,000  ...........      213,000
Peace Corps........................      231,345      234,000      219,745      205,000  ...........      210,000      215,000  ...........      234,000
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................      336,345      447,000      432,745      320,000            0      325,000      428,000            0      447,000

[[Page H2086]]

                                                                                                                                                        
Arms Control and Disarmament                                                                                                                            
 Agency:                                                                                                                                                
    Core programs..................       40,878       45,300       44,000       35,700       22,700       35,700       39,500            0       30,000
    Chemical Weapons Convention                                                                                                                         
     (CWC).........................        9,500       17,000            0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Cobra Dane Radar...............  ...........       14,000            0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Subtotal.......................       50,378       76,300       44,000       35,700       22,700       35,700       39,500            0       30,000
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Information Agency:                                                                                                                                
    Board for International                                                                                                                             
     Broadcasting..................      229,735            0            0  ...........  ...........  ...........            0  ...........  ...........
    BIB--Grants and Expenses.......        7,290            0            0  ...........  ...........  ...........            0  ...........  ...........
    Salaries and Expenses..........      475,645      496,002      445,645      445,645      429,000      445,645      402,080      387,000      440,000
    Technology Fund................            0       10,100        5,050        5,050       10,100        5,050        5,050        9,500        5,050
    East-West Center...............       24,500       20,000       15,000       11,750       20,000       11,750        8,000        8,000       11,750
    North-South Center.............        4,000        1,000        4,000        2,000  ...........        2,000        3,000  ...........        3,000
    Radio Construction.............       69,314       85,919       70,164       40,000       83,000       40,000       52,647       79,500       35,000
    International Broadcasting                                                                                                                          
     Operations....................      238,338      395,340      311,191      325,191      310,000      325,191      246,191      300,000      330,000
    Broadcasting to Cuba...........       24,809            0       24,809       24,809  ...........       24,809       24,809  ...........       24,809
    RFE/RL.........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........       75,000  ...........  ...........       75,000  ...........
    Israeli Relay Station..........      (2,000)  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
      Subtotal.....................    1,071,631    1,008,361      875,859      854,445      927,100      854,445      741,777      859,000      849,609
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Educational & Cultural Exchange                                                                                                                         
 Programs:                                                                                                                                              
    Fulbright......................      135,753      130,799      112,484      200,000      109,500      102,500       88,681      101,000       98,000
    S. Pacific Exchanges...........          900            0          900  ...........  ...........  ...........          900  ...........  ...........
    East Timorese Scholarships.....            0            0          800  ...........  ...........  ...........          800  ...........  ...........
    Cambodian Scholarships.........            0            0          141  ...........  ...........  ...........          141  ...........  ...........
    Tibetan Exchanges..............            0            0          500  ...........  ...........  ...........          500  ...........  ...........
    Other Programs.................      177,352      121,877       77,266  ...........      118,322       97,500       57,341      107,300       85,000
    Unspecified cuts...............     (40,726)  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
      Subtotal.....................      273,279      252,676      192,091      200,000      227,822      200,000      148,363      208,300      183,000
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Endowment for Democracy...       34,000       34,000       34,000       30,000       32,000       32,000       32,000       29,000       30,000
Radio Free Asia....................        5,000            0       10,000      (5,000)  ...........       10,000       10,000  ...........       10,000
Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship                                                                                                                          
 Prog. Trust Fund..................        2,800          300  ...........          300  ...........  ...........            0  ...........  ...........
Office of the Inspector General....        4,300        4,593        4,300     State IG        4,100     State IG        3,870        3,900     State IG
      Subtotal.....................       46,100       38,393       48,300       25,300       36,100       42,000       45,870       32,900       40,000
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency for International                                                                                                                                
 Development:                                                                                                                                           
    USAID Operating Expenses.......      515,500      529,000      465,774      465,750      432,000      465,000      419,196      389,000      465,000
    Operating Expenses--USAID                                                                                                                           
     Inspector General.............       39,118       39,118       35,206       30,200       35,000       30,200       30,685       31,500       27,000
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................      554,618      568,118      500,980      495,950      467,000      495,200      449,881      420,500      492,000
Housing Guarantee Program Account:                                                                                                                      
    Subsidy Appropriation..........       19,300       16,760            0        4,000  ...........        4,000            0  ...........            0
    Operating Expenses.............        8,000        7,240        7,000        7,000  ...........        7,000        6,000  ...........        6,000
      Subtotal.....................       27,300       24,000        7,000       11,000            0       11,000        6,000            0        6,000
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Internat'l Relations                                                                                                                              
       Committee total.............    7,022,458    7,117,623    6,673,582    6,095,310    6,260,387    6,486,760    6,111,643    5,929,509    6,472,950
                                    ====================================================================================================================
   Function 300 HIRC Jurisdiction                                                                                                                       
          State Department                                                                                                                              
International Commissions:                                                                                                                              
    International Boundary Waters                                                                                                                       
     Comm. (S&E)...................       12,858       13,858       13,858       12,058       12,500       12,058       19,372       12,300       19,372
    International Boundary Waters                                                                                                                       
     Comm. (Constr)................        6,644       10,398       10,393        6,644       10,000        6,644        9,353       10,000        9,000
    American Sections: IBC.........          740          740          740          640          740          640          666          720          666
    American Sections: IJC.........        3,550        3,550        3,500        3,360        3,500        3,360        3,195        3,500        3,195
    International Fisheries                                                                                                                             
     Commissions...................       14,669       14,669       14,669       14,669       14,669       14,669       13,202       14,400       13,202
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................       38,461       43,215       43,160       37,371       41,409       37,371       45,788       40,920       45,435
                                    ====================================================================================================================
      HIRC bill total..............    7,060,919    7,160,838    6,716,742    6,132,681    6,301,796    6,524,131    6,157,431    5,970,429    6,518,385
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings].
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to the conference report 
on H.R. 1561.
  Before I point out what I believe to be mistaken undertakings on 
behalf of our committee, I would like to point out that my friend, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], who happens not to be on the floor 
at this time, made a statement earlier regarding this bill which is not 
correct.
  He stated that this would be the first State Department authorization 
bill since 1985. Our research shows that that simply is not accurate. 
There has been a State Department authorization bill every year for the 
last 15 years authorized in 2-year increments.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I think what the gentleman meant, if we 
adopt this, it would be the first State authorization bill to be 
adopted, foreign aid authorization bill to be adopted since 1985.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, that is not what he 
said. I want it clearly understood there has not been an authorization 
bill for foreign aid since 1985, but that does not relate to this bill 
since the foreign aid authorization has been deleted from this measure.

