[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 81 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5832-H5921]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 445 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3540.

[[Page H5833]]

                              {time}  1118


                     IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
3540) making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, 
and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and 
for other purposes, with Mr. Hansen in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] will each control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Appropriations has reported a 1997 
foreign operations and export financing bill that is balanced, 
compassionate, and supportive of our national interest. It has 
bipartisan support.
  The bill the House is taking up today is within the subcommittee's 
602 allocation, with $256,000 in budget authority left over. The bill 
is $1 billion under the President's request, and it is $458 million 
less than last year's bill, including all of the supplementals.
  Although the administration did not request it, we have restored a 
separate child survival and disease programs fund and have provided 
$600 million for the fund.
  Helping children and fighting infectious diseases such as polio and 
tuberculosis is our highest priority in this bill.
  There are no earmarks in this bill. The Democrat managers agree with 
me on this, and will oppose any earmark amendments. Our report language 
makes clear the overwhelming support for the requests for Israel, 
Egypt, Ukraine, and Armenia.
  On a general basis, this bill favors bilateral programs, undertaken 
in the name of the American people, over multilateral programs. We have 
attempted to fund programs of the State and Defense Departments and 
A.I.D., either at the request level or at the current level. For the 
most part, the President did not seek big increases in these areas.
  We simply don't have enough money in our allocation to fund the big 
increases requested for some of the multilateral banks and 
international organizations. In fact, several of them are at last 
year's House-passed or conference levels.
  With the International Development Association--it is called IDA--we 
recommend $525 million. Before that money can be spent, the bill 
requires a report from the Treasury on the procurement restrictions 
placed on American companies.
  If our allocation were bigger, I'd still have problems with IDA's 
full request for $935 million, because of the unfortunate restrictions 
on American procurement.
  The recommendation on population is different from what the House 
passed last year. It is different from what is current law. This 
language represents a compromise that gives an incentive for foreign 
family planning groups to voluntarily comply with Mexico City 
principles. I am hopeful that this prolife language will be acceptable 
to the Senate. I am confident it is something the President can live 
with.
  As I said a few minutes ago, this is a balanced and compassionate 
bill. We wouldn't be here today without the contributions of each and 
every one of the subcommittee members. I want to especially thank the 
chairman and former chairman of the full committee. Finally, I want to 
thank my friend from Texas, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, 
who will be retiring sometime after we conference this bill.
  In closing, I must mention that 75 amendments have been filed for 
this bill. Of these, 44 were filed by David Obey in an attempt to delay 
the Wisconsin matter. Another 18 were filed by Republican Members, and 
I am aware of several other possible amendments. As far as I know, only 
one of these was brought to the attention of the committee before we 
marked up the bill.
  At this time, I intend to oppose all of these amendments. Our bill 
took a lot of work and represents a fine balance among Republicans and 
between the two parties. I don't feel that those who didn't bother to 
inform us of their concerns in a timely manner deserve more 
consideration than the men and women who worked with the committee. I 
especially oppose attempts by the authorizers to burden this bill with 
matters within their jurisdiction.
  Last year, this appropriation bill incorporated major authorization 
bills in order to cooperate with the authorizers. This year some of 
them demand more money for Africa while objecting to our attempts to do 
just that by giving the President discretionary authority to forgive 
African debt.
  I don't serve on the International Relations Committee. Don't make 
this an authorization bill. Direct those concerns to Ben Gilman and Lee 
Hamilton.
  Mr. Chairman, last year this bill received over 300 votes from both 
sides of the aisle. This year I ask the indulgence of the House to 
reject attempts to add well-meaning, but last-minute, policy matters to 
the bill. They don't belong on this bill.
  Including last-minute policy matters here on this bill will only 
delay conference action and enactment of this appropriation bill. We 
want to get this bill, and all of the appropriations bills, to the 
President as soon as possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following extraneous material:

[[Page H5834]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN96.000



[[Page H5835]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN96.001



[[Page H5836]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN96.002



[[Page H5837]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05JN96.003



[[Page H5838]]

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Appropriations,

                                     Washington, DC, May 30, 1996.
     Hon. Bill Archer,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As part of the markup for the fiscal 
     year 1997 appropriations for Foreign Operations, Export 
     Financing and Related Programs, the Committee on 
     Appropriations included a general provision (section 533) 
     that was included in last year's Act regarding Presidential 
     authority to impose import sanctions on countries that trade 
     with Iraq and several other nations. It provides 
     discretionary authority, but the language is legislative in 
     nature.
       While this language was included in the 1996 appropriations 
     Act, it deals with matters under the jurisdiction of the Ways 
     and Means Committee. I am writing to ask if you have any 
     objection to inclusion of this language in the fiscal year 
     1997 appropriations Act.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
     Sonny Callahan.
                                                                    ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on Way and Means,

                                     Washington, DC, May 30, 1996.
     Hon. Sonny Callahan,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export 
         Financing and Related Programs, Committee on 
         Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in response to your request 
     regarding floor consideration of H.R. 3540, a bill making 
     appropriations for foreign operations programs for fiscal 
     year 1997, which was reported by the Committee on 
     Appropriations on May 29, 1996.
       Specifically, section 553(b) of the bill would grant the 
     President the authority to impose import sanctions on 
     products from countries that have not conformed to the United 
     Nations economic sanctions with respect to Iraq, Serbia, or 
     Montenegro. The grant of authority for such an import 
     restriction falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Ways and Means, and constitutes a tariff measure for the 
     purposes of rule XXI(5)(b) of the Rules of the House, which 
     prohibits the reporting of a tax or tariff measure in a bill 
     not reported by the committee of jurisdiction.
       I note, however, that similar language has been included in 
     each of the foreign operations annual appropriations enacted 
     into law since 1991. Therefore, based on your advanced 
     communication on this matter with me, I will not object to 
     your request for a waiver of Rule XXI(5)(b) on this bill. 
     Nonetheless, I believe that the Rule should not be waived 
     against any amendments that may be made in order to the bill 
     on the House floor.
       This is being done with the understanding that the 
     Committee will be treated without prejudice as to its 
     jurisdictional prerogatives on such or similar provisions in 
     the future, and it should not be considered as precedent for 
     consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means in the future. This is also being 
     done with the understanding that this provision will not be 
     broadened during conference consideration, and that no 
     additional revenue matters will be included in the final 
     conference report.
       Finally, I would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters 
     on this matter be placed in the Record during consideration 
     of the bill on the Floor. Thank you for your cooperation 
     regarding this matter. I look forward to reviewing this issue 
     with you again in advance of next year's appropriations 
     cycle. With best personal regards.
       Sincerely,
                                                      Bill Archer,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. I 
want to express my gratitude and appreciation to the subcommittee 
chairman and his staff for working within a tight budget to produce a 
constructive foreign assistance bill. I generally support a higher 
level of funding for all foreign assistance programs, but in these 
times of fiscal restraint, I certainly understand the need to comply 
with a strict budget ceiling.
  Unfortunately, now, after the fall of the Soviet Union, having 
established ourselves as the dominant world leader, Mr. Chairman, I 
fear that we are abandoning our post.
  By reducing our foreign assistance as much as we have, we are 
limiting the impact we can have in international development, 
especially in rapidly emerging markets of the developing world. Just as 
the world is becoming more interconnected, the United States seems to 
be retreating into greater and greater isolation. To preserve the 
United States as a dominant world leader, I believe this trend must be 
reversed.
  I commend the chairman for not reducing funding for development 
assistance. After a drastic reduction last year, funding for fiscal 
year 1997 will allow bilateral assistance agencies to maintain many of 
their important programs. I also support the chairman's appropriations 
for the Peace Corps, the Inter-American Foundation, and the overall 
appropriations for the multilateral lending institutions.
  Although I am generally supportive of this bill, I do have some 
specific concerns, Mr. Chairman. I am deeply disappointed by the 
subcommittee's endorsement of the trend set in fiscal year 1996 for 
drastically reduced levels of funding for international family planning 
assistance. By limiting this funding, numerous women and children will 
suffer because they will not have access to adequate health and family 
planning services.
  Assistance for family planning has been misrepresented as assistance 
for abortions. In reality, the exact opposite is the truth. It is 
inaccurate to portray funding for family planning, for women's and 
children's health services and for reproductive education, in any way 
as funding for abortion.
  I know that this is an extremely heated debate. However, it is time 
for pro-life and pro-choice sides to remember who is directly affected 
by these philosophical wars: women and children in the poorest 
countries. I urge this committee and this Congress to reassess its 
strategy for international family assistance and prevent the deaths and 
suffering of countless women and children in the developing world.
  I also want to stress my support, Mr. Chairman, for the international 
organizations and programs account. This account includes, among 
others, the United Nations Fund for Victims of Torture, the United 
Nations Environmental Program, the United Nations Development Program, 
and numerous multilateral conservation programs.
  Too often, these U.N. programs get lumped together and their 
important individual responsibilities are overlooked. Each of them 
provides a unique service as part of a worldwide network that 
coordinates efforts to produce the most effective results.
  Specifically, I think it is important to highlight the importance of 
the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, UNDP, and the World 
Conservation Union or IUCN. UNFVT brings relief to victims who have 
been tortured while trying to promote democracy within their respective 
countries.
  The UNDP, whose budget was significantly reduced in fiscal year 1996, 
is the fundamental source for technical assistance working in the local 
communities of developing countries. IUCN, whose membership consists of 
70 states, 100 governmental agencies, and 800 NGO's, provides the 
technical assistance and policy input for numerous international 
conventions the United States was instrumental in designing.
  I am also seriously concerned with the 8-percent reduction in funding 
assistance for the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union. 
Now is not the time to make this excessive cut, as these young 
countries struggle to embrace democratic and economic reforms.
  With our strong support, these countries will move toward stable 
democracies and economies. For example, just last year, with our 
support, Armenia made great progress with a positive GDP growth of 7 
percent. If we expect this progress to continue, we must continue to 
support Armenia and its neighbors.
  Mr. Chairman, let me finish by saying I am also deeply troubled by 
the behavior of the Government of Turkey which I addressed in my 
remarks on the rule. Yes, Turkey is a valued ally and a cherished NATO 
partner. But Turkey continues, despite repeated international pleas, to 
commit atrocious human rights violations against both its own citizens 
and against those of its struggling neighbors.
  Continuing to give U.S. economic assistance is the equivalent of 
turning our heads the other way to these outrageous human rights 
violations. As a world leader, we must send a strong message to Turkey 
to immediately reform their human rights practices, and sending this 
message begins by reducing their economic assistance, as we have done 
in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, despite my differences with parts of the bill, I 
believe it deserves the support of the House, and I commend it to the 
Members for their support.

[[Page H5839]]

  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, I want to express my thanks to Chairman Callahan for working 
closely with me and the staff in putting together this bill. The 
foreign operations bill is always painful to put together, but with Mr. 
Callahan's leadership and understanding that people have different 
views on issues, we have come out with a reasonably good bill.
  I know he didn't have as much money as he, or I might have wanted for 
the bill. Thus the distribution of funds in the bill leaves some people 
short, particularly in the international banks, and the NIS accounts. 
But for the most part I support the distribution of funds in the bill 
and the approach of including no earmarks. This is the approach used 
for the last several years, and one which I support.
  The bill provides for essentially last year's level of funding for 
export promotion programs vital to U.S. business. The Export-Import 
Bank has been funded at a level which will allow them to meet the 
demand from U.S. business for loan guarantees. The amounts now on 
deposit in the war chest are sufficient in my opinion to ensure that 
foreign countries take seriously our intention to prohibit unfair trade 
practices.
  As a perennial strong supporter of Ex-Im bank and export programs, I 
do not support attempts to add funding for this account. The bill is 
carefully balanced, and any increases to Ex-Im programs will come at 
the expense of other programs in the bill which have already been cut.
  The bill fully funds the administration's request for military 
assistance, and continues aid to Turkey and Greece in the traditional 
ratios. The bill contains a limitation of $25 million on ESF to Turkey. 
This represents a compromise reached at the subcommittee level among 
various factions on this issue, and should not be altered on the floor. 
I will strongly oppose any efforts to amend the bill to alter this 
compromise.
  The bill provides for the traditional levels of assistance for the 
Middle East, for Israel and Egypt, as well as the West Bank and Gaza 
and Jordan. The bill provides for $50 million for the second increment 
of security-related funds for Israel. The bill does not provide for 
debt relief for Jordan, which is regrettable and I hope to work on this 
as we go through the process.
  Assistance to Eastern Europe is at the request level and in 
particular the second increment of the Bosnia reconstruction is fully 
funded.
  Authorities to allow for the delivery of humanitarian assistance in 
the Republic of Azerbaijan and the region of Nagorno-Karabagh have been 
provided in the bill. The report language specifically states that the 
committee takes no view whatsoever on the political status of the 
region of Nagorno-Karabagh. This compromise was reached in subcommittee 
to allow for the delivery of humanitarian assistance through the 
Government of Azerbaijan under certain specific circumstances. It 
solves problems encountered this year due to restrictions placed in 
previous years bills and reports. It should not be altered.
  Again, I would emphasize that the committee has taken no position on 
the political status of the region of Nagorno-Karabagh, and there is 
nothing in this bill or report that is meant to change, qualify, 
comment on, or alter the sovereignty of any nation in this region. The 
official position of the United States supports the sovereignty and 
territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan, and views the 
region of Nagorno-Karabagh as part of Azerbaijan. Efforts by certain 
groups to portray the actions of the committee in a certain light may 
have ignored the facts of what actually took place.
  I also expect there will be amendments on the population funding and 
family planning during the deliberations today. While I am aware that 
the language in the bill was worked out on the Republican side, there 
are many people who disagree strongly with it, and I therefore expect 
that amendments will be offered.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me again thank Mr. Callahan for his 
cooperation on this bill. This will probably be the last bill I will 
manage on the House floor, and I want to express my gratitude for his 
approach, his understanding, and his good humor throughout the process. 
I hope we can work together to get through it.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply observe that this bill is 
probably the least popular bill to emerge from the Committee on 
Appropriations every year, and I think it is without question the most 
misunderstood bill. If we take a poll of America, we will see that most 
Americans think that we spend about 15 to 17 percent of our budget on 
foreign aid. The fact is that this bill, which is the foreign aid 
appropriation bill before us today, spends roughly 1 percent of our 
budget. That is all it spends. I would like to explain why I think that 
is by and large justifiable.
  We have seen the overall spending for foreign aid go down by over 30 
percent in the last decade under the subcommittee chairmanship of 
myself and now the gentleman from Alabama. It is going to be very 
difficult to point to any other part of the budget which has declined 
as fast. I would simply say that there is a price for participation in 
the world. There is a price for defending your own national interest in 
the world, and this bill is part of that price.
  There are many ways which a great nation such as the United States 
defends its interests around the world. We do that through our defense 
budget. We do it by trying to build up a set of political relationships 
with other societies who also populate this globe and with other 
economic and military powers. We do it through economic relationships 
and through trade relationships, and we also do it through this bill.
  This bill is meant to help attack some of the problems around the 
world, some economic, some political and some military, which, if 
allowed to get out of hand, could grow like cancer and create severe 
problems for our national interest down the line. Just a couple 
examples: We had a long divisive fight in this country over the 
military support that we were giving the Contras. The Contras were a 
military operation to overthrow the new Marxist government in Nicaragua 
a number of years ago. That whole problem came about because for years 
conditions slowly developed in the country of Nicaragua which led to an 
explosion, a revolution, and the taking of power by a group of people 
who certainly did not have the best interest of the United States in 
mind. We wound up spending a lot of resources and having a huge fight 
that divided this society and this Congress because the conditions that 
occurred in Nicaragua were not improved while we had time to do it 
without winding up in a military confrontation.
  The Soviet Union: We have spent literally trillions of dollars since 
the end of World War II trying to see to it that the Soviet Union 
changed in nature internally or at least externally did not any longer 
provide a threat to their neighbors or to us. Now with the Wall down, 
we are trying to work with that country in economic and political ways 
to try to eliminate the physical presence of missiles that in the past 
had been aimed at us, to try to build institutions in the former Soviet 
Union that will help democratic forces change that society against a 
thousand years of history that run in the other direction. I think it 
is worth it for us to have that kind of engagement.
  The Middle East: Certainly if the Middle East is not stabilized, it 
will eventually cause great problems for this country economically, and 
it could also cause great problems militarily. It already has from time 
to time. All we have to do is to witness what happened with the Iraqi 
war.
  The Balkans: That has been a tumultuous part of the world for 
decades, and it is in the United States' interest to try to see to it 
that the controversies in that part of the globe do not spill over in 
ways which damage the national interest of the United States.

  We are trying to deal with all of those problems within this very 
tiny bill. We also have moral obligations to some of the fellow 
creatures who populate this planet. In fact, American taxpayers can be 
intensely proud of the fact that their money has been used for low-cost 
immunization programs which have literally hugely expanded the

[[Page H5840]]

level of immunization against devastating childhood diseases for many 
of the children around the world. We have literally saved millions of 
lives through those programs, programs such as UNICEF, and this bill 
also funds that.
  So I think, while we will have many disagreements on the floor today 
about the edges of this bill, this bill is essential in order to meet 
our responsibilities both to the world and, most of all, to our own 
values and to our own interest.
  Having said that, let me simply congratulate the subcommittee 
chairman for the manner in which he has conducted himself in bringing 
this bill to the floor. I know that from time to time it is frustrating 
to get caught up in arguments that he was not a part of. But as Archie 
the Cockroach, my favorite philosopher, said once, ``Now and then 
somebody is born who is so unlucky he runs into accidents that started 
out to happen to somebody else.'' I am sure that is the way the 
gentleman feels today.
  I would also like to say a special word, if I could get the attention 
of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson]. I would like to say a few 
words about Charlie Wilson. I have served with Charlie for more than 15 
years now. How long have you been here, Charlie?
  Mr. WILSON. Twenty-four.
  Mr. OBEY. Twenty-four. How time flies. I served with Charlie for all 
of the time that he has served here. I want to say as one Member to 
another that I will miss him greatly. He has brought wit, he has 
brought compassion, he has brought tough-mindedness, he has brought 
fair-mindedness, and he has brought a passion for excellence to this 
Congress which we are never in an oversupply of.
  I simply want to say that I think whether the issue has been the 
Middle East or whether the issue has been taking care of the needs of 
children, or meeting our complicated responsibilities on the economic 
front, Charlie Wilson has always had the courage to defend what he 
regarded as American interest. I appreciate that fact and also 
appreciate the way he has gone about doing his job for as long as he 
has been a part of this body.
  I also want to say very clearly that, if it had not been for Charlie 
Wilson, America would not have experienced a foreign policy success in 
Afghanistan. I cannot recall another occasion which has been so 
dramatic. Virtually single-mindedly, Charlie Wilson persisted and 
persevered and demanded after the Russian invasion of Afghanistan that 
we help the forces in that country who were trying to continue the 
resistance.
  I remember children who were blown apart by that war being brought to 
this country by Charlie. I remember seeing several of them in my 
office. He expended virtually every ounce of energy that it was 
possible for a human being to expend for a cause which he thought was 
just and in the end almost single-handedly helped to shape American 
policy on that.

                              {time}  1145

  I just want to take my hat off to him and say that he has been, in so 
many ways, a strong addition to this institution and we will miss him 
greatly.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I too want to join in commending the 
distinguished ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Wilson], for his long years of service to this body and his 
concern for foreign operations, foreign policy, going throughout the 
world to try to pursue the best interests of our Nation. This body will 
sorely miss him and we wish him well in his early retirement.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 3540, the 
foreign operations appropriations bill, and I want to salute the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan]. Working with this able ranking Democratic 
member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] and other members of his 
subcommittee, he crafted legislation that strikes a balance between the 
national security, humanitarian, and development goals of this Nation 
and the need to conserve the taxpayers' money.
  The chairman's job is not an easy one, and I know it is not one he 
sought. He has done yeoman's work in explaining to the American public 
the ways that foreign assistance serves our national interest. These 
programs help provide leverage to American diplomacy and they provide 
security and the stability that accompanies development in many parts 
of the world. If that security and stability was absent, our Nation 
would likely be called on to step in or to face the consequences of the 
instability. It is that simple. Foreign aid and diplomacy prevents the 
need for U.S. troops to go in and solve problems later, in bloody and 
more expensive ways.
  With two minor exceptions, the appropriation amounts in chairman's 
bill are within the authorization levels contemplated in the conference 
report on H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, that was 
passed by the House but vetoed by the President. To the extent programs 
were not included in the conference report, the relevant appropriations 
are within the amounts provided in the House-passed version of that 
bill. I should add, if I may, that the passage of this bill, which I 
fully expect will occur on an overwhelming, bipartisan basis, continues 
to vindicate the choices on resource allocations that the House made on 
H.R. 1561 but which were attacked, I believe unfairly, on the House 
floor when we had that bill under consideration.
  I may have a few minor differences with provisions in this bill, Mr. 
Chairman, but I do believe that this is an excellent bill on the whole. 
Mr. Chairman, this bill would also not be possible without the work of 
the subcommittee's able staff. I especially want to thank Bill Inglee, 
John Shank, Charlie Flickner, Nancy Tippins, and Lori Maes for their 
work and cooperation on this important piece of legislation.
  I also want to commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and 
his language with relation to Turkey. Turkey must understand that it 
must solve the problem of Cyprus and improve human rights with the 
Kurds to improve its relations with the United States.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to fully 
support this bill.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], a member of our subcommittee, and 
invaluable with respect to his input.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time and want to salute the gentleman from Alabama, Chairman 
Callahan, for the flare in which he works with Members on both sides. I 
want to also extend a thank you to the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Wilson], who I believe has done yeomen's work, and we 
will miss him as this summer moves along but wish him good luck in his 
next voyage.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for this bill which 
reflects the Foreign Operations Subcommittee's careful crafting and 
compromise in a time of continued reductions in the funding available 
for foreign assistance. It deserves our support. H.R. 3540 recognizes 
the fiscal situation we face and reduces the amount of money we spend 
overseas. But H.R. 3540 maintains our role as a leader throughout the 
world.
  This bill makes serious cuts that reflect careful consideration and 
the review of every foreign assistance program. We have eliminated and 
reduced funding to those programs that have failed to justify our 
support.
  I strongly believe that foreign aid is a crucial component of our 
foreign policy. The United States has a direct interest in promoting 
the expansion of capitalism and democracy throughout the world. 
Accordingly, I feel it is beneficial to American interests to aid 
countries which have shown a commitment to the ideals of free 
enterprise and individual freedom.
  When we consider the fast paced changes taking place in countries 
across the globe from Israel to India to Russia it is clear that 
America must not insulate itself from the international community.

[[Page H5841]]

  Yet, we will destroy our ability to assist other countries and 
provide for our national security if we have to continually spend 
greater and greater portions of our budget on interest on the national 
debt. We must balance the budget. That means we must reduce spending. I 
am very committed to reducing the deficit, lowering taxes, and 
empowering individuals and business by reducing the size and scope of 
our Federal Government. We must work toward these goals as the world's 
only superpower and the sole proprietor of democracy.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I only have a certain amount of time, but I will be 
glad to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask the gentleman if he 
agrees with me that if all the other subcommittees had made the same 
contribution to balancing the budget that this subcommittee has made, 
we would have a balanced budget?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Amen.
  And I concur very strongly with the ranking member, but we have not 
eliminated, and I think this is very important, we have not eliminated, 
by any means, our ability to participate in the world.
  Foreign aid, which makes up less than 1 percent of our Federal 
budget, as the gentleman from Wisconsin pointed out, is a good 
investment and has benefited our interests around the globe by 
furthering the development of economic and political stability in the 
international community.
  H.R. 3540 allows us to continue to remain active in world events 
while keeping us on a path to a balanced budget. I support this bill 
and urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Packard] who is also a member of our subcommittee and a 
very valuable member of our subcommittee.
  (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the foreign 
operations, export financing, and related programs appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 1997. I want to commend Chairman Callahan and ranking 
member Charlie Wilson for crafting a fair and bipartisan bill that, 
again, contains no earmarks.
  I particularly want to recognize the gentleman from Texas, Charlie 
Wilson, who will be leaving Congress this year. Charlie, it has been a 
pleasure working with you and you will be missed.
  This bill continues Congress on its glidepath toward a balanced 
budget by cutting approximately $1 billion from the President's request 
and almost $500 million from last year's enacted levels. These funding 
reductions are a continuation of the reorganization of our foreign aid 
priorities. It is a tribute to Chairman Callahan and his very capable 
staff that two very important provisions of this bill remain virtually 
untouched. I am speaking of our contributions to the Camp David accords 
and the child survival and disease programs account.
  In addition, this bill supports American jobs by providing funding to 
vital U.S. export assistance programs such as the Export-Import Bank, 
the Overseas Development Corp., and the Trade and Development Agency. 
These agencies assist U.S. businesses both large and small to advance 
U.S. interests and expand our export markets.
  Finally, this bill strikes a balance on family planning funding that 
is fair to both sides. It allows half of the funds designated for these 
activities to be released to any organization who applies. The language 
then allows the rest of the funds to be released to those organizations 
who agree to the Mexico City language. This is as evenhanded as it 
gets.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me, once again, pay tribute to Chairman 
Callahan and his staff for their hard work on this well-balanced bill. 
I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, in the absence of any other speakers, I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, in just a moment I will yield back the 
balance of my time, but let me just comment that this bill reduces the 
President's request by $1 billion. I know there are some in this House 
and in the administration who would like to have more money, but we are 
having to sacrifice in every area of government and I do not think 
requesting another $1 billion cut from the President's request is 
unreasonable at all.
  The gentleman from Texas, Congressman Wilson, is right; if every 
subcommittee on appropriations was reducing in real dollars the amount 
of money and the percentage of moneys we are reducing in this bill and 
the bill last year, then we would be much more advanced toward a 
balanced budget. This is the lowest foreign operation bill in more than 
15 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I know there will be some who come and try to amend 
this bill upward, trying to give the administration more dollars, and I 
am going to strenuously object to any effort to increase the amount of 
this appropriation bill, which, incidentally, Mr. Chairman, is now less 
than 1 percent of our overall budget. A lot of people in this country 
are of the impression that we are appropriating a higher percentage of 
our dollars to foreign operations, but his year, if this bill becomes 
law, it will be less than 1 percent of our overall budget, and that 1 
percent concentrates on things that the American people support.
  The American people do not like us to give money, government to 
government, Mr. Chairman, but when they see starving children they want 
those children fed. When they see children dying of polio, when they 
see children dying of diseases, they want to participate in that type 
of program. We concentrate on that type of activity in this bill. We 
are not going to turn out back on starving children or sick children. 
We are going to educate these children where we possibly can, with the 
limited amount of moneys that we have. We are a compassionate nation, 
but we are also a nation in a fiscal crisis, and the only money we have 
available is this $11.9 billion, which, as we understand, is $1 billion 
under the President's request.
  Mr. Chairman, before I close this part of the program, I too want to 
join my colleagues in praising the gentleman from Texas, Charlie 
Wilson, who has served as the ranking Democrat on this subcommittee 
since I assumed the chairmanship. He will be receiving a lot of 
accolades during the next few weeks as he retires from Congress, and I 
want to tell him it has been a true pleasure to work with him.
  Handling the foreign operations bill is not something that many 
Members cherish. It is a difficult, complicated measure when we think 
of the hundreds of countries in this world that are seeking the support 
of the United States of America and the complexity of the governments 
and the working relationship between our Government and their 
government. It is a complicated process and certainly Charlie Wilson 
knows more than anyone else in the House about this complex world of 
ours and its needs. His contributions to me, both personally and 
professionally, have been something that I will always cherish.
  So Mr. Chairman, as he moves on to this next stage of his life, I 
want the gentleman to know that someday we will meet on the shuffle 
board court in Phoenix, AZ, or some retirement city, and we will be out 
there talking about the great things that we did. But the people of the 
United States will never forget the contributions that he as an 
individual Member of this Congress has made toward making this world a 
better place and making our position in this world well understood by 
foreign countries.

                              {time}  1200

  It is not the end of our close relationship, I am sure. It is just 
the end of a distinguished tenure in this Congress, and I appreciate, 
on behalf of the American people, the contributions you have made.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by my good friend from Illinois, Mr. Manzullo, that reduces the 
fiscal year 1997 foreign operations appropriation for the Export-Import 
Bank administrative expenses by $3.1 million. I support this

[[Page H5842]]

amendment because it mirrors the Appropriations' National Security 
Subcommittee's recommendation of reducing the Eximbank's subsidy 
appropriation by 2.5 percent. It makes no sense to me to increase funds 
for staffing at the same time that we are reducing the workload of the 
bank.
  The purpose of the Eximbank is to expand U.S. exports by assisting 
American firms. And yet, I question the success of the bank in 
fulfilling this mandate under the current administration. Most 
recently, the Clinton administration pressured the Eximbank to refuse 
assistance to U.S. exporters, while at the same time supporting most-
favored-nation trade status for Chinese business. I'm at a loss to see 
how this helps American businesses.
  One case in particular is the Eximbank's announcement of May 30 to 
deny trade credits to American companies attempting to participate in 
China's Three Gorges Dam project. This decision stands in the way of 
job opportunities and income for American workers, and potentially, it 
damages our relationship with China.
  The Clinton administration has portrayed the Three Gorges Dam project 
as disastrous to the environment, and detrimental to human rights. 
However, there are no facts to backup this charge. In fact, the main 
purpose of the project is to control the disastrous consequences to 
China's environment and prevent the massive loss of life and property 
caused by flooding along the Yangtze River. In 1994 alone, flooding 
along the Yangtze killed nearly 1,200 people and wiped out 2.7 million 
acres of farmland. Building the dam will end the need of moving 
millions of people each time there is a major flood on the Yangtze 
River.
  The Three Gorges Dam is also desperately needed to enable China to 
keep up with it's exponentially growing energy requirements. It will 
produce 18,200 megawatts of clean hydropower, displacing the need for 
50,000 tons of low sulphur coal or ten nuclear, power plants. The 
project will help clean up the air in China, decrease the global 
greenhouse effect and lower nuclear waste disposal problems. Moreover, 
the dam will not submerge the scenic Three Gorges--water levels will 
rise 318 feet but the mountains in the area rise between 2,600 and 
3,600 feet high.
  It makes no sense to prevent the creation of thousands of jobs for 
taxpaying American citizens by denying a loan that, in the end, would 
be paid back with interest by a foreign country.
  Without a doubt, this project will spread prosperity and development 
into a new interior region of China, providing new opportunities for 
American firms. Establishing business relationships now through the 
Three Gorges Dam project would further position American firms to win 
new business in China for years to come. As Congressman Manzullo has 
cited, $1 billion in U.S. exports and 19,000 Americans jobs are at 
stake.
  I have often heard the argument that there is nothing stopping these 
companies from competing for contracts without this assistance. That's 
technically true, but what then is the purpose of the Eximbank if not 
to help U.S. companies secure the winning bids? This recent decision 
puts American companies at a disadvantage with their foreign 
competitors who will most likely receive favorable financing from their 
government finance agencies. Germany, Japan, Russia, and Canada are 
already contracting for the project through their consortiums.
  The administration has supported renewing most-favored-nation trade 
status for China at the same time it attacks this project. This 
project, without a doubt, means jobs for Illinois and other states 
across this country. The shortsighted decision is flawed and 
detrimental not only to the long-range environmental and human rights 
concerns of China, but also the competitive, responsible companies that 
America is offering to the world. Our companies practice high labor and 
environmental standards. Only the United States has the capacity to 
bring the kind of technical knowledge to the project that may mitigate 
many of the concerns raised by its critics.
  Until I see signs that the Eximbank is fulfilling its mandate, I can 
not support increasing funding for its administrative expenses.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I chair the Domestic and International 
Monetary Policy Subcommittee of the House Banking and Financial 
Services Committee, which is the authorizing committee for U.S. 
participation in the multilateral development banks. In this era of 
limited budgets, it is absolutely imperative that every taxpayer dollar 
be spent in the most cost-effective manner possible. I submit that with 
multilateral development we multiply each contributed dollar fivefold 
or sixfold for optimal leverage of our resources. Therefore, I would 
like to share with my colleagues the action the authorizing 
subcommittee took on the multilateral funding levels requested by the 
administration.
  As we noted when the administration presented its request to my 
subcommittee, we should acknowledge the substantial progress already 
made in reforming the International Financial Institutions [IFI's]. The 
best way to do this and encourage the process is by paying the United 
States arrears on commitments to the 10th capital replenishment of the 
International Development Association [IDA] made by previous 
administrations.
  It is most difficult to continue to assert a position of leadership 
in the various IFI's and yet owe a total of $1.56 billion in overdue 
obligations to them. This undermines our moral and practical influence 
over these institutions, and even though we still spend a very large 
sum of money each year, the expenditure produces little domestic or 
international good will.
  National self-interest argues that we continue to stay engaged in the 
multilateral development process. Our success in leveraging funds for 
developing countries, encouraging free market economies, private sector 
development and creating new high-growth markets for U.S. companies 
would be undermined if opted out. For these reasons, the subcommittee 
included the entire $550 million requested to finish authorizing 
payment of the accumulated arrears of $935 million for our commitments 
to the IDA.
  This bill appropriates $525 million to fund IDA, leaving a balance of 
$410 million still owed on previous commitments. I hope that we can 
retire these arrears as quickly as possible, although I fully accept 
that resources are limited for this year's foreign operations account. 
Failure to retire these previous commitments inevitably delays the 
program for the 11th capital replenishment of IDA. This, in turn, may 
result in another year of interim special funding that excludes U.S. 
companies from bidding on a portion of the projects funded under such 
interim arrangement.
  We authorized no appropriations for any U.S. contribution to the 
interest subsidy account of the successor [ESAF II] to the enhanced 
structural adjustment facility of the international monetary fund 
because this account is fully funded through fiscal year 1997.
  The administration requested both consent to and appropriations for 
the fifth replenishment of the resources of the African Development 
Bank [AfDB], at an undetermined level due to continuing, unfinished 
negotiations. We authorized a 2-year capital increase of $32 million 
for the AfDB that was conditioned on a successful conclusion to current 
negotiations to reorganize effective control of this bank away from the 
borrowers to the lending countries. If these negotiations are 
successful and sound reforms are in place, we would hope to authorize 
U.S. participation in the fifth replenishment next year.
  In response to the administration's request, full U.S. participation 
in the new Middle East Development Bank was authorized for 2 years, 
with $105 million to be appropriated over that period. Even though 
there are no funds for this project in this year's appropriations bill, 
the concept of former enemies coming together to plan and finance joint 
development of their region remains a good idea.
  The House Subcommittee reduced the administration's fiscal year 1997 
request by $335 million.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, having stated my reservations and the 
rationale for them, I support the bill as passed by the Appropriations 
Committee, and urge my colleagues to vote for its passage.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concern 
over H.R. 3540, the foreign operations appropriations bill, because it 
fails to include language directing the U.S. Government to monitor 
human rights progress in Ethiopia as it obligates appropriations for 
Ethiopia in fiscal year 1997.
  During the debate last year on the foreign operations appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 1996, I offered an amendment that included 
language to monitor human rights progress in Ethiopia. My amendment was 
adopted by the House. Unfortunately, my amendment was not included in 
the conference report on such bill but my colleagues assured me of 
their deep concern about human rights violations in Ethiopia.
  While Ethiopia has made some progress in human rights since the new 
government assumed power, there are still too many instances of human 
rights violations throughout the country. Individuals opposed to the 
current government, particularly journalists, academicians, and 
opposition party officials have faced ordeals that raise questions 
about academic freedom, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and 
the independence of the judiciary. Many Ethiopians are facing trials 
for alleged offenses against the government and we must work to ensure 
that they receive a fair and impartial hearing. Other citizens are 
being harassed as they attempt to express their views on the critical 
issues facing the country.
  Ethiopia has a distinguished history and has always been a shining 
example for the rest of Africa. The country has a bright future. As a 
superpower, the United States has an obligation to foster democracy and 
human rights around the world. We must engage Ethiopia's

[[Page H5843]]

ruling government to improve their human rights record. The United 
States State Department and organizations such as Amnesty International 
have chronicled the problems confronting Ethiopia in this regard. Over 
the past year, I have periodically communicated with State department 
officials to carefully assess the situation in the country and strongly 
encouraged the department to expand its efforts to improve human rights 
in Ethiopia.
  The Congress of the United States should be on record supporting 
human rights progress in Ethiopia and I encourage my colleagues to 
continue to support the inclusion of human rights as an integral 
element of our foreign policy. I will continue to voice my strong 
support for human rights in Ethiopia and work with our Government in 
advancing this important cause.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment 
which limits the amount of economic support funding for Turkey to $22 
million until the Turkish Government acknowledges the Armenian 
genocide.
  As my colleagues know, this April marked the 81st anniversary of the 
Armenian genocide. The great Armenian massacre, which took place 
between 1915 to 1916, shocked public opinion in the United States and 
Western Europe.
  As Henry Morgenthau, Sr., the former U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman 
Empire, stated ``I am confident that the whole history of the human 
race contains no such horrible episode as this. The great massacres and 
persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared to the 
sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915.''
  Last year, Members of Congress from both Houses in a bipartisan 
initiative called upon the President to reaffirm the Armenian genocide 
as a crime against humanity. While I appreciated the fact that a 
statement was issued by the White House, many of my colleagues and I 
were disappointed that the President did not use the word ``genocide'' 
to describe the systematic annihilation of one and one-half million 
Armenians.
  In fact, earlier this year, I joined many of my colleagues in sending 
a letter to President Clinton expressing disappointment in the fact 
that he used the word ``massacres'' rather than the word ``genocide'' 
to describe this terrible tragedy.
  We must also send the same message to Turkey. Turkey must take steps 
to acknowledge and honor the memory of the victims of the Armenian 
genocide.
  I am proud to have cosponsored H. Con. Res. 47, which enjoys the 
bipartisan support of 178 Members and honors the memory of the victims 
of the Armenian genocide.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The 
survivors of the genocide and their descendants have made great 
contributions to every country in which they have settled--including 
the United States, where Armenians have made their mark in business, 
the professions, and our cultural life.
  The time has come for Turkey to acknowledge the injustice that took 
place. For it is only through acknowledging it that we hold out hope 
for the future that no such event will occur again.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Obey-Frank 
amendment to prohibit the use of International Military Education and 
Training Funds for Indonesia. It appears to be that this amendment is 
designed only to insult Indonesia and would have only negative effects 
on U.S.-Indonesian relations. Furthermore, if enacted, I believe this 
amendment would actually hinder the kind of changes and increased 
respect for human rights its proponents claim to seek.
  First, let's be clear on what IMET is. IMET is not guns and 
ammunition. It's not even combat training. The IMET program sponsors up 
and coming Indonesian military officers to come to the U.S. to receive 
either technical training--like accounting--or professional education 
including military justice and human rights awareness. Thus, IMET 
participants are exposed to the very issues about which the sponsors of 
the Obey-Frank amendment are most concerned. How better to ensure that 
the Indonesian military enhances its professionalism and sensitivity to 
the human rights concerns we've identified than to include this in 
their training? Especially when the Indonesian military wants this 
training? They are seeking our help. If the sponsors of this amendment 
listen to their own words, then they would see that we ought to 
continue to provide this training.
  Second, IMET also plays an important role in improving U.S.-
Indonesian security ties. Indonesia occupies a very central and 
strategic position in Southeast Asia. Indonesia is a key member of 
ASEAN and a moderate leader of the non-aligned movement. It is the 
world's largest Moslem country. Indonesia is very supportive of the 
United States presence in Southeast Asia and provides us with places in 
lieu of bases. The modest support the Indonesian military receives from 
IMET goes a long way in solidifying this relationship. It also provides 
our own military with exposure to senior and mid-level Indonesian 
military officers with all of the associated benefits such relations 
provide.
  Third, with 190 million people, Indonesia is a growing market for 
American goods and services. Last year alone, the U.S. exported $3.3 
billion, an increase of over 20 percent from last year. Indonesia is 
the host to over $6 billion in United States investments. Whether we 
like it or not, IMET has, in part, come to represent a bellwether of 
United States engagement with Indonesia. It has become a symbol of 
United States attitude toward Indonesia. Therefore, to prohibit IMET 
will be seen by Indonesians--all Indonesian, not just the Suharto 
Government--as a slap. Unlike most of my colleagues, as a first 
generation Asian-American, I have a pretty good understanding of how 
East Asians think. And, I can assure every one of you, this will be 
interpreted as a direct insult against the Indonesian nation as a 
whole.
  Such an insult will have a direct and negative affect on all aspects 
of our relationship, including economic ties. At risk are jobs and 
incomes of Americans right here at home. The only ones really cheering 
for the misguided symbolism of the Obey-Frank amendment are our Asian 
and European competitors.
  Finally, I am sensitive to the situation in East Timor. 
Unfortunately, the history as well as the future of East Timor is not 
as simple and black and white as proponents of this amendment claim. 
Progress is being made with regard to East Timor, though I agree that 
more is needed. However, cutting IMET will have no positive effect on 
East Timor. The Obey-Frank amendment is merely pandering to one special 
interest in East Timor at great expense overall U.S. interests in the 
region. In fact, as I pointed out, prohibiting of IMET could actually 
setback the process of improving human rights.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for America's best interests 
and reject this misguided amendment.
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3540, the 
fiscal year 1997 foreign operations appropriations bill as reported out 
of the full Appropriations Committee. I want to commend Chairman 
Callahan and the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Wilson, for their 
diligent work in crafting this year's foreign assistance package. 
However, I must note that the bill falls short in meeting certain 
critical funding needs, particularly in providing adequate assistance 
to the Latin and Central American region.
  United States assistance for emerging democracies of Latin and 
Central America is severely threatened by continuing reductions in 
development assistance. The relatively modest sums directed towards 
sustainable development in Latin America are a worthwhile long-term 
investment in the economic and political stability of our closest 
neighbors. Such an investment can pay off in avoiding natural 
disasters, economic crises, and military conflicts, which bring with 
them a much higher cost in economic and human terms. Additionally, the 
United States has made certain commitments to the region, such as 
contributions to consolidating peace in Central American nations, which 
should be honored.
  Furthermore, funds for granting relief for countries that hold U.S 
debt is a way to help them become more self-sufficient as aid flows 
diminish or end. As this bill continues through the legislative 
process, I would hope we could do more or increase the amount allocated 
for debt restricting for the poorest countries and debt buybacks.
  The Fund for Special Operations [FSO], the concessional lending arm 
of the Inter-American Development bank, extends loans--not grants--to 
the poorest countries in Latin America and their Caribbean for programs 
designed to alleviate poverty. FSO programs benefit those most in need, 
especially women and children and microentrepreneurs who have little 
access to credit through regular financial sources. As bilateral aid to 
Central American and Caribbean countries is being dramatically reduced, 
the U.S. contribution to the Fund for Special Operations is an 
effective investment in the development of our poorest neighbors in the 
Western Hemisphere. While this bill has reduced the administration 
request for the FSO from $31 million to $10 million, I believe this 
small U.S. contribution is critical in leveraging significant funds 
fund other donor nations around the world and hope that we can find a 
means to increase this amount.
  I also want to note that the bill includes a 10-percent cut in 
funding for the U.S. contribution to the North American Development 
Bank. The House Report attributes this cut to the slow start-up of the 
Bank's Community Adjustment and Investment Program, also known as the 
``Domestic Window''. Ten percent of the NADBank's capital is allocated 
for the Domestic Window, which is designed to address trade dislocation 
issues by assisting communities and businesses throughout the United 
States. This assistance will be administered through other Federal 
lending programs and

[[Page H5844]]

through the direct lending program of the NADBank's Community 
Adjustment and Investment Program. However, I would point out that the 
money is not segregated, therefore, a 10-percent cut directed at the 
domestic window of the NADBank, is a cut to the overall NADBank funds 
for border-area projects. While the Bank's Domestic Window may not have 
been established as quickly as we had hoped, it is now open and lending 
criteria are in place. The fiscal year 1997 tranche of NADBank capital 
is critical for the Bank to realize its potential to clean up the 
border region and address the domestic needs of displaced workers and 
businesses.
  Additionally, I would like to state for the record that even though 
we are approving counternarcotics assistance in principle to the 
Governments of Colombia and of Peru, the administration should not 
interpret this as an unconditional approval of military assistance to 
those countries and should carefully consult with us before requesting 
the release of any such assistance.
  We all know that in Colombia political killings and disappearances 
continue at crisis levels while in Peru, thousands languish in that 
country's jails after blatantly unfair trials. In both countries, due 
process is flagrantly violated. An amnesty law in Peru has made 
impunity state policy, while in Colombia impunity is also the norm. We 
all know that human rights in both countries is under attack. But we 
approve counternarcotics assistance as a gesture of good faith to the 
administration with the caveat that serious human rights problems 
remain.
  It is important to highlight that neither the Governments of Peru nor 
of Colombia will receive any assistance through the foreign military 
financing account, but both will receive assistance through the 
counternarcotics account. I want to inform the public as well as my 
colleagues that this counternarcotics item could lead to an 
administration request of military transfers to those countries' 
military units.
  I must state for the record that I will use my office to ensure that 
neither the Colombian Army nor the Peruvian Army as well as Navy will 
receive any United States assistance. For this, I would like to thank 
the Chair for his consideration in ensuring that a notification 
requirement is kept for both countries. Furthermore, when we are duly 
notified, I will also ensure that if other branches of those countries' 
militaries are involved in violations, they do not receive a single tax 
dollar in assistance. This is a responsibility we have to the people in 
those countries and to our taxpayers as well.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1997.
  What is at stake in this bill is nothing less than the future of 
America's leadership in the world. We all ought to be extremely 
concerned about the disastrous effects the low level of spending in 
this bill will have on U.S. influence abroad, on our ability to protect 
our national interests, and on the lives of hundreds of millions of 
people in the developing world.
  In fact, when we consider the role of American leadership in the 
world today, and the need to protect our own interests and security in 
the international arena this bill is frankly an embarrassment.
  One of the great myths among Americans is that the Federal Government 
spends a significant portion of its budget on foreign aid. Indeed, in a 
University of Maryland study conducted not too long ago, three of four 
Americans said they believe the United States spends too much on 
foreign aid. But when asked how much they thought the Nation spends, 
the median response was 15 percent of the federal budget; and when 
respondents were asked how much the United States should spend on 
foreign aid, the median response was 5 percent, with most agreeing that 
3 percent would be too little.
  As we all know, U.S. foreign aid actually accounts for about three-
fourths of 1 percent of the Federal budget. As a percentage of our 
gross national product [GNP], the United States is now the lowest aid 
contributor of the world's top 21 industrialized nations.
  For a tiny fraction of what we spend on defense, the prudent use of 
foreign aid helps us meet escalating threats to our national and global 
security, including chronic poverty, rapid population growth, 
environmental degradation and forced migration. The long-term effect of 
the cuts in this bill will be a substantial reduction in the 
President's ability to conduct foreign policy, leaving only the 
military option in some circumstances. And for this extreme cost, these 
cuts in foreign aid will reduce overall federal spending by only a 
token amount.