                              {time}  1830

  I just wanted to point that out. I think that that will reflect 
accurately, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] needs to be 
mindful of that.
  This report has a myriad of problems, as illustrated by the fact that 
not one Democrat on the conference committee supported the final 
product. The President, as the chairman a moment ago has pointed out, 
has promised to veto it and correctly so. It reorganizes and eliminates 
foreign policy agencies because of political concerns, not because the 
changes will make operations more efficient.
  The report also cuts spending on our foreign aid programs too deeply. 
The minimal amounts that we spend in the first place reap benefits for 
us in expanded trade, better relations, a greater sphere of influence, 
just to mention a few things. But to cut back on our meager assistance 
is just plain shortsighted.
  This conference report is just another example of this Congress 
micromanaging foreign policy and preventing the President from doing 
his job. Foreign policy obviously is important. We cannot wish the 
world's problems away. Instead of retreating, we must have the 
flexibility to get involved so that we can help those in trouble and 
promote our own interests. The two goals are not incompatible, but they 
will be unachievable if this report is passed.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out one more thing, and that is the 
provision dealing with Taiwan. This simply is not the right time to 
bring this kind of provocative measure to the floor. The fact of the 
matter is, Taiwan is getting

[[Page H2087]]

ready to have an election and China is rumbling all over the place. For 
us to deal with this kind of measure stops us from being able to take 
the kinds of measures that are vitally necessary.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the 
gentleman what in the Taiwan Relations Act does he object to? In the 
language passed duly by the Congress, it is the law of our land. What 
does the gentleman object to?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, 
the repudiation at this time would destabilize what we have done, I 
would remind my friend. We have a longstanding policy that this United 
States has, both Republican and Democrat, toward China. What we will be 
doing is increasing the risk at the time of heightened tensions. I am 
not opposed to us talking about this, but I am talking about the 
timing.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
report to H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act.
  I would like to express my thanks to Chairman Ben Gilman and his 
staff for guiding this bill through rough waters and rocky terrain. It 
has not been easy, and he and his staff have done an admirable job.
  I would also like to thank Chairman Chris Smith for all of his work 
concerning a provision I will discuss in a moment concerning coercive 
population control policies.
  Before I do so, however, I would like to address some of the 
criticisms I have heard about this bill. We have before us today a bill 
that represents a genuine compromise on some very difficult issues.
  I certainly did not get everything I wanted in this bill. I thought 
my provision concerning U.N. voting coincidental was worthy of support 
and inclusion in the conference report. Dozens of Members could say the 
same thing about many of their provisions that have been left behind. 
Chairman Gilman went so far to leave his provisions concerning 
microenterprise projects out of the bill.
  But we all agreed to compromise in order to move the bill forward. 
That is called governing. It is a product of the democratic process. So 
when I hear people complain we have been unwilling to give in, and when 
I learn the President has pledged a veto of this bill despite all of 
our efforts, I begin to wonder who is serious about governing.
  This ``my way or the highway'' approach to Government is not going to 
cut it. The other side must be willing to give in on some issues. We 
have given in on the population issue. We have given in on foreign 
assistance provisions. We have given in on eliminating three agencies 
to only one. In contrast, I do not recall one single issue where the 
minority has compromised.
  I say this not out of malice but simply as a point of reference. I 
would hope we could move forward.
  This conference report contains a provision of particular 
significance which I alluded to earlier. It addresses the coercive 
population control policies employed by the Chinese Government.
  For over 1,000 days, a group of Chinese men have been held in the 
York County jail, which happens to be in my district. Their crime? 
These men fled China in fear of China's coercive abortion and 
sterilization policies.
  Had these individuals fled China for the United States during the 
years President Reagan and President Bush were in office, they would 
likely have been granted asylum in the United States years ago. Under 
Presidents Reagan and Bush, fear of repressive, coercive population 
control policies, which China clearly employs, was grounds for asylum. 
Under Reagan-Bush, these individuals would likely have been set free, 
and the Federal Government is paying over $1 million in taxpayer money 
each year to keep them locked up.
  Unfortunately, President Clinton changed the policy when he took 
office in the belief that fear of forced abortion or sterilization does 
not merit asylum in this country.
  H.R. 1561 would change U.S. law back to the Reagan-Bush policy that 
was the law of the land for years and which hardly resulted in our 
Nation being overrun by hordes of asylum seekers.
  The House will next week consider legislation to crack down on 
illegal immigrants. I am the first to say that illegal immigrants who 
have no grounds for asylum must be sent away. But it is wrong to make 
an example of these Chinese men and women who fear coercive population 
policies.
  This provision is supported by the Family Research Council, and 
various churches. This provision is humane, and most of all, it speaks 
well of America and Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank Chairman Gilman and Chairman Smith 
for their work on this bill and I urge all Members to support this 
conference report.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose this piece of legislation, the 
conference report. This is a bad bill. It is a bad bill for several 
reasons.
  First, we have to understand this is not foreign aid. This is a 
budget for the State Department, USAID, our own agencies.
  Under the Constitution, the President is empowered to conduct the 
U.S. foreign policy. This bill hamstrings the President in the exercise 
of that responsibility.
  First, it abolishes an agency indiscriminately. They do not tell us 
which agency. They do not say why. They do not indict the agency for 
malfeasance or any other problems. They just say abolish an agency. It 
is not real reform. It is reform purely for the sake of saying we had 
reform. It does not make any sense.
  We cannot manage a foreign policy by these kinds of arbitrary 
changes, moving boxes around without any meaningful purpose.
  Second, is deep and unreasonable cuts. This budget, this program, 
will hamstring the President in terms of his ability to retain 
qualified people. This budget and the cuts they propose will result in 
RIF's, layoffs, and the loss of highly talented people. We cannot run a 
foreign policy without qualified people. We have international 
responsibilities as a world leader.
  A couple of final very important points: This bill discourages burden 
sharing. We found out through Desert Storm that we need multilateral 
action. But by discouraging and inhibiting U.S. participation in the 
United Nations and other multilateral organizations, we discourage 
burden sharing, because other countries will say, ``If the United 
States does not participate, if the United States does not pay its 
dues, then why should we? If the United States is trying to pull back 
on its financial commitment, why should we commit when we are a much 
smaller country?''
  It discourages burden sharing at a time when we need to involve other 
countries.
  Finally, it limits U.S. population assistance programs. One of the 
biggest problems we will confront in the year 2000 and beyond is the 
question of an exploding population. Under this bill, as many as 7 
million couples will be denied the opportunity to get family planning 
assistance. I am not advocating any kind of coercive abortions, but I 
am saying people ought to be able to get information and assistance to 
engage in family planning.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], a senior member of our Committee 
on International Relations and the chairman of our Subcommittee on 
International Operations and Human Rights.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to advise the body that the gentleman's 
statement a moment ago was entirely wrong. There is nothing authorizing 
or providing for population control funds in this bill either way. It 
simply is silent on the issue. There is no foreign aid in this bill. 
That was dropped at