  Many people do not realize how much our modest investment in foreign 
assistance programs benefit U.S. businesses and citizens. When the 
Marshall plan was announced in 1947, only 18 percent of Americans 
supported that effort to rebuilt Europe. But U.S. assistance helped to 
establish social and political stability, and created some of our best 
trading partners.
  In the 1960's and 1970's, many criticized United States assistance to 
countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, Mexico, and India. But once 
again, U.S. assistance ushered in a period of unprecedented growth. 
With United States help, India has seen dramatic increases in 
agricultural production and, as a consequence of our foreign aid, a 
politically stable India offers a promising market of 900 million 
people for United States goods.
  The fastest growing segment of the U.S. export market is in trade 
with developing countries. Today, developing countries import almost 40 
percent of U.S. exports, accounting for 2 million American jobs. In the 
past decade alone, exports to developing countries have more than 
doubled from $71 to $180 billion. The United States is today exporting 
products and services to many of the nations the United States assisted 
in the 1960's and 1970's. More than 24 countries since that time have 
moved from foreign-aid recipient to trading partner. Africa now 
comprises a faster growing share of the U.S. market than Europe.
  Foreign aid has also dramatically improved the lives of hundreds of 
millions of people and reduced the risk of, and the occurrence of, 
humanitarian crises.
  Since 1960, development assistance has helped reduce infant mortality 
rates in developing countries by 50 percent, increase life expectancy 
from 46 to 63 years, and increase primary school enrollment from 48 to 
78 percent.
  Foreign aid has resulted in important breakthroughs in agriculture; 
investments made by the United States in better seeds and agriculture 
techniques has helped make it possible to feed an extra billion people 
in the developing world.
  More than 50 million couples in the developing world use family 
planning as a direct result of U.S. assistance for overseas family 
planning services; over the past 35 years, the average number of 
children per family in the world has been reduced by one third--from 
six children to four.
  U.S. aid is largely credited with fully immunizing 80 percent of all 
children in developing countries, eradicating smallpox worldwide and 
virtually eliminating polio in the Western hemisphere.
  And, since 1980--in just the past 15 years--U.S. foreign assistance 
has helped three dozen nations make the transition to democratic 
government.
  The spending reductions that this bill continues from last year 
threaten to reverse these positive trends, especially as the number of 
poor around the world, an estimated 1.3 billion people, continues to 
soar.
  One of the most drastic program cuts in this bill, which many of us 
are deeply concerned about, is the continued 35 percent cut in funding 
for family planning assistance, along with restrictions that will 
affect some of the most effective family planning organizations. The 
United States has historically been the principal supporter of 
international family planning assistance. Our continuing contribution 
is vital to the effort to slow the world's rapid population growth, 
which underlies virtually every developmental, environmental, and 
national security problems facing the world today.
  Global population is now 5.7 billion people, and it is growing by 
almost 100 million every year--by 260,000 every 24 hours. Future 
prospects, moreover, are even more staggering. If effective action is 
not taken in the next few years--as today's 1.6 billion children in the 
developing world under the age of fifteen reach their childbearing 
years--the Earth's population could nearly quadruple to 20 billion 
people by the end of the next century.
  In much of the developing world, high birth rates, caused largely by 
the lack of access of women to basic reproductive health services and 
information, are contributing to intractable poverty, malnutrition, 
widespread unemployment, urban overcrowding, and the rapid spread of 
disease. Population growth is outstripping the capacity of many nations 
to make even modest gains in economic development, leading to political 
instability and negating other U.S. development efforts.
  The impact of exponential population growth, combined with 
unsustainable patterns of consumption, is also evident in mounting 
signs of stress on the world's environment. Under conditions of rapid 
population growth, renewable resources are being used faster than they 
can be replaced. Other environmental consequences of the world's 
burgeoning population are tropical deforestation, erosion of arable 
land and watersheds, extinction of plant and animal species, and 
pollution of air, water, and land.
  For almost 30 years, population assistance has been a central 
component of U.S. development assistance. While much more remains to be 
done, population assistance has had a significant positive impact on 
the health of women and their children and on society as a whole in 
most countries. In many parts of Asia, Latin America, and Africa, 
fertility rates have decreased, often dramatically. Couples are 
succeeding in having the smaller families they want because of the 
greater availability of

[[Page H5845]]

contraceptives that our assistance has made possible.
  Today, approximately 55 percent of couples worldwide use modern 
methods of contraception, compared with 10 percent in the 1960's 
Despite this impressive increase in contraceptive use, however, an 
estimated 125 million couples lack access to family planning services. 
And, the demand for these services is increasing, largely because 
populations are growing. Indeed, over the next 20 years, the number of 
women and men who wish to use contraception will almost double.
  Similarly, population assistance has contributed to the significant 
progress that has been made in reducing infant and child mortality 
rates. Child survival is integrally linked to women's reproductive 
health, and specifically to a mother's timing, spacing and number of 
births. Despite substantial progress, a large proportion of children in 
the developing world--particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and some Asian 
countries--still die in infancy.
  And, while many countries in the developing world have succeeded in 
reducing maternal mortality rates, the incidence of maternal death and 
disability remains unacceptably high, constituting a serious public 
health problem facing most developing countries. According to the World 
Health Organization, an estimated 500,000 women die every year as a 
result of pregnancy and childbirth.
  U.S. population assistance is preventive medicine on an international 
scale. Congress has long recognized this to be the case and over the 
years has reaffirmed the importance of population assistance in 
securing U.S. interests abroad. By addressing the basic health and 
educational needs of women and their families, population assistance 
provides building blocks for strong democratic government and sets the 
stage for economic growth. Furthermore, it helps prevent social and 
political crises, thereby averting the need for costly relief efforts.
  At the International Conference on Population and Development [ICPD], 
held in Cairo in 1994, the Untied States was instrumental in building a 
broad consensus behind a comprehensive Program of Action, which was 
signed by almost all of the 180 countries that participated in the 
conference, and which is intended to help guide the population and 
development programs of the United Nations and national governments 
into the next century. Central to this plan is the recognition that 
with adequate funding this decade for family planning and reproductive 
health services, as well as educational, economic, and social 
opportunities necessary to enhance the status of women, we can 
stabilize world population in the first half of the next century.
  This bill, however, effectively abandons the goals of the ICPD and 
the international community, as well as our Nation's own historical 
position--supported by many Republican and Democratic administrations 
and congresses--that population assistance is one of the most cost 
effective and important uses of our foreign aid dollars.
  The Appropriations Committee has, unfortunately, followed the unwise 
course it began last year when funding for family planning assistance 
was cut drastically. This year's bill, which would allow no more than 
$356 million to be spent for this purpose, would have devastating 
consequences for developing countries. The Agency for International 
Development estimates that the limit on family planning assistance in 
this bill could result in 7 million couples in developing nations who 
would have used modern contraceptive methods left without access to 
those methods. That would cause 4 million more women to experience 
unintended pregnancies and, as a result, there would be: 1.9 more 
unplanned births; 8,000 more women dying in pregnancy and childbirth; 
134,000 more infant deaths; and 1.6 million more abortions.
  That last statistic--1.6 million more abortons--is particularly 
important to note, since Members may be under the impression that this 
bill would reduce the incidence of abortion by providing funding on 
favorable terms to family planning organizations that abide by the so-
called Mexico City policy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

  The fact is, U.S. funds do not pay for abortions. For over 20 years, 
under the Helms amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act, Federal law 
has prohibited any U.S. funds from being used for abortions, or to 
promote abortion. There is no reason whatsoever to differentiate 
between organizations that do or do not abide by the Mexico City 
policy.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to urge strong support for the 
amendment that the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] will be 
offering to strike the provision in the bill that caps family planning 
assistance at 65 percent of the 1995 level, $365 million, so that the 
Agency for International Development could apply more of its 
appropriated funds for the very vital and urgent purpose of providing 
family planning assistance.
  But I urge Members to vote against final passage as a way of 
expressing opposition to the unwise, counterproductive, and destructive 
cuts in foreign assistance contained in this bill. These programs work, 
and providing adequate funding for them will reduce human suffering, 
promote global peace and security, and save many times the expense in 
future U.S. foreign assistance.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the foreign 
operations appropriations bill. The committee is like the tireless work 
horse who moves forward despite the weight of its load. yet, unlike the 
work horse, the members of this committee do not wear blinders. This 
bill is fiscally responsible, and it preserves and protects the long 
term interests of this country. It marks the beginning of the important 
task of the restructuring of foreign aid.
  Our world has changed significantly in the last decade, and it will 
continue to change. The fall of communism in Eastern Europe and Russia, 
the rising powers in Asia, the torrent of terrorist activities. The 
list of challenges for America is significant. The answers may be 
different, but the goal remains the same. We are working toward 
preserving our independence, and promoting our national security.
  At the same time, we have to try to spend less in our foreign 
efforts. This does not mean that we are ignoring our duties. It does 
mean that we should cut back on wasteful spending that does not achieve 
our goals. This bill accomplishes the long awaited consolidation of 
similar, repetitive programs. It reduces foreign aid spending by $458 
million from fiscal year 1996.
  Reductions in spending have been made possible by the consolidation 
of funding that was doled out in the past to many different programs 
which seek to achieve similar goals. Appropriations are thus targeted 
to specific areas of concern more effectively and efficiently. It is an 
attempt to cut down the proverbial forest of redtape and bureaucracy 
that have become all too familiar. After all, even the workhorse has 
trouble plodding through an endless maze of dead ends.
  The aim is to achieve our goals in a direct manner, with less 
reliance on international organizations where we can't control the way 
our own money is used; the way the tax dollars of the American people 
are used. It is clear that this bill allows the United States to 
maintain a steady course as the eminent global leader. The empathy of 
the American people is as clear in our humanitarian efforts, as their 
practicality and common-sense is in our appropriations. This bill is 
one that protects our sovereignty, and works toward our goal of 
American security. I support this bill wholeheartedly, and urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of it.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered under the 5-minute 
rule by titles, and each title shall be considered read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time 
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
for a recorded vote of any amendment and may reduce to not less than 5 
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed 
question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device 
without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by 
electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not be 
less than 15 minutes.
  After the reading of the final lines of the bill, a motion that the 
Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill to the House with such 
amendments as may have been adopted shall, if offered by the majority 
leader or a designee, have precedence over a motion to amend.
  The Clerk will designate title I.
  The text of title I is as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, namely:

               TITLE I--EXPORT AND INVESTMENT ASSISTANCE


                export-import bank of the united states

       The Export-Import Bank of the United States is authorized 
     to make such expenditures within the limits of funds and 
     borrowing authority available to such corporation, and in 
     accordance with law, and to make such contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations, as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as may be necessary in carrying out the program for the 
     current fiscal

[[Page H5846]]

     year for such corporation: Provided, That none of the funds 
     available during the current fiscal year may be used to make 
     expenditures, contracts, or commitments for the export of 
     nuclear equipment, fuel, or technology to any country other 
     than a nuclear-weapon State as defined in Article IX of the 
     Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons eligible 
     to receive economic or military assistance under this Act 
     that has detonated a nuclear explosive after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.


                         subsidy appropriation

       For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, insurance, 
     and tied-aid grants as authorized by section 10 of the 
     Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended, $726,000,000 to 
     remain available until September 30, 1998: Provided, That 
     such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall 
     be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974: Provided further, That such sums shall remain 
     available until 2012 for the disbursement of direct loans, 
     loan guarantees, insurance and tied-aid grants obligated 
     in fiscal years 1997 and 1998: Provided further, That up 
     to $50,000,000 of funds appropriated by this paragraph 
     shall remain available until expended and may be used for 
     tied-aid grant purposes: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds appropriated by this paragraph may be used for 
     tied-aid credits or grants except through the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations: Provided further, That funds appropriated 
     by this paragraph are made available notwithstanding 
     section 2(b)(2) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, in 
     connection with the purchase or lease of any product by 
     any East European country, any Baltic State, or any agency 
     or national thereof.


                        administrative expenses

       For administrative expenses to carry out the direct and 
     guaranteed loan and insurance programs (to be computed on an 
     accrual basis), including hire of passenger motor vehicles 
     and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to 
     exceed $20,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses for members of the Board of Directors, $47,614,000: 
     Provided, That necessary expenses (including special services 
     performed on a contract or fee basis, but not including other 
     personal services) in connection with the collection of 
     moneys owed the Export-Import Bank, repossession or sale of 
     pledged collateral or other assets acquired by the Export-
     Import Bank in satisfaction of moneys owed the Export-Import 
     Bank, or the investigation or appraisal of any property, or 
     the evaluation of the legal or technical aspects of any 
     transaction for which an application for a loan, guarantee or 
     insurance commitment has been made, shall be considered 
     nonadministrative expenses for the purposes of this heading: 
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding subsection (b) of 
     section 117 of the Export Enhancement Act of 1992, subsection 
     (a) thereof shall remain in effect until October 1, 1997.


       overseas private investment corporation noncredit account

       The Overseas Private Investment Corporation is authorized 
     to make, without regard to fiscal year limitations, as 
     provided by 31 U.S.C. 9104, such expenditures and commitments 
     within the limits of funds available to it and in accordance 
     with law as may be necessary: Provided, That the amount 
     available for administrative expenses to carry out the credit 
     and insurance programs (including an amount for official 
     reception and representation expenses which shall not exceed 
     $35,000) shall not exceed $30,000,000: Provided further, That 
     project-specific transaction costs, including direct and 
     indirect costs incurred in claims settlements, and other 
     direct costs associated with services provided to specific 
     investors or potential investors pursuant to section 234 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, shall not be 
     considered administrative expenses for the purposes of 
     this heading.


                            program account

       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, $72,000,000, 
     as authorized by section 234 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of 
     modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That 
     such sums shall be available for direct loan obligations and 
     loan guaranty commitments incurred or made during fiscal 
     years 1997 and 1998: Provided further, That such sums shall 
     remain available through fiscal year 2005 for the 
     disbursement of direct and guaranteed loans obligated in 
     fiscal year 1997, and through fiscal year 2006 for the 
     disbursement of direct and guaranteed loans obligated in 
     fiscal year 1998. In addition, such sums as may be necessary 
     for administrative expenses to carry out the credit program 
     may be derived from amounts available for administrative 
     expenses to carry out the credit and insurance programs in 
     the Overseas Private Investment Corporation Noncredit Account 
     and merged with said account.

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                      trade and development agency

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 661 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $38,000,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 1998: Provided, That the Trade and Development 
     Agency may receive reimbursements from corporations and other 
     entities for the costs of grants for feasibility studies and 
     other project planning services, to be deposited as an 
     offsetting collection to this account and to be available for 
     obligation until September 30, 1998, for necessary expenses 
     under this paragraph: Provided further, That such 
     reimbursements shall not cover, or be allocated against, 
     direct or indirect administrative costs of the agency.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title I?


                   amendment offered by Mr. Lightfoot

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Lightfoot: Page 2, line 25, after 
     the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by 
     $64,000,000)''.
       Page 7, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $60,000,000)''.
       Page 13, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $4,000,000)''.

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by first commending the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Wilson] for presenting the House with, on balance, another fine bill. 
The bill continues the downward trend in foreign aid by reducing this 
bill some $450 million below last year's appropriated level. Others 
talk deficit reduction, these gentleman, like their predecessors, Mr. 
Obey and Mr. Livingston, deliver real spending reductions. We owe them 
a lot for that.
  Before I explain my amendment, let me also join my colleagues in 
expressing appreciation to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] for 
his years of service in this House. Whether Charlie is riding a camel 
with bandoleers of ammo over him in some country that 95 percent of us 
cannot pronounce or whether he is up in the full committee working 
through, he has made an excellent, positive contribution to this House 
and to this country. Charlie, we are going to miss you.
  The House simply will be not be the same without you.
  I offer this amendment because I am very concerned about the proposed 
funding level for the Export-Import Bank of the United States. In less 
than a year we have reduced Eximbank funding from $786 million, to 
$744.5 million through recision, to $726 million in this bill. I think 
this sends a terrible signal to our exporters and a worse signal to 
foreign governments.
  Frankly, I would not support the existence of the Eximbank if world 
markets were truly free and open. But the fact of the matter is that 
foreign governments, as a matter of national policy, subsidize their 
businesses entry into new markets. This foreign activity is costing us 
business and jobs.
  Our late Secretary of Commerce, Ron Brown, noted in the ``National 
Export Strategy'' that political and economic pressure brought to bear 
by other governments has already cost U.S. exports almost $25 billion 
in lost contracts.
  And the world's not waiting for us. Already, over half of our exports 
of capital goods go to the developing world. To assure our Nation's 
future economic prosperity we must be prepared to support our Nation's 
businesses in the face of foreign government intervention.
  My amendment increases the funding level for Export-Import Bank loans 
by $64 million to basically the amount approved in last year's bill. 
This would support an additional $2 billion in export assistance over 
the fiscal year 1996 levels and create up to 40,000 additional U.S. 
jobs.
  I propose as the offset a 3-percent reduction in AID development 
assistance and a 1-percent reduction in AID operating expenses.
  The amendment has drawn the support of a number of organizations 
including: the Coalition of Employment through Exports; The United 
States-Russia Business Council; the Aerospace Industries Association; 
the General Aviation Manufactures Association; and the International 
Engineering and Construction Industries Council.
  I commend these groups for stepping up in support of this amendment. 
Asking for a funding increase in an era of declining budgets means 
making tough choices and these groups have associated themselves with 
what is a difficult funding offset.
  The amendment does ask for a 1-percent reduction in total AID 
spending. My amendment does not, however, makes any cuts in the child 
survival account. As Americans, we all want to

[[Page H5847]]

do our best to help the world's neediest citizens.
  But other parts of AID's development assistance account should be 
looked at more closely. Although well intended, development assistance 
simply demonstrates little by way of results--beyond perhaps making us 
feel better.
  In an era of declining budgets we must make choices. I believe a $2 
billion increase in exports, leading to the creation of up to an 
additional 40,000 U.S. jobs, is an appropriate tradeoff against a 1-
percent reduction in total AID spending.
  Unfortunately, I detect too many crosscurrents within the House which 
lead me to think we cannot be successful today.
  There are groups which support an increase for Eximbank but 
ironically also stand to benefit from AID development assistance grants 
and are not able or willing to offer another offset.
  There are Members concerned about Eximbank's role in China and 
Members on the other side of the coin concerned about Eximbank's 
decision not to move forward with the Three Gorges Dam project. 
Finally, there are Members who still need convincing that Eximbank 
isn't just some corporate welfare scheme.
  I will not press for a vote in the House today which some might 
choose to construe somehow as a lack of support for Eximbank.
  It certainly is not.
  I also would like to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes] 
and the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] and others who have 
spoken in support of this measure and were ready to support it here on 
the House floor today.
  Mr. Chairman, as an old rodeo announcer, one of the first things you 
do is count the house. We counted the House, and we see where the votes 
are.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Iowa for his efforts. Certainly, 
there is no greater supporter in this House than Mr. Lightfoot with 
respect to the Eximbank, and with justifiable cause because Eximbank 
does create jobs in the United States. The gentleman is exactly right 
in his philosophy. But the committee has worked long and hard trying to 
reach a resolve and I respect the gentleman's mission. I also respect 
the fact that he recognizes we have done the best we can do. If there 
is anything we can do in conference to facilitate his request, we 
certainly would take that into consideration.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Iowa for his efforts. If anyone 
should get credit in this bill or in last year's bill for adequately 
funding the Eximbank, it is the gentleman from Iowa, Congressman 
Lightfoot. I appreciate his efforts.


                     amendment offered by mr. obey

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: On page 3, line 25, after 
     the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $1,000,000)''.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I stand here as a longtime supporter of the 
Eximbank. I remember in the early years that I served on this committee 
and in fact in the early years when I was chairman, my ranking 
Republican member was then the distinguished gentleman from New York, 
Mr. Kemp. At that time he and the Reagan administration favored the 
elimination of all support for the Eximbank. We resisted that. We 
stopped the elimination. I, for years, supported appropriations for 
that institution above the amount asked by the administration because 
the Eximbank, we felt, was important in the effort to expand American 
exports around the globe.
  I take a back seat to no one in my desire to do that. I think people 
need to understand that in this country one out of every seven jobs are 
related to our ability to export or to compete effectively against 
companies who are importing.
  I do think that we have an anomalous situation, and that is what this 
amendment attempts to address itself to.
  We have many, many accounts in this bill which are very deeply 
reduced. We have a huge cut in the IDA account. We have large 
reductions in development accounts. We have huge cuts for 
administration in AID. The 1997 bill, as reported by the committee, 
cuts or level funds for all administrative accounts in the bill with 
the exception of the Eximbank and the Overseas Private Investment 
Corporation.
  I support the work of those agencies. As I said, I have tried to 
ensure over the years that they received generous levels of funding. 
But at a time when virtually every other administrative account in the 
bill has either been cut or straight lined, I have a great deal of 
difficulty justifying or advocating increases to this agency.
  I would also point out that the Eximbank has been cited this year as 
having provided an excessive number of achievement bonuses for over 200 
of its employees. I frankly feel that sometimes bonuses are perfectly 
appropriate. But it strikes me that when we had that many in the midst 
of forcing reductions in many domestic agencies and at a time when we 
are forcing reductions in many other agencies in this bill, I just do 
not feel comfortable supporting that.
  AID has announced a reduction in force of about 10 percent of its 
work force. Its operating fund has been cut by $30 million by the 
committee. There will be attempts made on this floor today to reduce it 
even further. It seems to me that with those kinds of significant 
reductions, it is not appropriate to be providing an increase in 
administrative costs for Exim. Even so, my amendment does not eliminate 
all of the increase in administrative expenses. It simply eliminates 
half of the increase provided by the committee.
  It seems to me that, therefore, it is perfectly prudent and 
reasonable to suggest a $1 million reduction in this account for 
administrative expenses, and that is all that the amendment does.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not addressing the issues of this particular 
amendment. I am taking this time, Mr. Chairman, just to commend the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], the chairman, for the excellent 
work he has done on this legislation and also the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Wilson], for his leadership. We appreciate that over the years and 
for all he has done for this body and for his country.
  With the leadership of these two individuals, this legislation takes 
another positive step forward in shifting our priorities away from 
foreign aid and helping American companies increase their exports. I 
think that is the key to increasing exports and creating new jobs for 
American workers.
  This bill reduces foreign aid by nearly half a billion dollars from 
last year's bill. Compared with the administration's request for more 
foreign aid, this bill saves $1 billion for the American taxpayers.
  Particularly, let me commend Mr. Callahan for sharply reducing the 
AID Housing Guarantee Program. The reason I do that is my Subcommittee 
on International Economic Policy and Trade has conducted a 3-year 
investigation on this program with the assistance of the General 
Accounting Office. We uncovered the fact that AID's mismanagement of 
the Housing Guarantee Program is causing a 40-percent loss rate on 
loans that the United States has guaranteed, 40-percent loss rate.
  So far, 22 foreign countries and governments have stopped payment on 
these U.S.-backed loans. This means that half of the countries in the 
program have caused losses that the United States has to cover. All 
told, we have paid more than $400 million to cover these bad loans. 
What is worse, GAO predicts that these losses will continue to mount 
year after year.
  Mr. Chairman, we will pay over $1 billion to cover these losses. This 
is very significant for us to remember. Several weeks ago, the 
inspector general of AID testified before our committee. He agreed with 
our judgment that the Housing Guarantee Program was in big trouble and 
has to be reviewed. This provision in this bill, which cuts off 
virtually all new guarantees, is the right step to take. It is

[[Page H5848]]

consistent with the provisions of our authorization bill and would 
terminate this program.
  Moreover, I support the focus of this bill in assisting our 
exporters. In hearings before our committee, witness after witness from 
the exporting community has emphasized over and over again that funding 
for the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corp. and 
the Trade and Development Agency are essential to our competitive 
position in the world markets.

                              {time}  1215

  In sum, this legislation sets the right priorities, it reduces 
spending, it shifts money away from foreign aid, and it helps our 
exporters, and it shuts down poorly run, wasteful programs.
  So all in all, Mr. Chairman, this legislation has looked at the key 
issues and, I think, has made the proper judgments all along the way, 
and so I think this is a particularly good piece of legislation.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate where the gentleman is coming from, and 
certainly, if anybody is in favor of cutting expenses of this huge 
Federal Government it is me. but we have worked in a bipartisan manner 
to reduce Federal aid responsibly, and I think that the subcommittee 
and the full committee have done it. The administration requested the 
amount of money we put in this bill.
  Now, if we are going to have responsible administrations 
administering programs as well supported as the Eximbank and if the 
Eximbank is going to continue to move in the direction of concentrating 
some of their efforts toward small business, then we are going to have 
to give them adequate resources to provide that service.
  We have conveyed to the leadership of the Eximbank and not to the 
administration that we think they ought to look at smaller projects. 
There is something else other than a dam, there is something else other 
than a highway, there are small business people in the United States 
who have a potential customer in foreign countries, and that is why we 
have the Eximbank, and if they tell us they need money to provide this 
type of service to investigate whether or not the loan is viable, we 
have to give them adequate resources.
  So I try to give this administration as much flexibility as I can. 
They came to me, and said in order to have an effective Exim operation, 
we must provide them with adequate funds. That is incidentally the 
request, I think that we must give them the benefit of the doubt, 
encourage them to be frugal, but at the same time not tie their hands 
and eliminate the possibility of job creativity in the United States.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to underline what the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan] has said. Multinational companies in the United 
States, are companies that create the highest paying jobs in the United 
States. The Eximbank has done as spectacular job in the last few years 
of stimulating American jobs at home as well as stimulating American 
investment abroad. We all know that American companies work at a great 
disadvantage in foreign trade, due to the Corrupt Practices Act. Other 
countries can deduct the bribes they pay to do business from their 
income taxes. The companies in the United States have to abide by a 
very strict Corrupt Practices Act. I hope that we can make progress in 
persuading our European partners and others not to pay bribes anymore, 
but so far we have not been able to do that.
  But without the financing that is furnished by the Eximbank, there 
would be tremendous job loss in the United States and tremendous 
economic loss. A loss in our gross national product, a loss in Federal 
income tax revenues and a loss across the board economically.
  So I would join the gentleman in opposing this amendment.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I stand to speak on behalf of the amendment No. 24 from the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. I do not know if the Members of this House 
are aware of a February 1, 1996, article: ``The Export-Import Bank 
Overpaid Salaries.'' This shows that the Eximbank illegally increased 
the salaries of about 200 employees by an average of almost $5,000 a 
year after portraying them as critical workers that the agency could 
not afford to lose, and the bank's acting chairman, now a chairman who 
is appointed full-time permanently during the recess, Martin Kamarck, 
said in February 1996 we blew it, we were aggressive, and made a 
mistake and will fix it. Well, this is now June 1996, and it still has 
not been fixed. The Eximbank only has about 400 employees, and half of 
them, one-half of them, got pay increases, and those 200 employees, I 
believe, represent 25 percent of all the Federal employees that got pay 
increases.
  Now, this is an agency that needs some trimming. We are not talking 
about cutting back the amount of subsidies that will be available for 
the purposes of helping American exporters compete overseas. What we 
are talking about is an agency which will be 2.5 percent, there will be 
a 2.5 percent reduction in subsidy, and yet the agency wants a 4.2-
percent increase in their operations expense. That is not necessary, 
and simply because the agency requests the amount of money does not 
mean that we should give it to them.
  I have an even stronger amendment which I will be offering later on 
in the course of this debate that will cut the administrative expenses 
by approximately $3 million. But as to the Obey amendment, it is 
correct, it should be done, there is no reason why the Eximbank cannot 
be forced to live within its means, and the $1 million to which the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is referring I think is a fact that 
this is a time for the American people to get back the $1 million that 
was improperly paid to over 200 workers at the Eximbank.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Let 
me simply observe that for those who indicate that they are concerned 
that Exim will not be able to provide sufficient services to small 
business if this cut goes into effect, I would suggest that I have been 
involved for a long time in trying to get greater focus on small 
business at Exim. And perhaps, taking a note of the reduction which has 
occurred, they will make a greater effort to respond to the needs of 
small business in order to build a broader constituency. That might be 
a very positive result of adopting this amendment.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague from Wisconsin. 
I think it is disingenuous on the part of Eximbank to say that unless 
they get their additional appropriations, they cannot reach out to 
small businesses. But my question is this: Just because an agency wants 
to increase its outreach, does that mean it has to increase its budget?
  We are talking about a reordering of priorities, and I would 
encourage my colleagues to vote in the affirmative on Mr. Obey's 
Amendment No. 24.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, 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 CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                   amendment offered by mr. manzullo

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Manzullo: Page 3, line 25, after 
     the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $3,136,000)''.

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment 
numbered 19 to reduce the bill's $47.6 million appropriation for 
Export-Import Bank administrative expenses by $3.1 million.

[[Page H5849]]

  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is quite simple. If the Committee on 
Appropriations could recommend a cut of 2.5 percent for the subsidy 
appropriations for the Eximbank, certainly they do not need to increase 
Washington bureaucracy at Exim by 4.2 percent especially if the General 
Accounting Office found nearly $1 million in overpaid bonuses.
  This is an agency, Mr. Chairman, that said that it had to take a lot 
of time in coming to a decision because of the layoff and the shutdown 
of the Federal Government, and then they turn right around and give 
almost $1 million in bonuses.
  This is simply a budgetary priority issue. My amendment would cut 
Washington bureaucracy at the same percentage level as the cut in the 
program account at Exim. If Exim programs drop by 2.5 percent, so 
should a Washington bureaucracy. A 2.5-percent cut from last year's 
level is not a drastic measure. Every agency is experiencing severe 
budget crisis. Exim should not be the exception.
  Mr. Chairman, the President of Exim said last February that the bank 
made a mistake and they would fix the overpaid bonus problem. Out of 
448 employees, 200 were awarded bonuses, but the GAO said that only 10 
of the 200 were actually eligible to receive the money. Well, Exim is 
one of the smallest agencies in the Federal Government. Exim accounted 
for 25 percent of all bonuses granted governmentwide. GAO concluded 
that many of these awards did not appear to comply with the statutory 
requirement.
  Well, months later the issue is still unresolved, and to add salt to 
an open wound, the President nominated Mr. Kamarck to head the Eximbank 
in a recess appointment, allowing him once again to issue bonuses.
  Finally, the chairman of Exim said in a press conference last week 
that their services are not needed for the largest public works project 
in the biggest emerging market in the world. Mr. Kamarck said U.S. 
companies can win these contracts on their own. I am perplexed at that 
statement. He seems to question the need for these additional personnel 
and resources if Exim declines at this time to support our exporters 
for the Three Gorges Dam project. If Exim immediately withdraws support 
for both large and small U.S. exporters for this huge project, then 
Exim does not need the extra $2 million for outreach activities to 
small businesses. Exim could do more for small businesses by revisiting 
the Three Gorges Dam decision.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. If my 
colleagues are concerned about the deficit, if my colleagues want to 
cut Washington waste and bureaucracy, if my colleagues want to balance 
the committee's recommendations for programs with resources, if my 
colleagues want to sent a message to Eximbank, then support the 
Manzullo amendment No. 19.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just see if I can sketch out here what is really 
happening. There are two things in play here. No. 1, we have this 
administration running all over Capitol Hill trying to persuade those 
of us in the House and Senate to vote for MFN, most-favored-nation 
status. I support that. I think it is good, and I hope that it will 
pass.
  So on the one hand they want us, as a Congress, to support MFN. On 
the other hand this administration sends a memo to the Eximbank and 
says do not fund any of the loans for the Three Gorges project in 
China, and the reason they give in their memo is for humanitarian and 
environmental reasons.
  So this is the classic Clinton way of doing things. On the one hand 
they want to portray themselves as being for the environment and being 
for humanitarian efforts. On the other hand they want to come up here 
and ignore that on MFN. So they sent this memo to the Eximbank snubbing 
their nose at American business. The Three Gorges project is going to 
proceed, it is going to move ahead. China has decided that they want 
this project.
  So the administration wants to say, ``Oh, we're for humanitarian 
environmental issues,'' on the one hand, and yet come up here and 
ignore them on MFN. So they have totally politicized the Eximbank on 
this issue. Their memo has scared the Exim people to the extent that 
they will not allow these loans to proceed, and American business gets 
snubbed, and the projects, the money for this equipment, will go to our 
foreign competitors.
  So they want to be able to tell American business, ``Yes, we're 
supporting you because we're for MFN, but on the other hand we can't 
support this particular issue.''

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Chairman, this agency has been politicized by this 
administration. This amendment will send a strong shot across the bow 
of the Eximbank that Congress knows what the administration and Exim is 
up to. Hand in glove, they are working together so the administration 
can have what they want, on the one hand with MFN, and they can also 
then go out and portray themselves as being environmentalists, and also 
for humanitarian concerns.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding, I would say to my 
colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, that Exim's refusal to get 
involved in financing with several companies could cost this country 
tens of thousands of highly skilled and highly paid jobs. Is that 
correct?
  Mr. LaHOOD. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. MANZULLO. This is what this is about. We are talking about the 
largest public works project in the world.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying this. If the 
Members who are in their offices watching this debate on this amendment 
want to be consistent on MFN, what they ought to do is vote for this 
amendment and continue to send a strong signal that we cannot have it 
both ways. This is the classic Clinton attempt to have it both ways. It 
is nonsense, and we should not stand by and let it happen. That will 
send a strong message.
  I encourage Members who care about American business and care about 
companies doing business abroad to do this.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind the gentleman, and I am 
sure he probably knows it, that this subcommittee, as well as other 
committees, have put environmental constraints on the Eximbank, and 
they are mandated by Congress to make decisions based on that.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Texas, it 
is very clear why they made this decision, because the Clinton 
administration told them to make it. They told them how to direct this 
money and they told them not to direct it onto the Three Gorges 
project.
  Mr. WILSON. It is quite possible. I am not sure about who directed 
who to do what, but it is very likely that under any circumstances, and 
I know how you gentlemen from Illinois feel, because it means a lot of 
jobs, but still, I believe that the Eximbank would have come under 
great, savage criticism had they approved this loan.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Then how can the administration run up here on Capitol 
Hill, then, and try to persuade all of us to vote for MFN? Where are 
their environmental and humanitarian concerns when it comes to that 
issue?
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, the issues 
are simply not connected. The issues are simply not connected. MFN is 
an across-the-board trade. It is giving China the same status as 
practically every other country in the world has. It has nothing to do 
with Three Gorges Dam or the determination by the Eximbank that it did 
not fit into that.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I did not come here to be Bill Clinton's Congressman. I 
did not come here to be Tommy Thompson's Congressman. I did not come 
here to be anybody's Congressman except the people I was elected to 
represent, so I do not have to come here and support every action taken 
by the administration.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not happen to favor MFN for China. I think China 
has not behaved in a way that entitles

[[Page H5850]]

them to that privilege. I also happen to think that the Eximbank was 
right in the decision they made on this project, so I do not think the 
gentleman from Illinois--and he has a perfect right to take the 
position he does--but we do not have on this side of the aisle, or at 
least I do not have, a responsibility to support every decision made by 
the Clinton adminstration. I happen to think that the Eximbank was 
correct in that case, in the case that the gentleman from Illinois has 
a profound disagreement with.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply suggest that I think my amendment is a 
rational effort to send a signal to Exim that they should not provide 
inappropriate bonuses, and that it is also rational to indicate that we 
ought not to be exempting any agency from the squeeze when we have a 
very tight fiscal situation.
  But if the point of the gentleman's amendment is to express the 
Congress' disagreement with Exim's decision on the case in question, 
then I would strongly urge opposition to that, because I think that 
would send an even more confusing signal to the Chinese Government, and 
I think if we are dealing with the question of what ought to happen 
with respect to MFN, we ought to deal with it when the time comes.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman recognize the 
inconsistency that I tried to point out here, though, with trying to 
portray the thing in two different lights by the administration?
  Mr. OBEY. In my view, Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned, the 
administration's position in support of MFN and in opposition to this 
is irrelevant. I have an obligation to exercise my own judgment. The 
gentleman is free to characterize the position of the administration 
any way he wants.
  On this issue, I do not care what the administration thinks. I care 
about what I think is right, and what I think is right is not to exempt 
Exim from the budgetary squeeze that is befalling virtually every other 
agency in this bill. I also happen to think that they were right to 
turn down the project that the gentleman thinks they should have 
approved.
  I am not trying to get into policy questions on Exim I am simply 
trying to make the simple observation we should not be expanding their 
administrative expenses when we are cutting everybody else's. That is 
what my amendment does without getting into a premature argument on 
this.
  Mr. LaHOOD. If the gentleman would further yield, I wonder, if the 
gentleman's own amendment goes down, if he would be willing to support 
ours, then, since then he would be accomplishing what he is trying to 
accomplish here. He would reduce by an amount of money the ability of 
them to do what he wants.
  Mr. OBEY. As I said, Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment 
because I recognize the importance of the Exim in extending business 
abroad and enabling us to provide exports. I am going after their 
administrative account because I do not like an administrative decision 
they made with respect to bonuses. But if we are going to start going 
after their administrative account every time we do not like a policy 
decision they made, we will have 100 amendments on the administrative 
account. I do not think that makes much sense for either them or the 
Congress to be doing.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I would just state that the purpose of my 
amendment is to reduce the administrative expenses by the same 
percentage as the reduction in the subsidy appropriation; that is all 
we are doing, because we are asked to decrease the subsidy 
appropriation by 2.5 percent, and we are also being asked to increase 
the administrative expenses by 4.2 percent. So if we are spending less 
money, they should in essence be spending less money to administer 
this.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his observation. I 
do not think necessarily that administrative expenses are tied directly 
to the level of financial support the agency gets. Some deals are a 
whole lot more complicated than others. The world is a lot more 
complicated than that.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by my two close friends, the 
gentleman from Illinois, is offered in understandable frustration. 
Simply, what happened, days ago the Eximbank killed efforts by some 
American companies, including some from Illinois who would be 
participating in a massive Three Gorges hydroelectric dam project in 
China. A lot of time and money went into preparing bids for that 
project. Eximbank first signaled its willingness to finance them, and 
then they switched signals. I do not think it is the end of the road. I 
do not think the door is truly closed on that project. I think it is 
closed at this point.
  But it is a terrible message. While I understand the gentleman's 
frustration, this is not the solution. As the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey] mentioned, if we are going to penalize the Eximbank or any 
other agency of the United States because they do not do what we want 
them to do, then we are going to be here every day on every bill with 
amendments such as this.
  Mr. Chairman, I share the goal of the gentleman. I hope American 
companies will be able to ultimately participate in the Three Gorges 
hydroelectric dam project, but I do know that companies in the Members' 
districts and in their States are going to benefit, whether this 
becomes a reality or not, this particular project.
  I just want to tell the Members that I share their frustration. I 
have had projects turned down in the State of Alabama. Even though I 
disagreed with the Eximbank for turning my people down in the State of 
Alabama, I did not try to penalize them by reducing their operating 
expenditures.
  I share the frustration. I have talked with the chairman of the 
Eximbank about the Members' projects. I support Members' involvement in 
the project and I support the project, but this is not the place to 
establish policy. So let me share in the frustrations, let me share in 
my willingness to assist the Members on this or any other project. But 
we have worked long and hard to come up with a responsible piece of 
legislation that has bipartisan support, and we cannot respond to every 
request that comes along by punishing someone. We are not going to 
punish the people who are doing the work. We are not going to punish 
the executives who made the decision. This is going to punish the 
ability of American small business people and large business people to 
compete with the French and the Germans and the British in foreign 
operations.
  So I respect where Members are coming from, but I also have to 
respectfully speak in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, how many agencies is the gentleman aware 
of that have had an actual increase in administrative expenses besides 
border patrol?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, how many agencies does the gentleman know 
of that are creating thousands of jobs? How many agencies does he know 
of that created $17 billion in American exports and 340,000 American 
jobs? That is a part of our overall policy. I would say, why are we 
going to punish American exports?
  Mr. MANZULLO. I am not punishing, Mr. Chairman. All I am saying to 
the gentleman, why should the Eximbank administrative account have an 
increase when all other agencies, including social service agencies, 
are having decreases?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Because we have advised them to do more, and No. 1, we 
get something in return for this. This is not going to go on forever. 
These people buy Caterpillar machines, they buy shrimp boats from Bayou 
Le Batre Alabama, they buy supplies made by the American people, they 
buy generators for these hydroelectric plants made by the American 
people. So this is an agency that we have been demanding to focus more 
so on small business people. We are encouraging them to spend more 
money focusing on the ability to create jobs in the small business 
sector.

[[Page H5851]]

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware that the generator 
business is going to Canada because of the decision by Eximbank, and 
those generators that can be American built and shipped are now going 
overseas for shipment to China?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. That is the policy. That is this one particular job.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LaHOOD. I just want to make one point, Mr. Chairman. I respect 
the gentleman's point of view on this.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. LaHOOD, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Callahan was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would just make this point. If this 
decision were made on the merits, we would not be standing here. This 
administration has politicized the Eximbank by sending them a memo 
saying ``Do not fund this.'' So it is not us coming over here trying to 
exert influence. This agency has been politicized by the Clinton 
administration. There is no question about it. If they had not done 
that, if Exim would have done what they are supposed to have done, been 
professional, done it on the merits, it would be different. That is why 
we are here, because we are irritated about the fact that it has been 
so politicized.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Mr. Manzullo's amendment to 
H.R. 3540, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 
1997, and want to personally commend the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Procurement Exports, and Business Opportunities for his efforts to 
assist U.S. businesses in their endeavor to compete in the world 
market.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment specifically addresses the fiscal year 
1997 appropriation for the Export-Import Bank and seeks to reduce their 
administrative costs by 2.5 percent, in proportion to the amount of 
reduction in subsidies, rather than increasing administrative costs by 
4.2 percent as set forth in this legislation.
  My reasons for supporting this amendment are many, but I would like 
to take this time to discuss only one example that has prompted me to 
support this reduction in administrative costs. This concerns the 
recent announcement by Martin Kamarck, president and chairman of the 
Eximbank, in which he stated that the Board concluded that the Eximbank 
cannot issue a letter of interest for the Three Gorges Dam project in 
China, the largest hydroelectric project in the world, and one in which 
I have had considerable interest because of the effect it would have on 
a company in my district, and the people it employs.
  Even though this particular project was found financially credit 
worthy and technically sound by the Board, it concluded that a letter 
of interest could not be provided to U.S. companies seeking to do 
business with China because of a lack of information from the Chinese 
relative to environmental concerns. Mr. Kamarck went on to further 
comment that this decision does not limit U.S. companies from privately 
participating in the Three Gorges project.
  First, it seems to me that if the staff of the Eximbank were not able 
to provide enough information on the environmental concerns to the 
Board, then the Board should not have voted until this information had 
been obtained. On this particular point, my office staff, as well as 
numerous others, inquired from time-to-time throughout the review 
process as to whether or not additional information was needed, and we 
were told repeatedly that they had enough information to make a 
recommendation.
  Second, if the Eximbank is not going to assist U.S. companies, but 
suggests that they participate privately, then maybe we should be 
thinking about whether or not we need the Eximbank at all.
  I do not think we need to be rewarding an organization that does not 
seem to be following the process as it was intended by Congress and 
changes the goalposts in the process, thereby hurting U.S. businesses 
in their efforts to compete with other countries who are now involved 
in selling equipment to China for this project.
  Officials at Caterpillar, a large supplier of Earth moving equipment 
in my district, have suggested to me that what we should be doing is to 
increase the administrative appropriation at Eximbank, rather than 
reducing it, so they can hire more environmentalists to do the 
obviously needed staff work on projects such as this, but I disagree. 
the Eximbank has been touted by the administration as one of the 
brightest stars in their campaign to promote U.S. exports, but I 
believe their reputation has suffered as a result of the delay on this 
matter of providing export-finance assistance for the sale of United 
States goods to China for use in building that country's massive 
project.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe we should vote to reduce the administrative 
costs for the Eximbank by the same amount that we have reduced the 
subsidy, and I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Manzullo's amendment.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] be allowed to offer amendment No. 26 at a 
later point in the reading of the bill, even if consideration of title 
I has been completed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would 
ask the reason for the unanimous consent request.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the reason for the unanimous-consent request 
is because I have an amendment to cut another item in this title. I am 
required to be in a leadership meeting for the next 10 minutes.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. Before I proceed, I would like to engage the gentleman on a 
colloquy on the pending amendment, a discussion on his amendment.
  Does the gentleman realize that if the Obey amendment is passed and 
the gentleman's amendment is passed, the total dollar amount in 
administrative costs to Eximbank will be cut?

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. MANZULLO. The total amount would be minus $3.6 million, and his 
would be $1 million, that is correct.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I think his is $2 million. You can add them together; if 
you add them together. So the gentleman is right, close to $5 million. 
Now, is that what the gentleman really wants to do?
  Mr. MANZULLO. It is $4.1 million.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Is that what the gentleman really wants to do?
  Mr. MANZULLO. I think it is necessary that administrative expenses be 
cut at a time when the subsidy appropriation is being cut, that is 
correct.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I may have been able to support the 
gentleman's amendment is he had offered it as a substitute for Obey. 
But as accumulate to Obey I am going to have to oppose the amendment, 
and I think the House should oppose the amendment, because when you 
total it out, it is in excess of what you say you are cutting.
  Mr. MANZULLO. That is correct.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I would recommend to the House that we go ahead and vote 
and adopt the Obey amendment, which I think is a reasonable cut in 
administrative costs.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
if you take the Obey amendment, that is the $1 million that the 
chairman of the Eximbank should have paid back a long time ago, and he 
never did. He said back on the last day of January of this year that he 
was going to make up for the improper bonuses that he paid that cost 
the American taxpayers $1 million. To date he had not done that. So we 
start with the $1 million reimbursing the taxpayers that is already 
owed them.
  My amendment then says, let us reduce the administrative expenses by 
the same percentage as the overall subsidy appropriation, which is 2.5 
percent.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Well, then, you are really in favor of both amendments 
and adding them together in cutting the $4.1 million.
  Mr. MANZULLO. That is correct. I think we can cut bureaucrats at

[[Page H5852]]

Eximbank and the organization can function just as well.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Well, Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would argue 
that the Obey amendment, which I think is a reasonable amount, sends a 
signal to Eximbank and that Eximbank should abide by the rules and 
regulations of paying their employees. I do not disagree with the 
gentleman on that, and I think they will. I also believe that Exim does 
provide a meaningful, well-rounded program to provide exports out of 
this country. Even though there may be those Members who are in 
disagreement with some specific areas, I do not believe that you really 
should throw the baby out with the bath water. I believe that the 
amount that is provided in the Obey amendment is a reasonable amount, 
does send a signal, which you really want to do, does bring to the 
attention that the Congress will consider the actions of the Eximbank, 
just like we will any other agency of this Government and the 
bureaucracy.