[[Page H2088]]

the insistence of the Democrats during the House-Senate conference 
committee, and it would have led to a filibuster beyond any doubt on 
the Senate side had we insisted that be in there. So it was dropped. It 
is not there.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some of my remarks this evening 
to my Democratic colleagues, because, frankly, I am astonished again by 
some of the disinformation going on about what is in the bill or not in 
the bill.
  I am also a little bit hurt by the suggestion this was not a 
bipartisan bill. The budget savings in the consolidation provisions are 
there, but they have been modified. There has been compromise with a 
capital ``C'' with regards to this bill to meet what we thought were 
the administration's objections. But the goal posts keep moving back.
  Let me speak primarily, however, to the human rights provisions which 
we have worked very, very hard in my Subcommittee on International 
Operations and Human Rights and in the full committee with the 
leadership of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  Opposition to the violation of fundamental human rights is not a 
partisan issue, and this bill contains stronger human rights provisions 
than any previous foreign relations authorization act that I have seen 
on this floor during my 16 years as a Member of this House. Frankly, 
they were even stronger when the bill passed the House, but we had to 
moderate some of them and we dropped others to meet the objections of 
the administration.
  I am very pleased that the Humanitarian Corridors Act is in this 
report. I offered that bill as a freestanding bill and as an amendment 
to the bill when it came up. It seems to me a very modest proposal to 
say that those countries that receive U.S. foreign assistance cannot 
impede or inhibit or proscribe the transiting of humanitarian aid to 
another country.
  I speak, of course, to Turkey and the fact they have disallowed 
humanitarian assistance to Armenia. It is important if we have 
relations and provide foreign aid that we say to our allies, allow 
these medicines and other kinds of assistance to get to our friends in 
Armenia.
  There is also the McBride Principles championed by our good and 
distinguished chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. That 
is in here. I just notice and would say parenthetically, Mr. Clinton 
just got the Irishman-of-the-Year award. He should not veto this bill. 
This will be the first time we codify the McBride Principles that many 
of us have talked about. Now we are going to do something about it in 
this legislation.
  There is also an authority to provide the Special Envoy to Tibet. It 
is not mandatory. I think it is a step forward in the right direction, 
so that human rights can be further recognized in that very troubled 
region of the world.
  The Migration and Refugee Assistance provisions come under our 
subcommittee. We, after hearings and hearing from all of the refugee 
community, have decided that it was very important that we hold 
harmless the refugee budget. The world is awash with refugees. We have 
to at least provide, I think, this modest amount of money to provide 
for them. There is $671 million in each of the fiscal years for refugee 
programs, $500,000 higher than the administration's 1996 request, and 
substantially higher than the estimates that the administration's 
requests were based on for 1997. So we held those refugee assistance 
accounts harmless.
  There is also allocation of funds for certain Burmese refugees and 
for the resettlement of refugees to Israel. They are carried over from 
the prior year. We have also authorized such funds that are necessary 
for the resettlement of certain Southeast Asia refugees in the high 
risk categories identified by the Lautenberg amendment, primarily those 
that served with the United States forces in the former government of 
South Vietnam, religious refugees and members of the Hmong ethnic 
minority from Laos.
  Subsection 1104(b) prohibits expenditures on programs involving 
repatriation to Vietnam, to Laos or Cambodia, unless the remaining 
asylum seekers have been or will be interviewed by United States 
immigration officers, and unless resettlement offers have been made or 
will be made to those found to be refugees under United States law.
  This provision was modified in conference to make it clear that the 
refugee status interviews can, under certain circumstances, be held in 
the asylum seeker's country of origin. This is to accommodate the 
administration's so-called Track Two plan for interviews in Vietnam. 
This plan will only work if we can somehow guarantee the safety of the 
asylum seekers during the interview process. We are not there yet, but 
this provision, which did pass the House 266 to 156 in a broad 
bipartisan vote, will help us with those boat people, so that we close 
out the comprehensive plan of action with honor and kindness, and not 
cruelty.
  The section on the Cuban immigration policies, and this is I think 
very timely, Mr. Chairman, this would require periodic reports on the 
Cuban Government's methods of enforcing its 1994 and 1995 anti-
immigration agreements with the United States, and on the treatment of 
persons returned by the United States to Cuba.


       section 1252, extension of certain adjudication provisions

  Mr. Speaker, this section extends the Lautenberg amendment, which 
identifies certain high-risk refugee categories and provides that 
applicants in these categories are presumed to be refugees if they 
assert both a fear of persecution and a credible basis for their fear 
of persecution. The high-risk categories include nationals or residents 
of an independent state of the former Soviet Union or Estonia, Latvia, 
or Lithuania who are Jews or evangelical Christians, as well as certain 
Southeast Asians. (See section 1104 above.) The provision would also 
extend until October 1, 1997, the Attorney General's ability to adjust 
the status of aliens who are nationals of an independent state of the 
former Soviet Union, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Vietnam, Laos, or 
Cambodia and were granted parole into the United States after August 
14, 1988, to the status of aliens lawfully admitted for permanent 
residence.


 section 1253, U.S. policy regarding the involuntary return of refugees

  The House-passed provision would have provided that no funds 
authorized by this act be used for the involuntary return of any person 
to a country in which he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution. 
This provision has been modified to meet DOS concerns. The conference 
provision omits the prohibition against using DOS funds to assist or 
promote such returns--to meet the argument that the House-passed 
provision might have been violated if a DOS official made a phone call. 
Also, the provision is now limited to refugee accounts, not all DOS 
accounts. The effect of this provision, therefore, is to provide that 
funds for refugee protection may not be used to forcibly repatriate 
people unless it has been determined that they are not refugees.


section 1255, persecution for resistance to coercive population control 
                                methods

  This section would provide that forced abortion, forced 
sterilization, or persecution for resistance to such measures are 
persecution on account of political opinion within the meaning of the 
refugee definition in the Immigration and Nationality Act. It would 
effectively reinstate the prior interpretation of the law, which was 
reversed by an INS order on August 5, 1994.


   sec. 1256, u.s. policy with respect to the involuntary return of 
                      persons subjected to torture

  This section would prohibit the use of funds authorized by this act 
in the involuntary return of any person to a place in which he or she 
is in serious danger of subjection to torture. This provision has been 
substantially modified to meet DOS concerns. The section now 
specifically subjects the definition of torture to all reservations, 
understandings, etc., adopted by the United States when it ratified the 
Convention Against Torture. The conference also eliminated the assist 
or promote language to which DOS objected. (See section 1254 above.)


      sec. 1304, responsibilities of bureau charged with refugees

  The House-passed provision would have established. This provision 
would have established a coordinator for human rights and refugees 
within the Office of the Secretary of State. It would also have 
established a statutory bureau of Refugee and Migration assistance. 
Under the House provision, the coordinator for human rights and 
refugees would supervise the Bureau of Refugee and Migration Assistance 
and the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, and would report 
directly to the Secretary of State. The conference substantially 
modified this provision to meet DOS concerns. The Department had argued 
that human rights and refugee protection are distinct functions 
requiring two separate bureaus, and also that the institution of a co-
ordinator who reported to the Secretary rather than an Undersecretary 
might have the unintended effect of isolating these bureaus. The

[[Page H2089]]

conference therefore modified the provision to specify only that the 
bureau with responsibility for refugee and migration and refugee 
assistance be independent of the bureau charged with responsibility for 
population policy. The department can, of course, still maintain a 
population office in another bureau, as it did prior to 1993. The 
present provision is designed to reinforce the principle that refugees 
are linked primarily to human rights problems, not demographic 
problems.
  Related human rights issues:


     sec. 1102(e), limitation on funding for undp programs in burma

  Reduces funding to the UNDP in each fiscal eyar by the estimated cost 
of UNDP projects in and for Burma, unless the President certifies that 
all such projects are directed toward the needs of the poor; are 
conducted through international or private voluntary organizations 
independent of the SLORC; do not benefit the SLORC; and are endorsed by 
the democratic leadership of the Burmese people.


            sec. 1408, conduct of certain exchange programs

  This section requires that exchanges with countries whose people do 
not enjoy freedom and democracy be carried out in cooperation with 
human rights and pro-democracy leaders in these countries. The 
administration successfully argued for the deletion of language that 
would have extended eligibility for scholarships and exchanges in such 
countries--including China, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos, and East Timor--
to exiles from these countries.


 sec. 1410, educational and cultural exchanges for tibetans and burmese

  This section carries over a provision of prior law to require that 
exiles from these countries be eligible for scholarships and exchange 
programs. In the absence of this provision, exiles would be excluded 
from eligibility for such programs, and the selection process would 
necessarily be conducted in cooperation with the regimes that rule 
Burma and Tibet.


        sec. 1611, reports to congress on bosnia and herzegovina

  This section requires periodic reports on human rights protection 
under the Dayton agreement, the status of refugees, and the treatment 
of the Albanian ethnic majority in Serb-held Kosova.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard about how this bill is pro-fiscal 
responsibility. It is also pro-human rights. I urge a ``yes'' vote on 
the conference report.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Johnston].
  Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I address this bill on two 
levels: No. 1, my interest in Africa; and, No. 2, just general foreign 
policy.

                              {time}  1845

  First, the bill cuts back the development funds for Africa. There is 
$800 million for 600 million people, and now that is gone.
  Next, the bill does not want to send peacekeeping forces to Africa, 
and we saw 400,000 people die in Rwanda because of that. Next, in spite 
of what the gentleman said, and I am sure the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Roth] will address this, too, the housing development funds are 
not there for future operations in South Africa.
  Now, by not addressing the problems created in the foreign ops 
appropriations bill, we are going to cut back population assistance 
funds, family planning. As the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn] said, 
7 million couples in the world in developing countries will not have 
any access to family planning information. People will starve in Africa 
because of this, and unwanted babies will be born.
  Now, let us talk about foreign policy. I almost feel that I am in a 
time warp going back to 1919 when they were voting to get out of the 
League of Nations here. Mr. Speaker, we are slipping into isolationism, 
if there ever was one. There are more provisions in this bill that will 
stymie the President from having and operating foreign policy, and we 
cannot operate with 435 Secretaries of State here.
  We cannot micromanage foreign policy. This was not done by this body 
during the Bush administration. It was not done by this body in the 
Reagan administration. It is wrong, and we should kill this bill.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that we do allow the housing 
program in South Africa. We have not eliminated it. Apparently, the 
gentleman has some misinformation.
  Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield so 
that I may respond, the gentleman's bill has not eliminated what is in 
progress right now; but has eliminated any future allocations to the 
housing project.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, no, that is not correct. 
``The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to guarantees which 
have been issued for the benefit of the Republic of South Africa,'' and 
I am quoting from the bill itself.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Roth], the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Economic 
Policy and Trade.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I compliment the chairman of our Committee on 
International Relations and all the conferees for the excellent work on 
this bill. I think what has been lost sight of here today is that this 
bill is really a reform bill. We have included in this legislation, for 
example, two provisions that every Member of this House should support 
and can support.
  The first of these provisions will at long last curtail the foreign 
aid pipeline. When I bring up these issues, this is not something that 
we have taken out of the paper. This is our GAO accounting office which 
has made a recommendation to us, and this is where we are getting the 
initiatives for this particular legislation.
  For example, how many of our colleagues know that AID has a huge 
backlog of funds, some $8.5 billion at last count? These funds are left 
over from previous years going all the way back to 1987. Here we do not 
know where the next nickel is coming from, and we have a foreign aid 
pipeline that has money in it since 1987. That is nearly a decade.
  These funds are sitting there waiting for some foreign aid bureaucrat 
to dream up some way of spending the money. In 1991 the General 
Accounting Office did an investigation of the foreign aid pipeline, and 
here it is. This is what we are talking about. They concluded that 
these funds remaining should not be remaining for more than 2 years. 
They ought to be deauthorized after 2 years because it is an open 
invitation to waste, fraud, and abuse if we do not do that.
  For 5 years I have sponsored legislation to cut off the pipeline. 
This House passed that pipeline twice. Today it is incorporated into 
this bill, and I thank the conferees and the chairman of the Committee 
on International Relations for having the foresight and the intestinal 
fortitude to move forward with this plan.
  This provision alone will save nearly a half a billion dollars to our 
taxpayers. That has been sitting around in the pipeline, in this slush 
fund, for almost 10 years. This reform is long overdue, and today the 
House has a chance to do something about it. I say thank God. Let us 
put a halt to this foreign aid pipeline.
  Second is the termination to some degree of the AID Housing Guarantee 
Program, and we are quoting from the GAO report on the housing 
guarantee program. Now, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Johnston], my 
good friend, was talking about this in the well of the House. I think 
the reason that he got it wrong, Mr. Speaker, and that is not his 
fault, is that the White House the other day said that they were going 
to veto some bill because it cut out all the money for South Africa. 
The truth of it is that South Africa has been exempted, as the chairman 
of the committee has quoted from the bill itself.

  This is a loan guarantee program now where the American taxpayer 
cosigns for loans around the world. One hundred percent guarantees. 
Listen to this: 100 percent guarantees. We do not do that for our own 
people, but we are doing it all over the world.
  But what really aggravates a number of us is that when a borrower 
defaults anywhere in the world, the American taxpayer pays off the loan 
without question. We do not do that for our own home buyers here in the 
United States, yet we are doing it all over the world.
  In my subcommittee we conducted a 2-year bipartisan investigation of 
this plan, and here is what we found. The GAO also found this, and 
right here it is. They found unbelievable losses caused by 
incompetence, waste, and fraud.
  Here is the bottom line. We have some $2.7 billion in guarantees. The 
United States has already lost $542 million to cover the bad loans in 
23 other

[[Page H2090]]