  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, if the amendment of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin does not prevail, would the gentleman then be prepared to 
support the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois?
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, if the Obey amendment fails, then I would 
support the Manzullo amendment, but I would not support both. But I 
would support the Obey amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number 
of words, and not to take a position on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise simply to speak on behalf of the bill in its 
entirety as it has been written by the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee and voted on by all of the members of the subcommittee. 
The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] has done an outstanding job 
on this bill. He has worked out agreements where frankly no agreements 
have been thought possible on issues that are highly controversial and 
proved so last year. Such issues as family planning that really hung 
the bill up for 9 months.
  So I just want to tip my hat to him for his magnificent performance, 
and as well to the performance of the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Wilson], the ranking minority on the subcommittee. He has 
done his usual superb job. He has also served valiantly in this 
Congress for I do not know how many years before I even came here. But 
he has been a great contributing Member to the Congress, both 
throughout his tenure as a member of the Majority and now as a member 
of the minority.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] has served as an outstanding 
contributing member as the ranking minority member on the subcommittee. 
This will be the last bill that the gentleman helps to manage as he 
goes on to other things following his departure from the U.S. Congress. 
I just want to thank him for his efforts and wish him will and Godspeed 
in all that is ahead of him and in all that life has to offer after he 
departs from the U.S. Congress.
  So with that, Mr. Chairman, again, I compliment the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] for 
their work on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this amendment and 
urge Members to vote against the amendment. But I also want to urge all 
of our Members to vote for this bill that has been so finely crafted by 
the two people most responsible for the bill.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for 
yielding to me.
  Let me just point out that I recognize the frustration, I recognize 
the position of the two gentlemen from Illinois, but their reason for 
being here today is because of an administrative decision. Someone said 
that the White House called down to the Eximbank and told them not to 
handle this project at this time. So the solution there, I might inform 
the gentleman, is not to punish the Eximbank, but to get an 
administration down there that will not do those types of things.
  If that is the case and if you get an administration who wants to 
work with projects such as this, then you have to make certain that the 
Eximbank is adequately funded. So maybe there is a possibility that in 
4 months, the gentleman's problem will be resolved.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  First of all, I want to thank the chairman of the full committee for 
his very kind and generous words, as well as everyone else for all of 
the other kind and overly generous words that have been uttered today. 
I am deeply appreciative.
  I really understand the frustration of the gentleman from Illinois, 
the two gentlemen from Illinois. In addition to understanding the 
frustration, I want my colleagues to know that I am a Caterpillar fan. 
I have supported every project that I know of that Caterpillar has 
participated in, and Caterpillar is participating in projects all over 
the world today that are financed by the Eximbank. I am just 
suggesting, as the chairman of the full committee suggested, that it 
could be short-sighted to try to punish the Eximbank for this single 
decision when there are so many other decisions that involve jobs in 
your districts. It is penny-wise and pound-foolish.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WILSON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, let me state this again. I think it is 
fiscally inappropriate for the U.S. Congress to reduce the subsidy 
appropriation of an agency by 2.5 percent, and yet increase the 
salaries of bureaucrats by 4.2 percent. All my amendment says is very 
simply, everything is being downsized. How can we as Members of the 
U.S. Congress vote to increase the bureaucracies of an agency? Every 
agency is being downsized except the administrative staff of this one. 
That is all we are doing on this.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I know the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo] is a forthright Member of this House. 
However, I would like to ask the gentleman a question, and that is, if 
the Three Gorges Dam had been approved, would the gentleman be here 
today with this amendment?
  Mr. MANZULLO. I absolutely would. I vote every time there is an 
opportunity to cut.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Manzullo amendment, and I will 
have to admit to the question of the last speaker, had the bank 
approved the loan, I would not have been here. I am here to make a 
point about that. I think it is inappropriate that the bank was 
subjected to unusual, or it should be unusual, political pressure from 
the Clinton administration to turn down the request of American 
companies for support in their competition for contracts related to the 
construction of the China Three Gorges Dam. The bank has put American 
companies at a severe competitive disadvantage. Our companies will lose 
hundreds of jobs, maybe thousands of jobs, worth millions of dollars to 
our major competitors: Japan, Canada, and Europe.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EWING. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware that the only other 
government in the world that is furnishing financial support for the 
Three Gorges Dam is Canada? It is not Germany, it is not Japan, it is 
not France.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is my understanding 
from a company in my district that France is also supporting their 
companies in this, and the point is that we do not know that others 
will not, and if Canada is, we ought to be out there and we ought to be 
competitive, and we should not have the dual standard. We should learn 
from our mistakes and this administration should. We should not try to 
influence banks. That is not the reason that that was set up.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EWING. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I would state an inquiry to the comments 
of the distinguished gentleman

[[Page H5853]]

from Texas [Mr. Wilson], that in an article that appeared in the Wall 
Street Journal and New York Times about 3 weeks ago, China has asked 
several countries, excluding the United States, to participate in the 
first round of over $4 billion in investment going into China. Canada 
at this time has agreed to it, but Japan and Germany and other 
countries are presently considering it, seriously considering it.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I know I do not have 
much time left, and I want to make the point that at this time when we 
are being asked to consider most-favored-nation status for China, which 
I support, and yet we are willing to overlook environmental 
deficiencies, human rights deficiencies, because we believe dealing 
with China is a better way to handle it, and yet when it comes to 
American industry wanting their share of this enormous contract, we are 
going to raise the environmental flag, we are going to raise the human 
rights flag and we are going to say we cannot deal with this contract 
because of the same reasons that we are willing to ignore. I do not 
think the administration has their program together on this. It is 
important for the jobs. It is important for years to come. If America 
supplies the equipment for this enormous project, we will be creating 
jobs in America for years to come.
  Mr. Chairman, I question the subsidy appropriation of $726 million in 
this bill for the Exim bank. Just last week the bank, under unusual 
political pressure from the Clinton White House, turned down requests 
by American companies for support in their competition for contracts 
related to the construction of China's Three Gorges Dam. The bank has 
put American companies at a severe competitive disadvantage. Our 
companies will lose hundreds of millions of dollars worth of contracts 
and the jobs they support to competitors in Japan, Canada, and Europe.
  The bank was established, quote, ``to foster expansion of exports of 
manufactured goods, agricultural products, and other goods and 
services, thereby contributing to the promotion and maintenance of high 
levels of employment and real income and to the increased development 
of the productive resources of the United States.'' The bank was 
intended to do what is in the best economic interests of this country. 
In its decision not to support American businesses on Three Gorges, the 
bank has directly violated these goals in my opinion.
  The Caterpillar company which manufactures earthmoving equipment 
estimates that with support from the bank the company could obtain 
contracts worth up to $200 million in sales, which would translate into 
about 4,000 man-years worth of jobs here in the United States. However, 
without the support of the bank, Caterpillar will be at a severe 
disadvantage trying to compete against foreign companies, such as the 
Japanese, which surely will have backing from their governments. 
However, Caterpillar and its hundreds of suppliers and subcontractors 
are not the only American companies to lose from the bank's decision 
last week. For example, C.S. Johnson, which manufactures concrete 
mixing equipment, on its own has obtained one contract associated with 
Three Gorges which employs 20 full-time people in my district. C.S. 
Johnson would like to bid on 15-18 additional contracts, but because of 
the bank's decision will be at a major disadvantage.
  Despite the fact that the bank was established as an independent 
agency, the bank capitulated to political pressure from President 
Clinton's White House, The White House took the extraordinary step of 
sending a written memo discouraging the bank from supporting the 
project based largely on environmental concerns. In fact, the White 
House, while trying to quietly pressure the bank not to support the 
project, also stated that ``the U.S. Government should refrain from 
publicly condemning the Three Gorges project.'' The bank took its 
marching orders from the White House and slammed the door on American 
companies based on questionable environmental concerns, instead of 
doing what is in the best economic interests of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, the dam will be built whether American companies 
participate or not. Because the bank allowed overzealous environmental 
activists in the White House to set the bank's agenda and ignored its 
responsibilities to do what is in the best economic interests of the 
United States, these jobs will go to Japan, Canada, or Europe.
  When the bank's charter expires in 1997 some in this Congress will 
carefully review whether the bank has operated independently as it 
should, or catered to the political desires of the President.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and to discuss 
some of the issues surrounding the amendment that is on the floor 
today. First a little history. The Congress of the United States for 
the last half a dozen years, or a little bit longer, has move to make 
the environmental concerns part of the criteria for decisions made by 
multilateral development banks including the World Bank. In 1992, 
Congress revised the Eximbank's charter to include a requirement that 
the bank establish environmental review procedures consistent with the 
bank's overall export promotion objectives. It authorized the board to 
grant to withhold financing support after taking into account the 
beneficial and adverse environmental effects of proposed transactions.
  Following this congressional directive, Eximbank staff worked with 
the exporters, other U.S. and multilateral agencies, and 
nongovernmental agencies to define appropriate guidelines and 
procedures to be used for transactions requesting bank support. The 
Eximbank environmental procedures and guidelines have been in effect 
since February 1, 1995, and indeed, they are a result of congressional 
action.
  That is in addition to other actions taken by the Congress, as I 
mentioned, so that these multilateral developmental banks and export 
financing agencies cannot contribute to the environmental degradation 
by supporting major projects which do just that, which are not 
environmentally sound.
  I believe that the Eximbank and the Clinton administration are to be 
commended for their leadership, not their followship of what other 
countries might do but their leadership on this issue. Indeed, as my 
ranking member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] pointed out, only 
one other country, Canada, is providing the financing that is 
referenced in this debate.

                              {time}  1300

  So it is not as if our companies are at a disadvantage.
  I want to also point out to Members that there is nothing preventing 
business from participating. If this is such a good business deal, then 
businesses should go in and do business as mostly all the other 
companies throughout the world are doing in the Three Gorges Dam 
without this assistance of their governments.
  Mr. Chairman, several U.S. companies have already sold 60 to 100 
million dollars' worth of equipment and services to this project 
without Exim support. The decision of the Eximbank in no way affects 
their ability to continue doing business privately with this project.
  I support the Eximbank but I think we have to have a balance. Somehow 
or other corporate America thinks that they cannot do business unless 
they have a subsidy from the Government. There is no law against 
private industry going in and competing without a helpful hand from the 
Government--the corporate welfare that some have referenced.
  But I support the Eximbank. I am not an opponent of it. I have been a 
strong proponent of these international banks being environmentally 
sound. This is about the environment--it is not about China. The World 
Bank, has billions of dollars of loans into China. One of the biggest 
recipients of World Bank loans is China. Even the World Bank is not 
lending money for the Three Gorges Dam because it does not meet their 
environmental standards.
  The Eximbank was very clear in its statement that they have 
established what their concerns are environmentally. And if the Three 
Gorges Dam should at some point in the future meet those envrionmental 
standards, it would then be eligible for Exim participation.
  So this is not a China issue. This is an environmental issue. The 
Eximbank voted unanimously against issuing a letter of interest because 
of the environmental concerns.
  Again, I reiterate, the Eximbank has supported $3.8 billion in United 
States exports to China during the last 4 years and currently they have 
$10 billion in potential financing for transactions in various 
industries. So as I recognize the gentlemen from Illinois protecting 
the view of Caterpillar, but that is a special interest. We have the 
public interest at stake here on the floor and that public interest is 
nothing short of the environment in which we live. That internationally 
we have responsibilities to address the protection of that

[[Page H5854]]

environment and that the taxpayers' dollars should not be used to 
finance loans that will undermine the environment.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the statement of the Eximbank 
as follows:

 Statement of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the 
                             United States

 (By Martin A. Kamarck, President and Chairman for Three Gorges Press 
                   Briefing--Thursday, May 30, 1996)

       The Eximbank's board of directors met this morning to 
     consider requests from several U.S. exporters for the bank to 
     take the preliminary step of issuing letters of interest for 
     the Three Gorges project in China.
       The board has concluded that Eximbank cannot issue a letter 
     of interest for this project at this time. The information 
     received, though voluminous, fails to establish the projects 
     consistency with the bank's environmental guidelines.
       If the China Yangtze Three Gorges project development 
     corporation provides Eximbank with additional information 
     with respect to development and mitigation of the 
     environmental issues involved in this project, the board 
     could reconsider support for this project.
       Although the level of interest surrounding this case makes 
     it somewhat unique for Eximbank, the process used by the bank 
     to reach its conclusion is routine, mandated by our 
     congressional charter and applied to all long-term 
     transactions.
       American business in general, and Eximbank in particular, 
     have a healthy economic presence in China, and it is our hope 
     that this mutually beneficial trading relationship will 
     continue to grow.
       In fact, China is Eximbank's largest customer in Asia. And 
     Eximbank has an aggressive outreach effort to support U.S. 
     exporters doing business in China.
       Many Eximbank staff members have spent months analyzing 
     information, meeting with interested parties and working on 
     the board memorandum, which assisted the board in making its 
     decision.
       Eximbank is an independent government agency. The bank's 
     board of directors is mandated to make independent decisions 
     about the appropriateness of providing financial support to 
     export transactions which are determined to be financially, 
     technically, and environmentally sound.
       The mandate to consider the environmental impacts of 
     projects requesting bank support began in 1992 when Congress 
     revised Eximbank's charter to include a requirement that the 
     bank establish environmental review procedures consistent 
     with the bank's overall export promotion objectives.
       It further authorized the board to grant or withhold 
     financing support after taking into account the beneficial 
     and adverse environmental effects of proposed transactions.
       Following this congressional directive, Eximbank staff 
     worked with exporters, other U.S. and multilateral agencies 
     and nongovernmental organizations to develop appropriate 
     guidelines and procedures to be used for transactions 
     requesting bank support.
       These environmental procedures and guidelines have been in 
     effect since February 1, 1995.
       So, as the bank's charter requires, staff reviewed 
     financial, technical and environmental issues involved in 
     this project. And because of the size and level of interest 
     generated by this project, our staff consulted with other 
     government agencies, including the National Security Council.
       Our staff also held a series of open meetings with 
     exporters and nongovernmental organizations and Chinese 
     officials; and met with numerous Members of Congress and 
     congressional staff.
       Eximbank's engineering and environmental division 
     solicited, received and reviewed information from a wide 
     variety of sources, including the Chinese Government, U.S. 
     companies, other U.S. Government agencies and nongovernmental 
     organizations, as well as academic sources.
       Although any project of this size raises many questions and 
     issues, I will summarize the major (though not only) issues 
     of concern raised by staff which the board concluded have 
     not, to date, been adequately addressed by the projects 
     sponsors.
       Maintaining adequate water quality in the projects 
     reservoir.
       Protection of ecological resources and preservation of 
     endangered species potentially affected by the project.
       The environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with 
     the proposed resettlement of 1.3 million people to be 
     displaced by the reservoir.
       Protection of cultural resources affected by the project.
       For Eximbank to reconsider its decision, the board would 
     need further evidence that these issues will be adequately 
     addressed, resolved and/or mitigated by the projects 
     sponsors.
       More specifically, to meet the objectives of Eximbank's 
     environmental guidelines with respect to maintenance of water 
     quality in the reservoir, Eximbank would look for the 
     following information.
       A plan to construct upstream wastewater treatment 
     facilities needed to reduce the pollution caused by municipal 
     and industrial wastewater discharged into the reservoir.
       A plan for adequate wastewater and waste management 
     measures for the areas surrounding the reservoir to prevent 
     future pollution and ensure that the water quality is 
     maintained.
       A plan for clean-up of existing waste sites which will be 
     submerged by the reservoir.
       A dredging plan to reduce accumulated toxic sediments in 
     the reservoir.
       Similarly, to meet the objectives of Eximbank's 
     environmental guidelines with respect to ecological issues, 
     Eximbank would look for the following information:
       A more fully developed plan, including mitigation measures, 
     to reduce the risks to (and to support the propagation of) 
     endangered aquatic and terrestrial species affected by the 
     project.
       Further information about the ecological impacts and 
     proposed mitigation plans for areas downstream of the 
     reservoir, especially around the lakes and estuary.
       To meet the objectives of Eximbank's environmental 
     guidelines with regard to resettlement, the bank would look 
     for the following information:
       A resettlement plan that adequately addresses issues such 
     as, land management, infrastructure improvements, regional 
     planning, population distribution, public health impacts, 
     costs and sources of funding. Such a plan should also clearly 
     demonstrate the administrative responsibilities and 
     accountability for all steps of this process.
       Adoption of soil conservation measures to control soil 
     erosion in the newly created resettlement and inundated 
     areas.
       A plan for acceleration of forestation in areas vulnerable 
     to soil erosion and areas slated for deforestation due to 
     resettlement.
       In addition, given the unique cultural and historical 
     resources at risk, to meet the objectives of Eximbank's 
     environmental guidelines with respect to maintenance of 
     socioeconomic and sociocultural resources, Eximbank would 
     look for the following information:
       Specific information that adequate measures have been 
     adopted for the protection of the cultural and historical 
     resources of the project area.
       Additional information has to be forthcoming before there 
     can be a decision on committing U.S. taxpayer money. Staff 
     informed the board that in many circumstances the information 
     has not yet been developed.
       Before taking your questions, let me make several other 
     important points:
       First, the decision to construct the Three Gorges 
     hydroelectric project belongs to the People's Republic of 
     China.
       Today's decision by the Exim board is a recognition that as 
     a U.S. Government agency, Eximbank has rules and requirements 
     that must be met before extending support to projects. And, 
     as a government institution, Exim must apply its operating 
     procedures to all projects--large and small, in all countries 
     where we do business, in a fair and transparent manner.
       Today's decision means only that the information we have 
     received so far about this project does not in the judgment 
     of the board, satisfy the objectives of Eximbank's 
     environmental guidelines.
       Second, this decision does not limit U.S. companies from 
     privately participating in the Three Gorges project.
       Already, several U.S. companies have sold $60-$100 million 
     worth of equipment and services to this project without 
     Eximbank support. And today's decision, in no way, affects 
     their ability to continue doing business privately with this 
     project.
       Third, with respect to whether other government export 
     credit agencies will be involved with this project, we 
     currently are aware of only one official government-supported 
     financing offer for sales to this project. It comes from EDC, 
     the Canadian export credit agency.
       In addition, we also understand that requests for financing 
     may have been made to one other export credit agency. We are 
     not aware of any other governments which have made financing 
     offers to this project.
       Fourth, we have supported $3.8 billion in U.S. exports to 
     China during the last 4 years, and currently have over $10 
     billion in potential financing for transactions in various 
     industry sectors including power (conventional coal-fired, 
     hydro, nuclear and wind energy), aircraft, airports, 
     telecommunications, chemical plants, project finance and 
     more.
       In the power sector alone, during the last two years, 
     Eximbank has financed nearly $640 million worth of U.S. 
     exports.
       Finally, given this long history of Eximbank support for 
     U.S. exports to China, and the fact that China's demand for 
     goods and service will continue to grow as their economy 
     grows, Eximbank looks forward to continuing a strong 
     partnership with our Chinese friends.
       Now I'd be happy to take your questions.

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo] will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

[[Page H5855]]

          sequential votes postponed in committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, proceedings will now resume on 
those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the 
following order: Amendment No. 24 offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and amendment No. 19 offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                     amendment offered by mr. obey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 24 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 334, 
noes 77, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 210]

                               AYES--334

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--77

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (LA)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Callahan
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Frelinghuysen
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilman
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Houghton
     Hyde
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     King
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Matsui
     McDermott
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nethercutt
     Packard
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Richardson
     Roth
     Tauzin
     Thornton
     Towns
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Watt (NC)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Allard
     Bonilla
     Browder
     Chapman
     Crapo
     Engel
     Fields (TX)
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Greene (UT)
     Hayes
     Hilliard
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lincoln
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Miller (FL)
     Myers
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Tejeda
     Torricelli

                              {time}  1327

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas for, with Mr. Miller of Florida 
     against.

  Messrs. RICHARDSON, PAYNE of New Jersey, WHITFIELD, HOUGHTON, and 
TOWNS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. MALONEY and Mrs. LOWEY, Messrs. JONES, HANSEN, BURTON of 
Indiana, HEFLEY, BONO, OLVER, SCOTT, CHRISTENSEN, HORN, RADANOVICH, and 
McKEON changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   amendment offered by mr. manzullo

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo] 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176, 
noes 236, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 211]

                               AYES--176

     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hastert
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Riggs
     Roemer

[[Page H5856]]


     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walker
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--236

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Archer
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Callahan
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     White
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Allard
     Bonilla
     Browder
     Chapman
     Crapo
     Engel
     Fields (TX)
     Gallegly
     Greene (UT)
     Hayes
     Hilliard
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lincoln
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Miller (FL)
     Myers
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Tejeda
     Torricelli
     Williams

                              {time}  1337

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Engel for, with Mr. Miller of Florida against.

  Mr. KLUG and Mr. WICKER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title II.
  The text of title II is as follows:

                TITLE II--BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President

       For expenses necessary to enable the President to carry out 
     the provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and for 
     other purposes, to remain available until September 30, 1997, 
     unless otherwise specified herein, as follows:


                  AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

                CHILD SURVIVAL AND DISEASE PROGRAMS FUND

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of part 
     I and chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, for child survival, basic education, assistance to 
     combat tropical and other diseases, and related activities, 
     in addition to funds otherwise available for such purposes, 
     $600,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That this amount shall be made available for such activities 
     as (1) immunization programs, (2) oral rehydration programs, 
     (3) health and nutrition programs, and related education 
     programs, which address the needs of mothers and children, 
     (4) water and sanitation programs, (5) assistance for 
     displaced and orphaned children, (6) programs for the 
     prevention, treatment, and control of, and research on, 
     tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, polio, malaria and other diseases, 
     (7) not to exceed $98,000,000 for basic education programs 
     for children, and (8) a contribution on a grant basis to the 
     United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) pursuant to section 
     301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.


                         DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     sections 103 through 106 and chapter 10 of part I of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, $1,150,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 1998: Provided, That none of 
     the funds made available in this Act nor any unobligated 
     balances from prior appropriations may be made available to 
     any organization or program which, as determined by the 
     President of the United States, supports or participates in 
     the management of a program of coercive abortion or 
     involuntary sterilization: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds made available under this heading may be used to pay 
     for the performance of abortion as a method of family 
     planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice 
     abortions; and that in order to reduce reliance on abortion 
     in developing nations, funds shall be available only to 
     voluntary family planning projects which offer, either 
     directly or through referral to, or information about access 
     to, a broad range of family planning methods and services: 
     Provided further, That in awarding grants for natural family 
     planning under section 104 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 no applicant shall be discriminated against because of 
     such applicant's religious or conscientious commitment to 
     offer only natural family planning; and, additionally, all 
     such applicants shall comply with the requirements of the 
     previous proviso: Provided further, That for purposes of this 
     or any other Act authorizing or appropriating funds for 
     foreign operations, export financing, and related programs, 
     the term ``motivate'', as it relates to family planning 
     assistance, shall not be construed to prohibit the provision, 
     consistent with local law, of information or counseling about 
     all pregnancy options: Provided further, That nothing in this 
     paragraph shall be construed to alter any existing statutory 
     prohibitions against abortion under section 104 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: Provided further, That the 
     total amount of funds appropriated under this heading and 
     under the heading ``Child Survival and Disease Programs 
     Fund'' should be made available for each of the sub-Saharan 
     Africa and Latin America and Caribbean regions in at least 
     the same proportion as the total amount identified in the 
     fiscal year 1997 draft congressional presentation document 
     for development assistance for each such region is to the 
     total amount requested for development assistance for such 
     fiscal year: Provided further, That, notwithstanding section 
     109 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading not to exceed a total of 
     $12,000,000 may be transferred to ``Debt restructuring'', and 
     that any such transfer of funds shall be subject to the 
     regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.


                  PRIVATE AND VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this Act for development assistance may be made available 
     to any United States private and voluntary organization, 
     except any cooperative development organization, which 
     obtains less than 20 per centum of its total annual funding 
     for international activities from sources other than the 
     United States Government: Provided, That the requirements of 
     the provisions of section 123(g) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 and the provisions on private and voluntary 
     organizations in title II of the ``Foreign Assistance and 
     Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1985'' (as enacted in 
     Public Law 98-473) shall be superseded by the provisions of 
     this section, except that the authority contained in the last 
     sentence of section 123(g) may be exercised by the 
     Administrator with regard to the requirements of this 
     paragraph.
       Funds appropriated or otherwise made available under title 
     II of this Act should be made available to private and 
     voluntary organizations at a level which is equivalent to the 
     level provided in fiscal year 1995. Such private and 
     voluntary organizations shall include those which operate on 
     a not-for-profit basis, receive contributions from private 
     sources, receive voluntary support from the public and are 
     deemed to be among the most cost-effective and successful 
     providers of development assistance.


                   INTERNATIONAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE

       For necessary expenses for international disaster relief, 
     rehabilitation, and reconstruction assistance pursuant to 
     section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 
     amended, $190,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                           DEBT RESTRUCTURING

       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of modifying direct loans 
     and loan guarantees,

[[Page H5857]]

     as the President may determine, for which funds have been 
     appropriated or otherwise made available for programs within 
     the International Affairs Budget Function 150, including the 
     cost of selling, reducing, or canceling amounts, through debt 
     buybacks and swaps, owed to the United States as a result of 
     concessional loans made to eligible Latin American and 
     Caribbean countries, pursuant to part IV of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, $10,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading shall be obligated or expended except as 
     provided through the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.


         micro and small enterprise development program account

       For the cost of direct loans and loan guarantees, 
     $1,500,000, as authorized by section 108 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, as amended: Provided, That such costs 
     shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That guarantees of 
     loans made under this heading in support of microenterprise 
     activities may guarantee up to 70 percent of the principal 
     amount of any such loans notwithstanding section 108 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. In addition, for 
     administrative expenses to carry out programs under this 
     heading, $500,000, all of which may be transferred to and 
     merged with the appropriation for Operating Expenses of the 
     Agency for International Development: Provided further, That 
     funds made available under this heading shall remain 
     available until September 30, 1998.


                    HOUSING GUARANTY PROGRAM ACCOUNT

       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of guaranteed loans 
     authorized by sections 221 and 222 of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961, $500,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 1998: Provided, That these funds are available to 
     subsidize loan principal, 100 percent of which shall be 
     guaranteed, pursuant to the authority of such sections. In 
     addition, for administrative expenses to carry out guaranteed 
     loan programs, $6,000,000, all of which may be transferred to 
     and merged with the appropriation for Operating Expenses of 
     the Agency for International Development: Provided further, 
     That commitments to guarantee loans under this heading may be 
     entered into notwithstanding the second and third sentences 
     of section 222(a) and, with regard to programs for the 
     benefit of South Africans disadvantaged by apartheid, section 
     223(j) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: Provided 
     further, That funds appropriated under this heading for the 
     cost of guaranteed loans may be made available for obligation 
     only for activities in South Africa.


     PAYMENT TO THE FOREIGN SERVICE RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY FUND

       For payment to the ``Foreign Service Retirement and 
     Disability Fund'', as authorized by the Foreign Service Act 
     of 1980, $43,826,000.


     OPERATING EXPENSES OF THE AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 667, $465,750,000: Provided, That of this amount not 
     more than $1,475,000 may be made available to pay for 
     printing costs: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act for programs administered by the 
     Agency for International Development (AID) may be used to 
     finance printing costs of any report or study (except 
     feasibility, design, or evaluation reports or studies) in 
     excess of $25,000 without the approval of the Administrator 
     of the Agency or the Administrator's designee: Provided 
     further, That funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this Act may be made available for expenses necessary to 
     relocate the Agency for International Development, or any 
     part of that agency, to the building at the Federal Triangle 
     in Washington, District of Columbia, only pursuant to an 
     authorization of appropriations for such purpose or upon a 
     written certification and report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations by the Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget that such relocation will result in savings to the 
     United States Government compared to other alternatives to 
     such relocation.


 OPERATING EXPENSES OF THE AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE 
                          OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 667, $30,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 1998, which sum shall be available for the Office of the 
     Inspector General of the Agency for International 
     Development.

                  Other Bilateral Economic Assistance


                         ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     chapter 4 of part II, $2,336,000,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 1998: Provided, That any funds 
     appropriated under this heading that are made available for 
     Israel shall be available on a grant basis as a cash transfer 
     and shall be disbursed within thirty days of enactment of 
     this Act or by October 31, 1996, whichever is later: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading shall be made available for Zaire.


                     INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR IRELAND

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $19,600,000, which shall be available for the United States 
     contribution to the International Fund for Ireland and shall 
     be made available in accordance with the provisions of the 
     Anglo-Irish Agreement Support Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-
     415): Provided, That such amount shall be expended at the 
     minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for projects 
     and activities: Provided further, That funds made available 
     under this heading shall remain available until September 30, 
     1998.


          ASSISTANCE FOR EASTERN EUROPE AND THE BALTIC STATES

       (a) For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Support for East 
     European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989, $475,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 1998, which shall be 
     available, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     economic assistance and for related programs for Eastern 
     Europe and the Baltic States.
       (b) Funds appropriated under this heading or in prior 
     appropriations Acts that are or have been made available for 
     an Enterprise Fund may be deposited by such Fund in interest-
     bearing accounts prior to the Fund's disbursement of such 
     funds for program purposes. The Fund may retain for such 
     program purposes any interest earned on such deposits without 
     returning such interest to the Treasury of the United States 
     and without further appropriation by the Congress. Funds made 
     available for Enterprise Funds shall be expended at the 
     minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for projects 
     and activities.
       (c) Funds appropriated under this heading shall be 
     considered to be economic assistance under the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 for purposes of making available the 
     administrative authorities contained in that Act for the use 
     of economic assistance.
       (d) None of the funds appropriated under this heading may 
     be made available for new housing construction or repair or 
     reconstruction of existing housing in Bosnia and Herzegovina 
     unless directly related to the efforts of United States 
     troops to promote peace in said country.
       (e) With regard to funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under this heading for the economic revitalization 
     program in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and local currencies 
     generated by such funds (including the conversion of funds 
     appropriated under this heading into currency used by Bosnia 
     and Herzegovina as local currency and local currency returned 
     or repaid under such program)--
       (1) the Administrator of the Agency for International 
     Development shall provide written approval for grants and 
     loans prior to the obligation and expenditure of funds for 
     such purposes, and prior to the use of funds that have been 
     returned or repaid to any lending facility or grantee; and
       (2) the provisions of section 531 of this Act shall apply.


  ASSISTANCE FOR THE NEW INDEPENDENT STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION

       (a) For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     chapter 11 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     and the FREEDOM Support Act, for assistance for the new 
     independent states of the former Soviet Union and for related 
     programs, $590,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 1998: Provided, That the provisions of section 498B(j) of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall apply to funds 
     appropriated by this paragraph.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated under this heading shall 
     be transferred to the Government of Russia--
       (1) unless that Government is making progress in 
     implementing comprehensive economic reforms based on market 
     principles, private ownership, negotiating repayment of 
     commercial debt, respect for commercial contracts, and 
     equitable treatment of foreign private investment; and
       (2) if that Government applies or transfers United States 
     assistance to any entity for the purpose of expropriating or 
     seizing ownership or control of assets, investments, or 
     ventures.
       (c) Funds may be furnished without regard to subsection (b) 
     if the President determines that to do so is in the national 
     interest.
       (d) None of the funds appropriated under this heading shall 
     be made available to any government of the new independent 
     states of the former Soviet Union if that government directs 
     any action in violation of the territorial integrity or 
     national sovereignty of any other new independent state, such 
     as those violations included in the Helsinki Final Act: 
     Provided, That such funds may be made available without 
     regard to the restriction in this subsection if the President 
     determines and reports to the Committees on Appropriations 
     that to do so is in the national security interest of the 
     United States: Provided further, That the restriction of this 
     subsection shall not apply to the use of such funds for the 
     provision of assistance for purposes of humanitarian, 
     disaster and refugee relief.
       (e) None of the funds appropriated under this heading for 
     the new independent states of the former Soviet Union shall 
     be made available for any state to enhance its military 
     capability: Provided, That this restriction does not apply to 
     demilitarization or nonproliferation programs.
       (f) Funds appropriated under this heading shall be subject 
     to the regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.

[[Page H5858]]

       (g) Funds made available in this Act for assistance to the 
     new independent states of the former Soviet Union shall be 
     subject to the provisions of section 117 (relating to 
     environment and natural resources) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961.
       (h) Funds appropriated under this heading may be made 
     available for assistance for Mongolia.
       (i) Funds made available in this Act for assistance to the 
     new independent states of the former Soviet Union shall be 
     provided to the maximum extent feasible through the private 
     sector, including small- and medium-size businesses, 
     entrepreneurs, and others with indigenous private enterprises 
     in the region, intermediary development organizations 
     committed to private enterprise, and private voluntary 
     organizations: Provided, That grantees and contractors 
     should, to the maximum extent possible, place in key staff 
     positions specialists with prior on the ground expertise in 
     the region of activity and fluency in one of the local 
     languages.
       (j) In issuing new task orders, entering into contracts, or 
     making grants, with funds appropriated under this heading or 
     in prior appropriations Acts, for projects or activities that 
     have as one of their primary purposes the fostering of 
     private sector development, the Coordinator for United States 
     Assistance to the New Independent States and the implementing 
     agency shall encourage the participation of and give 
     significant weight to contractors and grantees who propose 
     investing a significant amount of their own resources 
     (including volunteer services and in-kind contributions) in 
     such projects and activities.
       (k)(1) None of the funds appropriated under this heading 
     may be made available for Russia unless the President 
     determines and certifies in writing to the Committees on 
     Appropriations that the Government of Russia has terminated 
     implementation of arrangements to provide Iran with technical 
     expertise, training, technology, or equipment necessary to 
     develop a nuclear reactor or related nuclear research 
     facilities or programs.
       (2) Subparagraph (1) shall not apply if the President 
     determines and reports to the Committees on Appropriations 
     that making such funds available is important to the national 
     security interest of the United States. Any such 
     determination shall cease to be effective six months after 
     being made unless the President determines that its 
     continuation is important to the national security interest 
     of the United States.
       (l) Funds appropriated under this heading or in prior 
     appropriations Acts that are or have been made available for 
     an Enterprise Fund may be deposited by such Fund in interest-
     bearing accounts prior to the disbursement of such funds by 
     the Fund for program purposes. The Fund may retain for such 
     program purposes any interest earned on such deposits without 
     returning such interest to the Treasury of the United States 
     and without further appropriation by the Congress. Funds made 
     available for Enterprise Funds shall be expended at the 
     minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for projects 
     and activities.
       (m)(1) Notwithstanding section 907 of the FREEDOM Support 
     Act or any other provision of law, nongovernmental 
     organizations and private voluntary organizations shall not 
     be precluded from using facilities or vehicles of the 
     Government of Azerbaijan to provide humanitarian assistance 
     to refugees and internally displaced persons in Azerbaijan 
     with funds made available under this heading, or from using 
     such assistance to make necessary repairs to such facilities 
     (such as health clinics and housing) or vehicles that are 
     used to provide the assistance.
       (2) Humanitarian assistance may be provided with funds made 
     available under this heading to refugees and internally 
     displaced persons in Azerbaijan only if humanitarian 
     assistance is also provided to refugees and internally 
     displaced persons in Nagorno-Karabagh with funds made 
     available under this heading, in accordance with paragraph 
     (3).
       (3) Humanitarian assistance may be provided with funds made 
     available under this heading to refugees and internally 
     displaced persons in Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabagh only in 
     the proportion that the number of refugees and internally 
     displaced persons in Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabagh, 
     respectively, bears to the total number of refugees and 
     internally displaced persons in both Azerbaijan and Nagorno-
     Karabagh, but in no case more than $7 to Azerbaijan for every 
     dollar to Nagorno-Karabagh.

                          Independent Agencies


                     AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of title 
     V of the International Security and Development Cooperation 
     Act of 1980, Public Law 96-533, and to make such contracts 
     and commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations, as 
     provided by 31 U.S.C. 9104, $11,500,000: Provided, That when, 
     with the permission of the President of the Foundation, funds 
     made available to a grantee are invested pending 
     disbursement, the resulting interest is not required to be 
     deposited in the United States Treasury if the grantee uses 
     the resulting interest for the purpose for which the grant 
     was made: Provided further, That this provision applies with 
     respect to both interest earned before and interest earned 
     after the enactment of this provision: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 505(a)(2) of the African Development 
     Foundation Act, in exceptional circumstances the board of 
     directors of the Foundation may waive the $250,000 limitation 
     contained in that section with respect to a project: Provided 
     further, That the Foundation shall provide a report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations after each time such waiver 
     authority is exercised.


                       INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION

       For expenses necessary to carry out the functions of the 
     Inter-American Foundation in accordance with the provisions 
     of section 401 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1969, and to 
     make such contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal 
     year limitations, as provided by 31 U.S.C. 9104, $20,000,000.


                              PEACE CORPS

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Peace Corps Act (75 Stat. 612), $212,000,000, including the 
     purchase of not to exceed five passenger motor vehicles for 
     administrative purposes for use outside of the United States: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading shall be used to pay for abortions: Provided further, 
     That funds appropriated under this heading shall remain 
     available until September 30, 1998.

                          Department of State


                    INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL

       For necessary expenses to carry out section 481 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, $150,000,000: Provided, That 
     during fiscal year 1997, the Department of State may also use 
     the authority of section 608 of the Act, without regard to 
     its restrictions, to receive non-lethal excess property from 
     an agency of the United States Government for the purpose of 
     providing it to a foreign country under chapter 8 of part I 
     of that Act subject to the regular notification procedures of 
     the Committees on Appropriations.


                    MIGRATION AND REFUGEE ASSISTANCE

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to 
     enable the Secretary of State to provide, as authorized by 
     law, a contribution to the International Committee of the Red 
     Cross, assistance to refugees, including contributions to the 
     International Organization for Migration and the United 
     Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and other activities 
     to meet refugee and migration needs; salaries and expenses of 
     personnel and dependents as authorized by the Foreign Service 
     Act of 1980; allowances as authorized by sections 5921 
     through 5925 of title 5, United States Code; purchase and 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; and services as authorized 
     by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, $650,000,000: 
     Provided, That not more than $12,000,000 shall be available 
     for administrative expenses: Provided further, That 
     obligations of funds to the United Nations High Commissioner 
     for Refugees for support of refugees from Rwanda shall be 
     subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.


                    REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT ASSISTANCE

       For necessary expenses for the targeted assistance program 
     authorized by title IV of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     and section 501 of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 
     1980 and administered by the Office of Refugee Resettlement 
     of the Department of Health and Human Services, in addition 
     to amounts otherwise available for such purposes, $5,000,000.


     UNITED STATES EMERGENCY REFUGEE AND MIGRATION ASSISTANCE FUND

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 2(c) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 
     1962, as amended (22 U.S.C. 260(c)), $50,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the funds made 
     available under this heading are appropriated notwithstanding 
     the provisions contained in section 2(c)(2) of the Act which 
     would limit the amount of funds which could be appropriated 
     for this purpose.


    NONPROLIFERATION, ANTI-TERRORISM, DEMINING AND RELATED PROGRAMS

       For necessary expenses for nonproliferation, anti-terrorism 
     and related programs and activities, $135,000,000, to carry 
     out the provisions of chapter 8 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 for anti-terrorism assistance, section 
     504 of the FREEDOM Support Act for the Nonproliferation and 
     Disarmanent Fund, section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act 
     for demining activities, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, including activities implemented through 
     nongovernmental and international organizations, section 301 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for a voluntary 
     contribution to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 
     and a voluntary contribution to the Korean Peninsula Energy 
     Development Organization (KEDO), and for the acquisition and 
     provision of goods and services, or for grants to Israel 
     necessary to support the eradication of terrorism in and 
     around Israel: Provided, That of this amount not to exceed 
     $15,000,000, to remain available until expended, may be made 
     available for the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, to promote 
     bilateral and multilateral activities relating to 
     nonproliferation and disarmament: Provided further, That such 
     funds may also be used for such countries other than the new 
     independent states of the former Soviet Union and 
     international organizations when it is in the national 
     security interest of the United States to do so: Provided 
     further, That such funds shall be subject to the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading 
     may be made available for the International Atomic Energy 
     Agency only if the

[[Page H5859]]

     Secretary of State determines (and so reports to the 
     Congress) that Israel is not being denied its right to 
     participate in the activities of that Agency: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $13,000,000 may be made available 
     to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization 
     (KEDO) only for administrative expenses and heavy fuel oil 
     costs associated with the Agreed Framework: Provided further, 
     That such funds shall be subject to the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to title II?
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, under House Resolution 445, I make a point 
of order that the language in the bill contained on page 9, line 12, 
beginning with ``: Provided'' through ``Appropriations'' on line 18, 
and beginning with ``: Provided'' on page 13, line 20 through 
``relocation'' on page 14, line 5 fails to comply with clause 2 of rule 
XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alabama wish to speak to the 
point of order?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on the point of order.
  The administration proposed a total of $22 million for debt relief 
for the poorest countries in Latin America and in Africa for 1997, an 
increase of $12 million over the 1996 level.
  The committee proposed discretionary transfer authority in an attempt 
to allow the administration the flexibility to fund the full request 
without adding an additional $12 million to the bill. The transfer 
would specifically benefit Africa.
  As the gentleman may know, the Ivory Coast would be the primary 
recipient of funds for debt restructuring. The effect of the 
gentleman's point of order is to deny funds for Africa's debt 
restructuring. I think this is unfortunate, however, I am certainly not 
going to stand in his way if he does not want to respond to a creative 
attempt to provide debt relief for the poorest nations of Africa and 
Latin America, and I concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  Mr. Chairman, by making this point of order, the gentleman will 
remove from the bill any language providing any guidance on AID's 
proposed move to the Ronald Reagan Building. The committee had included 
language requiring that OMB certify that AID's proposed move to the 
Ronald Reagan Building is the most cost effective to the Government.
  Now, I find it hard to believe that my friend from New York wants, 
for some procedural pique, to insist on this point of order, thereby 
removing any requirement that Congress be assured that this move is the 
most cost effective option for the Government. This just makes good 
common sense, and I cannot understand the gentleman's objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, on these points of order, I would say that 
I support their general intent but insist that they be considered by 
the authorizing committee. I have tentatively scheduled a markup of 
foreign assistance language in our committee next week, June 13. If the 
members of the administration want the provisions struck under this 
point of order to move, I would encourage them to propose language in 
the international relations markup that has been scheduled.
  Under these points of order we strike debt restructuring language and 
language restrictions to AID's move to its new headquarters. If Members 
want debt restructuring or want to restrict AID's move, then I invite 
them to come to our Committee on International Relations to make their 
case.
  The CHAIRMAN. The points of order are conceded and sustained. The 
cited provisions are stricken from the bill.
  Are there any amendments to title II?


              Amendment Offered by Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Payne of New Jersey: Page 7, line 
     4, after ``$600,000,000'' insert ``(decreased by 
     $118,000,000)''.
       Page 7, line 21, strike ``and chapter 10 of part I''.
       Page 7, line 22, after ``$1,150,000,000'' insert 
     ``(decreased by $586,000,000)''.
       Page 9, after line 18, insert the following:


                      Development Fund for Africa

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     chapter 10 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $704,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1998.

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
development fund for Africa, DFA I will refer to it. My amendment to 
H.R. 3540, the 1997 Foreign Operations Bill, will aid in keeping 
humanitarian assistance in Africa.
  As my colleagues know, the fiscal year 1996 foreign operations bill 
for DEA was very troubling. This made deep cuts in the development 
assistance and created an international development assistance account 
that all worldwide development programs must draw from.

                              {time}  1345

  The creation of this development account means the elimination of the 
Development Fund for Africa. The DFA is now in its 10th year. It is a 
very important factor in African development and has led the way in 
areas of democratization, poverty elimination, health, and economic 
development.
  Congress recognized the uniqueness of the continent's development 
challenges in establishing the DFA in 1987. This bipartisan effort 
reflected the conviction that the United States has clear national 
interest in promoting broad-based sustainable development in Africa.
  We must recognize that sub-Saharan African nations face unique 
development challenges in that there are problems in southern Sudan, 
Liberia, and Somalia and other countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.
  DFA's programs are doing what Americans think is the right thing to 
do with foreign aid. It is saving children's lives. It is fighting 
deadly diseases. It is conquering hunger and creating jobs and teaching 
people basic skills so that they can take care of themselves, so they 
can more away from aid, so that they can build democracies and promote 
stability.
  Africa faces the greatest development challenges of any other region 
in the world. Average GNP per capita in Latin America is five times 
greater than Africa. Africa's infant mortality and child mortality 
rates are two to three times greater than what it is in Latin America 
and in Asia. In many ways Africa is about 25 years behind Asia and 
Latin America. They have benefited from the decades of sustained 
American assistance in Asia and Latin America. Now we say it is 
Africa's time to benefit.
  A separate DFA appropriations will help us stay the course and 
continue to have successful, high impact programs which prevent crises 
and promote sustainable development.
  The $704 million requested for the DFA will be concentrated in those 
countries which are committed to sound economic policies and good 
democratic governance.
  I fiscal year 1996, the DFA received approximately $675 million from 
the total development assistance, and in fiscal year 1995 we received 
$804 million. This amendment that I have before the House today will 
help keep DFA at funding levels sufficient to foster development. 
Disaproportionate or serve cuts will undermine the purpose.
  It is in the U.S. national interest to assist African nations. this 
account suffered deep cuts in fiscal year 1996 when the DFA line item 
was eliminated.
  Instead, Africa aid was folded into a common development assistance 
fund, and funding was substantially reduced by more than $125 million 
to a level of $675 million. It is even more vital that funding levels 
remain consistent with demands to advance U.S. interests in Africa.
  I ask that Africa not be forgotten and, in Congress' effort to 
reprioritize America's AID spending, that Africa remain in the 
forefront.
  During the cold war, the United States stayed engaged in Africa to 
fight off the threat of communism. The cold war is over now, and now we 
have a chance to help Africa eradicate the problems of health care, 
eradicate illiteracy, eradicate AIDS, fight disease, and continue to 
move to democratization.