countries, foreign countries. What is worse, GAO estimates right here 
in this report to our Congress that we are going to be losing another 
$500 million, half a billion dollars, just on these existing loans.
  What does that mean? It means we are losing about a billion dollars. 
What this means is that we have a billion-dollar loss here on $2.7 
billion in guarantees. That is a 40-percent loss that the American 
taxpayer is picking up for home loans around the world.
  This bill ends the program and imposes tough penalties on foreign 
governments which would default on these loans. This is a provision 
which my subcommittee originated. It will stop the losses and collect 
the money that is owed to us.
  I cannot see why this Congress would want to continue to spend 
hundreds of billions of dollars that we know will go into waste, fraud, 
and abuse. We should not, and therefore we should vote for this 
conference report.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, when this bill came before the House last 
spring, it was titled then ``The American Overseas Interest Act.'' At 
the time I voted against the bill, and I will have to vote against this 
conference report. A better title then, as now, would have been ``The 
American Leadership Reduction and Avoidance Act.''
  The House-passed bill sought to force a reduction in American 
leadership in the world. It cut funding below levels needed to conduct 
foreign policy effectively. It placed severe limitations on population 
assistance programs and was riddled with policy directives designed to 
restrict the President's ability to conduct foreign policy.
  Just as bad, the bill included provisions to eliminate the U.S. 
Information Agency, the Agency for International Development, and the 
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
  I had hoped the conferees might fix the bill's defects enough so I 
could support the conference report. Unfortunately, that has not 
happened. The conference agreements funding provisions are no better 
than those in the original House version. It still contains devastating 
restrictions on population assistance, and there remain a variety of 
attempts to micromanage foreign policy at the expense of necessary 
Presidential prerogative.
  And with respect to the elimination of the three agencies, the only 
difference is that it contains a waiver now which gives the President 
the right to pick the victim and to protect any two agencies he chooses 
from elimination. Some may argue that this is an acceptable compromise 
because the President will be able to save USIA and AID, agencies that 
have the broadest mandates and constituencies.
  The assumption is that only the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency 
will be sacrificed to the forces of isolation and retrenchment. I do 
not believe that that is a compromise in any case that we can or should 
accept.
  Effective foreign policy should represent the pursuit of enlightened 
self-interest. And certainly one of the most pressing interests in 
American foreign policy right now is controlling the spread of weapons 
of mass destruction. This becomes all the more important as regional 
and ethnic conflicts continue to explode across the planet.
  Today more than ever before it is in our critical self-interest to 
maintain an independent agency that advocates, negotiates, implements, 
and verifies effective arms control agreements and those connected with 
nonproliferation disarmament policies generally. That agency is the 
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. We will do this country a great 
disservice if we sacrifice it under the wrong-headed choices that are 
required under this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, because of its independent status, ACDA brings to the 
policy table an expert and undiluted arms control viewpoint. Often, 
this viewpoint differs from the State Department's perspective, which 
cannot focus solely or primarily on arms control issues. This is why 
ACDA was created and that is why ACDA has continued to prove its worth 
to U.S. national security over the years.
  This bill would probably eliminate ACDA's independent voice on arms 
control. By presumably submerging some vestige of ACDA in the State 
Department, direct access to the President, the National Security 
Adviser, and the Secretary of State on arms control issues, now 
authorized to the Director of ACDA, would be gone, along with direct 
ACDA participation in the interagency policymaking process where 
significant arms control and nonproliferation decisions are made.
  The supporters of the bill claim that ACDA is a cold-war relic that's 
no longer relevant. This claim shows them to be out of touch with the 
realities of the foreign policy environment we face. Given the threat 
of a revival of Russian nationalism and military expansion, and the new 
dangers of the post-cold-war world, ACDA is a relic today only if 
weapons of mass destruction are a rumor and the threats of 
proliferation are a myth.
  The authors of H.R. 1561 claim that it would save money by 
eliminating an independent ACDA. In fact, according to 
the Congressional Research Service, it will cost $10 million to 
eliminate ACDA.

  ACDA's basic annual budget is $50 million. According to the U.S. 
Strategic Command, existing strategic arms treaties save about $100 
billion a year. Since these treaties took about a decade to negotiate, 
you could argue that there's a payoff of 200 to 1 from ACDA. That 
argument may be a bit of a reach, but I suspect that the impact of this 
ill-conceived legislation may well be the reverse--one bill and 200 new 
problems caused by the disruption, dislocation, and crippling 
reductions contained in this bill.
  The compromise in this conference agreement to sacrifice ACDA alone 
comes at exactly the wrong moment--as the U.S. Government is pursuing 
the biggest and broadest arms control and nonproliferation agenda in 
history. Now is not the time to be dismantling the one agency whose 
sole mandate is to formulate, negotiate, and verify arms control, and 
nonproliferation policies and agreements.
  Now is the time to retain ACDA and to let it build on its past 
successes. I urge a vote against this conference report.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], a senior member of our Committee on 
International Relations and the distinguished chairman of our 
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support for the 
conference report on H.R. 1561. As vice chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations, this Member has worked over a period of some 
months with his colleagues to craft this conference report; however, no 
one has worked harder than the distinguished gentleman from New York, 
Chairman Gilman, who has skillfully navigated a difficult process to 
produce this legislation.
  There are many important provisions in this conference report, many 
of which my colleagues will discuss. This Member will discuss only a 
few key provisions.
  First, it should be remembered that many of the Members elected to 
the 104th Congress came to this body with a strong commitment to reduce 
government and eliminate unnecessary agencies. Attempt have been made, 
and overall spending has been reduced somewhat, but all sizable Federal 
agencies thus far have seemed impervious to elimination.
  But with this conference report, Mr. Speaker, the Congress will be 
consolidating and eliminating agencies. It is true that the President 
is given the discretion to decide which of three agencies--AID, USIA, 
or ACDA--would be folded into the State Department, but the net effect 
would be to eliminate at least one unnecessary and duplicative agency. 
Each Member of this body who votes for this legislation will be able to 
return to their district and point to the elimination of at least one 
agency while preserving those important functions now performed by 
ACDA, USIA, or AID.
  And, this Member would tell his colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle that the conference report's plan to reduce agencies is wholly in 
keeping with Secretary of State Christopher's initial proposals to 
overhaul the U.S. foreign policy apparatus--a plan that regrettably 
fell by the wayside early in this administration.
  Another major accomplishment of H.R. 1561 is the elimination of the 
Housing Guarantee Program as it operates in most countries. This 
program, which was created to guarantee loans made by U.S. investors to 
support shelter-related projects in developing countries, has evolved 
into a terribly inefficient and badly mismanaged fiasco that is losing 
tens of millions of dollars

[[Page H2091]]

annually. Indeed, a recent study by the General Accounting Office 
estimates that the Housing Guarantee Program may end up costing the 
United States $1 billion in loan default and other costs. It is a 
program that deserves to die, Mr. Speaker, and enactment of this 
conference report would terminate it in most areas.
  Yet another major foreign policy concern drafted by this Member and 
by the H.R. 1561 conference report is aimed at ensuring that the 
Congress retains some measure of responsibility for our relations with 
North Korea. Mr. Speaker, in its haste to ensure that North Korea 
receives assistance in the construction of lightwater nuclear reactors, 
this administration has effectively bypassed the normal congressional 
review of foreign assistance. This legislation ensures that future 
funds for North Korea for this particularly effort receive proper 
congressional scrutiny. This legislation also ensures that further 
progress in United States-North Korean relations are also dependent 
upon progress in the North-South dialog, progress on the final 
accounting for American MIA's in the Korean war, and cessation of North 
Korea's proliferation of ballistic missiles and support for 
international terrorism. This is an important policy message that this 
body needs to deliver.
  Last, Mr. Speaker, this Member would point to the resolution of 
longstanding claims, against frozen Iraqi assets. The H.R. 1561 
conference report ensures that American exporters and financial 
institutions with legitimate claims against the Government of Iraq for 
commercial activities initiated before the conflict will receive 
compensation out of Iraqi assets held since the Persian Gulf war. The 
result is that, after almost 6 years of arbitrary decisions, arrogance, 
and intransigence by the State Department's Office of Foreign Assets 
Control, these outstanding claims will be resolved. This is a matter of 
basic fairness, Mr. Speaker, but these are also important pro-growth, 
pro-trade provisions. It also should be noted that these provisions are 
not mentioned as one of the President's listed objections to this 
legislation.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this Member would urge his colleagues to 
support the conference report on H.R. 1561. There are certainly some 
provisions in this legislation, like some of the southeast Asia refugee 
provisions and the Tibet Envoy, which this Member cannot support. 
However, legislation is subject to necessary compromises and it is 
important that the Congress attempt to pass this authorization 
legislation.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1900

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the MacBride 
Principles and the provision in H.R. 1561 that embodies the MacBride 
Principles. Regrettably, the provision dealing with the MacBride 
Principles is one of the only positive portions of this terribly flawed 
bill. As a result, I will not be able to cast my vote in support of 
H.R. 1561.
  The MacBride Principles consist of nine fair employment principles. 
They are a code of conduct for United States companies doing business 
in Northern Ireland, and they call for nondiscriminatory United States 
investment in Northern Ireland.
  I strongly support greater accountability of organizations receiving 
United States assistance in Ireland, and I have demanded that these 
organizations comply with the MacBride Principles. During consideration 
of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996, I 
offered an amendment that urged all organizations receiving funding 
from the International Fund for Ireland to comply with the MacBride 
Principles. My amendment was included in the final version of the bill 
that was signed into law by President Clinton earlier this year.
  Recipients of United States aid must not be allowed to violate the 
human rights--including religious freedoms--of Catholics living in 
Northern Ireland. I offered my language on the MacBride Principles in 
the Foreign Operations bill out of deep concern for continued religious 
discrimination in Northern Ireland. But now, the MacBride Principles 
provision in this bill is being held hostage by the other unacceptable 
provisions of H.R. 1561.
  The administration has said it will veto this bill, and I will vote 
against it. H.R. 1561 does not eliminate all of the restrictions placed 
on international family planning assistance in the Foreign Operations 
Appropriations Act. These harmful provisions will severely impact women 
and children in developing nations. In fact, a study released last week 
by several populations assistance groups estimates that the decrease in 
international family planning funds will result in an increase of more 
than 1.5 million abortions worldwide.
  The bill also forces the administration to consolidate or eliminate 
several critically important foreign affairs agencies: it undercuts the 
United States ability to maintain its interests overseas, and it 
negatively impacts the U.S. leadership role in the United Nations by 
providing inadequate levels of funding and requiring unworkable 
notification requirements.
  Mr. Speaker, the MacBride Principles should be a cornerstone of 
United States foreign policy in Northern Ireland. That is why I 
strongly support efforts to tie U.S. assistance to these Principles. 
However, H.R. 1561 is a bad bill. I would hope that when President 
Clinton vetoes H.R. 1561--as he has promised to do--we can pass the 
MacBride Principles as an independent piece of legislation.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for 
yielding this time to me. I thank him for his consistent leadership in 
opposition to this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, we are at a crossroads in world 
history, really, and we find ourselves with tremendous responsibility 
on our shoulders. The whole rest of the world looks to us as the single 
superpower to lead them to a safer, to a fairer, a more prosperous 
world, and a world that reflects our principles of democracy, of 
freedom of expression, of freedom of religion, of respect for human 
rights, and three principal instruments that we have available to use 
to achieve these objectives are the Agency for International 
Development, U.S. Information Agency, and the Arms Control and 
Disarmament Agency.
  The Agency for International Development has, in fact, developed 
quite a pool of unspent money, as was cited earlier, but they have done 
that because they also want to use that agency for leverage, to get 
recipients to respect human rights, to respect the democratic process, 
to develop economically without exploiting the people. They Agency for 
International Development, in fact, generates far more profit revenue 
for American firms than we would ever invest in AID. What they are 
doing is developing the purchasing capability, particularly in Third 
World countries, that present market opportunities for American firms. 
They are streamlined, they are focused, they are a good agency.
  The U.S. Information Agency represents the opportunity to spread 
truth, which oftentimes is that it makes the difference between 
genocide and peaceful resolution of problems. We need more truth, 
unbiased truth. If we had more of it in Bosnia or in Rwanda, we might 
well not have had the genocide that happened. We need to be putting 
more investment in the U.S. Information Agency because it deserves 
credibility, and at a time when we see the proliferation of nuclear 
weapons and chemicals, biological weapons of mass destruction, why 
would we ever think of cutting back on the Arms Control and Disarmament 
Agency?
  So if we want a safer, a more productive, a fairer world that 
reflects our principles of democracy and freedom of expression, then we 
want to vote against this bill, and, if anything, we want to strengthen 
these three agencies.
  This is not a good bill; this is an isolationist bill. We ought to be 
moving forward and accepting the mantle of leadership that is thrust 
upon us now. It is a great opportunity. Let us not miss it.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I just hope my colleagues, 
particularly those who may be listening to this debate back in their 
offices, are very clear that there is nothing in

[[Page H2092]]