[[Page H5860]]

  Please support this. It is good for everyone. It is good for Africa. 
It is good for the world. I would urge support of my amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I further reserve my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] further 
reserves a point of order.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, actually, I was prepared to offer an amendment that 
does the same thing that the Payne amendment does, with the exception 
of the funding structure changes, the amendment that I have proposed to 
offer but am prepared to withdraw at this time. I would offer to give 
this body an opportunity, as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne] 
has, to show its support for development programs in Africa by 
restoring the development fund for the Africa line item.
  I am fully supportive of Mr. Payne's amendment and even more many 
appreciative of the extraordinary work done by the committee and 
specifically by the chairman in doing creative things to try to protect 
the Africa account.
  I need not explain why much of the continent of Africa needs our 
expertise. Africa has special development needs. The continent has a 
unique combination of war-related, humanitarian requirements and 
traditional sustainable development needs.
  Africa continues to be one of the world's greatest development 
challenges. The Development Fund for Africa has proven to be an 
effective mechanism in providing foreign assistance to Africa. Its 
flexibility and orientation toward establishing measurable results puts 
the DFA on the cutting edge of the U.S. foreign assistance mechanisms.
  Actually, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton] was prepared to 
offer this amendment with me. It does not increase in our view the 
spending levels in this bill. As a matter of fact, it had basically the 
same development structure and the same assumptions for Africa which 
are found in the fiscal year 1977 appropriations bill. The difference 
is that the amendment, had I offered it, would have reestablished the 
line item for the DFA which was deleted last year.
  Mr. Chairman, the Payne amendment and the one that I have proposed to 
offer have great symbolic and real significance. They show the people 
of Africa that the United States supports development programs rather 
than respond to emergencies or provide direct financial aid. We are 
saying that we are determined to teach them to help themselves.
  This short-term investment, as requested by Mr. Payne, will reap many 
stable prosperous trading partners for American businesses. That is all 
that I would say, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the proposed amendment that I was going to 
offer. I offer support for Mr. Payne's amendment and thank the chairman 
of the committee for, as I said earlier, the extraordinary work that he 
and the committee have done. I hope to continue to work with him in 
efforts to ensure that the accounts with reference to Africa are 
protected to the extent that our budget will permit.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I agree that assistance to Africa is important. That is why I 
recommended authority to allow the administration to forgive government 
debt owned to the United States by the Ivory Coast. However, the 
authorizing committee chairman objected to this language and struck it 
from the bill.
  Over 41 percent of the development assistance funds would go to 
Africa under both the President's budget request and under the 
committee recommendation. In contrast, only 17.5 percent would go to 
Latin America and to the Caribbean. I would like more money for Latin 
America, but we have included bill language that states that the 
President should provide development assistance for Africa and for 
Latin America in the same proportion as was requested by the President. 
The language is similar to that included in the 1996 appropriations 
act.
  Again, the bill language did not absolutely mandate that funding for 
sub-Saharan Africa be protected, but the administration followed 
congressional intent and did not disproportionately reduce funding for 
Africa.
  The committee went out of its way this year to protect development 
assistance; the cut from 1996 is only $25 million. The committee 
decided that the nearly 25 percent reduction in development assistance 
from 1995 to 1996 was a sufficient contribution to deficit reduction 
for the time being.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Payne 
amendment to H.R. 3540, the foreign operations appropriations bill. 
This amendment recognizes the critical role played by United States 
development assistance to Africa in the tremendous political and 
economic transformations sweeping across the continent. Since 1987, the 
Development Fund for Africa has promoted well focused, broad-based, and 
sustainable economic policies that have prevented poor conditions from 
worsening and contributed to the growth of democracy on the African 
continent.
  Across Africa, Mr. Chairman, USAID's funding for small enterprise 
credit, business advisory services, and entrepreneurial training, 
combined with support for economic policy and financial sector reforms, 
are creating new jobs and expanding income for poor Africans, 
encouraging private investment to fuel growth, and building new markets 
for American exports.
  Mr. Chairman, it strikes me as strange that, while many of us 
publicly proclaim our support for emerging democracies throughout the 
world and express our strong opposition to militaristic regimes engaged 
in humanitarian abuses, today this body is considering a bill which 
eliminates the separate line item account for the Development Fund for 
Africa. Instead, preferring to lump African development assistance with 
the general development assistance fund.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is a very serious mistake and sends 
a powerful message to struggling democracies in Africa, that despite 
the many unique problems facing Africa, the United States no longer 
considers them as distinct and different from those facing third world 
countries on any other continent. If we are sincere, Mr. Speaker, in 
our efforts to promote the growth and development of the fledgling 
democracies in Africa, we should not pass H.R. 3540 without the 
separate line item account established by the Payne amendment.
  The Development Fund for Africa has been a positive force in working 
to transform Africa. I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of democratic 
movements in Africa by supporting the Payne amendment.


                             point of order

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized 
program and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule 
XXI states, in pertinent part, no appropriation shall be reported in 
any general appropriation bill or be in order as an amendment thereto 
for any expenditure not previously authorized by law.
  Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed 
into law. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI, and 
I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne] wish to 
be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I think that it is very 
important that we have the Development Fund for Africa first of all in 
a line item. For 10 years we have seen the development of success in 
Africa. We have seen countries that were under Communist domination 
like Benin and Ghana under military domination come to democratization. 
We have seen elections in Malawi and in Zambia and South Africa and 
Namibia, all with development funds that went to push our goal of 
democratization.
  We have seen child survival and education. We have seen illiteracy 
also on the downward trend. So I believe that to have the Development 
Fund for Africa, the $704 million earmarked, too. As we know, there are 
over 600 million people in sub-Saharan Africa. It comes to a little 
more than $1.10 per person. We have seen funds for countries where we 
have $5 billion for a population of 50 million people, 55 million 
people. It is a total disproportion of where the need is greatest. We 
believe that the need to have this 704, to have the Development

[[Page H5861]]

Fund for Africa as an item in the budget is something that is extremely 
important. I wish that the gentleman would reconsider his point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  Appropriations for the Development Fund for Africa for fiscal year 
1997 are not currently authorized by law. Although such appropriations 
may be part of a longer lump sum amount in the bill and have been 
permitted to remain in the bill under House Resolution 445, the 
amendment does not merely perfect the unauthorized amount that has been 
permitted to remain. Instead, the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New Jersey discretely restates the appropriation as a separate 
account.
  As such, the amendment proposes an unauthorized appropriation in 
violation of clause 2(a) of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?


               amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana: Page 7, line 
     22, after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced 
     by $144,000,000)''.

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, in the area of development aid, 
the Clinton administration asked for $1.6 billion in developmental aid 
for fiscal year 1997. The committee recommendation is for $1.150 
billion, or $144 million more than what the administration requested. 
It seems to me that that is excessive. We have a lot of areas where we 
believe that AID has abused or been very excessive in spending money 
that was not necessary. I would like to give just a few examples.
  In El Salvador, AID-sponsored economists organized a socialistic land 
reform program in the early 1980's that nationalized land holdings, 
banks, and private export companies. After the United States had spent 
billions of dollars in El Salvador, former President Cristiani of El 
Salvador said that millions of dollars would be needed just to correct 
the damage done by United States assistance in nationalizing the 
economy.
  In other words, he is saying, because of the socialistic policies 
that were put forth by AID in giving the billions of dollars and 
dictating where the money was going to go when a democratic 
administration came in under Mr. Cristiani, he said it was going to 
take millions just to correct the damage done by the United States 
assistance that was given by AID.
  In Nicaragua, after the Sandinistas lost the 1990 election, more than 
$1 billion in direct and indirect United States aid flooded Nicaragua. 
Hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars, taxpayers' dollars, were lost 
bailing out a corrupt banking system largely controlled by the 
Communist Sandinista bureaucrats and loan officers. Even today this 
fiasco threatens Nicaragua's democracy.

                              {time}  1400

  In the 1980's AID spent $7 million to create a 1,000-acre farm in 
Burundi in Africa to raise improved corn seed varieties. This farm cost 
the American taxpayers $7,000 an acre, which is a outrageous price to 
pay for land in that area. The project was a disaster because AID 
located the farm near the President of Burundi's home village, even 
though this was an area of the country where the soil conditions were 
not conducive to growing corn.
  AID was simply trying to placate the President's desire to have a 
fancy foreign aid project in his home village. It turned out that there 
were never any improved varieties of corn seed to be grown in Burundi 
because the ag research had never been done.
  AID is on a spending orgy. It needs to be stopped, and I call on my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  We are not cutting AID below what the administration itself asked. 
President Clinton asked for $1,006,000,000. This bill appropriates 
$1,150,000,000, $144 million above what the President has asked for. It 
is excessive, it should be cut, and I hope my colleagues will support 
my amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Burton 
amendment.
  I respect the gentleman's knowledge of international affairs and his 
service on the Committee on International Relations. However, this 
subcommittee has gone through a very difficult task. We have gone 
through the hearings, we have listened to the agencies that have come 
to us, we have listened to the dozens of Members of Congress who have 
come to us and requested information on child survival, disease 
programs, on micro enterprise programs, agricultural research. The 
committee has cut development assistance funding by 25 percent over the 
past 2 years. This year we are $63 million below the President and $25 
million below 1996 levels.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Now I do not understand what the gentleman is 
saying there. He is saying that he is below the President's request.
  I got the President's request for developmental assistance here in 
front of me, and it says $1,006,000,000, and the gentleman has got 
$1,150,000,000 in the bill.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Well, we have a separate account for child survival.
  Mr. BURTON of Indian. Well, I am talking about developmental 
assistance alone, and that is where the $144 million comes from.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Well, in any event, even though if we take out 
development assistance, child survival, then we are still $63 million 
below the President's request and $25 million below the 1996 level.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman will yield, if he can clarify 
something for me?
  The child survival fund; is that not a separate fund from 
developmental assistance?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. That is correct. The $600 million for child survival 
that we reinserted in the bill this year----
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. What I am talking, if the gentleman would 
yield further, what I am talking about is cutting developmental 
assistance alone, not talking about child survival. Leaving that 
account aside, I am talking about cutting the development aid down to 
what the administration requested, and, if the gentleman will look on 
page 13 of the bill itself, it shows that the fiscal year 1996 level, 
it shows the fiscal year 1997 request and the administration, and it 
shows the committee recommendation, and the committee recommendation is 
$144 million above what the President and the administration requested. 
And I am not talking about the child survival account. And what I am 
trying to do is cut the $144 million in excess of what the President 
wanted out of the bill.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Well, I think the gentleman is going to have to look at 
both accounts because the amount recommended, the gentleman from 
Indiana is right, is $144 million more than the amount requested by the 
administration, but $525 million less than the amount provided in the 
fiscal year 1996.
  So I think we have to look at the development assistance fund, the 
child survival fund, and the African fund if we do not have those in 
there. So I think that we have to look at, if we want to compare cuts, 
we have to look at all three of the funds that we are talking about.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Maybe the gentleman can explain to me what it 
says on page 13 near the bottom of the page in the bill. Says 
development assistance. It gives a fiscal year 1996 level. It gives the 
gentleman's request or the President's request, and it gives the 
committee recommendation.
  I would presume, if there is any additional child developmental 
assistance, it would be included in all of those figures.
  Now, above that there is a displaced children program which is $10 
million, but that does not seem to be a part of the developmental 
assistance.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Well, I think what we are saying, and I think if the 
gentleman from Indiana will go further on to the bottom of the page to 
the last line, it says, however, a different mix of programming was 
provided in 1996 and in budget requests, which partially explains the 
disparity in the funding levels.
  I can only assure the gentleman of one fact, that if we include all 
of the funds, then we are $63 million below

[[Page H5862]]

the President's request and $25 million below the 1996 level, if we 
include all of the funds that we appropriated in 1996 and that were 
changed and merged in 1997----
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman would yield further, on page 
12 it lists child survival, nonchild diseases, children's basic 
education and a grant to UNICEF, and that is a total of $600 million, 
and the child survival in Egypt ESF and disaster assistance is $55 
million.
  Those are separate accounts, as I understand it. That is not part of 
the development assistance. That is a separate account; am I not 
correct?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. That is right, but we----
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Well, if that is a separate----
  Mr. CALLAHAN. We do not have a separate fund though for Africa.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. But if that is a separate account, then why is 
it----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Burton of Indiana, and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Callahan was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, what I am trying to figure out here, and I believe I am 
correct, the development assistance account, which I am trying to cut 
by $144 million, is separate from the child survival, nonchild 
diseases, children basic education and the grant to UNICEF. Those are 
separate accounts, and what I am trying to cut is the development 
assistance to the tune of $144 million, which brings it down to the 
administration's request.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Well, the development fund for Africa was requested at 
$704 million. I know where the gentleman from Indiana is coming from, 
but my point to him, that if we take into consideration what we passed 
in 1996 for this current fiscal year and what we passed in this bill 
for 1997, that it is $63 million below the President's request and $25 
million below the 1996 level.
  Now, we have changed the structure of the account. If we just take 
one of them, we might be able to find a $144 million discrepancy, but 
if we take all of the funds and all of the appropriations and weigh 
them against last year, then we are at $25 million below the 1996 
level.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman would yield further, let me 
just say this.
  I do not have any problem with the money going for child survival. 
What I am talking about is the development assistance, and the 
development assistance, according to the gentleman's bill, is $144 
million above what the administration asked for in that one area. It is 
$144 million above what the administration requested. That is what I 
want to cut.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Well, that might be true, but then we are $704 million 
below the development fund for Africa, and we have included in the 
development fund African money. So I think I know where the gentleman 
from Indiana is coming from, but I think that we are taking two parts 
of the bill and we must take three parts of it. If we total up all of 
the accounts----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Burton of Indiana, and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Callahan was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman would yield further, the 
money is in those other accounts to be spent. We have got it in the 
bill in these other sections. I am talking about the developmental 
assistance. The developmental assistance, the administration is asking 
for $1,006,000,000. The gentleman from Alabama has got $1,150,000,000, 
and I am trying to cut out that excess of $144 million for development 
assistance alone.
  As my colleagues know, with all due respect to my colleague----
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I will be happy to get with the gentleman and go 
through the bill.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. In that one category it is $144 million above 
what the administration requested. Tell me what is in the bill. There 
it is.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. We are in the same category, but we have put more 
things in that category, and we have taken some of the categories and 
rearranged them.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. So what the gentleman from Alabama is saying 
is the administration----
  Mr. CALLAHAN. We have to look at the bottom line. We have readjusted 
the accounts. If we look at the bottom line for all of the funds for 
USAID, then we are $63 million below the President's request and $25 
billion below the 1996 level. If we include everything in there, if we 
are going to take one section and try to say that this one is higher, 
that might be right. But then we have to take into consideration 
another section, which is more than $125 million lower.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Well, the administration for this particular 
area asked for $1,006,000,000. Did they not include those other things 
the gentleman from Alabama wanted in there? Is that what the gentleman 
is saying? The administration in that $1,006,000,000 did not include 
the other things? Because the gentleman got $144 million more than the 
administration wanted, and what he is saying is that he has added other 
things into that account. Well, did the administration not add other 
things into that account, child survival account?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I am just simply saying the committee moves funding for 
child survival activities and disease prevention funds from this 
account to a new account, child survival and disease program.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Burton of Indiana, and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Callahan was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I want to really get to the bottom of this.
  If the gentleman would yield further, the point I am trying to make 
is when the administration made its request, they obviously folded into 
this account all the things the gentleman is talking about. What he is 
saying is that they did not fold in some of these things he is talking 
about, and that is why he is $144 million higher. That does not make 
sense to me when I look at the bill.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Not for Africa, and that is what the gentleman is 
leaving out.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. So the administration did not put Africa into 
that $1,006,000,000.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. That is correct.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Why did they do that?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I do not know. The gentleman will have to ask the 
administration. That is a separate account.
  But the bottom line is, if the gentleman totals all of the columns, 
we are $25 million below 1996. That is the bottom line.
  As to explaining the difference in the three funds and the shifting 
of the child survival account, which was not included in the 
President's request, and the African fund which was left out, then the 
net effect is that we are $63 million below what the President 
requested and $25 million below the 1996 level.
  The gentleman from Indiana ought to know full well that I am not 
going to increase the President's request on anything. I am cutting the 
President's request by a billion dollars in this bill.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman would yield further, let me 
just say this.
  The bill is very confusing, if the gentleman is accurate, and I think 
that to present this to the Congress when we are trying to go through 
and save the taxpayers' money, and I have great respect for my 
colleague; when he gets something that shows $144 million increase and 
he is saying----
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is going to have to 
take my word for it, and I will assure him that this measure he is 
talking about is $63 million below the President's request and $25 
million under the 1996 legislation.
  So, as my colleagues know, I know that the gentleman would like to 
discuss----

[[Page H5863]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Burton of Indiana, and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Callahan was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman will yield, let me just say 
this.
  I do not know how anybody in this body that is trying to follow 
expenditures can look at this and understand it, and I think that the 
staff should be very careful when they put these kinds of figures in 
here because if we look at it on its surface, it looks like we have 
increased the administration's request by $144 million.
  Well, it is very clear. Look at the bottom of page 13. Now, how are 
we, as colleagues of the gentleman's who do not have the privilege of 
serving on the Committee on Appropriations, supposed to understand that 
he folded other things in there and the administration has not?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Let me refer the gentleman from Indiana to page 23, 
where it says that the fiscal year request for the development fund for 
Africa, the President requested $704 million. He did not request any 
money for child survival. We eliminated the $704 million development 
fund for Africa, and we instituted $600 million for child survival, 
$104 million less----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] 
has again expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word, and I would like to engage my colleague from Indiana, Mr. Burton, 
in just a very brief colloquy and follow up on what has been discussed 
with him and the chairman.
  The development assistance fund cuts that the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Burton] proposes of $144 million, can he tell me in his opinion 
how that would be offset?
  My belief is, based on what the gentleman from Alabama is saying, is 
that it will come out of the Africa account.

                              {time}  1415

  Does the gentleman dispute that, or does he not care?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the whole premise of my argument 
is this: The administration, the President of the United States and his 
administration, asked for 1 billion, 6 million dollars for development 
assistance. This bill, according to the way I read it, has 1 billion, 
150 million dollars, or $144 million more than what the President 
requests.
  Mr. Chairman, I have confidence in this particular area that the 
President has evaluated where the money should go, in Africa and 
elsewhere, and has come to the conclusion that 1 billion, 6 million 
dollars is enough, and I think $144 million above that is excessive.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I think in the final analysis, with a subtle 
earmark as it exists here, if you take developmental assistance down, 
you take Africa down.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. The program AID offers across the 
world are vital for the domestic survival of the countries they serve. 
They attend to the health and nutrition of children and allow these 
underdeveloped areas to stabilize their economies, fostering increased 
trade with the United States and free market economies throughout the 
world.

  Furthermore, the cuts to AID would force the agency to cut 200 
American jobs by the end of the year and 240 more by the end of 1997. 
AID has already demonstrated its efforts to streamline over the past 3 
years, and is currently discussing the closure and downsizing of 
additional overseas posts, as my good friend, the gentleman from 
Indiana, certainly knows. Therefore, the cuts proposed by the Burton 
amendment are unnecessary and would only further impair the agency's 
ability to serve its purpose. I would ask that it be opposed.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks 
of the gentleman. Also, I would like to point out or ask the gentleman 
if he knows that if these cuts were to be put into effect, that 45,000 
families in South Africa could not be assisted with better drinking 
water and it would certainly cause child mortality rates to rise; 
100,000 people in India will not receive safe drinking water and will 
be exposed to cholera and hepatitis from untreated sewage, as well as 
malaria and bubonic plague. Does the gentleman agree?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I certainly agree with that. That is part of 
what I was hopeful of pointing out to the gentleman from Indiana. I 
thank the gentleman for pointing that out, and I stand in opposition to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WILSON. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that I will assure the gentleman from 
Indiana that I am absolutely right. If he reviews the entire bill and 
the entire context of that bill, I think that he will agree with me 
that we do, indeed, cut $65 million from the President's request. We 
must keep in mind, too, that we are talking about things like the child 
survival account, $27 million for disease prevention to wipe out polio, 
malaria, and other diseases.
  Mr. Chairman, I recognize the gentleman's disdain for the USAID, I 
recognize his true concerns about some of the activities of USAID, but 
we have acted, I think responsibly, in cutting the request of the 
President, in cutting last year's; and if we are going to have a USAID, 
then we are going to instruct them, as we do, on how they are going to 
spend the money, we are going to key in and aim it toward our child 
survival, and I think the committee has acted responsibly. Under the 
circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I would request that the gentleman from 
Indiana withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WILSON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the bill, at the very least, is 
confusing.
  For anyone who is not a member of the Committee on Appropriations to 
read this, they would think that there is $144 million in excessive 
spending here. Let me just say this. I will take my colleague at his 
word and I will withdraw the amendment. But I hope next year when we 
come up with a bill that it will be drafted in such a way, especially 
the explanation, that any Member, aside from a member of the Committee 
on Appropriations, can look and see if you folded in child survival and 
childhood diseases and other things in there, because it is not 
apparent.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?


               amendment offered by mr. burton of indiana

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 4.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana: Page 13, line 
     11, after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced 
     by $46,554,000)''.

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, in 1996 in the foreign aid 
authorization bill for fiscal year 1996 and 1997, the House Committee 
on International Relations authorized only $419,000,000, $5,000,000 in 
operating expenses for AID for fiscal year 1997. The cut in this 
amendment would bring the total operating expenses level down to what 
was authorized but never enacted into law by our committee. This amount 
was later increased to $465 million. What we are trying to do here is 
to reduce by $46,554,000 the operating expenses for

[[Page H5864]]

AID. This is what was authorized by the Committee on International 
Relations and we think it should not be exceeded.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the operating cuts recommended by my good friend, the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], would have a devastating effect on 
delivery of U.S. assistance in Africa. Such cuts would force USAID to 
close additional missions in the poorest continent in the world, 
thereby working greater hardships on the poorest of the poor. These 
assistance programs would be terminated abruptly, and prior U.S. 
investments would be jeopardized. It is simply my view, Mr. Chairman, 
that AID could not effectively carry out its mission, and therefore, I 
would recommend a no vote on the amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WILSON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the committee of jurisdiction on 
authorizing is the Committee on International Relations, on which I 
serve and have served for 12 years now. What I cannot understand is why 
the subcommittee on the Committee on Appropriations is exceeding what 
the House authorizing committee requested, by $46,554,000. It is our 
responsibility to study this issue and to make a decision on what we 
should authorize to be spent. After we did that, the gentleman came 
back and raised it by $46 million. Why?
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman, there was not an 
authorization bill signed into law, was there?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. No, there was not.
  Mr. WILSON. How long has it been since there has been one? How long 
has it been since we had an authorization bill signed into law?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The House authorization committee, the 
Committee on International Relations, made a recommendation.
  Mr. WILSON. That is not the question. The question is, how long has 
it been since there has been an authorization bill signed into law?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. It has been a while.
  Mr. WILSON. I do not remember one. I have been here 24 years.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman will yield further, he is in 
the House appropriations subcommittee that deals with this. Why would 
he not take into consideration what the authorizing committee came up 
with?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WILSON. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the 
gentleman is erroneous, that the House passed $419 million, as the 
gentleman suggested. However, when we got to conference and after it 
went through the Senate, then it came back to the House and it was at 
$465 million. So, I think that it is incorrect to say that the 
committee did not agree to it. When the conference report came back, 
the House did agree to the $465 million, so the committee originally 
did say, the gentleman's committee, $419 million. But as it went 
through the process, that committee agreed to $465 million. So the $465 
million did pass the House, because we ratified and you voted for the 
conference report.
  Also, the chairman of the authorizing committee did not raise any 
objection to this when he came to discuss the bill with us, so the $465 
is the level that passed the House after they had their conference.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, I just cited in my opening remarks that it was raised in 
conference to $465 million. I did not agree with that. I think that is 
excessive. I think the committee of jurisdiction and authorizing made 
the right decision. That is why I support the cut.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. It is misleading when the gentleman says that this is 
more than the House passed. As we go through the committee process, as 
we go through the conference process, the final bill that the House 
voted on gave $465 million.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. That was the conference committee report.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. In the subcommittee it was only $419 and in full 
committee it was only $419, and when it first passed the House it was 
$419. Then the conferees went over to the Senate and compromised at 
$465, not the House, and then brought the authorization bill back to us 
and requested that we accept the $465.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. 
Chairman, let me just say because some of my colleagues caved in to a 
higher figure on the other side does not make it right. That is why I 
want to cut it now.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. It does make it right when I say that the House level 
of $465 million was the amount of money that we appropriated through 
the House, and naturally the chairman of the committee agrees with us 
because he did not object to raising it to the $465.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the remarks of the chairman and 
the ranking member of the subcommittee, and I am in opposition to the 
Burton amendment. As indicated, it would cut USAID's operating 
expenses, as the gentleman from Indiana has said, by $46-plus million 
to a level of $419 million in fiscal year 1997.
  The conference report on the fiscal year 1996-97 authorization bill 
passed by the House and the Senate, as has been pointed out by the 
subcommittee chair, proposed $465 million in fiscal year 1997, the same 
as recommended by H.R. 3540, the fiscal year 1997 foreign operations 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, much about this bill I do not like, but a lot that I 
like about it is that the chairman and the ranking member and other 
members of the Committee on Appropriations have gone about in a 
forthright manner, trying to be as creative as possible in protecting 
some accounts that we did not protect on the authorizing side.
  In order to operate at even the $495 million request level in fiscal 
year 1997, USAID has announced it will have to lay off 200 U.S. direct-
hire employees before the end of fiscal year 1996. In addition, 240 
direct-hire employees will leave, or through attrition, for a total of 
440, a reduction of 17 percent in 2 years.

  Sometimes when we are on the floor we do not put human faces on these 
things. My view is cuts of the magnitude proposed in the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana, my good friend, would require 
much deeper staff cuts in the field, seriously damaging USAID's ability 
to carry out its staff-intensive development programs, particularly 
child survival and microenterprise, as well as critical programs in the 
NIS and Eastern Europe. In fact, with such a reduction, it is likely 
that the agency would have to shut down its operations at some point 
during fiscal year 1997 for lack of funds.
  I have pointed out and it has been pointed out previously that the 
Africa account will suffer substantially. Already, 23 overseas posts in 
Africa, Asia, the Near East, and Latin America have been cut, producing 
annual savings in excess of $40 million. I am sure my friend, the 
gentleman from Indiana, is mindful of that. I see him rising.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would just 
indulge me a moment, I want to read something. Sally Shelton, you have 
heard me say this before but I think it needs to be said again, she is 
a senior staffer at AID. Here is what she said. We have the 
documentation of this, which I brought before the committee: ``Larry 
Byrne (Assistant Administrator for Management at AID) said that AID was 
62 percent through this fiscal year and we have 38 percent of the 
dollar volume of procurement actions completed; we need to do,'' or 
spend, ``$1.9 billion in the next 5 months.'' ``There are large pockets 
of money in the field * * * so let's get moving.''
  Then if you look at a list, and I had a whole litany which I read 
into the Congressional Record a few minutes ago of wasteful projects, 
spending projects around the world in Burundi, in Africa, in Central 
America, Nicaragua, El Salvador and elsewhere, where we have waived 
millions and billions of dollars. Here we see that the head of the 
administration, one of the

[[Page H5865]]

leaders over there, is saying that we have to spend another $1.9 
billion in the next 3 to 4 months, otherwise we probably will not get 
more money next year.

                              {time}  1430

  The problem is, until we come down hard on the administration of this 
agency, we are never going to cut that spending, and the American 
taxpayer does not like foreign aid anyhow, and when there is waste, 
fraud and abuse, they want something done about it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, when the 
gentleman makes a broad-based statement about that, about what the 
American taxpayer does not like, I am an American taxpayer and I 
recognize the critical aspect, as does the gentleman, of what we do 
abroad. The fact of the matter is we do not do enough. We are for free 
markets, he and I, and we know that international aid assists American 
investment and import and export undertakings, not only in the 
underdeveloped countries, but throughout the world.
  With that in mind, what U.S. AID does can be construed as a failure, 
and the gentleman knows, and he and I were in the hearing; all of that 
was put into the record. But much has been done since that time by U.S. 
AID and other agencies in consultation with State to make some changes 
that I think the gentleman and I would agree upon.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Burton of Indiana, and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Hastings of Florida was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I do want to say that 
certainly we do not want to be put in the position of not wanting to 
eliminate cholera and having children immunized and having safe water 
for as many places as possible, and I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Well, I certainly agree. We are not cutting 
AID to the bone. We are cutting out the fat in my amendments, and what 
we are doing is sending a signal. Seventy-four percent, the gentleman 
is a taxpayer and so am I, 74 percent of the American people in a 
recent poll did not want any foreign aid. So the American people and 
the taxpayers are against it. So we have to spend their money very 
judiciously and in my opinion AID wastes a heck of a lot of it.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana is right. The American 
people do not approve of foreign aid by a great majority. I think he 
mentioned that 74 percent of the people do not agree with it. I would 
agree with 74 percent of the American people, there are certain aspects 
of foreign aid that I loathe.
  However, the American people do not object to Child Survival 
activities. The American people do not object to us feeding starving 
children in Africa or any other of the poor countries. The American 
people do not object to the International Rotary Club program to 
eradicate polio worldwide. They support this, and this is the agency 
that administers those funds.
  I agree with you that there is great room for improvement in U.S. 
AID, and I have banged on their heads, and so has our ranking Democrat, 
insisting that they tighten their belts over there. We earmarked the 
money for Child Survival and said you must spend this money on this 
program.
  So I will agree with the gentleman that there is great room for 
improvement, but further, I will tell the gentleman that it is $25 
million less than we actually appropriated last year because we 
eliminated the transfer authority that we provided in the 1996 bill. So 
we have cut their operation expenses by a net of another $25 million.
  In addition to that, it is almost $30 million below the President's 
budget. It is consistent with the level assumed in the authorization 
bill that was vetoed, the same bill that was approved last year and the 
President vetoed. It is consistent with that same level.
  I agree that they should downsize. That is why I have supported the 
closure of 21 U.S. AID posts overseas, which will generate ultimately 
an annual saving of some $40 million. I support the efforts of AID to 
reduce personnel, which this year will include a reduction in force of 
200 U.S. direct-hire employees. However, there is a limited beyond 
which any account that funds personnel can be cut before you totally 
disrupt agency operation.
  What are we going to do with that $600 million that we put in Child 
Survival? Just send a check to somebody? We have to have a program that 
administers this aid. It costs money when you have any branch of the 
administration distributing money. But let us not say that 74 percent 
of the American people disagree with this section of this bill, because 
I would assure the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] that 90 percent 
of the American people agree that when we have starving children, when 
we have sick children, when we have uneducated children, when we have 
children who possibly might contract polio, that we ought to utilize 
some of our vast resources to help these unfortunate people. That is 
what we have tried to do, and I respectfully request that this 
amendment be defeated.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, they have over 8,000 employees, 
and you are cutting 200. They have 8,000 employees, and you are talking 
about these children survival programs. I am not cutting the children 
survival programs. I am cutting the administrative overhead of the 
agency. They have 8,000 employees, and that does not include the 
contractors that they have outside that they have hired.
  Now, I am very happy that the gentleman, and he is my good friend, 
was able to cut 200 jobs, but that is not nearly enough. The 
bureaucracy over there is out of control. I just read what one of the 
leaders said about having to blow more money so that they could get 
more money. The fact of the matter is, we ought to be cutting AID's 
administrative costs dramatically, not just to do away with a lot of 
unnecessary bureaucrats over there, which the taxpayers do not want to 
support, but secondly, to send a signal to them that we do not want 
this kind of attitude that they have had in the past.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will assure the 
gentleman that I have sent such a signal to USAID, I will assure him 
that this report language sends that same message to USAID, and I think 
that 200 employees, while it might not be as many as he would like, is 
a step in the right direction, that we have common destinations, that 
we are trying to get to this area of the room.
  The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] is saying we ought to run 
over there, and I am saying we ought to move judiciously to make 
certain that the child survival programs, that the good programs, the 
good that USAID does is not impacted by this.
  I am with the gentleman all the way, and I will continue as long as I 
am chairman of this subcommittee to bang on their heads, to request and 
demand that the administrative expenses be kept at a minimum, but at 
the same time we just cannot cut. Why not cut it all out? Why not just 
give the money to Rotary International and say, you distribute it, you 
are doing such a wonderful job with polio?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Burton of Indiana, and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Callahan was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, when we cut 200 jobs out of 
8,000, that is one-quarter of 1 percent, and you keep saying you are 
going to hand the checks to the Rotary Club to give that money away, 
that is a ludicrous thing to say. The fact of the matter is that 200 
people out of 8,000 is nothing. That bureaucracy is top-heavy over 
there. We need to cut it to the bone.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the bureaucracy was 
growing until such time as I became chairman of this subcommittee, and 
since that time, the bureaucracy is downsizing. I know we are not doing 
it as rapidly as the gentleman would like, but we are not hemorrhaging 
like we were before; we are coming downhill, and that is the right 
direction, but we must do it responsibly.

[[Page H5866]]

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, all I wish to point out is 
that there are 200 that have been cut, 200 through attrition. That is 
400, a 17-percent decrease, and since 1995 there has been a freeze on 
hiring and, in addition to that, there has been a freeze on salary 
increases. They are making progress, I would say to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, to what time in the day are we 
postponing the vote?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is really not fully aware of the answer to 
that question.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If I might make a further parliamentary 
inquiry, as I understood it, we were going to be able to call votes 
after 2:30; is that not correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. Not to the knowledge of the Chair.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, there is no time specific?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has not heard it at this point.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. So they are just being postponed indefinitely 
subject to the call of the Chair?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair doubts if the postponement will be very long, 
but they are postponed as of this time.
  Are there further amendments to title II?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title III.
  The text of title III is as follows:

                     TITLE III--MILITARY ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


             international military education and training

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 541 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $45,000,000: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading shall be available for Zaire and 
     Guatemala: Provided further, That funds appropriated under 
     this heading for grant financed military education and 
     training for Indonesia may only be available for expanded 
     international military education and training.


                   foreign military financing program

       For expenses necessary for grants to enable the President 
     to carry out the provisions of section 23 of the Arms Export 
     Control Act, $3,222,250,000: Provided, That funds 
     appropriated by this paragraph that are made available for 
     Israel and Egypt shall be made available only as grants: 
     Provided further, That the funds appropriated by this 
     paragraph that are made available for Israel shall be 
     disbursed within thirty days of enactment of this Act or by 
     October 31, 1996, whichever is later: Provided further, That 
     to the extent that the Government of Israel requests that 
     funds be used for such purposes, grants made available for 
     Israel by this paragraph shall, as agreed by Israel and the 
     United States, be available for advanced weapons systems, of 
     which no less than $475,000,000 shall be available for the 
     procurement in Israel of defense articles and defense 
     services, including research and development: Provided 
     further, That funds made available under this paragraph shall 
     be nonrepayable notwithstanding any requirement in section 23 
     of the Arms Export Control Act: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds made available under this heading shall be 
     available for any non-NATO country participating in the 
     Partnership for Peace Program except through the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.
       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of direct loans authorized 
     by section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act as follows: cost 
     of direct loans, $35,000,000: Provided, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal 
     amount of direct loans of not to exceed $323,815,000: 
     Provided further, That the rate of interest charged on such 
     loans shall be not less than the current average market yield 
     on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of 
     comparable maturities: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be made available for 
     Greece and Turkey only on a loan basis, and the principal 
     amount of direct loans for each country shall not exceed the 
     following: $103,471,000 only for Greece and $147,816,000 only 
     for Turkey.
       None of the funds made available under this heading shall 
     be available to finance the procurement of defense articles, 
     defense services, or design and construction services that 
     are not sold by the United States Government under the Arms 
     Export Control Act unless the foreign country proposing to 
     make such procurements has first signed an agreement with the 
     United States Government specifying the conditions under 
     which such procurements may be financed with such funds: 
     Provided, That all country and funding level increases in 
     allocations shall be submitted through the regular 
     notification procedures of section 515 of this Act: 
     Provided further, That funds made available under this 
     heading shall be obligated upon apportionment in 
     accordance with paragraph (5)(C) of title 31, United 
     States Code, section 1501(a): Provided further, That none 
     of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be 
     available for Zaire, Sudan, Liberia, and Guatemala: 
     Provided further, That only those countries for which 
     assistance was justified for the ``Foreign Military Sales 
     Financing Program'' in the fiscal year 1989 congressional 
     presentation for security assistance programs may utilize 
     funds made available under this heading for procurement of 
     defense articles, defense services or design and 
     construction services that are not sold by the United 
     States Government under the Arms Export Control Act: 
     Provided further, That, subject to the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations, funds made available under this heading 
     for the cost of direct loans may also be used to 
     supplement the funds available under this heading for 
     grants, and funds made available under this heading for 
     grants may also be used to supplement the funds available 
     under this heading for the cost of direct loans: Provided 
     further, That funds appropriated under this heading shall 
     be expended at the minimum rate necessary to make timely 
     payment for defense articles and services: Provided 
     further, That not more than $23,250,000 of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading may be obligated for 
     necessary expenses, including the purchase of passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only for use outside of the 
     United States, for the general costs of administering 
     military assistance and sales: Provided further, That not 
     more than $355,000,000 of funds realized pursuant to 
     section 21(e)(1)(A) of the Arms Export Control Act may be 
     obligated for expenses incurred by the Department of 
     Defense during fiscal year 1997 pursuant to section 43(b) 
     of the Arms Export Control Act, except that this 
     limitation may be exceeded only through the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.


                        peacekeeping operations

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 551 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $65,000,000: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated 
     under this paragraph shall be obligated or expended except as 
     provided through the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.

  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we pass over 
consideration of title III, and that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] be allowed to offer the amendments he has on title III at a later 
point in consideration of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, does the 
gentleman have any idea how many amendments there are pending?
  Mr. WILSON. If the gentleman will yield, he has filed 18.
  Mr. SOUDER. And does the gentleman know if the gentleman from 
Wisconsin intends to offer most of those amendments?
  Mr. WILSON. The honest answer is I do not know.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I object. Maybe we can have this come up 
when we know how many there are going to be, but at this time I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Are there amendments to title III?
  The Clerk will designate title IV.
  The text of title IV is as follows:

               TITLE IV--MULTILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE


                  funds appropriated to the president

                  international financial institutions

     contribution to the international bank for reconstruction and 
                              development

       For payment to the International Bank for Reconstruction 
     and Development by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the 
     United States contribution to the Global Environment Facility 
     (GEF), $30,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     1998.


       contribution to the international development association

       For payment to the International Development Association by 
     the Secretary of the

[[Page H5867]]

     Treasury, $525,000,000, for the United States contribution to 
     the tenth replenishment, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That none of the funds made available for the 
     International Development Association may be obligated until 
     the Secretary of the Treasury submits a report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations detailing the efforts made by 
     United States officials, during discussions leading to an 
     agreement to undertake the eleventh replenishment of the 
     Association, to oppose the formation of an Interim Trust 
     Fund, and fully describing the adverse impacts to the United 
     States resulting from the Interim Trust Fund and 
     other potential alternative funding structures for the 
     Association during 1996 and 1997.


         contribution to the international finance corporation

       For payment to the International Finance Corporation by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, $6,656,000, for the United States 
     share of the increase in subscriptions to capital stock, to 
     remain available until expended.


          contribution to the inter-american development bank

       For payment to the Inter-American Development Bank by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, for the United States share of the 
     paid-in share portion of the increase in capital stock, 
     $25,610,667, and for the United States share of the increase 
     in the resources of the Fund for Special Operations, 
     $10,000,000, to remain available until expended.


              limitation of callable capital subscriptions

       The United States Governor of the Inter-American 
     Development Bank may subscribe without fiscal year limitation 
     to the callable capital portion of the United States share of 
     such capital stock in an amount not to exceed $1,503,718,910.


contribution to the enterprise for the americas multilateral investment 
                                  fund

       For payment to the Enterprise for the Americas Multilateral 
     Investment Fund by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the 
     United States contribution to the Fund to be administered by 
     the Inter-American Development Bank, $27,500,000 to remain 
     available until expended.


               contribution to the asian development bank

       For payment to the Asian Development Bank by the Secretary 
     of the Treasury for the United States share of the paid-in 
     portion of the increase in capital stock, $13,221,596, to 
     remain available until expended.


              limitation on callable capital subscriptions

       The United States Governor of the Asian Development Bank 
     may subscribe without fiscal year limitation to the callable 
     capital portion of the United States share of such capital 
     stock in an amount not to exceed $647,858,204.


               contribution to the asian development fund

       For the United States contribution by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to the increases in resources of the Asian 
     Development Fund, as authorized by the Asian Development Bank 
     Act, as amended (Public Law 89-369), $100,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


  CONTRIBUTION TO THE EUROPEAN BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT

       For payment to the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development by the Secretary of the Treasury, $11,916,447, 
     for the United States share of the paid-in share portion of 
     the initial capital subscription, to remain available until 
     expended.


              LIMITATION ON CALLABLE CAPITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS

       The United States Governor of the European Bank for 
     Reconstruction and Development may subscribe without fiscal 
     year limitation to the callable capital portion of the United 
     States share of such capital stock in an amount not to exceed 
     $27,805,043.

                    North American Development Bank

       For payment to the North American Development Bank by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, for the United States share of the 
     paid-in portion of the capital stock, $50,625,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


              LIMITATION ON CALLABLE CAPITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS

       The United States Governor of the North American 
     Development Bank may subscribe without fiscal year limitation 
     to the callable capital portion of the United States share of 
     the capital stock of the North American Development Bank in 
     an amount not to exceed $318,750,000.


                INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND PROGRAMS

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and of 
     section 2 of the United Nations Environment Program 
     Participation Act of 1973, $136,000,000: Provided, That none 
     of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be made 
     available for the United Nations Fund for Science and 
     Technology: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading that are made available to 
     the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) shall be made 
     available for activities in the People's Republic of China: 
     Provided further, That not more than $25,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be made available to 
     the UNFPA Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be made available to 
     the UNFPA unless the Secretary of State determines and 
     reports to the Congress that UNFPA programs in the People's 
     Republic of China have ended and the United States has 
     received assurances that the UNFPA will not resume such 
     programs during fiscal year 1997: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds appropriated under this heading may be made 
     available to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development 
     Organization (KEDO).

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title IV?
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we pass over 
consideration of title IV and that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] be allowed to offer the amendments he has filed on title IV at a 
later point in consideration of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk will designate title V.
  The text of title V is as follows:

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS


             OBLIGATIONS DURING LAST MONTH OF AVAILABILITY

       Sec. 501. Except for the appropriations entitled 
     ``International Disaster Assistance'', and ``United States 
     Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund'', not more 
     than 15 per centum of any appropriation item made available 
     by this Act shall be obligated during the last month of 
     availability.


     PROHIBITION OF BILATERAL FUNDING FOR INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL 
                              INSTITUTIONS

       Sec. 502. None of the funds contained in title II of this 
     Act may be used to carry out the provisions of section 209(d) 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.


                    LIMITATION ON RESIDENCE EXPENSES

       Sec. 503. Of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act, not to exceed $126,500 shall be for 
     official residence expenses of the Agency for International 
     Development during the current fiscal year: Provided, That 
     appropriate steps shall be taken to assure that, to the 
     maximum extent possible, United States-owned foreign 
     currencies are utilized in lieu of dollars.


                         LIMITATION ON EXPENSES

       Sec. 504. Of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act, not to exceed $5,000 shall be for 
     entertainment expenses of the Agency for International 
     Development during the current fiscal year.


               LIMITATION ON REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCES

       Sec. 505. Of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act, not to exceed $95,000 shall be 
     available for representation allowances for the Agency for 
     International Development during the current fiscal year: 
     Provided, That appropriate steps shall be taken to assure 
     that, to the maximum extent possible, United States-owned 
     foreign currencies are utilized in lieu of dollars: Provided 
     further, That of the funds made available by this Act for 
     general costs of administering military assistance and sales 
     under the heading ``Foreign Military Financing Program'', not 
     to exceed $2,000 shall be available for entertainment 
     expenses and not to exceed $50,000 shall be available for 
     representation allowances: Provided further, That of the 
     funds made available by this Act under the heading 
     ``International Military Education and Training'', not to 
     exceed $50,000 shall be available for entertainment 
     allowances: Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available by this Act for the Inter-American Foundation, not 
     to exceed $2,000 shall be available for entertainment and 
     representation allowances: Provided further, That of the 
     funds made available by this Act for the Peace Corps, not to 
     exceed a total of $4,000 shall be available for entertainment 
     expenses: Provided further, That of the funds made available 
     by this Act under the heading ``Trade and Development 
     Agency'', not to exceed $2,000 shall be available for 
     representation and entertainment allowances.


                 PROHIBITION ON FINANCING NUCLEAR GOODS

       Sec. 506. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     (other than funds for ``Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, 
     Demining and Related Programs'') pursuant to this Act, for 
     carrying out the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, may be used, 
     except for purposes of nuclear safety, to finance the export 
     of nuclear equipment, fuel, or technology.


        PROHIBITION AGAINST DIRECT FUNDING FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES

       Sec. 507. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended 
     to finance directly any assistance or reparations to Cuba, 
     Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Sudan, or Syria: Provided, 
     That for purposes of this section, the prohibition on 
     obligations or expenditures shall include direct loans, 
     credits, insurance and guarantees of the Export-Import Bank 
     or its agents.


                             MILITARY COUPS

       Sec. 508. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended 
     to finance directly any assistance to any country whose duly 
     elected Head of Government is deposed by military coup or 
     decree: Provided, That assistance may be resumed to such 
     country if the President determines and reports to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that subsequent to the 
     termination of assistance a democratically elected government 
     has taken office.

[[Page H5868]]

                       TRANSFERS BETWEEN ACCOUNTS

       Sec. 509. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated under an appropriation account to which they 
     were not appropriated, except for transfers specifically 
     provided for in this Act, unless the President, prior to the 
     exercise of any authority contained in the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 to transfer funds, consults with and provides a 
     written policy justification to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate.


                  DEOBLIGATION/REOBLIGATION AUTHORITY

       Sec. 510. (a) Amounts certified pursuant to section 1311 of 
     the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1955, as having been 
     obligated against appropriations heretofore made under the 
     authority of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for the same 
     general purpose as any of the headings under title II of this 
     Act are, if deobligated, hereby continued available for the 
     same period as the respective appropriations under such 
     headings or until September 30, 1997, whichever is later, and 
     for the same general purpose, and for countries within the 
     same region as originally obligated: Provided, That the 
     Appropriations Committees of both Houses of the Congress are 
     notified fifteen days in advance of the reobligation of such 
     funds in accordance with regular notification procedures of 
     the Committees on Appropriations.
       (b) Obligated balances of funds appropriated to carry out 
     section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act as of the end of 
     the fiscal year immediately preceding the current fiscal year 
     are, if deobligated, hereby continued available during the 
     current fiscal year for the same purpose under any authority 
     applicable to such appropriations under this Act: Provided, 
     That the authority of this subsection may not be used in 
     fiscal year 1997.


                         AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS

       Sec. 511. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation after the 
     expiration of the current fiscal year unless expressly so 
     provided in this Act: Provided, That funds appropriated for 
     the purposes of chapters 1, 8, and 11 of part I, section 667, 
     and chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, as amended, and funds provided under the heading 
     ``Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States'', 
     shall remain available until expended if such funds are 
     initially obligated before the expiration of their respective 
     periods of availability contained in this Act: Provided 
     further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, any funds made available for the purposes of chapter 1 
     of part I and chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 which are allocated for cash disbursements in 
     order to address balance of payments or economic policy 
     reform objectives, shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That the report required by section 653(a) 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall designate for 
     each country, to the extent known at the time of submission 
     of such report, those funds allocated for cash disbursement 
     for balance of payment and economic policy reform purposes.


            LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE TO COUNTRIES IN DEFAULT

       Sec. 512. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used to furnish assistance to any country which 
     is in default during a period in excess of one calendar year 
     in payment to the United States of principal or interest on 
     any loan made to such country by the United States pursuant 
     to a program for which funds are appropriated under this Act: 
     Provided, That this section and section 620(q) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 shall not apply to funds made 
     available in this Act or during the current fiscal year for 
     Nicaragua, and for any narcotics-related assistance for 
     Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru authorized by the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 or the Arms Export Control Act.


                           COMMERCE AND TRADE

       Sec. 513. (a) None of the funds appropriated or made 
     available pursuant to this Act for direct assistance and none 
     of the funds otherwise made available pursuant to this Act to 
     the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation shall be obligated or expended to finance any 
     loan, any assistance or any other financial commitments for 
     establishing or expanding production of any commodity for 
     export by any country other than the United States, if the 
     commodity is likely to be in surplus on world markets at the 
     time the resulting productive capacity is expected to become 
     operative and if the assistance will cause substantial injury 
     to United States producers of the same, similar, or competing 
     commodity: Provided, That such prohibition shall not apply to 
     the Export-Import Bank if in the judgment of its Board of 
     Directors the benefits to industry and employment in the 
     United States are likely to outweigh the injury to United 
     States producers of the same, similar, or competing 
     commodity, and the Chairman of the Board so notifies the 
     Committees on Appropriations.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated by this or any other Act 
     to carry out chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 shall be available for any testing or breeding 
     feasibility study, variety improvement or introduction, 
     consultancy, publication, conference, or training in 
     connection with the growth or production in a foreign country 
     of an agricultural commodity for export which would compete 
     with a similar commodity grown or produced in the United 
     States: Provided, That this subsection shall not prohibit--
       (1) activities designed to increase food security in 
     developing countries where such activities will not have a 
     significant impact in the export of agricultural commodities 
     of the United States; or
       (2) research activities intended primarily to benefit 
     American producers.


                          SURPLUS COMMODITIES

       Sec. 514. The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the 
     United States Executive Directors of the International Bank 
     for Reconstruction and Development, the International 
     Development Association, the International Finance 
     Corporation, the Inter-American Development Bank, the 
     International Monetary Fund, the Asian Development Bank, the 
     Inter-American Investment Corporation, the North American 
     Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development, the African Development Bank, and the African 
     Development Fund to use the voice and vote of the United 
     States to oppose any assistance by these institutions, using 
     funds appropriated or made available pursuant to this Act, 
     for the production or extraction of any commodity or mineral 
     for export, if it is in surplus on world markets and if the 
     assistance will cause substantial injury to United States 
     producers of the same, similar, or competing commodity.


                       NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

       Sec. 515. For the purposes of providing the Executive 
     Branch with the necessary administrative flexibility, none of 
     the funds made available under this Act for ``Child Survival 
     and Disease Programs Fund'', ``Development Assistance'', 
     ``Debt restructuring'', ``International organizations and 
     programs'', ``Trade and Development Agency'', ``International 
     narcotics control'', ``Assistance for Eastern Europe and the 
     Baltic States'', ``Assistance for the New Independent States 
     of the Former Soviet Union'', ``Economic Support Fund'', 
     ``Peacekeeping operations'', ``Operating expenses of the 
     Agency for International Development'', ``Operating expenses 
     of the Agency for International Development Office of 
     Inspector General'', ``Nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, 
     demining and related programs'', ``Foreign Military Financing 
     Program'', ``International military education and training'', 
     ``Inter-American Foundation'', ``African Development 
     Foundation'', ``Peace Corps'', ``Migration and refugee 
     assistance'', shall be available for obligation for 
     activities, programs, projects, type of materiel assistance, 
     countries, or other operations not justified or in excess of 
     the amount justified to the Appropriations Committees for 
     obligation under any of these specific headings unless the 
     Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress are 
     previously notified fifteen days in advance: Provided, That 
     the President shall not enter into any commitment of funds 
     appropriated for the purposes of section 23 of the Arms 
     Export Control Act for the provision of major defense 
     equipment, other than conventional ammunition, or other major 
     defense items defined to be aircraft, ships, missiles, or 
     combat vehicles, not previously justified to Congress or 20 
     per centum in excess of the quantities justified to Congress 
     unless the Committees on Appropriations are notified fifteen 
     days in advance of such commitment: Provided further, That 
     this section shall not apply to any reprogramming for an 
     activity, program, or project under chapter 1 of part I of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 of less than 10 per centum 
     of the amount previously justified to the Congress for 
     obligation for such activity, program, or project for the 
     current fiscal year: Provided further, That the requirements 
     of this section or any similar provision of this Act or any 
     other Act, including any prior Act requiring notification in 
     accordance with the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations, may be waived if failure to do 
     so would pose a substantial risk to human health or welfare: 
     Provided further, That in case of any such waiver, 
     notification to the Congress, or the appropriate 
     congressional committees, shall be provided as early as 
     practicable, but in no event later than three days after 
     taking the action to which such notification requirement was 
     applicable, in the context of the circumstances necessitating 
     such waiver: Provided further, That any notification provided 
     pursuant to such a waiver shall contain an explanation of the 
     emergency circumstances.
       Drawdowns made pursuant to section 506(a) (2) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall be subject to the 
     regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.


LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND 
                                PROGRAMS

       Sec. 516. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of 
     this Act, none of the funds provided for ``International 
     Organizations and Programs'' shall be available for the 
     United States proportionate share, in accordance with section 
     307(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, for any 
     programs identified in section 307, or for Libya, Iran, or, 
     at the discretion of the President, Communist countries 
     listed in section 620(f) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, as amended: Provided, That, subject to the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations, 
     funds appropriated under this Act or any previously enacted 
     Act making appropriations for foreign operations, export 
     financing, and related programs, which are returned or not 
     made available for organizations and programs because

[[Page H5869]]

     of the implementation of this section or any similar 
     provision of law, shall remain available for obligation 
     through September 30, 1998.


              economic support fund assistance for israel

       Sec. 517. The Congress finds that progress on the peace 
     process in the Middle East is vitally important to United 
     States security interests in the region. The Congress 
     recognizes that, in fulfilling its obligations under the 
     Treaty of Peace Between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the 
     State of Israel, done at Washington on March 26, 1979, Israel 
     incurred severe economic burdens. Furthermore, the Congress 
     recognizes that an economically and militarily secure Israel 
     serves the security interests of the United States, for a 
     secure Israel is an Israel which has the incentive and 
     confidence to continue pursuing the peace process. Therefore, 
     the Congress declares that, subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, it is the policy and the intention of the 
     United States that the funds provided in annual 
     appropriations for the Economic Support Fund which are 
     allocated to Israel shall not be less than the annual debt 
     repayment (interest and principal) from Israel to the United 
     States Government in recognition that such a principle serves 
     United States interests in the region.


   PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR ABORTIONS AND INVOLUNTARY STERILIZATION

       Sec. 518. None of the funds made available to carry out 
     part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, may 
     be used to pay for the performance of abortions as a method 
     of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to 
     practice abortions. None of the funds made available to carry 
     out part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 
     may be used to pay for the performance of involuntary 
     sterilization as a method of family planning or to coerce or 
     provide any financial incentive to any person to undergo 
     sterilizations. None of the funds made available to carry out 
     part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, may 
     be used to pay for any biomedical research which relates in 
     whole or in part, to methods of, or the performance of, 
     abortions or involuntary sterilization as a means of family 
     planning. None of the funds made available to carry out part 
     I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, may be 
     obligated or expended for any country or organization if the 
     President certifies that the use of these funds by any such 
     country or organization would violate any of the above 
     provisions related to abortions and involuntary 
     sterilizations: Provided, That none of the funds made 
     available under this Act may be used to lobby for or against 
     abortion.


               POPULATION ASSISTANCE FUNDING LIMITATIONS

       Sec. 518A. (a) In General.--
       (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, funds 
     appropriated by this Act for population assistance activities 
     may be made available for a foreign private or 
     nongovernmental organization only if the organization 
     certifies that it will not during the period for which the 
     funds are made available, perform abortions in any foreign 
     country, except where the life of the mother would be 
     endangered if the fetus were carried to term or in cases of 
     forcible rape or incest.
       (2) Paragraph (1) may not be construed to apply to the 
     treatment of injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal 
     abortions or to assistance provided directly to the 
     government of a country.
       (b) Lobbying Activities.--
       (1) None of the funds made available under this Act may be 
     used to lobby for or against abortion, and, notwithstanding 
     any other provision of this Act or other law, none of the 
     funds appropriated by this Act for population assistance 
     activities may be made available for any foreign private or 
     nongovernmental organization until the organization certifies 
     that it will not during the period for which the funds are 
     made available, violate the laws of any foreign country 
     concerning the circumstances under which abortion is 
     permitted, regulated, or prohibited, or engage in any 
     activity or effort in a foreign country to alter the laws or 
     governmental policies of any foreign country concerning the 
     circumstances under which abortion is permitted, regulated, 
     or prohibited.
       (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     paragraph (1) shall not apply to activities in opposition to 
     coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
       (c) Notwithstanding subsections (a)(1) and (b)(1), a 
     foreign private or nongovernmental organization may receive 
     funds appropriated by this Act for population assistance 
     activities in the absence of the certifications required in 
     said subsections, but funds made available for each such 
     organization by this Act shall not exceed 50 percent of the 
     funds made available to the organization during fiscal year 
     1995. Funds for population assistance activities may not be 
     made available for any foreign private or nongovernmental 
     organization that did not receive such funds during fiscal 
     year 1995 unless the organization meets the certification 
     requirements of subsections (a)(1) and (b)(1).
       (d) Funds made available pursuant to subsection (c) shall 
     be apportioned on a monthly basis for the first four months 
     of fiscal year 1997 only, and monthly disbursements during 
     such period to each organization covered by said subsection 
     may not exceed 8.34 percent of the total each such 
     organization could receive pursuant to said subsection.
       (e) Subsections (a), (b) and (c) apply to funds made 
     available for a foreign organization either directly or as a 
     subcontractor or sub-grantee, and the required certifications 
     apply to activities in which the organization engages either 
     directly or through a subcontractor or sub-grantee.
       (f) Funds appropriated or otherwise made available in title 
     II of this Act for population planning activities or other 
     population assistance may be made available for obligation 
     and expenditure in an amount not to exceed 65 percent of the 
     total amount appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     Public Law 103-306 and Public Law 104-19 for such activities 
     for fiscal year 1995.


                         REPORTING REQUIREMENT

       Sec. 519. The President shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations the reports required by section 25(a)(1) of 
     the Arms Export Control Act.


                   SPECIAL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

       Sec. 520. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     be obligated or expended for Colombia, Dominican Republic, 
     Haiti, Liberia, Pakistan, Peru, Russia, Serbia, South Africa, 
     Sudan, or Zaire except as provided through the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.


              DEFINITION OF PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

       Sec. 521. For the purpose of this Act, ``program, project, 
     and activity'' shall be defined at the Appropriations Act 
     account level and shall include all Appropriations and 
     Authorizations Acts earmarks, ceilings, and limitations with 
     the exception that for the following accounts: Economic 
     Support Fund and Foreign Military Financing Program, 
     ``program, project, and activity'' shall also be considered 
     to include country, regional, and central program level 
     funding within each such account; for the development 
     assistance accounts of the Agency for International 
     Development ``program, project, and activity'' shall also be 
     considered to include central program level funding, either 
     as (1) justified to the Congress, or (2) allocated by the 
     executive branch in accordance with a report, to be provided 
     to the Committees on Appropriations within thirty days of 
     enactment of this Act, as required by section 653(a) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.


                   CHILD SURVIVAL AND AIDS ACTIVITIES

       Sec. 522. Up to $8,000,000 of the funds made available by 
     this Act for assistance for family planning, health, child 
     survival, and AIDS, may be used to reimburse United States 
     Government agencies, agencies of State governments, 
     institutions of higher learning, and private and voluntary 
     organizations for the full cost of individuals (including for 
     the personal services of such individuals) detailed or 
     assigned to, or contracted by, as the case may be, the Agency 
     for International Development for the purpose of carrying out 
     family planning activities, child survival activities and 
     activities relating to research on, and the treatment and 
     control of acquired immune deficiency syndrome in developing 
     countries: Provided, That funds appropriated by this Act that 
     are made available for child survival activities or 
     activities relating to research on, and the treatment and 
     control of, acquired immune deficiency syndrome may be made 
     available notwithstanding any provision of law that restricts 
     assistance to foreign countries: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated by this Act that are made available for family 
     planning activities may be made available notwithstanding 
     section 512 of this Act and section 620(q) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961.


       PROHIBITION AGAINST INDIRECT FUNDING TO CERTAIN COUNTRIES

       Sec. 523. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated to finance 
     indirectly any assistance or reparations to Cuba, Iraq, 
     Libya, Iran, Syria, North Korea, or the People's Republic of 
     China, unless the President of the United States certifies 
     that the withholding of these funds is contrary to the 
     national interest of the United States.


                           RECIPROCAL LEASING

       Sec. 524. Section 61(a) of the Arms Export Control Act is 
     amended by striking out ``1996'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``1997''.


                NOTIFICATION ON EXCESS DEFENSE EQUIPMENT

       Sec. 525. Prior to providing excess Department of Defense 
     articles in accordance with section 516(a) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, the Department of Defense shall 
     notify the Committees on Appropriations to the same extent 
     and under the same conditions as are other committees 
     pursuant to subsection (c) of that section: Provided, That 
     before issuing a letter of offer to sell excess defense 
     articles under the Arms Export Control Act, the Department of 
     Defense shall notify the Committees on Appropriations in 
     accordance with the regular notification procedures of such 
     Committees: Provided further, That such Committees shall also 
     be informed of the original acquisition cost of such defense 
     articles.


                       AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENT

       Sec. 526. Funds appropriated by this Act may be obligated 
     and expended notwithstanding section 10 of Public Law 91-672 
     and section 15 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act 
     of 1956.


       PROHIBITION ON BILATERAL ASSISTANCE TO TERRORIST COUNTRIES

       Sec. 527. (a) Funds appropriated for bilateral assistance 
     under any heading of this Act

[[Page H5870]]

     and funds appropriated under any such heading in a provision 
     of law enacted prior to enactment of this Act, shall not be 
     made available to any country which the President 
     determines--
       (1) grants sanctuary from prosecution to any individual or 
     group which has committed an act of international terrorism, 
     or
       (2) otherwise supports international terrorism.
       (b) The President may waive the application of subsection 
     (a) to a country if the President determines that national 
     security or humanitarian reasons justify such waiver. The 
     President shall publish each waiver in the Federal Register 
     and, at least fifteen days before the waiver takes effect, 
     shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of the waiver 
     (including the justification for the waiver) in accordance 
     with the regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.


                 COMMERCIAL LEASING OF DEFENSE ARTICLES

       Sec. 528. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
     subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations, the authority of section 23(a) 
     of the Arms Export Control Act may be used to provide 
     financing to Israel, Egypt and NATO and major non-NATO allies 
     for the procurement by leasing (including leasing with an 
     option to purchase) of defense articles from United States 
     commercial suppliers, not including Major Defense Equipment 
     (other than helicopters and other types of aircraft having 
     possible civilian application), if the President determines 
     that there are compelling foreign policy or national security 
     reasons for those defense articles being provided by 
     commercial lease rather than by government-to-government sale 
     under such Act.


                         COMPETITIVE INSURANCE

       Sec. 528A. All Agency for International Development 
     contracts and solicitations, and subcontracts entered into 
     under such contracts, shall include a clause requiring that 
     United States insurance companies have a fair opportunity to 
     bid for insurance when such insurance is necessary or 
     appropriate.


                  STINGERS IN THE PERSIAN GULF REGION

       Sec. 529. Except as provided in section 581 of the Foreign 
     Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 1990, the United States may not sell or 
     otherwise make available any Stingers to any country 
     bordering the Persian Gulf under the Arms Export Control Act 
     or chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961.


                          DEBT-FOR-DEVELOPMENT

       Sec. 530. In order to enhance the continued participation 
     of nongovernmental organizations in economic assistance 
     activities under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     including endowments, debt-for-development and debt-for-
     nature exchanges, a nongovernmental organization which is a 
     grantee or contractor of the Agency for International 
     Development may place in interest bearing accounts funds made 
     available under this Act or prior Acts or local currencies 
     which accrue to that organization as a result of economic 
     assistance provided under title II of this Act and any 
     interest earned on such investment shall be used for the 
     purpose for which the assistance was provided to that 
     organization.


                           SEPARATE ACCOUNTS

       Sec. 531. (a) Separate Accounts for Local Currencies.--(1) 
     If assistance is furnished to the government of a foreign 
     country under chapters 1 and 10 of part I or chapter 4 of 
     part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 under 
     agreements which result in the generation of local currencies 
     of that country, the Administrator of the Agency for 
     International Development shall--
       (A) require that local currencies be deposited in a 
     separate account established by that government;
       (B) enter into an agreement with that government which sets 
     forth--
       (i) the amount of the local currencies to be generated, and
       (ii) the terms and conditions under which the currencies so 
     deposited may be utilized, consistent with this section; and
       (C) establish by agreement with that government the 
     responsibilities of the Agency for International Development 
     and that government to monitor and account for deposits into 
     and disbursements from the separate account.
       (2) Uses of Local Currencies.--As may be agreed upon with 
     the foreign government, local currencies deposited in a 
     separate account pursuant to subsection (a), or an equivalent 
     amount of local currencies, shall be used only--
       (A) to carry out chapters 1 or 10 of part I or chapter 4 of 
     part II (as the case may be), for such purposes as--
       (i) project and sector assistance activities, or
       (ii) debt and deficit financing; or
       (B) for the administrative requirements of the United 
     States Government.
       (3) Programming Accountability.--The Agency for 
     International Development shall take all necessary steps to 
     ensure that the equivalent of the local currencies disbursed 
     pursuant to subsection (a)(2)(A) from the separate account 
     established pursuant to subsection (a)(1) are used for the 
     purposes agreed upon pursuant to subsection (a)(2).
       (4) Termination of Assistance Programs.--Upon termination 
     of assistance to a country under chapters 1 or 10 of part I 
     or chapter 4 of part II (as the case may be), any 
     unencumbered balances of funds which remain in a separate 
     account established pursuant to subsection (a) shall be 
     disposed of for such purposes as may be agreed to by the 
     government of that country and the United States Government.
       (5) Conforming Amendments.--The provisions of this 
     subsection shall supersede the tenth and eleventh provisos 
     contained under the heading ``Sub-Saharan Africa, Development 
     Assistance'' as included in the Foreign Operations, Export 
     Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1989 and 
     sections 531(d) and 609 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961.
       (6) Reporting Requirement.--The Administrator of the Agency 
     for International Development shall report on an annual basis 
     as part of the justification documents submitted to the 
     Committees on Appropriations on the use of local currencies 
     for the administrative requirements of the United States 
     Government as authorized in subsection (a)(2)(B), and such 
     report shall include the amount of local currency (and United 
     States dollar equivalent) used and/or to be used for such 
     purpose in each applicable country.
       (b) Separate Accounts for Cash Transfers.--(1) If 
     assistance is made available to the government of a foreign 
     country, under chapters 1 or 10 of part I or chapter 4 of 
     part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as cash 
     transfer assistance or as nonproject sector assistance, that 
     country shall be required to maintain such funds in a 
     separate account and not commingle them with any other funds.
       (2) Applicability of Other Provisions of Law.--Such funds 
     may be obligated and expended notwithstanding provisions of 
     law which are inconsistent with the nature of this assistance 
     including provisions which are referenced in the Joint 
     Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference 
     accompanying House Joint Resolution 648 (H. Report No. 98-
     1159).
       (3) Notification.--At least fifteen days prior to 
     obligating any such cash transfer or nonproject sector 
     assistance, the President shall submit a notification through 
     the regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations, which shall include a detailed description of 
     how the funds proposed to be made available will be used, 
     with a discussion of the United States interests that will be 
     served by the assistance (including, as appropriate, a 
     description of the economic policy reforms that will be 
     promoted by such assistance).
       (4) Exemption.--Nonproject sector assistance funds may be 
     exempt from the requirements of subsection (b) (1) only 
     through the notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.


  COMPENSATION FOR UNITED STATES EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS TO INTERNATIONAL 
                         FINANCING INSTITUTIONS

       Sec. 532. (a) No funds appropriated by this Act may be made 
     as payment to any international financial institution while 
     the United States Executive Director to such institution is 
     compensated by the institution at a rate which, together with 
     whatever compensation such Director receives from the United 
     States, is in excess of the rate provided for an individual 
     occupying a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule 
     under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, or while 
     any alternate United States Director to such institution is 
     compensated by the institution at a rate in excess of the 
     rate provided for an individual occupying a position at level 
     V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (b) For purposes of this section, ``international financial 
     institutions'' are: the International Bank for Reconstruction 
     and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the 
     Asian Development Bank, the Asian Development Fund, the 
     African Development Bank, the African Development Fund, the 
     International Monetary Fund, the North American Development 
     Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development.


         compliance with united nations sanctions against iraq

       Sec. 533. (a) Denial of Assistance.--None of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act 
     to carry out the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (including 
     title IV of chapter 2 of part I, relating to the Overseas 
     Private Investment Corporation) or the Arms Export Control 
     Act may be used to provide assistance to any country that is 
     not in compliance with the United Nations Security Council 
     sanctions against Iraq, Serbia or Montenegro unless the 
     President determines and so certifies to the Congress that--
       (1) such assistance is in the national interest of the 
     United States;
       (2) such assistance will directly benefit the needy people 
     in that country; or
       (3) the assistance to be provided will be humanitarian 
     assistance for foreign nationals who have fled Iraq and 
     Kuwait.
       (b) Import Sanctions.--If the President considers that the 
     taking of such action would promote the effectiveness of the 
     economic sanctions of the United Nations and the United 
     States imposed with respect to Iraq, Serbia, or Montenegro, 
     as the case may be, and is consistent with the national 
     interest, the President may prohibit, for such a period of 
     time as he considers appropriate, the importation into the 
     United States of any or all products of any foreign country 
     that has not prohibited--
       (1) the importation of products of Iraq, Serbia, or 
     Montenegro into its customs territory, and
       (2) the export of its products to Iraq, Serbia, or 
     Montenegro, as the case may be.

[[Page H5871]]

                       pow/mia military drawdown

       Sec. 534. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the President may direct the drawdown, without reimbursement 
     by the recipient, of defense articles from the stocks of the 
     Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of 
     Defense, and military education and training, of an aggregate 
     value not to exceed $15,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, as may 
     be necessary to carry out subsection (b).
       (b) Such defense articles, services and training may be 
     provided to Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, under subsection (a) 
     as the President determines are necessary to support efforts 
     to locate and repatriate members of the United States Armed 
     Forces and civilians employed directly or indirectly by the 
     United States Government who remain unaccounted for from the 
     Vietnam War, and to ensure the safety of United States 
     Government personnel engaged in such cooperative efforts and 
     to support United States Department of Defense-sponsored 
     humanitarian projects associated with the POW/MIA efforts. 
     Any aircraft shall be provided under this section only to 
     Laos and only on a lease or loan basis, but may be provided 
     at no cost notwithstanding section 61 of the Arms Export 
     Control Act and may be maintained with defense articles, 
     services and training provided under this section.
       (c) The President shall, within sixty days of the end of 
     any fiscal year in which the authority of subsection (a) is 
     exercised, submit a report to the Congress which identifies 
     the articles, services, and training drawn down under this 
     section.


                 MEDITERRANEAN EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES

       Sec. 535. For the four-year period beginning on October 1, 
     1996, the President shall ensure that excess defense articles 
     will be made available under section 516 and 519 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 consistent with the manner in 
     which the President made available excess defense articles 
     under those sections during the four-year period that began 
     on October 1, 1992, pursuant to section 573(e) of the Foreign 
     Operations, Export Financing, Related Programs Appropriations 
     Act, 1990.


                          CASH FLOW FINANCING

       Sec. 536. For each country that has been approved for cash 
     flow financing (as defined in section 25(d) of the Arms 
     Export Control Act, as added by section 112(b) of Public Law 
     99-83) under the Foreign Military Financing Program, any 
     Letter of Offer and Acceptance or other purchase agreement, 
     or any amendment thereto, for a procurement in excess of 
     $100,000,000 that is to be financed in whole or in part with 
     funds made available under this Act shall be submitted 
     through the regular notification procedures to the Committees 
     on Appropriations.


AUTHORITIES FOR THE PEACE CORPS, THE INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION AND THE 
                     AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION

       Sec. 537. Unless expressly provided to the contrary, 
     provisions of this or any other Act, including provisions 
     contained in prior Acts authorizing or making appropriations 
     for foreign operations, export financing, and related 
     programs, shall not be construed to prohibit activities 
     authorized by or conducted under the Peace Corps Act, the 
     Inter-American Foundation Act, or the African Development 
     Foundation Act. The appropriate agency shall promptly report 
     to the Committees on Appropriations whenever it is conducting 
     activities or is proposing to conduct activities in a country 
     for which assistance is prohibited.


                  IMPACT ON JOBS IN THE UNITED STATES

       Sec. 538. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     obligated or expended to provide--
       (a) any financial incentive to a business enterprise 
     currently located in the United States for the purpose of 
     inducing such an enterprise to relocate outside the United 
     States if such incentive or inducement is likely to reduce 
     the number of employees of such business enterprise in the 
     United States because United States production is being 
     replaced by such enterprise outside the United States;
       (b) assistance for the purpose of establishing or 
     developing in a foreign country any export processing zone or 
     designated area in which the tax, tariff, labor, environment, 
     and safety laws of that country do not apply, in part or in 
     whole, to activities carried out within that zone or area, 
     unless the President determines and certifies that such 
     assistance is not likely to cause a loss of jobs within the 
     United States; or
       (c) assistance for any project or activity that contributes 
     to the violation of internationally recognized workers 
     rights, as defined in section 502(a)(4) of the Trade Act of 
     1974, of workers in the recipient country, including any 
     designated zone or area in that country: Provided, That in 
     recognition that the application of this subsection should be 
     commensurate with the level of development of the recipient 
     country and sector, the provisions of this subsection shall 
     not preclude assistance for the informal sector in such 
     country, micro and small-scale enterprise, and smallholder 
     agriculture.


               authority to assist bosnia and herzegovina

       Sec. 539. (a) The President is authorized to direct the 
     transfer, subject to notification of the Committees on 
     Appropriations, to the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 
     without reimbursement, of defense articles from the stocks of 
     the Department of Defense and defense services of the 
     Department of Defense, of an aggregate value that equals the 
     difference between $100,000,000 and the aggregate value of 
     any such articles and services that were transferred under 
     the authority of Section 540 of Public Law 104-107, the 
     Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 1996: Provided, That the President 
     certifies in a timely fashion to the Congress that the 
     transfer of such defense articles would assist that nation in 
     self-defense and thereby promote the security and stability 
     of the region.
       (b) Within 60 days of any transfer under the authority 
     provided in subsection (b), and every 60 days thereafter, the 
     President shall report in writing to the Speaker of the House 
     of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the 
     Senate concerning the articles transferred and the 
     disposition thereof.
       (c) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     President such sums as may be necessary to reimburse the 
     applicable appropriation, fund, or account for defense 
     articles provided under this section.


    restrictions on the termination of sanctions against serbia and 
                               montenegro

       Sec. 540. (a) Restrictions.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, no sanction, prohibition, or requirement 
     described in section 1511 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160), 
     with respect to Serbia or Montenegro, may cease to be 
     effective, unless--
       (1) the President first submits to the Congress a 
     certification described in subsection (b); and
       (2) the requirements of section 1511 of that Act are met.
       (b) Certification.--A certification described in this 
     subsection is a certification that--
       (1) there is substantial progress toward--
       (A) the realization of a separate identity for Kosova and 
     the right of the people of Kosova to govern themselves; or
       (B) the creation of an international protectorate for 
     Kosova;
       (2) there is substantial improvement in the human rights 
     situation in Kosova;
       (3) international human rights observers are allowed to 
     return to Kosova; and
       (4) the elected government of Kosova is permitted to meet 
     and carry out its legitimate mandate as elected 
     representatives of the people of Kosova.
       (c) Waiver Authority.--The President may waive the 
     application in whole or in part, of subsection (a) if the 
     President certifies to the Congress that the President has 
     determined that the waiver is necessary to meet emergency 
     humanitarian needs or to achieve a negotiated settlement of 
     the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina that is acceptable to 
     the parties.


                          special authorities

       Sec. 541. (a) Funds appropriated in title II of this Act 
     that are made available for Afghanistan, Lebanon, and 
     Cambodia, and for victims of war, displaced children, 
     displaced Burmese, humanitarian assistance for Romania, and 
     humanitarian assistance for the peoples of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina, Croatia, and Kosova, may be made available 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law: Provided, That 
     any such funds that are made available for Cambodia shall be 
     subject to the provisions of section 531(e) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 and section 906 of the International 
     Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1985: Provided 
     further, That the President shall terminate assistance to any 
     country or organization that he determines is cooperating, 
     tactically or strategically, with the Khmer Rouge in their 
     military operations, or to the military of any country which 
     the President determines is not taking steps to prevent a 
     pattern or practice of commercial relations between its 
     members and the Khmer Rouge.
       (b) Funds appropriated by this Act to carry out the 
     provisions of sections 103 through 106 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 may be used, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, for the purpose of supporting tropical 
     forestry and energy programs aimed at reducing emissions of 
     greenhouse gases, and for the purpose of supporting 
     biodiversity conservation activities: Provided, That such 
     assistance shall be subject to sections 116, 502B, and 620A 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
       (c) During fiscal year 1997, the President may use up to 
     $50,000,000 under the authority of section 451 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, notwithstanding the funding ceiling 
     contained in subsection (a) of that section.
       (d) The Agency for International Development may employ 
     personal services contractors, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, for the purpose of administering programs 
     for the West Bank and Gaza.


        policy on terminating the arab league boycott of israel

       Sec. 542. It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the Arab League countries should immediately and 
     publicly renounce the primary boycott of Israel and the 
     secondary and tertiary boycott of American firms that have 
     commercial ties with Israel; and
       (2) the President should--
       (A) take more concrete steps to encourage vigorously Arab 
     League countries to renounce publicly the primary boycotts of 
     Israel and the secondary and tertiary boycotts of American 
     firms that have commercial relations with Israel as a 
     confidence-building measure;
       (B) take into consideration the participation of any 
     recipient country in the primary

[[Page H5872]]

     boycott of Israel and the secondary and tertiary boycotts of 
     American firms that have commercial relations with Israel 
     when determining whether to sell weapons to said country;
       (C) report to Congress on the specific steps being taken by 
     the President to bring about a public renunciation of the 
     Arab primary boycott of Israel and the secondary and tertiary 
     boycotts of American firms that have commercial relations 
     with Israel; and
       (D) encourage the allies and trading partners of the United 
     States to enact laws prohibiting businesses from complying 
     with the boycott and penalizing businesses that do comply.


                       anti-narcotics activities

       Sec. 543. (a) Of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act for ``Economic Support Fund'', 
     assistance may be provided to strengthen the administration 
     of justice in countries in Latin America and the Caribbean 
     and in other regions consistent with the provisions of 
     section 534(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, except 
     that programs to enhance protection of participants in 
     judicial cases may be conducted notwithstanding section 660 
     of that Act.
       (b) Funds made available pursuant to this section may be 
     made available notwithstanding section 534(c) and the second 
     and third sentences of section 534(e) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961. Funds made available pursuant to 
     subsection (a) for Bolivia, Colombia and Peru may be made 
     available notwithstanding section 534(c) and the second 
     sentence of section 534(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961.


                       eligibility for assistance

       Sec. 544. (a) Assistance Through Nongovernmental 
     Organizations.--Restrictions contained in this or any other 
     Act with respect to assistance for a country shall not be 
     construed to restrict assistance in support of programs of 
     nongovernmental organizations from funds appropriated by this 
     Act to carry out the provisions of chapters 1 and 10 of part 
     I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: Provided, That the 
     President shall take into consideration, in any case in which 
     a restriction on assistance would be applicable but for this 
     subsection, whether assistance in support of programs of 
     nongovernmental organizations is in the national interest of 
     the United States: Provided further, That before using the 
     authority of this subsection to furnish assistance in support 
     of programs of nongovernmental organizations, the President 
     shall notify the Committees on Appropriations under the 
     regular notification procedures of those committees, 
     including a description of the program to be assisted, the 
     assistance to be provided, and the reasons for furnishing 
     such assistance: Provided further, That nothing in this 
     subsection shall be construed to alter any existing statutory 
     prohibitions against abortion or involuntary sterilizations 
     contained in this or any other Act.
       (b) Public Law 480.--During fiscal year 1997, restrictions 
     contained in this or any other Act with respect to assistance 
     for a country shall not be construed to restrict assistance 
     under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act 
     of 1954: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated to 
     carry out title I of such Act and made available pursuant to 
     this subsection may be obligated or expended except as 
     provided through the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.
       (c) Exception.--This section shall not apply--
       (1) with respect to section 620A of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act or any comparable provision of law prohibiting assistance 
     to countries that support international terrorism; or
       (2) with respect to section 116 of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 or any comparable provision of law prohibiting 
     assistance to countries that violate internationally 
     recognized human rights.


                                earmarks

       Sec. 544A. (a) Funds appropriated by this Act which are 
     earmarked may be reprogrammed for other programs within the 
     same account notwithstanding the earmark if compliance with 
     the earmark is made impossible by operation of any provision 
     of this or any other Act or, with respect to a country with 
     which the United States has an agreement providing the United 
     States with base rights or base access in that country, if 
     the President determines that the recipient for which funds 
     are earmarked has significantly reduced its military or 
     economic cooperation with the United States since enactment 
     of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 1991; however, before exercising 
     the authority of this subsection with regard to a base rights 
     or base access country which has significantly reduced its 
     military or economic cooperation with the United States, the 
     President shall consult with, and shall provide a written 
     policy justification to the Committees on Appropriations: 
     Provided, That any such reprogramming shall be subject to the 
     regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations: Provided further, That assistance that is 
     reprogrammed pursuant to this subsection shall be made 
     available under the same terms and conditions as originally 
     provided.
       (b) In addition to the authority contained in subsection 
     (a), the original period of availability of funds 
     appropriated by this Act and administered by the Agency for 
     International Development that are earmarked for particular 
     programs or activities by this or any other Act shall be 
     extended for an additional fiscal year if the Administrator 
     of such agency determines and reports promptly to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that the termination of 
     assistance to a country or a significant change in 
     circumstances makes it unlikely that such earmarked funds can 
     be obligated during the original period of availability: 
     Provided, That such earmarked funds that are continued 
     available for an additional fiscal year shall be obligated 
     only for the purpose of such earmark.


                         ceilings and earmarks

       Sec. 545. Ceilings and earmarks contained in this Act shall 
     not be applicable to funds or authorities appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by any subsequent Act unless such 
     Act specifically so directs.


                 prohibition on publicity or propaganda

       Sec. 546. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within 
     the United States not authorized before the date of enactment 
     of this Act by the Congress: Provided, That not to exceed 
     $750,000 may be made available to carry out the provisions of 
     section 316 of Public Law 96-533.


                       use of american resources

       Sec. 547. To the maximum extent possible, assistance 
     provided under this Act should make full use of American 
     resources, including commodities, products, and services.


           prohibition of payments to united nations members

       Sec. 548. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act for carrying out the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961, may be used to pay in whole or in part any 
     assessments, arrearages, or dues of any member of the United 
     Nations.


                          consulting services

       Sec. 549. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures 
     are a matter of public record and available for public 
     inspection, except where otherwise provided under existing 
     law, or under existing Executive order pursuant to existing 
     law.


             private voluntary organizations--documentation

       Sec. 550. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act shall be available to a private 
     voluntary organization which fails to provide upon timely 
     request any document, file, or record necessary to the 
     auditing requirements of the Agency for International 
     Development.


  prohibition on assistance to foreign governments that export lethal 
   military equipment to countries supporting international terrorism

       Sec. 551. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be available to any foreign 
     government which provides lethal military equipment to a 
     country the government of which the Secretary of State has 
     determined is a terrorist government for purposes of section 
     40(d) of the Arms Export Control Act. The prohibition under 
     this section with respect to a foreign government shall 
     terminate 12 months after that government ceases to provide 
     such military equipment. This section applies with respect to 
     lethal military equipment provided under a contract entered 
     into after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Assistance restricted by subsection (a) or any other 
     similar provision of law, may be furnished if the President 
     determines that furnishing such assistance is important to 
     the national interests of the United States.
       (c) Whenever the waiver of subsection (b) is exercised, the 
     President shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report with respect to the furnishing of such 
     assistance. Any such report shall include a detailed 
     explanation of the assistance to be provided, including the 
     estimated dollar amount of such assistance, and an 
     explanation of how the assistance furthers United States 
     national interests.


 withholding of assistance for parking fines owed by foreign countries

       Sec. 552. (a) In General.--Of the funds made available for 
     a foreign country under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961, an amount equivalent to 110 percent of the total 
     unpaid fully adjudicated parking fines and penalties owed to 
     the District of Columbia by such country as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act shall be withheld from obligation for 
     such country until the Secretary of State certifies and 
     reports in writing to the appropriate congressional 
     committees that such fines and penalties are fully paid to 
     the government of the District of Columbia.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee 
     on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the Committee on International Relations and 
     the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives.


    limitation on assistance for the plo for the west bank and gaza

       Sec. 553. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     obligated for assistance for the Palestine Liberation 
     Organization for the West Bank and Gaza unless the President 
     has exercised the authority under section 604(a) of the 
     Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1995 (title VI of 
     Public Law 104-107) or any other legislation to suspend or 
     make inapplicable section 307 of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 and that suspension is still

[[Page H5873]]

     in effect: Provided, That if the President fails to make the 
     certification under section 604(b)(2) of the Middle East 
     Peace Facilitation Act of 1995 or to suspend the prohibition 
     under other legislation, funds appropriated by this Act may 
     not be obligated for assistance for the Palestine Liberation 
     Organization for the West Bank and Gaza.


                 export financing transfer authorities

       Sec. 554. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation 
     other than for administrative expenses made available for 
     fiscal year 1997 for programs under title I of this Act may 
     be transferred between such appropriations for use for any of 
     the purposes, programs and activities for which the funds in 
     such receiving account may be used, but no such 
     appropriation, except as otherwise specifically provided, 
     shall be increased by more than 25 percent by any such 
     transfer: Provided, That the exercise of such authority shall 
     be subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.


                          war crimes tribunals

       Sec. 555. If the President determines that doing so will 
     contribute to a just resolution of charges regarding genocide 
     or other violations of international humanitarian law, the 
     President may direct a drawdown pursuant to section 552(c) of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, of up to 
     $25,000,000 of commodities and services for the United 
     Nations War Crimes Tribunal established with regard to the 
     former Yugoslavia by the United Nations Security Council or 
     such other tribunals or commissions as the Council may 
     establish to deal with such violations, without regard to the 
     ceiling limitation contained in paragraph (2) thereof: 
     Provided, That the determination required under this section 
     shall be in lieu of any determinations otherwise required 
     under section 552(c): Provided further, That 60 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, and every 180 days 
     thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to 
     the Committees on Appropriations describing the steps the 
     United States Government is taking to collect information 
     regarding allegations of genocide or other violations of 
     international law in the former Yugoslavia and to furnish 
     that information to the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal 
     for the former Yugoslavia.


                               landmines

       Sec. 556. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     demining equipment available to any department or agency and 
     used in support of the clearing of landmines for humanitarian 
     purposes may be disposed of on a grant basis in foreign 
     countries, subject to such terms and conditions as the 
     President may prescribe.


           restrictions concerning the palestinian authority

       Sec. 557. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     obligated or expended to create in any part of Jerusalem a 
     new office of any department or agency of the United States 
     Government for the purpose of conducting official United 
     States Government business with the Palestinian Authority 
     over Gaza and Jericho or any successor Palestinian governing 
     entity provided for in the Israel-PLO Declaration of 
     Principles: Provided, That this restriction shall not apply 
     to the acquisition of additional space for the existing 
     Consulate General in Jerusalem: Provided further, That 
     meetings between officers and employees of the United States 
     and officials of the Palestinian Authority, or any successor 
     Palestinian governing entity provided for in the Israel-PLO 
     Declaration of Principles, for the purpose of conducting 
     official United States Government business with such 
     authority should continue to take place in locations other 
     than Jerusalem. As has been true in the past, officers and 
     employees of the United States Government may continue to 
     meet in Jerusalem on other subjects with Palestinians 
     (including those who now occupy positions in the Palestinian 
     Authority), have social contacts, and have incidental 
     discussions.


               prohibition of payment of certain expenses

       Sec. 558. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act under the heading ``international 
     military education and training'' or ``foreign military 
     financing program'' for Informational Program activities may 
     be obligated or expended to pay for--
       (1) alcoholic beverages;
       (2) food (other than food provided at a military 
     installation) not provided in conjunction with Informational 
     Program trips where students do not stay at a military 
     installation; or
       (3) entertainment expenses for activities that are 
     substantially of a recreational character, including entrance 
     fees at sporting events and amusement parks.


                        humanitarian assistance

       Sec. 559. (a) In General.--None of the funds made available 
     in this Act may be used for assistance in support of any 
     country when it is made known to the President that the 
     government of such country prohibits or otherwise restricts, 
     directly or indirectly, the transport or delivery of United 
     States humanitarian assistance.
       (b) Exception.--Funds may be made available without regard 
     to the restriction in subsection (a) if the President 
     determines that to do so is in the national security interest 
     of the United States.


withholding of assistance to countries supporting nuclear plant in cuba

       Sec. 560. (a) Withholding.--The President shall withhold 
     from assistance made available with funds appropriated or 
     made available pursuant to this Act an amount equal to the 
     sum of assistance and credits, if any, provided on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act by that country, or any 
     entity in that country, in support of the completion of the 
     Cuban nuclear facility at Juragua, near Cienfuegos, Cuba.
       (b) Exceptions.--The requirement of subsection (a) to 
     withhold assistance shall not apply with respect to--
       (1) assistance to meet urgent humanitarian needs including 
     disaster and refugee relief;
       (2) democratic political reform and rule of law activities;
       (3) support for private sector and nongovernmental 
     organizations that are independent of government control;
       (4) the development of a free market economic system; and
       (5) assistance for the purposes described in the 
     Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 1993 (title XII of Public 
     Law 103-160).


                     equitable allocation of funds

       Sec. 561. Not more than 20 percent of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act to carry out the provisions of 
     sections 103 through 106 and chapter 4 of part II of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, that are made available for 
     Latin America and the Caribbean region may be made available, 
     through bilateral and Latin America and the Caribbean 
     regional programs, to provide assistance for any country in 
     such region.


            purchase of american-made equipment and products

       Sec. 562. (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the 
     Congress that, to the greatest extent practicable, all 
     equipment and products purchased with funds made available in 
     this Act should be American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to 
     such entity a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.


        limitation of funds for north american development bank

       Sec. 563. None of the funds appropriated in this Act under 
     the heading ``North American Development Bank'' and made 
     available for the Community Adjustment and Investment Program 
     shall be used for purposes other than those set out in the 
     binational agreement establishing the Bank.


                 international development association

       Sec. 564. In order to pay for the United States 
     contribution to the tenth replenishment of the resources of 
     the International Development Association authorized in 
     section 526 of Public Law 103-87, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated, without fiscal year limitation, $525,000,000 
     for payment by the Secretary of the Treasury.


                  special debt relief for the poorest

       Sec. 565. (a) Authority To Reduce Debt.--The President may 
     reduce amounts owed to the United States (or any agency of 
     the United States) by an eligible country as a result of--
       (1) guarantees issued under sections 221 and 222 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; or
       (2) credits extended or guarantees issued under the Arms 
     Export Control Act.
       (b) Limitations.--
       (1) The authority provided by subsection (a) may be 
     exercised only to implement multilateral official debt relief 
     and referendum agreements, commonly referred to as ``Paris 
     Club Agreed Minutes''.
       (2) The authority provided by subsection (a) may be 
     exercised only in such amounts or to such extent as is 
     provided in advance by appropriations Acts.
       (3) The authority provided by subsection (a) may be 
     exercised only with respect to countries with heavy debt 
     burdens that are eligible to borrow from the International 
     Development Association, but not from the International Bank 
     for Reconstruction and Development, commonly referred to as 
     ``IDA-only'' countries.
       (c) Conditions.--The authority provided by subsection (a) 
     may be exercised only with respect to a country whose 
     government--
       (1) does not have an excessive level of military 
     expenditures;
       (2) has not repeatedly provided support for acts of 
     international terrorism;
       (3) is not failing to cooperate on international narcotics 
     control matters;
       (4) (including its military or other security forces) does 
     not engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of 
     internationally recognized human rights; and
       (5) is not ineligible for assistance because of the 
     application of section 527 of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, fiscal years 1994 and 1995.
       (d) Availability of Funds.--The authority provided by 
     subsection (a) may be used only with regard to funds 
     appropriated by this Act under the heading ``Debt 
     restructuring''.
       (e) Certain Prohibitions Inapplicable.--A reduction of debt 
     pursuant to subsection (a) shall not be considered assistance 
     for purposes of any provision of law limiting assistance to a 
     country. The authority provided by subsection (a) may be 
     exercised notwithstanding section 620(r) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961.

[[Page H5874]]

             authority to engage in debt buybacks or sales

       Sec. 566. (a) Loans Eligible for Sale, Reduction, or 
     Cancellation.--
       (1) Authority to sell, reduce, or cancel certain loans.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President 
     may, in accordance with this section, sell to any eligible 
     purchaser any concessional loan or portion thereof made 
     before January 1, 1995, pursuant to the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961, to the government of any eligible country as 
     defined in section 702(6) of that Act or on receipt of 
     payment from an eligible purchaser, reduce or cancel such 
     loan or portion thereof, only for the purpose of 
     facilitating--
       (A) debt-for-equity swaps, debt-for-development swaps, or 
     debt-for-nature swaps; or
       (B) a debt buyback by an eligible country of its own 
     qualified debt, only if the eligible country uses an 
     additional amount of the local currency of the eligible 
     country, equal to not less than 40 percent of the price paid 
     for such debt by such eligible country, or the difference 
     between the price paid for such debt and the face value of 
     such debt, to support activities that link conservation and 
     sustainable use of natural resources with local community 
     development, and child survival and other child development, 
     in a manner consistent with sections 707 through 710 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, if the sale, reduction, or 
     cancellation would not contravene any term or condition of 
     any prior agreement relating to such loan.
       (2) Terms and conditions.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the President shall, in accordance with 
     this section, establish the terms and conditions under which 
     loans may be sold, reduced, or canceled pursuant to this 
     section.
       (3) Administration.--The Facility, as defined in section 
     702(8) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, shall notify 
     the administrator of the agency primarily responsible for 
     administering part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 of 
     purchasers that the President has determined to be eligible, 
     and shall direct such agency to carry out the sale, 
     reduction, or cancellation of a loan pursuant to this 
     section. Such agency shall make an adjustment in its accounts 
     to reflect the sale, reduction, or cancellation.
       (4) Limitation.--The authorities of this subsection shall 
     be available only to the extent that appropriations for the 
     cost of the modification, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, are made in advance.
       (b) Deposit of Proceeds.--The proceeds from the sale, 
     reduction, or cancellation of any loan sold, reduced, or 
     canceled pursuant to this section shall be deposited in the 
     United States Government account or accounts established for 
     the repayment of such loan.
       (c) Eligible Purchasers.--A loan may be sold pursuant to 
     subsection (a)(1)(A) only to a purchaser who presents plans 
     satisfactory to the President for using the loan for the 
     purpose of engaging in debt-for-equity swaps, debt-for-
     development swaps, or debt-for-nature swaps.
       (d) Debtor Consultations.--Before the sale to any eligible 
     purchaser, or any reduction or cancellation pursuant to this 
     section, of any loan made to an eligible country, the 
     President should consult with the country concerning the 
     amount of loans to be sold, reduced, or canceled and their 
     uses for debt-for-equity swaps, debt-for-development swaps, 
     or debt-for-nature swaps.
       (e) Availability of Funds.--The authority provided by 
     subsection (a) may be used only with regard to funds 
     appropriated by this Act under the heading ``Debt 
     restructuring''.


                                liberia

       Sec. 567. Funds appropriated by this Act may be made 
     available for assistance for Liberia notwithstanding section 
     620(q) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and section 512 
     of this Act.