this bill that authorizes population control funding. There is no 
policy guidance either way. The Mexico City policy is not in here. I 
wish it had been, but it is not, and I would like to ask my friends on 
the Democratic side, perhaps the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], 
if he can just clarify so that everyone knows, when the Democratic 
substitute was offered in the conference committee, did it have 
language in it dealing with the population issue, did it authorize 
population or not?
  My understanding was it simply did not have section C, which is 
exactly what the conference report of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman] does not have, so that there is no authorization, population is 
not advanced, it is not pushed backwards. It is simply not in this 
bill.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. The gentleman is correct in that this bill does not deal 
with a number of the foreign aid issues.
  But where the gentleman is wrong is this was an opportunity to get 
rid of the harsh and unfair restrictions on the existing program.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Let me make it very clear, Mr. Speaker. I 
offered during the time that we were in the conference committee, and 
this really fleshed out where some people, particularly on the 
proabortion side, is on family planning. We would be more than happy to 
life any percentage restriction on population provided it has the very 
principled Mexico City policy that says no organization that performs 
abortions except for rape, incest or life of the mother gets money.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. I might 
say that the bill is better than the original bill that came before the 
House, and I know that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] has 
worked very hard to make the bill better, but it still is not good 
enough.
  I believe that American diplomacy is essential. I believe, as the 
world power that we are, we need to remain engaged in the world. This 
bill, in my opinion, goes in the opposite direction. It slashes money 
for foreign affairs agencies, it slashes money for foreign aid, it 
slashes money for arms control, it slashes money for peacekeeping. The 
people that serve our country in the Embassies around the world are 
very demoralized, and rightfully so. The bill has a serious 
isolationism bent.
  We cannot have it both ways, my colleagues. We cannot be the leader 
of the free world, indeed the leader of the world, and tell other 
countries that we want them to emulate us in terms of being more open, 
more democratic, a free society, and at the same time we are pulling 
back, putting our heads in the sand and being isolationist. We cannot 
have it both ways, and this clearly, in reducing the level of aid, in 
reducing the importance of foreign affairs and foreign involvement, we 
are truly going back to the days when the United States was an 
isolationist country. I do not think that is the direction in which we 
ought to go.
  Family planning; it pulls back in family planning as well. The 
country programs; it pulls back as well there.
  It seems to me that we spent so much money in the era of the cold 
war. We won that cold war. We beat the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union 
and the Eastern bloc countries crumbled. Did we spend billions and 
billions and billions of dollars on an arms race only to throw it all 
away? Now that we have won? To say that we do not want to stay engaged 
in the world? To say that we want to retrench and pull back?
  The American public believes that foreign aid is about 15 percent of 
our budget when in reality it is less than 1 percent of our budget, and 
in my opinion that is certainly not enough if we want to say that we 
are the leaders of the world, and we are. Nobody anointed us and said 
that we were the leaders. We choose to be the leaders, as well we 
should.
  I believe with leadership comes responsibility. I believe that, if we 
want to ensure that the fledgling democracies in this world continue to 
prosper and grow, then we have got to provide the help, we have got to 
provide the aid, especially with the developing countries. A little bit 
of aid goes such a long, long way.
  But what are we telling the world with this? We are saying that we 
want to step backwards into the era of isolationism.
  Now we have problems with the U.N. The U.N. has not always been an 
ideal or done what we like it to do, but I would think that the world 
would be a lot worse if we did not have a U.N., and here we are 
retrenching even there.
  So let me just say, if I may conclude to my colleagues, I think this 
bill goes in the wrong direction and it ought to be defeated.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Brownback], a member of our Committee on International 
Relations.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate our chairman on a fine 
bill, and I also want to congratulate the ranking member for his 
leadership for many years in this field.
  I rise in strong support of the conference report. The American 
people clearly want us to balance the budget, they want us to cut 
foreign aid bureaucracy, and this bill does that.
  This is not an isolationist bill. The United States cannot and should 
not engage in isolationism. But the world has changed. The cold war is 
over, and we need to reduce the apparatuses that are associated with 
that cold war in this time of tight budgets.
  And I have to disagree with some of my colleagues on the Democrat 
side of the aisle, that they would suggest that we are pulling back and 
being isolationist by some of the reforms of the cold war institutions 
and suggesting that the United States' leadership in the world is 
dependent upon having the United States Information Agency, and AID and 
ACDA when our real tools for leadership in the world and the reason the 
United States is the leading country of the world is a strong, vibrant, 
growing economy, a strong military apparatus and standing for 
principles, principles of freedom, and justice, and liberty, and those 
are the things that give the United States leadership. It is not 
bureaucracies, and there are fine people that are in these agencies, 
and they work hard, and they do a good job.
  But the truth of the matter is we are broke. We are $5 trillion in 
the hole, and the American people are far more concerned about health 
care for our children than they are about a foreign aid bureaucracy, 
and we should be far more concerned about Medicare than about foreign 
aid, and that is what this is about. This is about making tough 
decisions during times of tight budgets.
  I think this is a good bill in doing that, in changing the 
apparatuses. I think it should have eliminated the three international 
affairs agencies that were involved. But they compromised and went to 
one of the three and told the executive branch, ``You decide in working 
with this of what you think works best in your foreign policy decisions 
that you have.'' That seems prudent to me. They cut the operating 
budget of the State Department and related agencies by $1.3 billion, 
and in a time of tight budgets, when we are trying to increase health 
care for our children in this country, when we are trying to balance 
our own budget so we can have a strong economy, a strong military and 
stand for principle, those seem to me to be prudent and wise things to 
do. It reduces the program budgets of the State Department and related 
agencies by $500 million below the fiscal year 1995 funding levels. 
These are all things that are going to be necessary, that are 
necessary, to balance the budgets so the United States can continue to 
have the global leadership by virtue of having a strong economy, a 
strong military and standing for the principles that we always have.
  That is why I think this is a good bill. I congratulate the chairman 
on it.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill and urge 
the House to defeat this measure.
  I would like to just put this in the context of the history that I am 
aware of since I was elected to this House back in 1982. In every 
single Congress, with the Democrats controlling half of that in the 
House the entire period of time, the Republicans controlling the

[[Page H2093]]

Senate for the first 4 years that I was here, a Republican President 
for the first 12 of those 14 years, every single time the chairman of 
then the Committee on Foreign Affairs, working with the ranking member, 
and on a bipartisan basis, put together a State Department 
authorization bill that was bipartisan in nature, that had the support 
of the administration. Each and every time the State Department 
authorization bill was passed by a Congress, in some cases split, in 
some cases Democrat, and signed by a Republican President.
  Every effort was made to provide more executive branch flexibility in 
the operations of our foreign affairs, not less. At the same time, in 
the area of foreign aid, with the exception of one Congress, each and 
every Congress that I served in in this House, and again, that is since 
1983, the House passed a bipartisan foreign aid authorization bill that 
frequently got waylaid over in the Senate. One year we got a bill. In 
one of those Congresses on the issue of family planning and the 
abortion controversy, we failed here, but again, the fundamental 
approach was to do it on a bipartisan basis.
  When this bill came through this Congress last year, there was not 
one whit of effort to try and do a bipartisan bill. Everyone but 12 
Democrats voted against this bill. Now we come forward and we hear 
foreign aid has been dropped, but that is not quite an accurate 
statement. Foreign aid has been dropped except where a Member of the 
majority on the committee had a particular priority, so foreign aid was 
dropped, except we eliminated housing guarantees. Foreign aid 
authorization was dropped, except where we wanted to write something in 
on North Korea, or on humanitarian corridors, or on MacBride 
principles. We cherry-picked a few issues, the majority did, put them 
into a bill that was supposed to be just a State Department 
authorization bill, and then shoved it to the administration without 
one moment of time to talk about the pros and cons of forced 
consolidation against executive branch wishes.
  Should ACDA be consolidated and folded into the State Department or 
should it be separate? There is an argument, maybe it is not 
persuasive, but at least it takes a second to pause and think, that we 
want an independent arms control proliferation agency that is not going 
to be run by the State Department with a direct voice to the National 
Security Council to raise issues of arms control and nonproliferation 
when economic pressures that might exist otherwise cause the State 
Department to be less clear on those kind of issues.
  Should USIA be consolidated? There is at least an argument that 
having an independent agency involved in articulating the American 
point of view and a voice of truth and freedom to the world should not 
be under the direct control of our diplomatic services. Maybe it is not 
a compelling argument, but it is an argument.
  Should AID, the agency primarily focused with development assistance, 
be subordinated into the diplomatic service? Maybe, maybe not, but 
there are some good arguments against doing that, but the majority 
refused to spend time discussing the debate. They wanted to take home a 
trophy.
  They decided, as one Member of the majority just said on this floor.

       If this bill passes, all of you can go home and say you 
     collapsed one of our international relations agencies. It is 
     a trophy. No substantive arguments underlying the reason, 
     just let us do it to do it, to hell with the executive 
     branch, who cares what they want; forget the tradition of 
     bipartisan approaches to this issue.