                               guatemala

       Sec. 568. (a) Funds provided in this Act may be made 
     available for the Guatemalan military forces, and the 
     restrictions on Guatemala under the headings ``International 
     Military Education and Training'' and ``Foreign Military 
     Financing Program'' shall not apply, only if the President 
     determines and certifies to the Congress that the Guatemalan 
     military is cooperating with efforts to resolve human rights 
     abuses which elements of the Guatemalan military forces are 
     alleged to have committed, ordered or attempted to thwart the 
     investigation of.
       (b) The prohibition contained in subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to funds made available to implement a ceasefire or 
     peace agreement.
       (c) Any funds made available pursuant to subsections (a) or 
     (b) shall be subject to the regular notification procedures 
     of the Committees on Appropriations.
       (d) Any funds made available pursuant to subsections (a) 
     and (b) for international military education and training may 
     only be for expanded international military education and 
     training.


          sanctions against countries harboring war criminals

       Sec. 569. (a) Bilateral Assistance.--The President is 
     authorized to withhold funds appropriated by this Act under 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or the Arms Export Control 
     Act for any country described in subsection (c).
       (b) Multilateral Assistance.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     should instruct the United States executive directors of the 
     international financial institutions to work in opposition 
     to, and vote against, any extension by such institutions of 
     financing or financial or technical assistance to any country 
     described in subsection (c).
       (c) Sanctioned Countries.--A country described in this 
     subsection is a country the government of which knowingly 
     grants sanctuary to persons in its territory for the purpose 
     of evading prosecution, where such persons--
       (1) have been indicted by the International Criminal 
     Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International 
     Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, or any other international 
     tribunal with similar standing under international law, or
       (2) have been indicted for war crimes or crimes against 
     humanity committed during the period beginning March 23, 1933 
     and ending on May 8, 1945 under the direction of, or in 
     association with--
       (A) the Nazi government of Germany;
       (B) any government in any area occupied by the military 
     forces of the Nazi government of Germany;
       (C) any government which was established with the 
     assistance or cooperation of the Nazi government; or
       (D) any government which was an ally of the Nazi government 
     of Germany.


                   limitation on assistance for haiti

       Sec. 570. (a) Limitation.--None of the funds appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by this Act, may be provided to 
     the Government of Haiti until the President reports to 
     Congress that--
       (1) the Government is conducting thorough investigations of 
     extrajudicial and political killings; and
       (2) the Government is cooperating with United States 
     authorities in the investigations of political and 
     extrajudicial killings.
       (b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to restrict 
     the provision of humanitarian or electoral assistance.
       (c) The President may waive the requirements of this 
     section on a quarterly basis if he determines and certifies 
     to the appropriate committees of Congress that it is in the 
     national interest of the United States.
       (d) The authority contained in the previous subsection to 
     make such a determination may be exercised by the President 
     only and may not be delegated.


                   limitation of assistance to turkey

       Sec. 571. Not more than $25,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Economic Support 
     Fund'' may be made available to the Government of Turkey.


                      reports regarding hong kong

       Sec. 572. (a) Section 301 of the United States-Hong Kong 
     Policy Act of 1992 (22 U.S.C. 5731) is amended in the text 
     above paragraph (1) by inserting ``March 31, 1997,'' after 
     ``March 31, 1996,''.
       (b) In light of the deficiencies in reports submitted to 
     the Congress pursuant to section 301 of the United States-
     Hong Kong Policy Act (22 U.S.C. 5731), the Congress directs 
     that the additional report required to be submitted under 
     such section by subsection (a) of this section include 
     detailed information on the status of, and other developments 
     affecting, implementation of the Sino-British Joint 
     Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong, including--
       (1) the Basic Law and its consistency with the Joint 
     Declaration;
       (2) Beijing's plans to replace the elected legislature with 
     an appointed body;
       (3) the openness and fairness of the election of the chief 
     executive and the executive's accountability to the 
     legislature;
       (4) the treatment of political parties;
       (5) the independence of the Judiciary and its ability to 
     exercise the power of final judgment over Hong Kong law; and
       (6) the Bill of Rights.


               amendment offered by mr. burton of indiana

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184, 
noes 233, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 212]

                               AYES--184

     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards

[[Page H5875]]


     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Ewing
     Fields (LA)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Hancock
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McHale
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--233

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Allard
     Bonilla
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Crapo
     Gephardt
     Hayes
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lincoln
     McInnis
     Myers
     Payne (VA)
     Schiff
     Stenholm
     Tejeda
     Torricelli
     Wise

                              {time}  1503

  Messrs. HOLDEN, KLINK, and CHRYSLER changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title V?


                     amendment offered by mr. obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: On page 82, line 12, strike 
     ``$25,000,000'' and insert, ``$50,000,000''.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very straightforward 
amendment. It would simply raise to $50 million the limitation now in 
the bill of $25 million on the amount of noncash support that we can 
provide for the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague.
  For those who are not familiar with it, the International War Crimes 
Tribunal is the first international tribunal for war crimes established 
since World War II. It has the responsibility for investigating and 
prosecuting individuals responsible for war crimes in the former 
Yugoslavia.
  The biggest obstacle, frankly, to the functioning of that tribunal 
has been a simple lack of funds. We seem to want to spend millions for 
all sorts of special investigations here at home and abroad, but the 
U.S. has only made modest contributions to the International War Crimes 
Tribunal.
  The victims of atrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia, it 
seems to me, deserve justice, and the war crimes tribunal is the best 
way to make war criminals answer for their crimes. Moreover, the best 
deterrent for those kinds of atrocities in the future is for the war 
crimes tribunal to try and convict these perpetrators now.
  It seems to me we ought not have a limitation on the amount of 
noncash support that we can provide for this worthwhile item, and if we 
do have one, as this amendment would still allow, it seems to me it 
ought to be high enough so that the war crimes tribunal is in fact a 
real deterrent to some of the kinds of abhorrent actions that we have 
seen in that part of the world.
  So I would simply urge that the amendment be supported in the 
interest of justice.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this amendment. What 
this amendment seeks to do is make additional funds available, not 
additional appropriated funds but from existing appropriated funds, to 
make a greater sum available for the prosecution of war crimes and for 
the pursuit of war criminals.
  Mr. Chairman, as many Members in this House know, I chaired for many 
years the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. During the 
latter part of the 1980's and throughout the 1990's, our Commission 
held extensive hearings on the tragedy that has occurred in the former 
Yugoslavia and most particularly in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
  The fact of the matter is that since the 1930's and 1940's there has 
not been on the European continent the commission of atrocities against 
human beings based upon their ethnicity, nationality or religion, the 
kind of genocide, and that word properly applies, that we saw and heard 
testified to in Bosnia.
  In fact, as many Members of this House know, more refugees were 
created in Bosnia-Herzegovina during the prosecution of the Serbian 
aggression than at any time since the Second World War. That is to say 
that in the last half a century we did not have the kinds of crimes 
that were committed in Bosnia.
  During the course of testimony before the Helsinki Commission, and I 
know before the Foreign Affairs Committee as well, we heard of not only 
the murder of women, children, as well as combatant males and 
noncombatant males, civilian makes, we also heard of the creation of 
incarceration camps.
  We heard of the creation of camps specifically designed for the 
purposes of raping Moslem women, for the purposes of degrading those 
women, for the purposes of intimidating those who were not in custody 
or under arrest or imprisonment by the Serb aggressors. We heard of the 
fact that this was a policy, not an aberration.
  The Dayton Agreement recognizes the fact that the leader of the 
Bosnian Serbs, Mr. Karadzic, whom previous Secretaries of State under 
the Bush administration and the Clinton administration have branded as 
a war criminal, that Karadzic continued to be the driving force behind 
the commission of these crimes.

[[Page H5876]]

  In addition, of course, the military leaders of the Bosnian Serb 
effort, led by their general, he, too, was as a policy planning and 
implementing the criminal activity, the murders, the so-called ethnic 
cleansing that occurred on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis for a 
very long period of time. This policy created over 2 million refugees, 
some in-country and some forced to leave their country, but all forced 
to leave their homes and their neighborhoods.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment so that the American 
people, through the Congress of the United States, will say in as 
strong terms as possible that we will hold culpable those who as a 
means of war employ genocide and the commission of atrocities to 
intimidate and defeat an enemy.
  Mr. Chairman, if we do not do this, we will continue to see the cycle 
of violence that is perpetrated in retaliation for wrongs done against 
a people years before, decades before, indeed, in some cases centuries 
before.
  Those of us who have traveled to Europe know full well that, 
particularly in Yugoslavia, we hear about the offenses that were 
perpetrated against a family and their antecedents, long before they 
may have been born. They believe that those wrongs must be redressed, 
and because there has been no mechanism short of warfare, short of the 
kind of atrocities that we have seen perpetrated in Bosnia, we have in 
effect set up an environment in which such atrocities were perhaps 
almost inevitable.

                              {time}  1515

  After the Second World War, the civilized society said we are going 
to hold people culpable. We can argue about whether war is a legitimate 
exercise of international politics but, that aside, civilized society 
has said there are certain things even in war that we will not tolerate 
as a civilized international community.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, in a civilized society we will not tolerate 
some crimes, and we will adjudge the commission of such act as war 
crimes. And we will, at the appropriate time or as soon as possible, 
hold accountable those who committed such crimes, whether they be at 
the lowest levels or whether they be at the highest levels.
  Mr. Chairman, this issue is a critical one as we look to a more 
civilized international community, where we do not redress our 
differences through armed conflict but redress those grievances through 
negotiation and through the application of international law.
  As we do in this country, ultimately, the application of 
international law must be done through a tribunal which adjudicates the 
commission of wrong and then imposes the sanction for the commission of 
that wrong. One of the restraints on doing that is the financial 
ability of the War Crimes Tribunal to gather evidence; to go after and 
arrest international lawbreakers, and to bring those lawbreakers before 
the court of justice.
  Mr. Chairman, it is for that reason that I believe the amendment of 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is not only one that is worthy 
of support, but is one that will ultimately lead to a more peaceful, 
less violent, more accountable international community. And because of 
that, I urge its adoption.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: Page 97, after line 5, 
     insert the following new section:


LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF PRODUCTS NOT MADE IN AMERICA

       Sec. 573. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     made available to the government of any foreign country when 
     it is made known to the Federal official having authority to 
     obligate or expend such funds that--
       (1) the funds are to be used to purchase any equipment or 
     product made in a country other than such foreign country or 
     the United States; and
       (2) substantially similar equipment or products are made in 
     the United States and available for purchase at a price that 
     is not more than 10 percent higher.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment basically states that in 
the foreign aid accounts, those countries that are recipients of our 
foreign aid, when they make procurements, regardless of what the cost 
is within their own country, it has no bearing on the amendment.
  For example, if they are buying tables, and a table costs $300 in 
America but the table costs $700 in their own country, they just go 
right ahead; that is the purpose of our aid. But when that country does 
not make a table and they go outside their country for procurement, the 
Traficant amendment says if we are within 10 percent, we can be as high 
as 10 percent costlier, but that purchase shall be made from the 
American company.
  I believe this is a good amendment. We provide a lot of foreign aid. 
I realize there will be some concerns about this, but I am willing to 
work them out in conference as long as the legislative intent is 
reflected in the final bill.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the distinguished ranking member. I too 
want to join in on the many accolades given him here today.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks and 
for yielding to me.
  I think the gentleman from Ohio has a good amendment. I think it 
would be constructive. I think if we furnish foreign aid to countries, 
they should certainly give American companies, give the American 
economy the benefit of their purchases.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I too support the mission of the gentleman. I think it is so 
important that in the passage of this we should send such a message to 
the administration and that we have a recorded vote, and I would 
respectfully request that the gentleman so request that at the 
appropriate time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 415, 
noes 1, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 213]

                               AYES--415

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr

[[Page H5877]]


     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--1

       
     Kolbe
       

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Allard
     Bonilla
     Browder
     Bryant (TX)
     Crapo
     Gephardt
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lincoln
     McInnis
     Meyers
     Myers
     Peterson (FL)
     Rose
     Roth
     Schiff
     Thornton
     Wise

                              {time}  1542

  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee, Mrs. KELLY, and Mr. CLINGER changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin].
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois for yielding to me and would enter into a short colloquy with 
him to ascertain the committee's legislative intent on the amendment to 
assist refugees and displaced persons in Azerbaijan and Nagorno-
Karabagh.
  I ask the gentleman if it is the legislative intent that there be no 
comment on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republics 
of Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabagh.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, referring to the bill language, pages 21 
and 22 of the bill, section (m) (1) through (3), the purpose of this 
subsection, as stated in the report accompanying the bill, is to 
provide for the improved delivery of humanitarian assistance in 
Azerbaijan and for the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Nagorno-
Karabagh. Also as stated in the report accompanying the bill, the 
committee expresses no view whatsoever on the political status of 
Nagorno-Karabagh.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. LAUGHLIN. In other words, the amendment is neutral on the 
territorial rights of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
  Mr. PORTER. The committee expresses no view whatsoever on political 
status.
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  As everyone knows, I have submitted an amendment, amendment 9, which 
was in title II, which I will not submit, involving the situation of 
the majority of Albanians in Kosovo, and I am wondering if I can ask 
the distinguished gentleman to engage in a colloquy with me.
  Mr. Chairman, after years of repression, the humanitarian situation 
in Kosovo is very grim. Recent reports by respected international 
relief groups spell out the seriousness of the situation. According to 
O. Terry Heselius, Country Director of Kosovo for Mercy Corps 
International, ``because there has not been `all out war' in Kosovo, 
many people have difficulty in understanding the severity of the 
situation and the need for continued emergency humanitarian aid 
relief.''
  Given the difficult circumstances and the importance of maintaining 
stability in Kosovo, I firmly believe that it is in the interest of the 
United States to continue our humanitarian assistance program for 
Kosovo at last year's level of $6 million. I ask my friend, the 
distinguished gentleman from Alabama and chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Foreign Operations [Mr. Callahan], does he agree that the Office of 
Foreign Disaster Assistance should again provide $6 million to Kosovo 
in fiscal year 1997?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Engel] for his inquiry. I am aware of the difficult humanitarian 
situation facing the people of Kosovo and agree that OFDA should 
provide $6 million for humanitarian relief in Kosovo again in fiscal 
year 1997.
  Mr. ENGEL. OK.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Alabama for 
his support.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title V?


           amendment offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts: Page 97, 
     line 5, insert the following new section:


            prohibition of funds for school of the americas

       Sec. 573. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the School of the Americas.

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, a couple of days ago a 
good friend of mine, Sister Clara O'Meara, a 74-year-old Ursuline nun, 
entered Danbury Prison in Connecticut. In the next few days Father Roy 
Bourgeois will enter prison in the Federal system. He is a Maryknoll 
priest. They and several others recently protested this country's 
involvement in the funding of the School of the Americas. They did so 
because they believe that this school that has as its graduates 16 out 
of the 28 officers involved in the murder of six priests and nuns in El 
Salvador; Roberto D'Aubuisson, the death squad leader of Central 
America, Manuel Noriega himself, and a current convicted criminal in 
our own prison system; Leopoldo Galtieri, one of the great human rights 
abusers of all time, from Argentina; Hector Gramahoe, recently 
convicted by courts in this country of rapes and killings in Guatemala, 
responsible for the overthrow of that government and responsible for 
the rape of Sister Diana Ortiz as well as the killing of Jennifer 
Harbury's husband.

[[Page H5878]]

  The list goes on, and on, and on.
  This institution is a relic of the cold war. It associates the people 
of this country far too closely with the terrible regimes, militaristic 
in their nature, that were so much a part of the culture of Latin 
America over the course of the last several decades.
  I believe that it is important that the United States work in a 
cooperative fashion with the military regimes throughout Latin America. 
What I do not think is right is for the United States of America to be 
involved in teaching those armies how to kill, how to rape, how to 
torture.
  This school, make no mistake about it, has been involved in teaching 
people that come from these foreign countries in the United States how 
to torture people in those countries. It is morally reprehensible, it 
is wrong, and I urge this Congress to withdraw the funding that we 
currently provide to the School of the Americas.
  I know that this has been a controversial issue. We have voted on it 
times in the past. We have come close to winning, 2 years ago. I am 
concerned that the votes that we would get on the House floor today 
would not equal the votes that we have gotten in the past, and I am 
going to withdraw this amendment before we come to a vote because we 
want to preserve our capability of winning on this issue in the future.

  We have before us a new proposal, a proposal to not defund the School 
of the Americas completely, but rather to do away with it as we know it 
today and to reopen a new school that could teach democracy, that could 
teach people the rule of law, that could teach people that come from 
these foreign countries respect for civilian authority, that could 
teach them the understanding of human rights that is so much a part of 
our military service.
  I am very proud of the U.S. military, but I do not believe the U.S. 
military does this country proud when it is itself tainted by these 
reprehensible regimes that are so much a part of Latin America over the 
course of the last couple of decades.
  So let us break that tie, let us go forward with a new kind of school 
of democracy that in fact will teach those individuals that come from 
these Latin American regimes what the basis of our fundamental 
democracy and rule of law and our respect for human rights that has 
been so much a critical component of our own military in the United 
States.
  And I appreciate the understanding of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Callahan] of my intent, and I do want to just pay a particular tribute 
to someone whom I have a tremendous amount of respect for who is one of 
my closest personal friends in the Congress of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, this country loses a tremendous servant, public 
servant, who has dedicated his life, has risked his life time and time 
again for the principles of democracy, has stood tall for our military, 
and I am proud to stand tall as his friend, and I appreciate so much 
all the contributions that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] has 
made to our country, and I wish him the best as he goes on to another 
career.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.


               amendment offered by mr. burton of indiana

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana: Page 95, line 
     12, insert before the semicolon the following: ``, including 
     the murders of Mireille Bertin, Michel Gonzalez, and Jean 
     Hubert Feuille''.

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, last fall we had a hearing on 
Haiti, and during that hearing we had the administration's point man, 
Ambassador James Dobbins, appear before the committee, and we asked him 
about the progress that was being made about the FBI investigation into 
the murders, the political murders that were taking place in Haiti, 
particularly the murder of Ms. Bertin, which took place in broad 
daylight in downtown Port-au-Prince. We subsequently found out during 
that hearing that Mr. Dobbins misled the committee. In fact, he lied to 
the committee. He said that the people in the Embassy down there, 
particularly himself, was not aware of FBI information that indicated 
that the Aristide government might have been involved in the murder of 
Ms. Bertin. The FBI agent that was in charge was sitting at the table 
with him and indicated that everybody at the Embassy had been notified 
about the investigation and that there was no cooperation from the 
Aristide government.
  The fact of the matter is there have been a lot of political 
assassinations that have taken place in Haiti, and none of these people 
connected with the government has ever been brought to justice. As a 
matter of fact, there were 13 people that allegedly had something to do 
with Ms. Bertin's death in the Haitian Government down there, and the 
government itself defended those people with government-sponsored 
lawyers.
  Now, in addition to that, our general in charge knew about the 
potential assassination of Ms. Bertin prior to her being killed, and 
instead of telling her and her family that she was a target for 
assassination, they went to Mr. Aristide's government, and that is like 
going to somebody who has a gun pointed at them telling them they might 
get shot.
  The fact of the matter is the Aristide government is believed to have 
been behind the assassination of Ms. Bertin and our general down there 
was talking directly to them instead of Ms. Bertin herself.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to express my support for 
the gentleman's amendment and say that this side has no objection to 
it.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from 
Texas, ``Thank you very much.''
  Let me just conclude then, if the amendment is going to be accepted. 
What my amendment does is it says on page 95, line 12, that the 
administration must give a report before any additional money goes to 
Haiti on the murders of Ms. Bertin, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mr. Feuille in 
addition to other political assassinations that may have taken place.
  I want to thank my colleague for agreeing to accept the amendment. I 
presume that my colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee, will 
accept it as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. The questions is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title V?


                   amendment offered by mr. visclosky

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Visclosky: Page 85, line 8, insert 
     after ``Funds'' the following: ``(other than funds 
     appropriated in this Act under the heading `Economic Support 
     Fund')''.

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a bipartisan amendment in 
conjunction with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Durbin], and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Our amendment would narrow the authority of the President to provide 
U.S. economic assistance to countries found to be in violation of the 
U.S. Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. The Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act 
was signed into law in 1995, prohibits foreign aid to any country that 
blockades the delivery of U.S. disaster relief supplies to a third 
country as that currently applies to the country of Turkey which, since 
April 1993, has blocked all U.S. disaster relief assistance and 
International Red Cross medical supplies bound for the landlocked 
country of Armenia.
  In addition to Turkey's ongoing blockade of humanitarian assistance 
to Romania, Turkey is continuing its illegal occupation of northern 
Cyprus, its internationally condemned war against the Kurds living in 
southeast Turkey,

[[Page H5879]]

its persecution of Christians and its aggressive policy in the Aegean 
Sea which very nearly resulted in an armed confrontation with Greece 
earlier this year.
  The Clinton administration has failed to address these issues. In 
fact, last month President Clinton rejected clear congressional intent 
by waiving the application of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act to 
Turkey. As I stated before, U.S. law today prohibits U.S. economic or 
military assistance to any country that directly blockades the 
transport of U.S. disaster assistance or emergency relief supplies to a 
third country.
  Authored in the House by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and in the Senate by 
Senators Dole and Simon, this law applies to Turkey because of its 
ongoing blockade of all U.S. and international humanitarian relief 
supplies bound for Armenia.
  In order to maintain U.S. pressure on Turkey, we are offering this 
amendment in a bipartisan fashion to ensure that Turkey complies with 
the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act before it receives any additional 
U.S. economic support funds.
  Specifically, our amendment will narrow the Presidential waiver 
authority contained within the act, ending the ability of the President 
to invoke a national security waiver in order to provide up to $25 
million in fiscal year 1997 in economic assistance funds to Turkey.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Chairman, while our amendment would cut $25 million in economic 
aid to Turkey if they do not lift the blockade of Armenia, it would 
have absolutely no effect on U.S. military assistance to Turkey. I 
repeat that. It would have absolutely no effect on U.S. military 
assistance to Turkey, which, in fiscal year 1997, is scheduled to 
exceed $140 million.
  Turkey's hostile and aggressive actions in the last 11 months demand 
a response from this country. The Clinton administration has failed to 
adequately do so, and it is up to the Congress to make a clear, 
decisive statement to Turkey that its hostile and aggressive policies 
against other countries will not be tolerated or rewarded by the people 
of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support a policy of positive engagement with 
Turkey. However, we cannot condone blindly giving foreign aid and 
economic assistance dollars to a country which so routinely violates 
the rights of its neighbors.
  Mr. Chairman, I would encourage my colleagues to support this 
bipartisan measure.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment, but also I 
want to take this opportunity to salute a colleague of mine from the 
other side. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has put so much 
effort into the issues of human rights and, in particular, Turkey, that 
I would like to take this opportunity to salute him.
  Mr. Chairman, I myself have worked hard on the case of Leyla Zana, a 
Kurdish parliamentarian who has been imprisoned by the Turkish 
authorities for speaking out on behalf of the people she represents. 
The gentleman from Illinois has been helpful to me in that effort, and 
he is always there to speak out for the downtrodden. It is so 
important, Mr. Chairman, that people like him are willing to take 
stands that are not popular, but are issues of life and death to the 
voiceless of the world. There is no more important work we do.
  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] is a light for those who 
live in the darkness of oppression and injustice. I so much appreciate 
his courage that I would like to speak out on this floor to tell him 
how much his work means to those of us who work on human rights and for 
those who are imprisoned around the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana which will send, I 
think, a clear message to Ankara that Turkey needs to end its blockade 
of Armenia and needs to do it soon.
  I might remind our colleagues that in addition to our concerns over 
the blockade on U.S. humanitarian assistance, Turkey continues to 
occupy northern Cyprus with some 35,000 troops. It has done that for 
some 22 years. Turkey has recently asserted a claim to the islet of 
Imir, which was ceded to Greece by a valid treaty more than half a 
century ago. Finally, Turkey has yet to fully recognize the cultural 
and political rights of the Kurdish people and is waging a brutal 
military campaign to suppress the legitimate aspirations of the Kurdish 
people.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment, while preserving the necessary 
discretion of the President to safeguard important United States 
interests in regard to our relations with Turkey, also signals that 
economic assistance provided by U.S. taxpayers should not, under any 
circumstance, go to any government which frustrates our humanitarian 
objectives by blocking U.S.-provided aid to another country.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I express my pride in joining with the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Visclosky] in this amendment. This amendment, which has 
already been said, will narrow the President's waiver authority under 
the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act which prohibits U.S. funds available 
under the foreign operations appropriations bill from going to 
countries that block U.S. humanitarian assistance. While this amendment 
is not country specific, the only country in violation of the 
Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act is Turkey. Therefore, our amendment will 
ensure that Turkey does not receive economic support funds until it 
ends its blockade of U.S. humanitarian assistance to Armenia.
  Turkey has signed numerous international agreements guaranteeing 
human rights and freedom of religion. Despite this, Turkey continues 
its illegal blockade of U.S. assistance to Armenia. Turkey began its 
blockade of Armenia in April 1993, when it refused to allow land or air 
passage to the International Red Cross relief workers bound for Armenia 
with medical supplies to be used for disaster relief.
  Turkey also continues its suppression of religious expression within 
its borders. The Turkish government has systematically repressed the 
religious freedom of the Greek community and other ethnic minorities in 
Turkey.
  Particularly disturbing to me is Turkey's failure to take strong 
action in the wake of several recent terrorist attacks against 
ecumenical patriarch Bartholomew I. The patriarch is the spiritual 
leader of the eastern Orthodox Christian church, representing over 250 
million Orthodox Christians worldwide, including over 5 million 
residing in the United States.
  In addition, Turkey continues its illegal occupation of northern 
Cyprus--one recognized by no other government. Turkey continues to 
station more than 30,000 troops on the island of Cyprus and also 
maintains 65,000 settlers there. In fact, the amount of U.S. aid we 
send to Turkey each year is roughly equal to the amount needed to 
maintain the 30,000 plus troops illegally occupying Cyprus.
  Altogether, this illegal occupation represents over two decades of 
division, over two decades of human rights violations, and over two 
decades of cultural destruction.
  On May 16, President Clinton waived the Corridor Act with regard to 
Turkey, clearing the way for continued U.S. economic assistance. 
Opponents of our amendment argue that it ``would effectively curtail 
U.S.-Turkish cooperation and counter U.S. foreign policy interests.'' 
By defending the presidential waiver of the Corridor Act, our opponents 
are acknowledging that Turkey is in violation of the Act.
  Mr. Chairman, last year, Congressman Porter of Illinois offered a 
similar amendment that cut economic aid to Turkey to hold Turkey 
accountable

[[Page H5880]]

for its egregious human rights violations and suppression of religious 
freedom. His amendment passed the House with the bipartisan support of 
247 members.
  I urge my colleagues to again hold Turkey accountable for its 
continued violations of human rights by supporting this much needed 
amendment. Neither the American people nor the U.S. Congress should 
tolerate, much less subsidize, Turkey's illegal and immoral blockade of 
Armenia.
  Is it right, we have to ask ourselves, is it right that they receive 
U.S. taxpayers' economic support while at the same time they prevent 
assistance, they prevent the same type of assistance to Armenia, and 
also are very guilty of other human rights violations? I think not. If 
my colleagues agree then they must vote for this amendment.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Visclosky amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is essentially to put 
enforcement teeth in a provision that is already part of the foreign 
operations bill: The Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act.
  Speaking in my capacity as the co-chairman of the Congressional 
Caucus on Armeniase oren Issues, I applaud the chairman and members of 
the subcommittee for once again, as they did last year, including this 
important provision which restricts U.S. aid to those countries 
blocking delivery of humanitarian aid to third countries. While this 
provision is not country-specific, it clearly applies to Turkey, which 
for more than 3 years has maintained a blockade of neighboring Armenia. 
While the people of Armenia are struggling to build democracy and 
reform their economy according to market principles, the blockade 
imposed along their border with Turkey disrupts the delivery of vitally 
needed humanitarian supplies.
  The Corridor Act provision was in last year's Foreign Ops bill, which 
finally became law earlier this year. Unfortunately, the current 
provision allows for a Presidential waiver and last month President 
Clinton exercised that waiver. I deeply regret that decision, and I 
joined with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and 27 other 
Members in sending a letter to the President protesting this decision.
  The amendment by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky] would 
remove this waiver and I urge support to help enforce the intent of 
Congress.
  Not only do I disagree with the President's waiver on substantive and 
moral grounds. I am particularly dismayed with the procedural way in 
which the waiver was handled by the administration. We learned about 
the waiver almost by accident, through a statement made by Turkish 
Foreign Minister Emre Gonensay, who, speaking at a press conference on 
May 21, 1996, indicated that the national security waiver had been 
invoked. Subsequently, it was confirmed by officials at the State 
Department and the National Security Council that the waiver was 
invoked on May 16, 1996.
  I cannot understand why the Turkish Foreign Ministry was aware of 
this information before the Congress. Given the strong statement of 
congressional intent, we believe it would have been appropriate for the 
administration to have advised Members of Congress of its plans with 
regard to the waiver, and hope the administration will consult with 
Congress in the future.
  Furthermore, I am concerned that the language in the Presidential 
Determination contains no reference to the Turkish blockade of Armenia. 
Failure to at least mention the blockade in the context of the 
determination to waive the Corridor Act sends the disturbing signal 
that the United States is not concerned about the ongoing, illegal 
blockade of a small country striving to establish democracy and a 
market economy. I hope the administration will make a top priority of 
imploring the Turkish Government, the recipient of so much U.S. aid, to 
lift its blockade of Armenia and accept Armenia's offer to normalize 
relations without preconditions.
  This amendment will help make that happen.
  Mr. Chairman, supporters of this amendment bear no ill will to the 
Turkish people and we recognize the strategic importance of relations 
with Turkey. We are simply saying that maintaining good relations 
should not entail turning a blind eye to the outrageous actions 
committed by Turkey. Given the generosity the United States has shown 
toward Turkey, it is appropriate to attach conditions--particularly 
such a basic condition as allowing the delivery of aid to a neighbor in 
need. Such a condition should be a basic requirement for any recipient 
of U.S. aid. I think most of the American people would be shocked to 
know that such a provision is not already a requirement on the 
recipients of U.S. assistance.
  Armenia is a small, land-locked nation dependent on land corridors 
through neighboring countries for many basic goods. Armenia has been 
one of the most exemplary of the former Soviet republics in terms of 
moving toward a Western style political and economic system. The 
Armenian people respect and admire the United States. There are more 
than 1 million Americans of Armenian ancestry. The bonds between our 
countries are strong and enduring. But the people of Armenia face a 
humanitarian crisis which is not the result of any natural disaster but 
the deliberate policy of its neighbor to choke off access to needed 
goods from the outside world. We believe the exertion of U.S. 
leadership can play a major role in easing tensions and promoting 
greater cooperation among the nations of the Caucasus region. 
Enforcement of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act must be an important 
component of those efforts. I urge support for the Visclosky amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Visclosky-Smith-
Bilirakis-Kennedy amendment to the fiscal year 1997 foreign operations 
appropriations bill.
  Last year's foreign operations appropriations bill included the 
Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, which bans U.S. Government assistance to 
any country that prohibits or restricts the transport or delivery of 
U.S. humanitarian aid to other countries. The act, which I had the 
honor of introducing in the House, permits a Presidential waiver of the 
ban, if he determines that U.S. national security interest demands one. 
The justification for our amendment today is simple enough. This 
amendment would not allow the President to use the waiver under the 
Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act to provide economic support funds to 
countries that impede the delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid.
  The Corridor Act mentioned no country by name, but everyone knew it 
was aimed at Turkey, which has been blockading Armenia for years. 
Ankara has stubbornly refused to allow transshipment across Turkish 
territory to Armenia of United States humanitarian aid, specifically, 
clothing, food, and medicine for hundreds of thousands of refugees.
  In refusing to open a land corridor, Ankara points to the occupation 
by Armenian forces of Azerbaijani territory. But Turkey's close 
relationship with Azerbaijan or its approach to the Nagorno-Karabakh 
conflict does not justify or excuse blocking the delivery of United 
States humanitarian aid to Armenia. Turkey's behavior in this respect 
is simply scandalous.
  Unfortunately, the Clinton administration has shown its unwillingness 
to press Ankara to rethink its policy. A couple of weeks ago, the 
President determined it was in the national security interest of the 
United States to waive the application of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor 
Act to Turkey. In essence, President Clinton continues to reward Ankara 
even though they have blocked U.S. humanitarian aid from people in 
need. Also galling is the manner in which the White House exercised its 
option. The White House did not have the courage or the courtesy of 
informing Congress of the President's decision to exercise the waiver 
until the news was broken, post facto, by Turkish Foreign Minister 
Gonensay, who announced it at a May 21 press conference in Washington. 
The waiver, it turns out, had been exercised 5 days earlier, on May 16.
  Why didn't the administration have the courage to inform Congress 
before

[[Page H5881]]

May 16, or at the very latest, on May 16. Why did we have to hear about 
this from Foreign Minister Gonensay. Was the White House hoping nobody 
would notice.
  If so, that hope was in vain. Not only did we notice, we are now 
determined to act, so that the will of Congress, as inscribed in the 
Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, which has strong bipartisan support, 
will be done. The Visclosky-Smith-Bilirakis-Kennedy amendment, while 
allowing the President to waive the laws application for genuine 
national security interests, would remove economic support funds from 
the waiver. If the President exercised the waiver, the United States 
could continue to provide military assistance to the country in 
question. But economic aid would be barred, so long as the country was 
in violation of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act.
  This amendment is a measured and fair response to the President's 
waiver of last month. It puts the White House on notice that Congress 
is serious about its commitment to provide humanitarian assistance to 
those in need. The amendment also provides further incentive to Ankara 
to allow United States humanitarian assistance across its territory to 
refugees in Armenia. Turkey has suffered no consequences for its 
blockade of Armenia, and evidently has no reason to reconsider its 
foolish, mean-spirited policy. This amendment aims to supply one, and I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, we recognize the strategic importance of Turkey and 
maintain the waiver for assistance other than economic support funds. I 
would contend that human rights violations, whether committed by 
enemies or allies, should never be ignored. As my colleagues have noted 
during debate on the rule, and in conjunction with this amendment, the 
ongoing human rights violations in Turkey are disturbing. For example, 
free expression restrictions, widespread torture, and repression in 
southeastern Turkey continue to pose serious concerns about the health 
of Turkish democracy and the status of reforms. Although the Turkish 
Parliament recently amended article 8 of the 1991 anti-terror law that 
criminalized separatist propaganda and then released more than 100 
political prisoners, the amended article 8 has been used to prosecute 
at least 35 individuals--including Turkey's best known author. 
According to yesterday's Financial Times, 154 statutes impose 
restrictions on free speech, and many are to punish peaceful, free 
expression, including article 7 of the anti-terror law and article 312 
of the penal code.
  Persistent, widespread torture continues to mar Turkey's democratic 
credentials, although officials have made public statements condemning 
torture. Human rights observers reported at least 69 torture-related 
deaths in detention since 1993. Forty-eight police officials involved 
in the beating death of a journalist last January were arrested (one 
subsequently alleged torture), yet the 1995 State Department Human 
Rights Report states, ``The climate of impunity that the relatively 
small number of convictions creates remains the single largest obstacle 
to reducing unlawful killing, torture, and other human rights abuses.'' 
Currently, the Foreign Ministry is orchestrating a campaign to halt the 
Human Rights Foundation of Turkey's torture rehabilitation efforts.
  The Turkish military's 12-year-old, $7 billion-a-year campaign 
against Kurdish militants poses another threat to stability and Turkish 
democracy. Under the mantle of combating terrorism, the military 
conducts a violent campaign responsible which has claimed almost 20,000 
lives and takes an increasing toll on civil liberties. Turkish forces 
have destroyed or evacuated more than 2,500 Kurdish villages in 
southeastern Turkey and have created almost 3,000,000 internal 
refugees. Death squads connected with security forces and armed Islamic 
extremists have been responsible for hundreds of unsolved killings and 
disappearances.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say how proud I am that this bipartisan group 
of Members offering this particular amendment is united in our concern 
about suffering refugees. We are all concerned about human rights, and 
we speak out on human rights abuses whenever and wherever they exist; 
but in this case we have an opportunity to help people with our 
medicines, our food, our clothing, and all we are asking for is a way, 
a land route to transship them. Unfortunately, that has been blockaded. 
This is a very good amendment and deserves the support of my 
colleagues.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Bilirakis], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], and myself. This amendment is 
about a matter of fundamental principle that any nation that asks for 
aid from the American people must not, in turn, deny aid to its 
neighbors.
  This fundamental principle was enacted into law last year when 
Congress included the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act in the fiscal year 
1996 appropriation bill. This amendment would simply narrow the waiver 
authority of the President in last year's bill.

                              {time}  1615

  It would prohibit economic support funds to any nation that violates 
the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, even if the President grants a 
waiver. The amendment is carefully crafted, only applying to the 
economic support funds. It does not apply to other forms of assistance, 
such as humanitarian assistance.
  The people of Armenia have suffered for decades, some say for 
centuries. They are suffering now from a brutal blockade. This blockade 
has prevented the delivery of assistance to 300,000 Armenian refugees 
and obstructed the rebuilding of earthquake damage which left 5000,000 
people in Armenia homeless. The blockade has cut off the transport of 
food, fuel, medicine, and other humanitarian assistance to the people 
of Armenia.
  In this time of crisis, the people of Armenia need our strong 
support. As long as Armenia is blockaded by its neighbors, the United 
States should stand resolute and firm in the position that we will not 
provide assistance to the governments that are imposing this blockade 
and I rise in strong support of this amendment which I am cosponsoring.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that during 
further consideration of the bill, it shall be in order to consider the 
following amendments as though offered during consideration of the 
title of the bill to which drafted:
  The amendment numbered 42 by Mr. Obey;
  The amendment numbered 44 by Mr. Obey;
  The amendment numbered 29 by Mr. Obey;
  The amendment numbered 30 by Mr. Obey; and
  The amendment numbered 74 by Ms. Waters.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Visclosky 
amendment to strengthen the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act.
  This amendment would make it more difficult for countries to block 
U.S. humanitarian assistance from reaching its destination.
  Mr. Chairman, Turkey continues to impose a cruel and illegal blockade 
against Armenia. Critical humanitarian assistance is not making it to 
the needy people of Armenia because of this blockade. This is 
unconscionable, and this amendment will help to lift this terrible 
blockade.
  The Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, which was included in last year's 
foreign aid bill, prohibits United States assistance to countries like 
Turkey that impose cruel blockades of humanitarian assistance. This 
amendment strengthens this important provision to ensure that it 
actually accomplishes its goal: to end blockades of humanitarian 
assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1993 Turkey began its blockade of Armenia by 
refusing to allow passage of International Red Cross workers bound for 
Armenia. Since then, Turkey has continually refused to allow these 
relief workers into

[[Page H5882]]

Armenia. Very simply, this is a fundamental violation of human rights.
  We continue to give Turkey economic assistance each year, and Turkey 
continues to disregard our calls for improvements in its human rights. 
Turkey has been illegally occupying Cyprus for over two decades, it has 
used United States assistance to threaten our ally Greece, and it has 
engaged in atrocious human rights violations against the Kurds. We 
cannot tolerate this any longer.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will not solve all of the concerns we 
have about Turkey's human rights record. But it will send a clear 
signal that we will not tolerate any blockade of humanitarian 
assistance. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I may be a voice in the wilderness, but I do not agree 
with all of my colleagues who have preceded me.
  Mr. Chairman, Turkey has been an ally of the United States through 
thick and thin. In the Persian Gulf war we had our bases in Turkey. 
During the Persian Gulf war they cut the Iraqi pipeline and hurt their 
economy dramatically. During the war in Somalia, Turkey sent their 
troops there to help us. In fact, Turkey has been with us as a NATO 
ally from day No. 1, day No. 2, day No. 3, day No. 4, but we seem to 
have a penchant in this Congress of kicking our friends in the teeth 
and embracing those who are not our friends.
  Now, let me give my colleagues some facts about Turkey and about the 
Armenian problem that have not been discussed today. First of all, 
Turkey recognized Armenia immediately after its independence from the 
Soviet Union and publicly stated its willingness to establish good 
neighborly relations with Armenia. Top level Armenian and Turkish 
officials continue right now discussing bilateral relations. Turkey 
closed its land border with Armenia only after Armenia escalated the 
cargo conflict by invading Azerbaijan proper. That is when they closed 
the border, after they invaded Azerbaijan proper. Currently 20 percent 
of Azerbaijan is occupied by Armenian forces. One-fifth of Azerbaijan 
is occupied by Armenian forces.
  Turkey's position is consistent with its opposition to territorial 
gain through the use of force. Turkey was one of the first countries to 
condemn Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and to participate in the Iraqi 
embargo, and it cost Turkey, get this, them working with us, cost 
Turkey over $20 billion.
  Turkey's participation was crucial in the allied success of the gulf 
crisis. It is inaccurate to say that Armenia does not receive 
humanitarian assistance because of Turkey. Container transit shipments 
occur via Izmir and the Turkish Straits to Batum, Georgia, only a few 
kilometers away from the nearest Turkish port.
  Transit passage between the two countries continues. Armenian 
Airlines conduct weekly flights from Yerevan to Istanbul. Armenians can 
travel to Turkey freely, conducting suitcase trade. Those who purport a 
different reality should provide concrete figures to support their 
arguments.
  Turkey has made efforts to normalize relations with Armenia. As a 
goodwill gesture in April 1995, Turkey opened air corridor H-50 
connecting Erzurum to Yerevan. Soon after taking office, Prime Minister 
Mesut Yilmaz announced Turkey will open its border with Armenia 
provided, there is a bilateral agreement on the declaration of 
principles. Turkey is an active member of the Minsk group and plays a 
key role in achieving this goal.
  As the only remaining superpower in a world threatened by ethnic 
strife, the United States must maintain impartiality in order to be a 
constructive influence in containing and resolving these conflicts. 
Perceived United States partiality in the Caucasus would undermine 
progress in ongoing Armenian-Azerbaijan talks. Further, the power of 
the President to execute foreign policy consistent with national 
security interests should not be curtailed by Congress. Foreign 
assistance to Turkey has been drastically reduced in the last 5 years.
  Now, let me say, the Turkish Parliament will consider the extension 
of Operation Provide Comfort in June. Adoption of an anti-Turkish 
amendment like this one will adversely affect the vote on its mandate. 
Such amendments also insult the Turkish people and raise questions in 
Turkish public opinion about the strength of the United States-Turkish 
partnership, thereby endangering the pursuit of common goals in such 
volatile regions of the world.

  Let me just end up by saying, Turkey, I want to state one more time, 
may be like the United States, imperfect in some regard, but Turkey has 
been there every single time we needed them.
  I see some of my colleagues nodding their heads saying yes, but, but, 
but. But they were there when we needed them in the Persian Gulf. They 
were there in Somalia, they were there in Korea. They were there every 
time, in NATO, base rights, cutting off oil, $20 billion in losses to 
their own economy to help us and to help the free world.
  Now, my colleagues need to think long and hard and make absolutely 
sure the are doing the right thing before they kick them in the teeth.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I do not 
think anybody is talking about kicking the Turks in the teeth. What we 
are talking about is the fact that right now, if the Turks were so 
interested in providing humanitarian aid to the Armenians, all they 
have to do is flip a switch. They flip a switch and the lights go on 
throughout Armenia. They flip a switch and the wheat flows into 
Armenia. They flip a switch and trade is normalized.
  I agree that the Turks have done great things for the United States. 
But the truth of the matter is that this is a democracy that has an 
opportunity to do great things for the whole caucasus region, including 
the Kurds. I know my friend from Indiana is concerned about the Kurds. 
But time and time again, this regime in Ankara has suppressed the 
rights of individuals and has suppressed the rights of the Armenian 
people to get basic humanitarian aid.
  I would just ask the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], as we are 
complimenting the Turks on some of the great things that they have done 
in conjunction with this country, to please urge those Turks to open up 
the pipleine, open up the fuel line.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and by unanimous 
consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed for 2 additional 
minutes.)
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, as I said in my 
statement here, that Azerbaijan, 20 percent of Azerbaijan is occupied 
by the Armenians. Let me just say, they are in talks right now, and the 
Turkish Government and the Armenians are in consultation with one 
another, and if they can work out these differences, I think they will 
resolve that problem. But for us, the United States of America, to kick 
a friend in the teeth when this kind of a situation is going on does 
not make any sense to me.
  Now, there are humanitarian planes going in there, there is 
humanitarian aid going in, maybe not to the extent that we want, but it 
is moving in the right direction, and the pressure, according to the 
Turkish Government, needs to be consistent in order to bring about a 
withdrawal from Azerbaijan by Armenian forces.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Wilson, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of 
Indiana was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the gentleman on 
his statement, and I would like to say one thing that has not been 
pointed out that I think should weigh very, very heavily on our 
consideration here is the extremely fragile political situation that 
exists in Turkey today. As the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] 
knows, the largest party in Turkey today is the radical Islamic party. 
A very fragile coalition of the two nonradical Islamic parties has just 
fallen

[[Page H5883]]

apart. This is the worst time that we could pick to punish Turkey who, 
as the gentleman has pointed out, has been a staunch ally.
  Turkey recognized Israel in 1949 and for three decades remained the 
only Muslim country to have full diplomatic representation in Tel Aviv 
and all of the other things, down through Korea, down through the gulf 
war. I would just like to associate myself with the gentleman's 
remarks.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Let me 
just follow up on what he has said.
  Everybody is concerned about Iran and the terrorism that has been 
exported from Iran throughout the Middle East. As the gentleman has 
just stated, Iran has a great deal of influence in countries like 
Turkey, and it is a very fragile situation right now. If we do not make 
the right decisions, we could very well be a party to pushing Turkey 
and their government in the wrong direction.
  Do we want another Iran in the Middle East? Do we want the Turkish 
Government to start adopting their policies? It does not make any 
sense, particularly when you view the fact that Turkey has been there 
from day one with us.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out 
that Iran also has a border with Armenia. This is a democracy that has 
an ability to have a great deal of influence in that region, and a real 
democracy that has the ability to have influence, and not one that has 
suppressed the Kurds, not one that is occupying Cyprus, not one that 
has so often been involved in human rights abuses in terms of Armenia. 
And Armenia is occupying part of Azerbaijan, and we have to ask 
ourselves, why is that true? Is it not true that Stalin in fact took 
away Nagorno-Karabagh from Armenia, broke that country up as a result 
of his concerns about the strength of the Armenian people. And is it 
not true that all they are trying to do right now is get back part of 
the land that really is part of their country?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not 
know how far the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] wants to go 
back. We can go back 50, 70 years. I do not know how far back the 
gentleman wants to go back.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would 
yield, I would be happy to go back to 1918.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, one of the 
problems that we have is we keep going back decades and decades and 
decades and reopening old wounds again and again and again, and it 
makes no sense. What we need to do is look at the world the way it is 
today and try to make it a better place. One of the things that I 
submit to my colleagues today is we should not be kicking Turkey in the 
teeth, and that is what you are doing.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed 
for 1 additional minute.)

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Kicking Turkey in the teeth, our friend right 
now, is not a constructive thing to do. If my colleagues want to write 
a letter to the Turkish leadership, and I would be happy to 
participate, expressing our concern about some things that we agree to, 
that is one thing. But for this Congress to take this kind of a hard 
line position to kick a good, steadfast ally that has been there 
forever in the teeth makes absolutely no sense.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WILSON. The gentleman is aware that the government of the United 
States of America recognizes Nagorno-Karabagh as a part of Azerbaijan, 
as well as the United Nations. Is the gentleman aware of that?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the truth of the matter 
is that anyone who has looked at that situation, and the United States 
will change its view as soon as the negotiation with the gentleman from 
Indiana concludes. Nagorno-Karabagh by any standard is not a part of 
Azerbaijan. I cannot believe that the gentleman from Texas would 
suggest such a thing. Nagorno-Karabagh, if anything, is an independent 
region, and if anybody looks at the historical roots of Nagorno-
Karabagh they will recognize that it is occupied by Armenians. 
Armenians live in Nagorno-Karabagh and it ought to be a part of 
Armenia.
  Mr. WILSON. Has the gentleman consulted the State Department of the 
United States on this?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. All too often.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. With the passage of 
this amendment, the House of Representatives will stand up for a 
fundamental tenet of our foreign policy, that countries who block 
United States humanitarian aid cannot expect to receive our assistance 
themselves.
  With this amendment, the House will send an unmistakable signal to 
Turkey that we will not tolerate its appalling human rights record and 
recent hostile behavior in the region. And, yes, with this amendment we 
are respectfully telling President Clinton, with whom I usually agree 
on foreign policy, that his waiver of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act 
was ill-advised.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a proud Representative of a large Armenian-
American, Cypriot-American and Greek-American community in New York 
City. At meeting after meeting in my district, I have heard stories 
firsthand about the tragic personal losses of life, of torture, murder 
and missing relatives that have been inflicted by Turkish authorities.
  I have spoken with constituents who as young children survived the 
Armenian genocide, only to face the indignity of consistent Turkish 
denial of this catastrophe. My Armenian-American constituents can only 
watch in horror as Turkey continues its unlawful, cruel and immoral 
embargo of their homeland, causing the human suffering in Armenia to 
worsen day by day.
  Mr. Chairman, as the cochair of the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic 
Issues, I have stood on this floor many times in recent months to 
highlight Turkey's flagrant disregard for human rights and 
international law. With this record, Turkey is not a suitable recipient 
of United States economic aid. We cannot give aid to one country and 
then allow them to cut off humanitarian aid to another.
  With this amendment and its likely cutoff of economic aid to Turkey, 
our message will be strong and forceful. The illegal occupation of 
northern Cyprus must end. Turkish illegal actions and lack of support 
for the proposed demilitarization of this beautiful island of Cyprus 
must end. The foot dragging over the final fate of the missing Greek 
Cypriots and Americans must end.
  For my colleagues who are not aware of the depth of suffering brought 
on by the 1974 invasion, I invite them to Astoria, Queens, in my 
district, where they will meet dozens of people who have not heard a 
word about their loved ones in over 22 years.
  With this amendment, we are also telling Turkey that its brutal war 
on the Kurdish minority is an outrageous affront to human decency. With 
this amendment, we register our profound dismay at Turkey's recent 
aggressive actions in the Aegean which challenge the internationally 
recognized sovereignty of our friend and ally, Greece.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not easy for me to support an amendment which 
overturns a foreign policy decision of President Clinton, but in this 
case we simply have no choice. Turkey's record on human rights and 
international law deserves our strongest condemnation.
  The last thing Turkey deserves is over $20 million in United States 
taxpayer dollars. As a matter of fundamental respect to the most 
profound and sincere policy objectives of this Nation, I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.

[[Page H5884]]

  The gentleman from Indiana is not a minority of one or two with the 
gentleman from Texas but we are in a distinct minority and I just would 
start by pointing out the colleague letter that the gentlewoman from 
New York signed along with another colleague who talks about and I 
think in her comments she said she represented a large Armenian-
American community. That is the thrust of this amendment.
  Because when you look around, ask yourselves how many Turkish 
Americans you have known. When was the last time the Turkish American 
Association called on you in your office?
  That is not true of this amendment, and we are here for ethnic 
reasons and ethnic reasons alone. Large groups of Armenian-Americans 
live in this country, large groups of Greek-Americans live in this 
country, and I respect them and I count friends from that group. But 
what about the Turkish Americans? They do not have a large 
organization. I doubt one ever served in this body.
  But let us consider the Turkish citizen today that has a son or 
daughter in the military and look around their neighborhood. When I 
listened to the gentlewoman from New York talk about all the murders 
and the crime and the torture, I thought she was reading from the New 
York Times because I have been there, I have read that paper and I have 
seen the same thing in our big cities. But it is true that Turkey as 
Iraq, Iran, and Syria, are not first-class human rights countries, not 
first-class democracies. In fact, other than Greece and Israel, there 
is no other democracy in the area.
  And when you talk about human rights, what about Soviet Jewry? AIPAC 
and people in the Jewish community that followed Soviet Jewry closely 
will tell you Turkey was a pipeline much like the underground railroad 
a century ago in this country was. And the Turks have a strong record 
in that area. But when you look at where Turkey has been, and I agree 
with the gentleman from Indiana, we are kicking a friend in the teeth. 
We are saying to a country that asked their sons to go to Korea, who 
asked their citizens to have economic deprivation when they shut off 
the pipeline the first day Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, and we have 
said, ``That is too bad. You are blockading the country.''
  Let us look at the geography for just a minute. As I have listened to 
the speakers from the Armenian-American community, they want you to 
believe, as I hear them, that Turkey surrounds Armenia. All you have 
got to do is look at a map and you find that the republic of Georgia 
has a long common border with Armenia. Why are we not blockading or 
cutting off aid to Georgia in the Freedom to Support Act? What about 
the Federation called Russia who even has troops, soldiers, military 
stationed in Armenia today? Why are we not blockading and cutting off 
Russia? The answer is simple. We have a commitment to a friend and if 
we do not stand up for this country that has stood with us every time 
since the end of World War II, not one time have they failed to stand 
up in the fight to preserve freedom and democracy around the world, and 
we are going to stick a knife in their back simply because there is not 
an equal number of Turkish Americans in this country.
  I realize we would lose this vote if we have one but I would ask the 
Members of this body, why not put our country first? I find it a little 
strange to be standing here before this body to tell Members this, but 
the Secretary of Defense is opposed to this amendment, the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff of our military is opposed to this amendment.
  So I ask why not? Why not stand up for a friend who has a democracy? 
And we talk about the abuse of Armenians. Just last year my own 
daughter went to an Armenian church wedding in Istanbul, the largest 
city in Turkey. Was she suppressed? Was she terrorized? The answer is 
no.
  So, I say to all my colleagues, let us stand up for a friend, let us 
recognize that they do not have the only border as others would 
suggest. They do not have the only border and there are air flights and 
there is the Black Sea that connects with both Russia and Georgia that 
gives access.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and by unanimous 
consent, Mr. Laughlin was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I would just like to point out to the 
gentleman from Texas that the truth of the matter is that the only 
country that is actively going out and preventing aid from going into 
Armenia, it is not Russia, it is not Georgia. The country that is 
standing in the way is Turkey. And the only other country that is 
standing in the way is Azerbaijan, for crying out loud.
  So, all we are asking them to do is, this great friend of the United 
States, this great supporter of human rights that the gentleman has so 
glowingly called them, why do they not just simply turn the rights on 
in Armenia? That is the question. The Turkish Government, as it sits 
today, represents a great deal of Azerbaijanis in that country and they 
are the ones that are systematically denying the Armenian people the 
right to have basic human aid that is so vitally needed by the people 
of that country.
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. As the gentleman well knows, I have been to all the 
countries in the caucus more than once.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I do know that. I have seen the 
gentleman.
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. We have met in Moscow switching planes as we both came 
from that region. But the truth of the matter is I am absolutely 
convinced in my heart from being in Armenia and visiting with 
Armenians, being in Armenia visiting with President Ter-Petrossian, 
there would be peace in that region today if not for the Americans, 
anyway we want to put a hyphen in front of their names, me included, 
there would be peace in that region if we were not involved.

  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY. First of all, there is no torture in New York and the 
crime rate has gone down dramatically with the anticrime bill that 
President Clinton initiated and that we passed.
  Second, I would just merely like to ask the gentleman how he 
justifies cutting off humanitarian aid.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] has 
again expired.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman be allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, we are told this is about a blockade. This is not about 
a blockade. We are hearing about Cyprus, Kurds, Greece, Armenians. We 
are not hearing much about the PKK and what Turkey has to do to fight 
the terrorism. We are not hearing much about Greece's unilateral 
expansion of their territory which has created the situation. It is not 
a one-sided situation. We are hearing criticism of what the Ottoman 
empire is accused of doing in 1918. But we are not hearing a whole lot 
about a blockade.
  I think it is unfortunate that this really has boiled down to another 
session of Turkey bashing. We need to pay attention to the fact that 
they were a crucial ally during the cold war but not only during the 
cold war. When that was over they were a key ally during the gulf war, 
and they are still a key ally in dealing with Bosnia. But the gulf war 
is a good example. We have heard earlier that we should not be 
providing assistance to somebody who is doing these nasty things that 
they are doing. We need to remember, Turkey is losing more through 
assisting us in the way we deal with Iraq than we ever give them. They 
have lost literally billions of dollars by closing off the pipeline 
because they have been willing to support the U.S. policies.
  They have been a good friend, they have paid a high cost, they have 
been a friend to Israel, they are a key democratic Islamic nation that 
is in a very precarious situation. I think that what is at stake here 
is our relationship

[[Page H5885]]

with Turkey. The Armenians will not win if this passes. We will not 
change the situation. What we will do is damage the relationship that 
the United States has with a key ally. I would urge a ``no'' vote on 
the amendment.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUNN of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out, I know there 
is a lot of conversation going back and forth with Turkey and its rule 
over the years with the United States and our military. But I think the 
bottom line is here talking about humanitarian aid. That is all we are 
saying.
  I rarely criticize the President, but I have to in this case. When 
President Clinton certified and said that he was going to waive the 
Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, which is essentially what this amendment 
was all about, he was essentially admitting that there is a blockade, 
that the blockade is taking place and that, for whatever national 
security interests, which I guess is what you were citing, we should 
allow that blockade to continue and not have the humanitarian aid come 
to Armenia. I think that is wrong. Regardless of the fact of whatever 
the national security interests are, however you view United States-
Turkey relations, the bottom line is that there is absolutely no reason 
why Turkey should be allowed to continue this blockade of Armenia for 
humanitarian assistance.
  We are only talking about humanitarian assistance, whether they are 
going to get energy assistance, whether they are going to get food 
supplies. I think this principle applies in general. We are talking 
here about Armenia but it applies in general. Why should any country, a 
friend of the United States or whatever, continue to get assistance 
from our country if they do not allow humanitarian aid to go to another 
country? I think that is what this is all about.
  Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do appreciate 
the fact that the gentleman brought the debate back to the blockade. I 
was trying to point out when someone said earlier there is not Turkey 
bashing, there are other neighbors that could provide the corridor, 
Turkey is not the only one. It is not a one-way relationship in 
dealing. Turkey does provide a great cost to themselves to support us.
  I also wanted to bring out that, when we hear discussions about 1918, 
that has nothing to do with today's discussion of the corridor. That is 
talking about something that happened dealing with the Ottoman empire. 
When we hear talk about the Aegean and what Turkey has done, we could 
get into a debate all day about those issues.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUNN of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. The way the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Visclosky] is phrased, we are not just talking about Turkey. We are 
talking about the general issue of whether or not a country should 
continue to receive United States aid if it forbids or blockades 
humanitarian assistance from going to another country that is a friend 
of ours.
  So I agree, if there was any other country that was doing this, then 
they should be stopped as well. So focusing on Turkey versus Armenia 
makes sense in the context of today, but this is a basic principle that 
I think should apply to all U.S. foreign policy. It does not matter 
whether it is Armenia or not.
  Mr. BUNN of Oregon. The other portion of the policy is that 
apparently the gentleman is deciding that the President cannot make the 
correct foreign policy decision in this area.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the Visclosky amendment 
and thank the gentleman for his leadership in bringing it to the floor 
today. But frankly, I am very disappointed that this amendment is even 
necessary. As we know, Mr. Chairman, last year Congress passed a 
Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act in order to discourage nations which 
receive U.S. aid from blockading other nations which also receive 
United States aid such as, in this case, Armenia.
  Unfortunately, the Clinton administration chose to waive the act as 
it applied to Turkey, a nation which continues to illegally blockade 
Armenia. That is what brings us here today. Many of our colleagues have 
talked about the relationship that the United States has with Turkey, 
going back to the end of World War II in terms of strategic importance, 
vis-a-vis the Soviet Union at that time and the oil embargo during the 
Persian Gulf war.
  And, now they are talking about the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. 
Being an ally of the United States or being next to the Soviet Union or 
having Islamic fundamentalists in one's country is not a license to 
block humanitarian assistance. The fact is that you can list all kinds 
of pros and cons in our relationship, but it does not take away from 
the fact that there is an immoral action going on in the blockade of 
Armenia.
  Congress spoke very clearly last year to this point. It is 
unfortunate that the Clinton administration did not understand 
Congress' intent. Turkey is continuing to illegally blockade Armenia by 
preventing trade, transport and transshipment of United States and 
international humanitarian assistance to Armenia. This blockade is not 
sanctioned by the United Nations or any other international 
organization.
  Mr. Chairman, Turkey began its blockade of Armenia in April 1993, 
when it refused to allow land or air passage of international Red Cross 
relief workers bound for Armenia with medical supplies to be used for 
disaster relief assistance. Since that time, Turkey has refused to 
allow the passage of any international Red Cross relief workers into 
Turkey. Turkey has not been promoting peace in the region. It has 
recently declared that its border with Armenia is a militarized zone.
  That brings us back to why we need the Visclosky amendment. It would 
strengthen the Humanitarian Corridor Act and increase pressure on 
Turkey to lift the 3-year blockade of United States relief supplies to 
Armenia. The Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, which was signed into law 
earlier this year, prohibits U.S. foreign assistance to states which 
obstruct our efforts for humanitarian relief to needy populations.
  The pressing need for the Visclosky amendment was made clear when, as 
I say again, the President, disregarding the will of Congress, and I 
might state the bipartisan expression of support in this body, 
Democrats and Republicans alike, coming together to support the 
Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. The President chose to disregard the 
intent of Congress and cleared the way for continued military and 
economic aid to Turkey.
  Neither the American people nor the United States Congress should 
tolerate, much less subsidize, the Turkish Government's illegal and 
immoral blockade of Armenia.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I would like to commend once again the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky] for his leadership on this 
subject, proclaim once again the bipartisan nature of the support for 
his amendment. I again reiterate that the bill, the Humanitarian Aid 
Corridor Act, was passed in a bipartisan fashion and signed into law. 
The intent of Congress should be respected. Since it has not been, it 
is important for Members to support the Visclosky amendment.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment. The 
amendment will ensure that Turkey complies with the Humanitarian Aid 
Corridor Act before it receives any more economic support funds.
  Whether we are talking about Cyprus, the Kurds, persecution of 
Christians or Armenia, the evidence is overwhelming against Turkey. 
Questions of democracy, human rights, fairness, family reunification 
and decency principles we stand for, we have to shoot straight with our 
Turkish allies.
  For over 20 years, Turkish troops have illegally occupied the 
northern one-third of Cyprus. Today over 35,000 armed troops occupy 
northern Cyprus. Recent reports indicate Turkey has increased its 
occupation forces. Turkey continues its military and colonial policy 
towards Cyprus.
  With regard to the Kurds, Turkey's militaristic policy toward the 
Kurdish

[[Page H5886]]

minority living in the southeastern Turkish desert region goes beyond 
the pale of civilized behavior; 20,000 lives have been lost, 3,000,000 
civilians displaced. It is time for the United States to take a 
principled stand and express its opposition to Turkey's ongoing plan 
and campaign to destroy the Kurdish culture.
  With regard to the persecution of Christians, Turkey continues to 
place prohibitive restrictions on Christian churches. There have been 
numerous terrorist attempts to desecrate the ecumenical patriarch's 
premises in Istanbul. The Turkish Government has launched a concerted 
effort to convert the Church of Saint Sophia, one of the most sacred 
monuments of Orthodox Christianity and, I should add, one of the 
greatest architectural wonders of the world, their plan to convert this 
into an Islamic mosque.
  With regard to Armenia, Turkey is continuing its illegal blockade of 
Armenia by preventing trade, transport and the transshipment of United 
States and international humanitarian assistance to Armenia. We must 
make a strong stand. We must send a strong message to the world, and 
the President should send a strong message to the world that Turkey's 
aggressive behavior is not acceptable.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Visclosky amendment and 
want to reiterate the point made by the gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr. 
Pallone]. This amendment does not reference Turkey. Let me at the 
outset state that I believe that Turkey is a friend. Turkey is an 
important ally. Turkey has strategically been of great assistance to 
the United States of America.
  As I pointed out, when I spoke on the additional funds for the war 
crimes tribunal in The Hague, we need to hold accountable in the 
international community those who did not meet international norms, 
friend or not a friend.
  I am one who has been substantially critical of Turkey, 
notwithstanding my premise that they are a friend and important ally. 
Whether it relates to the Kurds, whether it relates to their treatment 
of prisoners or the press, whether it deals with any other matter, all 
of us need to hold one another accountable for transgressions and for a 
failure to meet international norms.
  Now, in the Humanitarian Corridor Act we said one of the norms was 
allowing assistance to go to those in trouble. Not combatants, not 
adversaries, but people in trouble. People in trouble because of 
conflict, perhaps beyond their control, children in trouble. We have 
provided, and other Western nations have provided, humanitarian 
assistance. Not to aid combatants, not to aid one side or the other, 
not to make an ideological point, but to say that, when there are 
people in trouble, it is the objective of the international civilized 
community to give aid and comfort and help.

  We ought to ask all of our allies and our friends to assist to the 
greatest extent possible in the delivering of that humanitarian 
assistance. That is all this amendment says.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. The gentleman from Maryland is right, this is 
purely a humanitarian issue. The Armenians have suffered in the early 
part of this century, in the early part of this century at the hands of 
the Turks. The Armenians have suffered through a Soviet regime for 
decades. This is simply the transition that the Armenians are trying to 
make from being part of the Soviet union as a State in the Soviet Union 
to a free market, independent, free society. The American tradition is 
to extend a helping hand to countries like that.
  That is all that the Visclosky-Bilirakis amendment is about, to 
extend that helping hand, to help Armenia in a humanitarian way. That 
is all we are asking for.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his contribution 
and his support of this amendment.
  In closing, I would hope and I believe that this amendment will 
receive broad bipartisan support. I do not know whether there will be a 
rollcall vote, but if there is, I hope that there is an overwhelming 
show of support, not against Turkey, not against any other country, but 
for the critically important principle that we will expect our allies 
and our friends, as well as those who may not count themselves in that 
category, to facilitate the relieving of human misery and suffering.
  I trust that this amendment will receive the strongest support 
possible.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Visclosky's amendment. 
As a cosponsor of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, I was very pleased 
with the passage of this legislation last year. However, I was 
extremely troubled with the President's waiver of the Humanitarian Aid 
Corridor Act on May 16. I joined many of my colleagues in expressing 
our disappointment with his decision to waive the statutory 
restrictions on assistance to the Republic of Turkey, and I am urging 
my colleagues to support this amendment to strengthen the Humanitarian 
Aid Corridor Act.
  The Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act prohibits U.S. assistance to any 
country that prohibits or restricts the transport or delivery of U.S. 
humanitarian aid to other countries. We should not allow humanitarian 
assistance to be used as a political weapon while innocent victims are 
deprived of food, fuel, and medical supplies, whether it be in the wake 
of a natural disaster or armed aggression.
  Unfortunately, countries are still hampering the delivery of U.S. 
humanitarian assistance to those in need. Turkey continues its illegal 
blockade of American humanitarian relief to needy population in Armenia 
and it continues to deny the existence of the Armenian Genocide of 
1915.
  This amendment would limit the scope of the executive waiver under 
the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. This amendment would limit the 
President's waiver authority to only U.S. military aid--economic 
assistance would be withheld from any country that impedes the delivery 
of U.S. humanitarian assistance to other countries.
  This amendment continues to protect U.S. national security interests, 
but it will send a strong message to nations that blocking humanitarian 
assistance to those in need is unacceptable. I commend the members of 
the committee who have worked on behalf of this legislation, and I urge 
all my colleagues to support this important amendment.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words to speak against the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am glad to hear all Members speaking on both sides of 
this issue are recognizing the fact that Turkey is a valuable ally of 
the United States. I think that everyone recognizes that.
  I would like to say on the issue of blockades, that container transit 
shipments to Armenia through Izmir and the Turkish straits to Batum, 
Georgia, only a few kilometers away from the Turkish border, are taking 
place now. Transit passage between the two countries continues. 
Armenian Airlines conduct weekly flights from Yerevan to Istanbul. 
Armenians can travel to Turkey, frequently conducting suitcase trade.
  I would also like to say that Turkey has made efforts to normalize 
relations with Armenia. Obviously, this is a long-standing dispute, and 
as a good will gesture in April of 1995, Turkey opened air corridor H-
50, connecting Erzurum to Yerevan. And soon after taking office, Prime 
Minister Yilmaz announced Turkey will open its border with Armenia, 
providing there is a bilaterial agreement on the declaration of 
principles.
  So I think Turkey is making great strides in the area of humanitarian 
aid and treating people in its country with respect.
  As we know, Turkey is located in a very unsettled part of the world, 
surrounded by Syria, Iraq, and Iran. It is a strong secular democracy. 
And although I imagine this amendment will pass, I think it is 
important that we recognize the contribution that Turkey makes in our 
foreign policy as a valuable ally, and I, for one, intend to vote 
against this amendment.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in strong support of the Visclosky amendment. Few of us would

[[Page H5887]]

disagree with the fact that Turkey is an important ally of the United 
States. Many of us have said it on both sides of the question. But as a 
member of the Committee on International Relations, I ask let us look 
at that in context. Should that fact entitle Turkey to deny the 
transits of United States aid to the Armenian people? Does it permit 
Turkey to deny basic human rights to Christians and Kurds within 
Turkey? And should our relationship allow Turkey to threaten the 
stability of the region and to delay the long overdue unification of 
Cyprus, which it invaded and now occupies?
  I was there this past summer, Mr. Chairman, in Cyprus, and I say this 
by way of context, that when we say that Turkey is an ally, we have to 
look at how our allies act in the rest of the world and what are our 
interests in its totality. And in that respect, here is a country that 
was invaded and occupied, that is divided. When I crossed the green 
line which divides the northern part, controlled by the Turkish 
Government, with the southern part of the rest of the island, it was a 
very difficult process. And, in fact, we found that Turkish Cypriots, 
original Turkish Cypriots, do get along with Greek Cypriots, but the 
Turkish officials who are there and the troops that are there interfere 
with that reunification.
  So when we look at all these things, and when we say that Turkey is 
an ally, we have to look at it in context.
  Now, opponents of this amendment will emphasize what a great friend 
Turkey has been to the United States and suggest that any action that 
we might take might jeopardize that relationship, but I think we have 
to keep in mind as well, in addition to the total context that United 
States-Turkish relationship is a mutually beneficial one, and that 
means that it is strategically important for both countries. And a 
relationship which rises to the term of ally has to be open to honest 
and open debate as to what we, in fact, are willing to support when we 
support an ally.
  Now, foreign assistance is one of the few tools of peaceful diplomacy 
that we have. It is not unreasonable for us to demand that Turkey allow 
the transit of United States aids to Armenia if it wants to continue to 
receive United States economic support funds. That is the purpose in 
part of aid; it is, in fact, to produce an inducement as part of your 
overall foreign policy.
  Now, we should note that the longer Turkey blockades the passage of 
aid to Armenia, the longer the people of Armenia will need to depend on 
United States assistance. And in this era of budget cutting and 
increasing pressure to limit the foreign assistance budget, we cannot 
afford not to enact this amendment.
  The Visclosky amendment carefully curbs aid to Turkey by removing 
economic support funds from the President's waiver authority for the 
Humanitarian Corridor Act, but military support funds remain intact. 
And when we look at the question of where Turkey is moving, we have to 
look at recently the question of Aliza Marcus, a New Jersey resident 
who works for Reuters, who was almost jailed simple because she wrote 
an article they did not care for.
  Are we willing to support an ally under any conditions? We did that 
in the past in our history and we paid dearly for it.
  Day after day and year after year Turkey has continued to actively 
block the transit of assistance to the people of Armenia at a time when 
they are struggling to rebuild their economy and establish a democracy. 
And by forcing Turkey to make a decision about how important that $25 
million in economic support funds is to the people of its country, we 
can send the message that the United States will not stand by and allow 
Turkey to bully its neighbors, Armenian, Greek, Cypriot, Kurdish or 
Christian, and continue to receive the blessings of the United States 
assistance.
  I urge all of my colleagues, because it is the right policy for the 
United States, to support the Visclosky amendment.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, the 
Visclosky-Bilirakis amendment. I want to review how we got to the point 
that we are at today with respect to this because I think it is 
instructive and important.
  We passed a provision in the 1996 foreign ops appropriations bill 
that has become known as the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. That was 
put into the bill by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. The 
purpose of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act was to prohibit U.S. 
assistance of any kind from going to a country that impedes the 
delivery of humanitarian aid to a third country.
  It also allowed for a waiver that could be implemented by the 
President, allowing him to waive those restrictions for any specific 
country that he deems necessary in order to uphold U.S. national 
security interests and then reinstate military and economic aid to that 
country.
  Now, in fact, we found out 5 days, 5 days fully after, that the 
President has apparently invoked this. And did we find out from the 
administration? Did we find out from the President that he invoked the 
waiver directly? Did the President come to the Congress and let us 
know? No, he did not. We found out through the foreign ministry of the 
nation of Turkey that our own President, or own administration had 
waived this specific provision in the 1996 foreign ops appropriation 
bill.
  I mean we have to ask ourselves why on earth, why on earth was the 
President not coming to us and telling us, the U.S. Congress, that he 
was going to make this waiver? Why are we finding this out from Turkey 
as opposed to the United States?
  So we find out, and we find this out on May 21. May 21, what, 11, 12 
days ago? This is when we found out. That is when we found out this 
national security waiver had been invoked. That brings us to today.
  What does this provision, the Visclosky-Bilirakis amendment actually 
do? It says that we will continue to have the Humanitarian Aid Corridor 
Act in place, but that with respect only to economic support funds, the 
waiver provision will no longer exist. In other words, the President of 
the United States will no longer be able to waive the Humanitarian Aid 
Corridor Act. He will not be able to waive that provision specifically 
with respect to the economic support fund.
  How much money are we talking about for the nation of Turkey, 
potential? Not more than $25 million. Turkey is going to continue to 
get $146 million in military aid. I do not know how Members feel about 
that. I am not crazy about it. But Turkey will continue to get that. 
Turkey will continue to get humanitarian aid if it needs it.
  This does not affect humanitarian aid. It does not affect military 
aid. It merely affects the economic support fund, which is used for 
what? Things like economic development, the retirement of debt. 
Sometimes we do not know exactly what it is for. The State Department 
does not always tell us, but it is up to $25 million.
  It is a very incremental, moderate, frankly, step to be taken at this 
time. It is anything but radical or extreme. It is, as opposed to a 
smack in the face, it is more like a little tap on the wrist, and it is 
absolutely necessary that we do it. This ought to have the broadest 
bipartisan support from every Member of this Congress, because we 
should not, we should not be giving economic support funds to Turkey or 
any other nation under the pretext of a national security interest.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge every Member of this Congress to vote in favor 
of this.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Even though 
Turkey is one of our biggest beneficiaries of American good will, that 
nation continues to block distribution of American aid to the Republic 
of Armenia. In other words, Turkey is acting like a big bully against 
its small neighbors and American aid is being held hostage. Not only is 
this clearly unfair, but it is illegal, according to the U.S. law.
  The time has come that we stop making execuses for Turkey. The time 
has come to quit playing politics with humanitarian aid, aid destined 
for Armenia. I know that Turkey is a member of NATO, and I acknowledge 
Turkey's strategic importance, but fair is fair. Human rights must be 
protected, and no one, not even our military allies, have the right to 
flaunt the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, period.

[[Page H5888]]

  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Visclosky 
amendment. This is a vote for the people of Armenia and this is a vote 
for strengthening and upholding the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and I also 
rise in very strong support of the amendment of the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Visclosky]. I do so for reasons of strategic balance, 
constitutional propriety and moral imperative.
  On issues of strategic balance, I do not think anyone on our side of 
the question would disagree that the importance of Turkey's military 
role to the defense of this country is very important and very 
desirable. But one of the many benefits of the Visclosky amendment is 
it does not in any way impair that relationship. In fact, it simply 
only speaks to the economic assistance and conditions that assistance, 
not the military assistance, upon the behavior of Turkey.
  With respect to the issue of constitutional propriety, with all due 
respect to the administration, many of us believe that its decision to 
waive the provision of the Humanitarian Corridor Act was incorrect and 
wrong. This, we believe, restores a sense of constitutional balance, 
where we say with respect to economic assistance funds there will be 
none, period, unless there is compliance with the act. And with respect 
to other provisions, we respect the prerogative of the Commander-in-
Chief and the executive branch.
  Finally, there is a matter of the moral imperative here. A country 
that continues to illegally and harshly occupy the island of Cyprus, 
that continues to persecute people within its own borders for the 
practice of their religion, a country that has the dubious distinction 
of leading the world in 1995 in the number of journalists imprisoned 
for simply speaking their minds, such a country has no place receiving 
the hard-earned tax dollars of the people of our country.

                              {time}  1715

  Cyprus is the most egregious example. What has happened to the people 
of Armenia fits a similar standard. And for us to adopt Mr. Visclosky's 
amendment, I think, would make us unwitting and undesirable components 
or accessories to such a policy. I believe we should not do that. I 
commend Mr. Visclosky and his colleagues for introducing this. I thank 
my friend from California for yielding to me.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. I realize how passionate and sincere many Members of Congress 
are with respect to Turkey and to some of the events that have taken 
place there, not by all people of Turkey but by a small group of people 
in Turkey. It has been my position that the Constitution gives the 
affairs of foreign policy to the administrative branch of government 
and sometimes we constrict the administration too harshly.
  Last year during this debate I had a conversation with many members 
of the Greek community who were concerned about some of the same 
problems that you all are concerned about. I agreed then that we were 
not going to earmark any money for Turkey, that we were not going to 
afford Turkey the same monetary help that we were giving them with 
respect to the F-16's they were trying to purchase. And in my bill 
there is not one penny earmarked to Turkey. We have a pot of money that 
we give to the administrative branch of government. It is called the 
Economic Support Fund.
  The administration can choose to take part of that money and give it 
to Egypt. They can take part of that money and give it to Israel. We do 
not tell them how to spend every nickel. We do not tell them to spend 
money in Turkey. Neither do we deny them the opportunity to spend money 
in Turkey.
  To further facilitate those who have concerns about the problems in 
Turkey, the committee, through amendment, elected to restrict the 
ability of the administration that if they decide to give money to 
Turkey, under no circumstances could they go above $25 million. So 
there is no economic support money earmarked. The administration has a 
limited amount of availability of money for Turkey, and there is no new 
money in here for Turkey for new military equipment.
  There is money in there for sustainment needs to allow them to buy 
parts, and Turkey is an ally of the United States. No one here disputes 
that.
  So I am trying to tell the House that we are trying not to write 
foreign policy for the administration. We elected President Bill 
Clinton to lead this Nation. He appointed the Secretary of State. While 
I disagree with them more often that not, nevertheless we must 
recognize that the Constitution gives this charge to the administrative 
branch of government.
  I hope that we will not have to even vote on it, but if we were to 
vote on it, I would vote ``no.'' I would like to encourage a ``no'' 
vote but to emphasize that in this bill, we are not creating foreign 
policy. We are making an appropriation. At the behest of some, we have 
limited the amount of the administration's ability to give Turkey 
money. I think that we have come a long way, and I would urge a 
rejection of this amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, a year ago the Congress, both the House and the Senate, 
with the agreement of the President adopted a principle, and that 
principle was that no country receiving foreign assistance from the 
United States, should continue to receive that assistance if they were 
to block transit of humanitarian assistance to another country which 
the United States wished to help.
  We are talking, Mr. Chairman, about humanitarian assistance. We are 
talking about food and clothing and medical supplies and energy, the 
kinds of things that keep people alive, something that we could send to 
those in great need.
  Mr. Chairman, that principle was not stated in terms of Turkey and 
Armenia. It was applicable to any country that might be receiving 
humanitarian assistance from the United States and any country that 
might prevent its transit. But let us be truthful, there was only one 
country cutting off humanitarian assistance a year ago, and there is 
only one country cutting off United States humanitarian assistance 
today, and that is Turkey cutting off assistance to Armenia.
  Is Armenia presently receiving United States humanitarian assistance? 
Yes. How is it getting there? It is that other countries are not 
preventing transit. It is going mostly through Georgia. And what does 
that mean?
  It means that it costs the United States millions of additional 
dollars to get the aid to where we want it to go to, Armenia, because 
Turkey refuses to allow it to cross their borders. Why should the U.S. 
taxpayers pay that additional cost and still provide economic 
assistance to the country that is preventing the aid from proceeding in 
the normal way?
  As we do with all these provisions, we said that the President could 
waive this part of the law for national security reasons, and isn't it 
interesting that the President of the United States waived the 
provision of the law on May 16, thwarted the entire purposes for which 
Congress adopted it, and never had the courtesy or the courage to tell 
Congress or the American people that he had done it? We had to find it 
out through the Turkish Foreign Minister 5 days after the fact.
  Now all we are saying in this amendment is, yes, the President of the 
United States still can waive the provisions of the law in regard to 
national security, but the waiver will only relate to national security 
assistance, military assistance to the country involved, and that if he 
issues such a waiver the economic assistance, nevertheless, will not be 
allowed to go through.
  Are we concerned about Turkey and its instability, as the gentleman 
from Texas suggested earlier? Of course, we are. Is Turkey a valuable 
ally to the United States? Of course, it is. Has it stood with us? Yes. 
But it is in the hands of Turkey not to have assistance cut off simply 
by allowing humanitarian assistance to pass across its borders. Is that 
too much to ask of any country in the world? I think not.
  I think this amendment is very, very properly crafted. It preserves 
national security assistance and does not touch

[[Page H5889]]

it. It simply says, if you are going to cost the American taxpayers 
extra money, millions of extra dollars to transship across areas to get 
the humanitarian assistance where we want it to go, you certainly 
should help to pay for it.
  I think that is perfectly reasonable. I think the Members understand 
it. I commend the gentleman from Indiana for offering this amendment. I 
believe it is going to receive the overwhelming support of the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It is appropriate, 
and it is necessary to implement the will of this House and this 
Congress enacted into law last year in the Humanitarian Aid Corridor 
Act. It is wrong for the President to have waived the provisions not 
only with respect to military aid but also with respect to economic 
aid.
  There can be no national security justification for restoring 
economic aid, at a time when Turkey continues to maintain a choke hold 
on the important corridors through its country to Armenia, which is 
suffering considerably as a result. This general statutory sanction 
applies to Turkey because Turkey, since 1993, has maintained this 
blockade and has prevented aid from reaching Armenia. It has callously 
ignored the tragic humanitarian toll that its blockade has caused, and 
it has defiantly resisted calls from the international community to 
stop this illegal blockade.
  Turkey has a dismal humanitarian record. It continues its military 
campaign against its own people of Kurdish descent. More than 2,000 
Kurdish villages have been destroyed and millions of people have been 
displaced. But despite the blockade, despite Turkey's record with 
respect to its own people, despite its provocations with respect to 
Greece and to continued occupations of Cypress, President Clinton chose 
to exercise the waiver clause across the board. That is the wrong thing 
to do, and that is why this amendment is so absolutely necessary.
  We should not be rewarding a country with American dollars for 
callously disregarding human rights and human lives. We have heard a 
great deal today about how Turkey is our ally, how Turkey has stood 
with us through thick and thin. Let me just remind my colleagues what 
President Eisenhower said some 40 years ago when he established the 
Eisenhower doctrine. President Eisenhower said, ``There can be no peace 
without law, and there can be no law if we were to invoke one code of 
international conduct for those who oppose us and another for our 
friends.''
  The Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act applies to every country in the 
world. Its impact is on Turkey because Turkey is acting in 
contravention of the rules of decency, humanity and international law. 
That is why Turkey, because of its own actions, should suffer these 
penalties. Through its own actions, it can relieve itself of these 
penalties. I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this will be the close of 
the debate. We just wanted to respond to a couple of the points that 
were made today. There was a debate here earlier today on the House 
floor about how far back in time we should go to resolve the issue 
before us. I would suggest last year, 1995, represents the year in 
which we adopted the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act which does have an 
impact on Turkey. There is an existing blockade. We have to go back but 
one year.
  There was a suggestion that there is in fact no blockade, that there 
is suitcase trading going on here. I have people coming into my office 
today talking about triple trailers doing trade with the country of 
Mexico and Canada. Here we are talking about suitcase trade.
  There is also an assertion that there is an airline corridor once a 
week. My recollection is there was an air corridor to the city of 
Berlin when the Russians blockaded the city. It would be my assertion 
that the blockade continues to exist.
  The comment was made here too that this is simply ethnic politics. I 
would agree with that assertion. I am very concerned about the ethnic 
Armenians who have 1 hour of electricity every day because of the 
Turkish blockade. I am very concerned about the ethnics in north Cyprus 
because of the continuing Turkish occupation.
  There was a suggestion here that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff and the Secretary of Defense are opposed to this amendment. I 
will accept their objection. But my question is, why? We do not limit 
or prevent the waiver of this act by the President for military 
assistance. It only goes to the example of economic assistance, to the 
tune of $25 million. There be in excess of $140 million in military 
assistance.
  So with that, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my colleagues support 
the amendment, the bipartisan amendment that is before the House.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my colleague's 
amendment to prohibit funding for the Army's School of America's in my 
home State of Georgia. Although I am proud to represent the people of 
Georgia, I must speak about this institution's shameful legacy of which 
I am not proud.
  Proponents of the school assert that it is simply a training facility 
for military leaders of Latin America. The truth of the matter is that 
many of the school's graduates are among the region's most ruthless 
human rights abusers. Allow me to provide some examples of the 
atrocities committed by graduates of the school.
  In 1980, four women in El Salvador, Jean Donovan, Laura Clark, Edith 
Ford, and Dorothy Hazell were raped and murdered by graduates of the 
school. That same year, after calling on the army for peace in el 
Salvador, Archbishop Romero was executed by other graduates. In 1981, 
the entire village of El Mozote, 900 people including 131 children 
under the age of 12, were lined up and executed. Ten of the 12 officers 
responsible, were graduates of the Army's School of the Americas. In 
1989, School of America graduates were found responsible for the murder 
of six Jesuit priests. The 1991 commencement speaker at the school was 
General Hector Gramaho. General Gramaho alone is responsible for the 
death of 200,000 men, women, and children in Guatemala.
  In 1993, the United Nations issued a report regarding atrocities in 
Central America, and found that 49 of the 60 officers responsible were 
graduates of the U.S. Army's School of the America's. Additional 
graduates of the school include Manuel Noriega and Bolivian dictator 
Hugo Bonza.
  Not only are these assassins training on our own soil, but they are 
being funded by U.S. tax dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, clearly this taxpayer-funded institution has become 
nothing less than a prep school for the Hitlers and Stalins of Latin 
America. The American taxpayer should no longer have to pay for the 
training of rapists and child killers. I urge my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to vote for the Kennedy amendment and close this 
school of the assassins.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, the School of the Americas is a strong and 
effective advocate of human rights and representative government in 
Latin America.
  This is the finding of an independent study retained by the Army last 
year. It is my own finding, as well.
  Fort Benning is in my district. I have visited the school many times, 
studied the curriculum, talked often to the students and faculty, 
examined all the evidence.
  Critics make a lot of charges but they offer not one shred of real 
evidence to substantiate their false and malicious accusations. And 
they ignore all evidence to the contrary, including the fact that an 
overwhelming majority of the graduates have worked for democracy when 
they returned home.
  Anyone who studies the facts objectively will reach the same 
conclusion as I have and the study has--that the School of the Americas 
is effectively promoting human rights and should continue to fulfill 
its mission to help representative government take hold in Latin 
America. I oppose the Kennedy amendment.
  I urge my colleagues in this House to reject this amendment.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support of the Visclosky amendment eliminating the President's 
authority to waive the bill's prohibition on Economic Support Funding 
to countries that restrict the delivery of U.S. humanitarian 
assistance. Last year, at this time, I stood on this floor with my 
colleagues to cut $25 million in U.S. economic assistance to Turkey 
during consideration of the FY 1996 Foreign Operations Appropriations 
bill until the blockade of U.S. humanitarian assistance was lifted.
  Since that time, the Turkish government has not adequately addressed 
its behavior against its neighbors, in particular, its internationally-

[[Page H5890]]

condemned blockade of U.S. humanitarian assistance to Armenia. On May 
16, 1996, President Bill Clinton disregarded this Congress' intent by 
waiving the application of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act to Turkey. 
This act prohibits U.S. economic or military assistance to any country 
that blockades the transport of U.S. disaster and relief assistance.
  I am here today in support of the Armenian people and in support of 
this amendment. By narrowing the Presidential waiver contained in the 
Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, we will limit the President's ability to 
provide up to $25 million in FY 1997 economic assistance funds to 
Turkey. Since the president has failed to address this issue, it is now 
up to Congress to make a clear decisive statement. In addition, it is 
also important to continue a positive and active relationship with the 
government of Turkey to resolve this and other mutual matters.
  Mr. Chairman, in addition to this amendment, I would also like to 
express my support for the Radanovich amendment which will be offered 
to this bill. This amendment would limit the amount of Economic Support 
Funding for Turkey to $22 million until Turkey acknowledges the 
Armenian genocide and takes steps to honor the memory of its victims.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment 
of my friend and colleague from Indiana.
  This amendment would cut another $47 million from the Agency for 
International Development's operating expenses. I would just like to 
make three quick points.
  First, further cuts in operating expenses would destroy many benefits 
of the streamlining efforts that have been ongoing for much of the past 
two years. The fact is that USAID has already been achieving savings. 
Many posts have closed and 3,000 staff positions have been cut since 
1993. Indeed, this year AID is in the process of closing another 24 
more missions. This is a very fiscally responsible agency.
  Second, these cuts would cause major disruptions in policy and 
program management. Morale would suffer, and many capable employees of 
the agency would seek jobs outside government rather than work in an 
atmosphere of reduced effectiveness, not to mention the increased 
number of RIFs, already at 200 for FY 96.
  Third, cuts in operating expenses undermines AID's ability to 
effectively promote U.S. interests. We will be less effective in 
helping to promote democracy and market reforms in the third world. We 
will be less effective in facilitating economic growth in developing 
countries, encouraging new markets for U.S. companies, and addressing 
serious global problems such as rapid population growth, environmental 
degradation, and the spread of disease and crime.
  Mr. Chairman, AID's goals are our foreign policy goals and cannot be 
achieved without adequate resources for their operating expenses. This 
amendment is short sighted. It ignores significant savings already 
achieved and most importantly it is utterly misguided nationally 
policy.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Visclosky Amendment which prohibits economic aid to countries which 
interfere in the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid. This 
important amendment will strengthen the Humanitarian Corridor Act 
included in this legislation.
  I believe that our Nation's traditions and values demand that we 
support the delivery of humanitarian aid to suffering people. In 
addition, those nations that prohibit the delivery of such lifesaving 
aid should not be rewarded with U.S. foreign assistance.
  I had hoped that inclusion of this provision in last year's 
appropriations bill would have sent a clear message to countries like 
Turkey that blocking humanitarian assistance to Armenia would not be 
tolerated. Unfortunately, that was not the case, and this amendment has 
become necessary.
  This amendment will prohibit $25 million in economic assistance to 
Turkey. It sends a clear message that Turkey must end its blockade of 
Armenia. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The 
Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act was created to ensure that U.S. aid 
reaches refugees in the quickest way possible regardless of 
geopolitical concerns.
  This amendment notifies countries such as Turkey, which refuses to 
allow humanitarian aid destined for Armenia to cross its borders, that 
they will lose United States economic assistance unless the aid 
blockade is lifted.
  Breaking aid blockades is provided for by existing law, but 
unfortunately, a Presidential waiver is allowed under certain 
circumstances. This amendment will put teeth into the law by requiring 
a cutoff of economic support funds to offending countries regardless of 
a Presidential waiver. The amendment will not affect military aid nor 
other forms of noneconomic aid, such as humanitarian assistance, to 
offending countries. With this amendment, we will be able to protect 
national security interests while sending a clear message to countries 
to act in accord with internationally accepted human rights standards.
  I urge passage of the amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana cutting USAID's 
operating expenses by $47 billion. Adoption of an additional cut to the 
operating expenses level, which already represents a 26-percent cut 
from last year's appropriations, would not only undermine the United 
States ability to carry out staff intensive development programs, such 
as child survival and microenterprise, but would also have a 
devastating effect on the delivery of U.S. assistance in programs 
integrating economic growth, fostering health and family planning, 
protecting the environment, and promoting democracy.
  USAID has undertaken ambitious programs of streamlining 
and downsizing for the past 3 years and is in the process of closing 
additional overseas posts. By September 1996, USAID will have closed 23 
overseas posts in Africa, Asia, the Near East, and Latin America, 
producing annual savings in excess of $40 million. In this era of 
reinventing government, the USAID has done its part. What we must 
secure in this age of global instability and change is the United 
States' role in promoting economic and political development in Africa, 
Asia, and Latin America.

  With respect to Africa, the impact of $47 million would be 
devastating. USAID would be forced to close additional missions in the 
poorest continent in the world. Assistance programs would be abruptly 
terminated and prior U.S. investments jeopardized. For instance, the 
new regional initiative in the greater horn of Africa, which promotes 
food security and crisis prevention, would be undermined, as will trade 
and investment opportunities for United States companies in southern 
Africa.
  USAID has been the leader in the global child survival efforts that 
are now saving an estimated 4 million children each year. The impact of 
further proposed cuts in USAID operating expenses will inevitably lead 
to:
  An increase in child mortality; 45,000 families in South Africa who 
will not be assisted with better water and sanitation services; 100,000 
people in India who will not receive safe drinking water and will be 
exposed to cholera, hepatitis, malaria, dengue, and bubonic plague from 
untreated sewage and waste;
  Delay or termination of support for the consolidation of the 
transition from military rule in Guatemala;
  Withdrawal of United States support for military demobilization in 
Mozambique;
  Sharp reduction in support for poverty programs in South Asia; and
  The curtailment of economic transition programs in southern Africa, 
Ethiopia, and Tanzania.
  The impact of additional double-digit cuts is real and contrary to 
the interests of the United States in promoting strong and sustainable 
economic and political development in the world. This is our role.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Indiana.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank Representatives Visclosky, 
Bilirakis, and Durbin and my other colleagues helping to improve and 
strengthen the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act.
  On May 16, to the surprise and disappointment of the international 
human rights communities, as well as Members of this body, President 
Clinton exercised his option to waive the Humanitarian Aid Corridor 
Act. Passed with strong bipartisan support as part of last year's 
Foreign Operations appropriations bill, the Corridor Act is essential 
because it exerts the appropriate pressure on countries, such as 
Turkey, that block United States foreign assistance to the region.
  As the only Member of Congress of Armenian descent, I have a deep 
understanding of how the Ottoman Empire decimated Armenians and thus 
wrote one of the darkest chapters in human history. Mr. Chairman, as we 
remember the tragic history of the Armenian people, it's essential for 
us to frame the role the United States can play in establishing peace 
in the caucuses. I'm committed to the safety and independence of 
Armenia. We must ensure that its people are protected. Therefore, I 
support efforts to strengthen the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act and to 
curtail aid to Turkey should that country refuse to abide by the Act.
  Strengthening the Corridor Act by narrowing the waiver authority 
recently involved by the President will send a clear, decisive 
statement: that nations which continue hostile and aggressive policies 
against other countries will not be tolerated or rewarded with economic 
aid. We must do all we can to help advance a proactive foreign policy 
which can help bring lasting peace to the region. I urge the House to 
support the Visclosky Amendment.