  I think that is wrong. I think we ought to be providing sufficient 
resources, sufficient flexibility, and an underlying bipartisan 
approach to these critical issues around the world and the critical 
issues that are funded by the 150 accounts. This bill does not do it, 
so I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. GILLMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, very briefly, we have tried to 
make this bipartisan. I have had markups in my subcommittee, because 
much of this is from my subcommittee. We had no-shows at the 
subcommittee markups. At full committee we had lack of participation, 
and the same thing happened in the House-Senate conference committee.
  The substitute offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], 
the Democratic alternative, said exactly what this bill says on the 
issue of population control, nothing. His bill said it, our bill says 
it, nothing, so it is not an issue here.
  The issue of isolationist is absurd. When you have groups backing 
provisions of this bill like the United Israel Appeal, the American 
Jewish Committee, the American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, and 
a whole host of other groups, this is not an isolationist bill at all.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hamilton] has 7 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman] has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report. I do so because I think it fundamentally constrains the 
President's ability to conduct American foreign policy. It is an 
improvement over the previously passed House bill, but I think it has a 
long way to go before it becomes law.
  First, I think the conference report mandates a very far-reaching 
reorganization of the U.S. foreign policy apparatus. That, as far as I 
have been able to discern, has no real connection to the problems of 
American foreign policy. Second, I think the conference report does not 
give the President the flexibility he needs to conduct U.S. foreign 
policy and protect and promote U.S. interests.
  Third, I think it cuts too deeply into spending across the board for 
foreign policy, making it much more difficult to promote and protect 
U.S. interests.
  The President, of course, has promised to veto this conference report 
in its present form. I urge my colleagues to support the President and 
to defeat the conference report.
  With respect to reorganization, the conference report, as others have 
said, dictates to the President how he should organize the foreign 
policy agencies. -It dictates that at least one agency be eliminated. 
My view on this is that in the absence of any compelling evidence of 
the advantages of reorganization, which I really do not find here, I 
think the President should have the discretion to determine how to 
structure the foreign policy agencies.

  The Administration has already instituted several significant 
streamlining and reorganization proposals for the foreign policy 
agencies. For example, the State Department alone has cut 1,300 jobs.
  On the second point, the reduced funding for U.S. foreign policy I 
think damages our ability to carry out that policy. This conference 
report damages U.S. interests overseas by continuing to reduce funds 
available to operate overseas by about a half a billion dollars from 
1995 levels. That would force the United States to retreat from its 
presence overseas and reduce U.S. influence. Areas that would be hurt 
include diplomatic posts, payments for international organizations and 
peacekeeping, sustainable development, and public diplomacy.
  I think the point I would like to make on the funding dollars is that 
the cuts required by this conference report do not occur in a vacuum. 
For more than a decade now, the Congress has slashed spending for all 
categories of international affairs. Funding for economic and security 
assistance has been cut 10 percent in the last year alone, and that 
follows a 40 percent cut over the last decade. Spending for all 
international affairs accounts has been cut 45 percent in real terms in 
the last decade.
  Our ability to use the United Nations to further our interests has 
been hurt by our unwillingness to pay our share of the budget or to pay 
over $1 billion in arrears, and the United Nations, therefore, is on 
the brink of a financial crisis.
  I think all of us agree that we are in tight budgetary times. I have 
supported many of the cuts that I have indicated, but my sense now is 
that we have cut these accounts enough. We should draw the line before 
we take away too many resources and impair the President's ability to 
conduct foreign policy.
  Finally, the conference report damages U.S. foreign policy by 
imposing

[[Page H2094]]

too many restrictions on the President. This is not the time to be 
amending the Taiwan Relations Act. This is not the time to be tying the 
President's hands on relations with Vietnam. This is not the time to 
undercut U.S. efforts to reform the United Nations.
  The conference report does all of those things. It does undermine the 
ability of the President to conduct policy. We have many different 
views in this body on the policy restrictions. I am certain that there 
are provisions that many of my colleagues support, but when we add it 
all up, when I examine the impact of all of these policy restrictions 
provisions, I conclude that they constitute a serious infringement on 
the President's power to conduct foreign policy.
  So as we vote on this conference report, Mr. Speaker, I think Members 
should ask themselves this question: Does this bill help or does it 
hinder the President's ability to confront the many challenges we face 
in the world? I think the answer is that it hinders the President's 
ability to do that.
  Members of Congress expect the President to provide leadership in 
foreign policy, but at the same time, we should not deny the President 
the resources to provide that leadership. This conference report 
weakens the President's ability to lead at a time when the world badly 
needs U.S. leadership. That is not the way for the Congress to play a 
responsible role in the conduct of American foreign policy, and I urge 
my colleagues to defeat of the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have heard many important 
reasons in support of this conference report. This measure delivers on 
the President's pledge that the era of big government is over, and at 
the same time, this measure improves the State Department and the 
management of the United Nations, and at the same time supports our 
vital U.S. diplomatic missions.
  With regard to the MacBride principles included in the report, 
President Clinton, while Governor and candidate, stated

       I like this principle. I believe in it. I would encourage 
     my successor to embrace it. As President, I would encourage 
     all Governors to look at it and embrace it. I think it is a 
     good idea. I like them very much. I think it is a way to 
     encourage investment, because it is a way to stabilize the 
     political and economic climate in the work force by being 
     free of discrimination. The argument is made against the 
     principles in a country in which there is discrimination. I 
     just do not buy that.

  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this 
conference report. It enhances our Government abroad.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 1561. This bill is veto bait and 
ought to be sent back to committee.
  H.R. 1561 requires the elimination of three foreign policy agencies, 
the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency [ACDA], the United States 
Information Agency [USIA], and the Agency for International Development 
[AID], merging their functions into the Department of State. Under the 
bill the President must submit a plan to accomplish this reorganization 
by October 1 of this year in order to abolish these agencies by March 
1, 1997. The President's plan must save $1.7 billion over the next 4 
years.
  Mr. Speaker, the problems with this bill are many. H.R. 1561 forces 
the President to consolidate agencies, even though he is provided with 
waiver authority for two of the three, the funding levels are low 
enough that he will be forced to consolidate other functions in order 
to adhere to the authorization levels in future years. In addition, the 
bill requires an unrealistic timetable for presenting a plan and then 
actually closing agencies within a year from now. The transition 
provisions are so inadequate that they do not even provide for useful 
methods of downsizing such as employee buy-outs, which have proven 
popular at other agencies.
  H.R. 1561 also contains a variety of provisions which will harm our 
ability to participate in a number of international organizations 
ranging from the United Nations to the Inter-American Indian Institute. 
By either terminating our membership outright or requiring that we 
withhold a significant portion of our assessment, the bill ties the 
President's hands and hinders our ability to play an effective role in 
the international arena. There are many Members who agree that the 
United Nations is in need of reform. Many will agree that our 
assessment should be lower and most will agree that an independent U.N. 
Inspector General would be a valuable step. But to withhold our 
contributions and in effect bully the United Nations to go along will 
likely jeopardize progress already made in the areas of U.N. budgetary 
and management reform.
  Mr. Speaker, the President has said that he will veto the conference 
report. I say let's save him the trouble by defeating a bad bill and 
bringing back a genuine bipartisan State Department authorization bill 
that we can all support and the President can sign.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HAMILTON. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 172, not voting 33, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 59]

                               YEAS--226

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

                               NAYS--172

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta

[[Page H2095]]


     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Luther
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--33

     Barton
     Brewster
     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Cubin
     de la Garza
     DeLay
     Durbin
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Green
     Johnson, Sam
     Laughlin
     McDade
     Moakley
     Ortiz
     Rose
     Rush
     Stark
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Waxman
     Wilson

                              {time}  1947

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. DeLay for, with Mr. Ortiz against.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. LOFGREN and Mr. DICKEY 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.

                          ____________________