[[Page H5891]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky] will be 
postponed.
  The point of order of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                    amendment offered by mr. skaggs

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Skaggs: Page 52, strike lines 14 
     through 20.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment removes the provision in the 
bill that caps spending for population planning activities at a maximum 
of 65 percent of the fiscal 1995 level.
  Humane and respectful assistance to other nations seeking voluntarily 
to limit their population growth is in the profound national interest 
of the United States.
  Ultimately, there's no greater threat to our national security than 
standing by while the world's population explodes. If we don't 
constrain population growth, our work to improve living standards, 
control pollution, and battle disease is hopeless. If we let up on the 
effort to limit population, all of the other good works that we are 
seeking to accomplish with our development assistance will be 
overwhelmed.
  The cap proposed in the bill would severely disrupt international 
family planning efforts. If the cap stays put and the cuts take place, 
7 million couples seeking access to birth control will not get it. That 
means that 4 million more women will experience unintended pregnancies. 
This will lead to 1.9 million unplanned births, 1.6 million more 
abortions, 8,000 more women dying in pregnancy and childbirth, 
including those from unsafe abortions, and 134,000 more infant deaths.
  Is that what we want? Nearly 2 million more unplanned births, and 
over a million and a half more abortions? All things we know we can 
prevent?
  International population assistance is not used to pay for abortions. 
The 1973 Helms amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act requires that no 
U.S. funds may be used to pay for abortions. There have been no reports 
of violations of this ban, and my amendment would not affect it.
  To the contrary, international family planning efforts stop abortion. 
They protect the health of women and infant children. And they have had 
a dramatic influence on our ability to do something about uncontrolled 
population growth in many parts of the world.
  American leadership has been crucial to making family planning 
assistance available to couples in the developing world. Partly because 
of our leadership, other countries have joined the effort. And a 
growing number of developing countries now provide family planning 
services of their own. In fact, these countries now provide more than 
two-thirds of the funds spent on international population efforts.
  International family planning is not a unilateral handout. It has 
grown into a partnership, and one that's in our interest to preserve 
and expand.
  Without our leadership, the progress we've made in building a global 
partnership to attack the population problem will be lost. Without U.S. 
leadership, the efforts of others could not soon--if ever--make up for 
reductions in resources and experience that the United States brings to 
the population effort.
  If we retreat, accelerated population growth will pose a direct 
threat to our national interest. The world's natural resources are 
severely overtaxed. Sustaining the health and welfare of Americans and 
people everywhere depends on careful management of these resources. 
This is a most fundamental obligation of good stewardship. That 
obligation can't be met if population growth is unchecked.
  My amendment won't mean additional spending for foreign operations, 
and it doesn't require offsets. There is no longer a separate account 
for population development assistance; family planning is funded out of 
various accounts, including the development assistance fund and the new 
child survival account. My amendment would simply eliminate the bill's 
35 percent cut in population assistance and allow the Agency for 
International Development to determine how to manage its own accounts.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Just briefly, I appreciate the gentleman's views. I think that the 
House is fully aware of the issue of this language in the bill. I think 
the House is fully aware of the compromise that this body must 
occasionally undertake where neither side gets everything it wants. 
There is no doubt that if this amendment were to pass, it would cause 
great controversy, probably requiring us to pass stronger language, 
probably including the Mexico City language, and I think that the 
debate on this issue truly should take place in the Committee on 
International Relations as authorizing legislation. It was made in 
order by the rule.
  But under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, in a body such as this we 
must let reasonable heads get together and move on with our function, 
and that is to fund the foreign affairs operations for the next 2 
years, and while I appreciate the gentleman's concern about the issue, 
I do not necessarily agree with him, I especially appreciate his 
decision, hopefully, to let us move forward by withdrawing his 
amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Skaggs amendment, and to express my continued concern about the 
relentless attacks the new majority continues to make on women. And 
this time their attack spreads to women and families across the globe.
  Once again, Mr. Chairman, we have before us a bill which will inhibit 
international organizations from providing needed family planning 
services. Not only does this bill potentially cut off funding for those 
organizations which provide these needed health services, but it limits 
population assistance funds to 65 percent of the total amount 
appropriated in fiscal year 1995.
  We must realize the unintended consequence of such action.
  Some Members of the majority who oppose a woman's constitutional 
right to choose are expanding the scope of their opposition to cover 
all family planning activities. In so doing, these harmful provisions 
only serve to increase the risk of unintended pregnancies, unplanned 
births, and unnecessary abortions. It simply doesn't make sense to 
inhibit the activities which are intended to prevent abortions. And 
this bill, by limiting population assistance and those who provide it, 
does just that.
  Mr. Chairman, I am gravely concerned about the language in this bill 
which will endanger the health of women around the world. I urge my 
colleagues to closely examine these provisions, consider the unintended 
consequences, and support the Skaggs amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, just let me say, so that the record is very clear on 
this, the language in this bill is a compromise. It was very carefully 
worked out. The Gentleman from Alabama, distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, has worked with Members to try to 
find some way out of the difficulty and the impasse that we find 
ourself with the White House as well as with the Senate.
  None of us is totally happy with this. I think, as my colleagues 
know, when people talk about the huge so-called cuts in family 
planning, let me remind Members that in 1992 the United States spent 
$325 million on family planning. In the last fiscal year we spent $356 
million. That is a 16-percent increase, and this bill straight-lines 
that amount into fiscal year 1997. Many of us believe very strongly 
that abortion--lobbying for abortion and performance of abortions--is 
not family planning, and that is what the issue comes down to.
  The Mexico City policy was in effect for about 10 years under the 
Reagan and Bush administrations. The United

[[Page H5892]]

States was the primary donor of international population control funds 
around the world during those years. And it was the NGO'S that refused 
to divest themselves of the killing and the maiming of unborn children 
by way of chemical poisoning or by way of dismemberment of the child by 
suction machines and other methods, they were the ones who were taking 
themselves out of contention for those Federal funds. They were the 
ones so obsessed with killing babies that they forfeited U.S. 
donations.
  That is what this is all about, and I just want to say that I 
understand the gentleman from Colorado is going to withdraw this 
amendment, but had he not, we would have--and I would welcome it--a 
full-fledged debate on the Mexico City policy again. Because I think 
that is the preferable way. But I am also a realist, and I understand 
what likely would happen over the Senate side, and we would be there 
right into December, probably, debating this issue. But, you know, that 
too would be OK with me. This is a compromise. Nobody is happy with it 
I'm not--but I think it is a step in the right direction, and again 
there is much money in here, a 16-percent increase over 1992.
  Let me also say that it really is disingenuous for Members to suggest 
that the language in this bill ``cuts'' population control. Let's 
remember that the Clinton Administration hyperinflated pap funds in 
fiscal year 1995. And isn't it amazing how quickly the new higher level 
became the baseline. When did the international adoption industry get a 
``entitlement''? As I pointed out, if we look at the historic levels 
that AID has provided for family planning, the fiscal year 1997 
spending plan is above those levels. Thus--rightly or wrongly--the 
United States remains one of the major providers of those kinds of 
funds.
  Let me just say the distinguished gentleman from Alabama has done 
yeoman's work on trying to craft this compromise. This compromise has 
to hang together or else it all falls apart and we are right back to 
Mexico City. Frankly, that would be just fine with me, but as of now I 
think this is the way we ought to proceed.
  I thank the distinguished gentleman from Alabama. He is a true 
statesman and true believer in human life.
  And let me just take one exception to what the gentlewoman said from 
New York. This bill is very pro-women I have worked with the gentleman 
from Alabama on child survival and maternal health care. This 
legislation directs $600 million by way of earmarks for the child 
survival and disease account. As my colleagues know, if we look in 
Africa and elsewhere--and I chair the Subcommittee on International 
Operations and Human Rights, and we have looked at this every 
carefully, we have worked with WHO and UNICEF and others--kids and 
women are dying in exceedingly high numbers in those countries from 
preventable diseases. Hundreds of millions of dollars in this bill are 
responsive to those needs. And I am grateful to Mr. Callahan for his 
responsiveness to these pressing needs.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Skaggs amendment that 
will restore necessary funding to international family planning. For 
our colleagues on the far right to call the restrictions on 
international family planning in this bill a compromise is ludicrous.
  Not only do the provisions in the bill slash funding for the 
programs, but they also force programs to abide by the Mexico City 
restrictions in order to get adequate funding. My colleagues, this is 
not a compromise, this is the worst of both worlds.
  Our chairman, Mr. Callahan, has crafted an excellent foreign aid bill 
and I will support it. However, I will fight to have this extreme 
language removed from the bill in conference. It is simply 
unacceptable.
  Last year, this bill was held up by the antichoice caucus' insistence 
that the bill contain some restrictions on international family 
planning. Well, here we go again. They have included a provision in 
this bill that they know both the Senate and the administration will 
reject.
  And as for their suggestion that this is a compromise, let us not 
forget who was involved in this so-called ``compromise.'' This is not a 
deal between the pro-choice caucus and the antichoice caucus, this is a 
deal between Chris Smith and Dick Armey, two antichoice leaders.
  The bottom line is that this provision will slash by over one-third 
one of the most important forms of aid that we provide to other 
countries: family planning assistance.
  No one can deny that the need for family planning services in 
developing countries is urgent and the aid we provide is both valuable 
and worthwhile.
  Let me illustrate for you the impact of these cuts. It has been 
estimated that the slashing of these funds will result in: 7 million 
people in developing countries that would have used contraceptives now 
will not have access to them; 4 million women will have unintended 
pregnancies; as a result of those pregnancies, there will be 1.9 
million unintended births; 1.6 million more abortions; 8,000 more women 
dying in pregnancy and childbirth; and 134,000 more infant deaths.
  These tragedies will be the direct result of this provision.
  And as we have said repeatedly on this floor, the Mexico city 
restrictions, including the international gag rule, are simply 
unnecessary. Not a single U.S. dollar pays for abortions overseas. The 
members of the antichoice caucus are so obsessed about this issue that 
they see problems where they simply do not exist. International family 
planning programs decrease the number of abortions by making them 
unnecessary. Certainly that is a goal that we can all support.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We cannot let them 
cut international family planning. There is just too much at stake.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. The family 
planning provisions in this foreign operations appropriations bill are 
an absolute disgrace. Anybody who says that they are a compromise is 
either fooling themselves or trying to fool someone else. This bill 
contains a double-barrelled shotgun pointed at the heart of responsible 
population policy. It combines disproportionate funding cuts with 
onerous policy restrictions.
  Last year there was the flimsy excuse that the funding restriction 
was there because there was no agreement on the policy. Now, the Mexico 
City policy is imposed, and there are still the unfair funding 
restrictions.
  If money for NGO's that do not follow these diktats on abortion is 
going to be restricted, what is the point in then also unduly 
restricting the total amount of money that can be spent on family 
planning? I do not know why it so difficult for some of my colleagues 
to understand that if couples do not have access to contraceptives, 
they are more likely to then get an abortion. And that if we cut money 
for family planning, it leads to more abortions, not less. That is why 
I say this debate is not about abortion, but about family planning.
  The world's population is growing at an alarming rate. In just 4 
years, the population of Africa is going to reach 1 billion. By 2010, 
India's population will reach 1 billion, by 2020, it will pass China as 
the world's most populous country.
  Population pressure threatens to ignite conflicts and war all around 
the world. And just like any other problem in the world, nothing is 
going to be done about it unless the United States shows some 
leadership. Unfortunately, this bill is negative leadership. Please 
pass this amendment.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], an amendment which would lift the 
cap on family planning services requiring that no more than 65 percent 
of fiscal 1996 funding should be available in fiscal 1997.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to associate myself at this point, without the 
whole repetition, with the reasons which have been enumerated by the 
gentleman from Colorado, the gentlewoman from New York, and the 
gentlewoman from Kansas in her comments just completed.

[[Page H5893]]

  Mr. Chairman, I want to extend a little here and say that I commend 
this bill's commitment to the Middle East peace process, the whole of 
the legislation; but its approach to the rest of the world is, it seems 
to me, simply bad policy. The legislation provides strong support for 
Israel and the peace partners in the process of Arab-Israeli 
reconciliation as it moves forward, and I support the financing levels 
for Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, and Egypt, and the President supports 
those amounts as well.
  Mr. Chairman, after nearly 2 decades of progress, where American 
leadership has been so critical following the Camp David Accords, we 
must continue our commitment as Israel faces a period of transition 
under new leadership. But while our commitment to the Middle East must 
endure, so should our leadership and support in other regions of the 
world.
  This legislation cuts aid to the new democracies in Eastern Europe 
and the former Soviet Union in an area where we were willing to spend 
$40 billion per year to conduct the Cold War, but we are now cutting 
deeply into the only $600 million or so that helps those new nations 
build their economies and democracies. Six hundred million is only a 
little bit more than 1 percent of what we were willing to spend year in 
and year out, 1 percent year in and year out, of the $40 billion that 
we were spending to keep the conduct of the Cold War going.
  The bill, in its total, slashes support for global environmental 
maintenance, weakening the fight against degradation of our common 
oceans and our common atmosphere. This bill totally eliminates 
financing for the African Development Bank, and it severely 
cuts financing for international family planning, cutting 35 percent 
from last year's level, which is, of course, the subject of the 
amendment that we are considering at the moment; and among which 
provisions, in constraining international family planning, among those 
provisions are those which, in the words of the gentlewoman from Kansas 
who just completed speaking, are completely outrageous. This is 
shortsighted and I think flat out wrong. We really cannot afford to 
turn a blind eye on global problems of population growth and poverty 
and environmental degradation.

  Mr. Chairman, I very much support and hope that we will support the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Skaggs amendment to the 
foreign operations appropriations bill. If Members believe that women, 
rich and poor alike, should have the right to choose safe motherhood, 
they must support the Skaggs amendment. If Members believe that women 
should have the right to choose how many children they have, they must 
support the Skaggs amendment. If Members believe that the United States 
has an obligation to support efforts to slow down the earth's rapid 
population growth and the misery that comes with it, they must support 
the Skaggs amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, family planning programs are key to international self-
sufficiency. Let me remind us that today, right now, we are debating a 
bill which reduces financing for overseas development. We cannot, in 
good conscience, reduce aid to poor countries and tell them to be more 
self-reliant, without giving them the tools to do so. I urge my 
colleagues, support the Skaggs amendment and remove the spending cap on 
international family planning.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 
minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in my opening remarks on 
this amendment, it is my intention to request unanimous consent to 
withdraw it. I regret having to make that request, given, obviously, my 
belief and the views of many of my colleagues who have spoken on the 
merits of this amendment. But the realistic circumstances that we face, 
as indicated by the comments made by the gentleman from New Jersey, I 
think make it advisable that we withhold on this.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Skaggs 
motion to strike the cap on funding for international population 
assistance.
  This bill singles out population assistance activities for a 
disproportionate 35 percent cut, more than other development and 
humanitarian assistance programs. This cut will have a direct and 
severe impact on the lives of women and their families in developing 
countries. It would be expected to result in 7 million couples in 
developing countries left without access to modern, safe contraceptive 
methods, 4 million women experiencing unintended pregnancies, 1.6 
million more abortions, 8,000 more women dying in pregnancy and 
childbirth, including those from unsafe abortions, and 134,000 infant 
deaths. These are not theoretical arguments. These are numbers of real 
people--numbers of deaths that we have the power to prevent. Can your 
conscience allow these poor people to pay the price for reducing costs 
with their lives and the lives of their children?
  I respect that there are competing priorities at odds in this bill. 
But how can there be a greater priority in this bill than preventing 
deaths and suffering of impoverished women and families in developing 
countries? We cannot address foreign aid without being serious about 
our responsibility to promote health and survival in countries of need. 
Without a proper commitment to these programs, we have the health and 
lives of poor women and children hanging over our heads.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Skaggs amendment and retain 
proper funding for these life-saving family planning programs.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the Skaggs 
amendment. Simply put, this amendment would have ensured that the 
family planning program is treated the same as the rest of the 
development assistance portfolio, and not singled out for severe, 
disproportionate funding cuts.
  We know that family planning saves lives. U.S. family planning 
assistance is critical to millions of couples who only ask for help in 
spacing their children and avoiding unplanned pregnancies. This bill, 
by subjecting our international family planning efforts to a 35-percent 
cut for yet another year, will result in more unwanted pregnancies, 
more abortions, and more maternal and infant deaths. Moreover, a cut of 
this magnitude undermines other humanitarian assistance programs, 
particularly U.S. efforts to improve child survival.
  Again, the Skaggs amendment would only have deleted the provision of 
the bill that imposes a deeper spending cut on family planning than on 
the rest of our humanitarian assistance. It would not increase funding 
for foreign operations overall, nor would it have necessitated offsets.
  Although the gentleman has chosen to withdraw his amendment, we in 
this House need to take a serious and unjaundiced look at the 
implications of the disproportionate cuts, as well as short-sighted 
restrictions, which have been imposed upon our family planning 
programs.
  I look forward to working with the gentleman and other Members to 
reverse these provisions in conference.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Skaggs 
amendment to remove the cap on population planning activities. Adopting 
this amendment would speak clearly to our concern for women, children, 
and families--wherever they may live.
  The bill before us caps family planning activities at no more than 65 
percent--less than two-thirds--of last year's level. This restriction 
would have a devastating impact on family planning activities 
worldwide.
  Literally millions of people would be denied access to information. 
Unplanned--even unwanted--pregnancies would increase. Efforts to 
promote healthy pregnancies and healthy births would be undercut. None 
of this is necessary--and none is in our country's best interest.
  If we believe that strong and healthy families are the building 
blocks of strong and healthy societies, we should make assistance of 
this kind more--not less available. The arbitrary cap contained in this 
measure would deprive families worldwide of the humane and respectful 
assistance they so often want.
  I urge my colleagues to support families and the Skaggs amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to title V?


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Waters

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment that is to be 
considered under the unanimous-consent request, amendment No. 74.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page H5894]]


       Amendment No. 74 offered by Ms. Waters: Page 34, line 12, 
     after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $8,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $25,000,000)''.
       Page 34, after line 24, insert the following:


              Contribution to the African Development Bank

       For payment to the African Development Bank by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury for the United States share of the 
     paid-in portion of the increase in capital stock, $8,000,000 
     to remain available until expended.


              Contribution to the African Development Fund

       For the United States contribution by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to the increase in resources of the African 
     Development Fund, as authorized by Public Law 103-306, 
     $25,000,000, to remain available until expended.

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to restore a 
modest financing level for the African development fund. This amendment 
is fundamentally about fairness. Our regional development lending 
institutions are strapped. The United States is in arrears on more than 
one of them. However, our obligations remain. However, this 
appropriations bill only zeros out one program, the African development 
fund. It appropriates $25 million for the Inter-American Development 
Bank, $100 million for the Asian development fund, and $13 billion for 
the Asian Development Bank.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, comparable institutions like the European 
Bank for Reconstruction and Development receives $12 million, and the 
North American Development Bank gets $50 million. I cannot accept 
singling out the African Development Bank and the African development 
fund, both of which are zero funded in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would appropriate half the 
administration's request for the African development fund. This modest 
replenishment will allow the fund to do priority poverty alleviation 
work in Africa's poorest countries. The fund has depleted its resources 
and has not been able to make new loans.
  These loans that assist the indigenous private sector development of 
these countries, as well as create export and investment opportunities 
for U.S. businesses, investing in primary education, preventive health 
care, and physical infrastructure, are crucial components of a growth 
and development program for Africa.
  Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that the African Development Bank group 
has had organizational difficulties. However, since those problems came 
to a head 2 years ago, enormous progress has been made. For example, 
they have a new president who is committed to remaking the institution. 
Term limits have been adopted for all senior bank officials. Twenty 
percent of the staff has been dismissed and 70 percent of the managers 
have been replaced. A comprehensive audit of the bank group is 
underway. New lending policies have tightened access to lending for 
noncreditworthy borrowers and new inspector general type offices have 
been created and staffed. These changes represent one of the most, if 
not the most, expansive form of an institution of this kind ever.
  Given this progress, it would be irresponsible for the United States, 
a leader, a prime pursuer of reform, to shirk its responsibility at 
this crucial time. The United States has a foreign policy and national 
security interest in the program of economic development in Africa. The 
African Development Bank group serves as a prime facilitator of this 
progress, especially the fund, which provides highly concessionary 
loans to poor borrowers and technical assistance grants to support 
lending operations.

  This country must lead, not walk away from its responsibility. 
Hopefully, at a later time in the budget cycle this year, we will not 
be forced to make the difficult choices faced in this amendment. 
However, it is crucial that this House make a modest contribution to 
our international obligation for the African development fund. Again, 
Mr. Chairman, it is a matter of fairness. It is just inconceivable and 
unconscionable that every institution, every other bank, multilateral 
bank, has been funded and the African Development Bank and the fund 
both were zeroed.
  There are those who will make the argument that funds were put in 
other places, but the cuts are continuing to grow as it relates to 
Africa. It is unfair, I take this opportunity to challenge us to do the 
right thing.


                             point of order

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment, because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized 
program, and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  Clause 2 of rule XXI states, in pertinent part:

       No appropriation shall be reported in any general 
     appropriation bill or be in order as an amendment thereto for 
     any expenditure not previously authorized by law.

  Mr. Chairman, the authorization for the African Development Bank has 
not been signed into law. The amendment therefore violates clause 2 of 
rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] like 
to be recognized to respond to the point of order?
  Ms. WATERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I am aware that it is not authorized in this 
legislation. However, the other banks are not authorized either, but 
they got a waiver in the rule. So what we have here is a construction 
that recognized that the other banks were not authorized, they waived 
the rule so they could fund them, but they excluded the African-
American Bank, and the chairman of the committee knows that took place. 
So it is not a matter of simply not having an authorization. The others 
do not have one either.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  While there is authorization law for the African development fund, 
appropriations for the African Development Bank for fiscal year 1997 
are not currently authorized by law. The amendment, therefore, violates 
clause 2(a) of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained.
  Are there other amendments?


                     amendment offered by mr. obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 44.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: On page 31, line 4, after 
     the colon insert the following:
     ``Provided further. That the Department of Defense shall 
     conduct during the current fiscal year nonreimbursable audits 
     of private firms whose contracts are made directly with 
     foreign governments and are financed with funds made 
     available under this heading (as well as subcontractors 
     thereunder) as requested by the Defense Security Assistance 
     Agency:''

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against 
amendment No. 44.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores the requirement that 
foreign countries agree to an outside audit as a condition of receiving 
FMF grants. It has been included in the foreign operations bill for a 
number of years as a result of a number of notable bribery cases 
involving U.S. funds and foreign officials. It was not included in the 
bill by the committee apparently because the language is contained in 
another bill which passed the House and is pending in the Senate. But 
the problem is, we have absolutely no idea what the fate of that bill 
in the Senate will be, and this provision is too important to leave to 
the whim of the other body.
  It is a very simple proposition. It restores the proposition that if 
you get an FMF grant from the United States Treasury that you have to 
agree to accept an audit. It boggles my mind that we would risk losing 
that language. I would think we would want to nail this language into 
every single bill moving through this House that affects foreign aid. I 
can think of absolutely no constructive purpose that is served by the 
elimination of language which simply provides for an audit any time a 
country gets an FMF grant from the United States, and I would urge its 
adoption.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] wish to 
be heard on his point of order?
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.

[[Page H5895]]

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
   Mr. Chairman, I do not differ with my colleague on the merits of 
this amendment. The committee has carried this provision for several 
years. However, the committee did not carry the provision this year at 
the specific request of Chairman Gilman of the authorization committee. 
This is an authorization provision, and it is contained in the House 
passed bill, H.R. 3121, which has the support of both the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hamilton] of the authorizing committee. They expect this measure to be 
enacted into law, and therefore, Chairman Gilman does not believe that 
the inclusion of these authorization measures in our bill are 
necessary.
  I have done my best to work with the authorizing committee on this 
issue, and therefore, I must reluctantly oppose the amendment of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], but only on those grounds.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that it is very nice to 
hear that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] expects some other 
legislation to pass which will restore protections for the American 
taxpayer. However, I do not care if this FMF loan goes to our best 
friend or our worst enemy, it ought to be audited, and if it is not 
audited, the loan should not be approved in the first place.
  But in God's name do we expect to maintain any shred of public 
support for foreign assistance when we are eliminating in the 
appropriation bill for foreign assistance the requirement that anyone 
who receives FMF funds should be willing to accept an audit. For the 
life of me, I do not see why we ought to roll the dice and risk losing 
this provision which has been in the law for years.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, we certainly agree with the objectives of 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and his goals, and that will be 
built into our measure which we hope to take up shortly. We want to 
commend the gentleman for his approach to this very important problem.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, let me 
simply say, I would rather you withhold the commendation of me 
personally and instead let the language stand, because I remember how 
tough it was to get these provisions in the appropriation bill in the 
first place. I remember shouting at people from several embassies one 
very late night when we were in our conference on the bill, because 
they took offense to the fact that we wanted an audit if we were going 
to provide FMF funding for them.
  So for the life of me, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, but I 
would rather that the gentleman denounce and leave my amendment stand.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further yield, the 
gentleman will not have to shout at our committee. We understand his 
objective and we will try our best to meet his objective.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the pending 
amendment is legislative in nature, does violate clause 2(c) of rule 
XXI, which provides that no amendment to a general appropriation bill 
shall be in order if changing existing law.
  I want to commend the distinguished chairman of our subcommittee on 
appropriations who has adhered to his rule of making certain that there 
be no authorization language in this measure, and that that 
authorization would have to go through out committee.
  Mr. Chairman, amendment No. 44 reinserts the provision which the 
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Callahan], agreed to pull out of this year's bill. Again, I thank the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] for working with us on these 
authorization provisions.
  As is well-known, there has not been a foreign authorization bill 
entered into law since 1985. In an effort to make some headway, our 
Committee on International Relations separated from the foreign aid 
legislation some noncontroversial defense and security assistance 
authorities. The purpose of the committee was to revise and clarify 
these authorities and codify into permanent law authorizing language 
which has been too long carried on annual appropriation measures.
  Now the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey], wants to reinsert these provisions back into the foreign 
operations bill, and we certainly will try to do that in an 
authorization measure.
  These provisions are provisions which are contained in legislation 
that were twice passed by the House this year in our authorization 
legislation, first as a freestanding measure in H.R. 3121, and secondly 
as an amendment to fiscal year 1997 DOD authorizations.
  The Committee on International Relations is trying to fulfill its 
responsibility as an authorizing committee. We passed this provision 
twice. Please let us do our business in the appropriate manner, and we 
assure the gentleman we will carry forth on his goals and expectations.
  I might add that our measure is currently pending in the Senate, and 
the majority and the minority have reported that it should be 
proceeding soon without controversy.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
  Let me simply say that what bothers me is that this reminds me of 
what my old friend Dick Bolling, who used to represent the State of 
Missouri in such a distinguished fashion, it reminds me of what he used 
to call dung hill politics. He used to say that the problem around here 
is that so often committees are so concerned with jurisdiction that 
they put that before the substantive needs of the country. It seems to 
me that I would very much like to see the gentleman's committee be able 
to pass a bill, any bill. But it is more important to me to protect the 
taxpayers' interests in seeing to it that these loans are accompanied 
by an audit to protect the taxpayers' money.
  If the gentleman insists on his point of order, which will simply 
remove from this bill an antifraud requirement, I cannot do much about 
it, but I think it is a sad day.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order and ask for a 
ruling by the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment constitutes legislation by directing the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct an audit and is in violation of clause 
2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained.


                     amendment offered by mr. obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is an follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey; on page 30 line 5, after 
     ``Act.'', insert

     Provided further, That not more than $100,000,000 of the 
     funds made available under this heading shall be available 
     for use in financing the procurement of defense articles, 
     defense services, or design and construction services that 
     are not sold by the United States Government under the Arms 
     Export Control Act to countries other than Israel and Egypt.

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is similar to the previous 
amendment. This amendment restores language that has been carried in 
the foreign operations bill for a good many years. It limits to $100 
million the amount that can be spent on non-Israel and Egypt FMF grants 
for direct commercial contracts. Its effect is to limit the extent to 
which countries can contract on their own for goods and services and 
thereby escape the oversight requirements of the Arms Export Control 
Act. It is again an antifraud safeguard because it assures that the 
Pentagon will review these contracts. It was stricken again by the 
Committee because again, it is contained in an authorization bill which 
has passed the House and is pending in the Senate.
  Again, I have no idea what is going to happen to that authorization 
bill, or what mischief might occur along the way. All I know again is 
that this provision is too important to leave to chance. We fought a 
good long time to see to it that we had the added protection of 
Pentagon review of these contracts so that we do not have bribery

[[Page H5896]]

or fraud that occurs because the Pentagon is not able to oversee what 
happens in this account.
  So again, this is a jurisdictional matter, but it would seem to me 
that the requirement to protect taxpayers' money ought to override any 
jurisdictional concerns that someone might have. I would urge 
acceptance of the amendment.


                             point of order

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, on my point of order, I want to assure the 
gentleman again that his measure is included in our H.R. 3121 that is 
presently before the Senate, passed twice by the House, and we are 
optimistic that that measure will be adopted.
  Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the last three lines of 
the bill have not been read and the limitation amendment is not in 
order, and for the same reasons as I previously outlined, I ask for a 
ruling on our point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?
  Mr. GILMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin desire to be heard?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I think the issue here is whether or not a 
committee's jurisdiction is more important than the necessity to 
protect taxpayers' money. This provision has been carried for years 
without the objection of the authorizing committee. It seems to me that 
it is peculiar at a time when both parties are bragging like crazy to 
the American paople that we are going to balance the budget and fight 
waste, fraud and abuse, that we take the two main items in this bill 
that prevent fraud and abuse and strip them from the bill. That is 
indeed a quaint way to build support for public aid, and I again cannot 
do anything about it if the gentleman insists on his point of order, 
but I do not think the taxpayers' interests are being served by the 
elimination of the language that protects their hard-earned tax 
dollars.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, again, I reiterate that it has been passed 
twice by the House and it is presently before the Senate, and the 
proposal of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is within that 
measure that is now pending before the Senate.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that the fact that that 
legislation has been passed twice by the House and has not been passed 
by the Senate is not encouraging to me. That does not sound to me like 
a very good track record. It seems to me that since this is a must-pass 
bill, we need to keep this language in this bill because it is the only 
sure way we have of protecting the taxpayers.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am sure he will be pleased when this 
measure is permanently made into law once the Senate acts.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling on the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The amendment is in the form of a limitation which must await the 
reading of the last lines of the bill where that question is raised 
under rule XXI, clause 2. The point of order is sustained.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan]. The colloquy is with respect to 
the Jewish Agency in Russia. On April 30, 1996, the Jewish Agency, 
which is a quasi-governmental body that has brought more than 630,000 
Jewish immigrants to Israel from the former Soviet Union since 1989, 
had its accreditation revoked by Russian Government authorities, which 
effectively terminated its right to operate is Russia. If the chairman 
recalls, during our subcommittee markup, I reserved the right to 
revisit the situation of the Jewish Agency and the Russian authorities 
were unable to come to an amiable settlement of the matter.
  At this time, it is my understanding that the Russian Government has 
promised to renew by mid-June the Jewish Agency's accreditation. It is 
my hope that this misunderstanding can be cleared up, and we can 
continue the great strides made over the past 6 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hate to see this as a sign of the return of the 
bad old days when Moscow placed sharp restrictions on immigration and 
ill-treated Jewish refuseniks. I will reserve on this matter so that I 
may bring this issue back at a conference should the conditions not 
change.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the interest of 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]. Let me assure the gentleman we 
will review this situation when we reach conference with the Senate.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the 
remarks of the gentleman from Illinois and want to note to the 
gentleman that we have already brought this to the attention of 
President Yeltsin and have voiced our objections on behalf of our 
committee, on behalf of the Congress and we will try to keep the 
gentleman apprised of any response.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I, too, would associate myself with the gentleman's 
remarks and had earlier planned to file an amendment without 
understanding that he had been way ahead of me on that subject. So I 
thank the gentleman and the chairman in that regard and do not intend 
to offer the amendment that I had prepared.


                   amendment offered by mr. visclosky

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky] 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 301, 
noes 118, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 214]

                               AYES--301

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon

[[Page H5897]]


     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--118

     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Combest
     Crane
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fields (TX)
     Foglietta
     Fowler
     Ganske
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Livingston
     McIntosh
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Montgomery
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nethercutt
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Quillen
     Rogers
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schaefer
     Schroeder
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stockman
     Stump
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Ward
     White
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Slaughter
       

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Allard
     Browder
     Gibbons
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lincoln
     Pelosi
     Roth
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Torres
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1836

  Messrs. BENTSEN, HILLIARD, GOSS, DAVIS, STOCKMAN, SAM JOHNSON of 
Texas, and GONZALEZ changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BALDACCI, REGULA, RICHARDSON and FROST, Mrs. MYRICK, and Mr. 
GEKAS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, on the previous rollcall No. 214, I did not 
make it to the Chamber in time. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye'' on rollcall No. 214.


                     amendment offered by mr. obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 29 offered by Mr. Obey: On page 27, line 24, 
     after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $3,000,000)''.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes to the military training 
account. Last year the military training account was funded at $39 
million. This year, despite the fact that the bill is being cut by 
around $1 billion, this account is going to receive a $6 million 
increase to $45 million.
  That is an increase of 15 percent, out of only 3 accounts that have 
received an increase in the bill, and it seems to me that that is not 
proportional under the circumstances. With the end of the cold war, it 
seems to me that we ought to have a greater recognition than we have, 
that we simply cannot afford to be raising some of these military 
accounts while virtually everything else in the budget is being cut.
  I support and continue to support an IMET program in Eastern Europe, 
the former Soviet Union, places like that. I also think it is useful in 
developing countries to try to have a military relationship of some 
kind.
  But I would ask why on Earth the United States should spend $25,000 
or $50,000 for countries like Austria, Finland, Spain, Portugal, 
countries which are relatively high-income countries? I understand that 
the basis of these programs is reciprocal training arrangements, and I 
am all for that. But I see no reason why, if these are so valuable, 
that the countries who are on the receiving end of the training should 
not be paying for the cost.
  We are being asked, under the budget that passed the House some time 
ago, to cut Medicare, and we are being asked to consider means testing 
Medicare to require higher income seniors to pay higher amounts. Why on 
Earth should we be doing that if we are not asking higher income 
countries to pay for the military training which we are providing under 
IMET? It seems to me only a rational thing to do.
  So, I would simply urge, in the interest of some balance and the 
interest of some fiscal prudence, that the committee approve the 
amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in 
opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I find myself in the unique position of having to 
defend the administration for one of the programs they essentially deem 
as one of the most important military functions that they do. I 
received a letter today from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
John Shalikashvili, and from Secretary William Perry, the Secretary of 
Defense, telling us that this program was crucial.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin talks about the fact that we increase 
IMET, but what he does not talk about is in 1995, when he was chairman 
of this committee, he cut IMET training by 50 percent. But now comes a 
Democratic administration, the President, the Secretary of State, the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, all 
telling us that this is very crucial to their effectiveness in running 
an effective military.
  The IMET training program is a program that trains military people. 
It trains them in areas such as human rights. It trains them in areas 
such as military engagement. It gives us the ability of having people 
that are trained in such a manner whereby if we ever are in some 
situation with them, they will understand something about military 
strategy.

                              {time}  1845

  It is a crucial program to the administration. I find myself, as I 
said, uniquely trying to defend an administration that normally the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is defending and I am on the 
opposite side.
  But, Mr. Chairman, this is a vital program. It is a well-thought-out 
program. It is well received by many of our allies throughout the 
world, and without it the United States would lose great military 
advantages. So I would urge the Members on both sides of the aisle to 
go along with the President, to go along with the Secretary of Defense, 
with the Secretary of State, with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff and to leave this appropriation as the subcommittee agreed, where 
incidentally, no discussion of this ever came up in subcommittee.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge all my colleagues to continue to allow 
us to adequately fund the IMET training program and to reject the 
amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in opposition to this amendment 
and the following amendment which cuts the IMET program. The IMET 
program is an extremely important program which should be fully funded. 
The proposed fiscal year 1997 program will enable us to reach more than 
5,000 personnel in over 120 different countries.
  In recognition of the importance of this program, the Committee on 
International Relations and the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, 
Export Financing and Related Programs of the

[[Page H5898]]

Committee on Appropriations recommended full funding in fiscal year 
1997 for the IMET program in the 150 budget function.
  Mr. Chairman, let me note that both the authorizing and 
appropriations committees met the administration's request in fiscal 
year 1996 and in fiscal year 1997. Forty-five million dollars in fiscal 
year 1997 is not an unreasonable funding level. And while it is an 
increase from last year, this level of funding merely returns IMET to 
levels of funding for the program from fiscal year 1990 to fiscal year 
1993.
  Further, $45 million in IMET funding in fiscal year 1997 will enable 
our Nation to advance its foreign policy interests in over 30 new 
country programs that have been instituted since 1991, primarily in 
Central Europe and in the former Soviet Union.

  And finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to make the point that I understand 
the fiscal 1997 DOD authorization bill, as reported by the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, contains language which once again makes it clear 
that it is the intent of that committee to move responsibility for 
funding and implementation of the IMET program to the Department of 
Defense.
  We need to fully fund the IMET program so that the Senate Armed 
Services Committee and the Department of Defense hears our message loud 
and clear. We are committed to supporting full funding for this program 
in the 150 account.
  I believe the gentleman from Wisconsin should want to retain control 
of this program in the 150 account, and should it be moved to the 050 
account, we can be certain funding would go even higher, perhaps as 
much as $60 million more.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote for full funding for IMET. 
Vote against the Obey amendment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Obey amendment. I do that 
reluctantly, because the gentleman and I agree on many issues. Here is 
one where we disagree. I think my chairman, the gentleman from New 
York, Ben Gilman, has given some very important reasons why we should 
have full funding for IMET and, indeed, it was this gentleman's 
amendment in the authorizing committee, debated and which raised the 
authorization level to the full amount requested by the administration.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to my colleagues that when 
Secretary Perry came to address a meeting of House Republicans some 
time ago, within the past year, and out of all the issues he might have 
spoken he focused his remarks primarily on the IMET program. He asked 
us to continue to give it full funding. He stated on another occasion, 
I believe, as the chairman mentioned, if in fact this IMET program was 
funded by the authorization of the Committee on National Security, it 
would be authorized at a higher level. But because IMET is found within 
the 150 account, it gets very tough and special scrutiny.
  I would also say to my colleagues that the IMET program is one of 
those programs that pays very big dividends in reinforcing the human 
rights concerns that this country and other countries.
  The officers and noncommissioned officers that take advantage of 
these IMET programs come to our programs, and they receive a very heavy 
dose of human rights and civil action training as a part of their IMET 
training programs. I think for that reason, too, the IMET program is a 
very good investment that we make in our foreign policy and in our 
military-to-military relationship.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues, in this case, to 
reject the Obey amendment and go for the full amount requested by the 
appropriations subcommittee.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, 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 CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?


                     amendment offered by mr. obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: On page 27, line 24, after 
     the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $1,525,000)''.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment cuts $1,525,000 from the IMET 
account. The amount of the cut corresponds exactly to the amount 
requested for the high-income countries of Austria, Finland, Malta, 
Portugal, Spain, Singapore, India, and Bahrain. The per capita gross 
domestic product for Finland is $16,140; for Austria the per capita 
income is $17,500; for Spain, $13,000; for Malta, $10,700; for 
Portugal, $10,000; for India, $1,300; for Singapore, $19,900; for 
Bahrain, $12,100; yet, this committee is insisting that we pay for the 
training costs for these countries.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out there are countries in this bill who 
receive aid where the per capita income is less than $400 a year. It 
just seems to me strange indeed that countries like Austria and 
Singapore cannot afford to pay for the training which we provide. I am 
not saying we should not provide training to these countries, I am 
saying we ought to do it on a cash paid-for basis. I do not see why we 
ought to fund it.
  I would point out that a number of these countries spend a much 
smaller share of their gross domestic product on military expenditures 
than we do. I would point out a number of these countries are knocking 
our socks off on trade in a wide variety of sectors in the trading 
economy.
  I can see no reason whatsoever why I ought to ask somebody in my 
State or in my district, making $8,000 or $9,000 a year, to support a 
program which provides military assistance, military training to 
countries that make $20,000 a year on average.
  So, Mr. Chairman, enough said. I will not belabor the point, but I 
urge the acceptance of the amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish the gentleman from Wisconsin had raised this 
issue earlier, during the markup, or at least highlighted it in his 
discussions with me on our bill. The high income figure he offered does 
not cut IMET to high income countries, it just cuts IMET by $1.5 
million. The high income countries will still be able to get IMET 
funds.
  Furthermore, $1.2 million of the $1.5 million is to cut IMET to the 
gentleman's high income countries: India, $400,000 and Portugal 
$800,000. The remaining $300,000 is for the true high income countries, 
like Singapore or South Korea. The only reason they get this is so they 
can have access to U.S. military training.
  I think it is wrong to penalize India and Portugal, as this does, and 
especially since it does not, in my opinion, achieve the gentleman's 
goal. I think if the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] were to choose 
to retire in the not too distant future, and if he had a friendly 
administration to him, that he would make an excellent Secretary of 
State, if indeed Warren Christopher did not want to serve any longer. 
And once he achieves that position, I think the gentleman should then 
be entitled to make decisions such as he is forcing upon the 
administrative branch of government.
  The gentleman is a Member of Congress. It is up to us to direct and 
to suggest to the administration. We are not even the authorizing 
committee. But here we are playing pseudosecretaries of state, telling 
them because of the fact that we feel this way, that we ought to 
restrict the administration's ability to have an effective foreign 
policy as well as military policy.
  So, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman knows the respect I have for him, and 
I want to assure him if I am still a Member of Congress and still 
chairman of this committee, and this gentleman does indeed, as 
Secretary of State, come to me saying, ``For goodness sake, will you 
please fund IMET training to the substantial amount so we

[[Page H5899]]

can have an effective foreign policy?'', I will respond to his wish. 
But I will not tonight respond to his wish because it is wrong, I tell 
the gentleman, and I am going to respectfully ask, No. one, that he 
withdraw the amendment, and in the absence of that, I would ask all my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Obey amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes, Mr. Secretary.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, since the gentleman asked me to consider 
withdrawing it, I simply want to point out that the only reason that 
this amendment is not drawn to specifically forbid aid to those 
countries and simply subtracts the amount that is provided in aid to 
those countries is that, as the gentleman well knows, were I to draw it 
the other way, it would be subject to a point of order, and I have 
already had two points of order lodged against amendments I have 
offered today.
  So the gentleman is kind of offering me a deal that I have no choice 
but to refuse.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I appreciate that.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, 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 CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?


                  amendment offered by mr. radanovich

  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Radanovich: Page 97, after line 5, 
     insert the following new section:


                   limitation on assistance to turkey

       Sec. 573. Not more than $22,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Economic Support 
     Fund'' may be made available to the Government of Turkey, 
     except when it is made known to the Federal official having 
     authority to obligate or expend such funds that the 
     Government of Turkey has (1) joined the United States in 
     acknowledging the atrocity committed against the Armenian 
     population of the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923; and (2) 
     taken all appropriate steps to honor the memory of the 
     victims of the Armenian genocide.

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, in this turbulent century we have 
witnessed humanity's great potential for good and bad, but the world 
has triumphed more often in the last 96 years and it has been 
disappointed. And yet while focusing on humanity's successes is always 
more attractive----
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RADANOVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, let me make an inquiry as to whether or 
not this is a limitation amendment.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. This is, yes.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. And if so are there other nonlimitation amendments?
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Alabama insisting on his point of 
order at this time?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to know if there are other 
nonlimitation amendments before we get to limitation amendments.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment and will introduce it at the appropriate time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reserving the right to object, I reserved 
the right to object not to interfere with the gentleman from California 
but to ask the Chairman's intentions. What happens if there are no 
further nonlimitation amendments?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Then we will go to limitation amendments. We wanted to 
dispose of all of the nonlimitation amendments before we got to the 
limitations.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thought maybe I would get a cabinet 
nomination out of my colleague.
  In lieu of that, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I am not 
sure, was it clear, are there any other nonlimitation amendments? I did 
not think there were.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to inform the 
subcommittee chairman that there was one additional amendment which I 
was going to offer to title I, which I got permission earlier to offer. 
But at this point I do not intend to offer that amendment.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. So there are no other nonlimitation amendments? That is 
what we were seeking.
  Absent that, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments not precluded by clause 2(a) 
or clause 2(c) of rule XXI?
  If not, the Clerk will read the last three lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Foreign Operations, Export 
     Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on the next amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes 
and that the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
  Mr. PALLONE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I would ask 
that on this next amendment, the Radanovich amendment, if it were 
possible to have that unanimous consent request withdrawn. We just 
wanted to see how many speakers would be here. We will try to limit it 
to the 30 minutes, if possible, but since a lot of the Members who 
wanted to speak on the amendment were not necessarily aware that the 
time was limited and thought they would have 5 minutes, I would like to 
not limit it formally at this time, if the Chair won allow us that.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of compromise which I have 
done all the way through this bill, with both sides of the aisle, with 
every Member present here tonight, I would be happy to.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-consent request.


                  amendment offered by mr. radanovich

  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Radanovich: Page 97, after line 5, 
     insert the following new section:


                   limitation on assistance to turkey

       Sec. 573. Not more than $22,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Economic Support 
     Fund'' may be made available to the Government of Turkey, 
     except when it is made known to the Federal official having 
     authority to obligate or expend such funds that the 
     Government of Turkey has (1) joined the United States in 
     acknowledging the atrocity committed against the Armenian 
     population of the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923; and (2) 
     taken all appropriate steps to honor the memory of the 
     victims of the Armenian genocide.

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of compromise, I ask 
unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments 
thereto close in 40 minutes and that the time be equally divided.

[[Page H5900]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do not 
personally have a problem with that, but I have been told that there 
are a number of Members on this side of the aisle who do. So I would 
urge that the gentleman withdraw that request, and I would urge that 
the gentleman consider offering a time limit of 1 hour.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, if we do allow debate for the 40 minutes, 
as I have suggested, would the gentleman at that time be willing to 
agree to some limited amount of time to debate this after that point, 
maybe limiting debate time for each Member to 2 minutes or 1 minute or 
to designate the time?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am not in a position to support cutting off 
amendments that other Members offer. I have just been asked by a Member 
of our leadership not to.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous consent request, 
and I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all 
amendments thereto close in 60 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I will not 
object, but I would say to the chairman that I think this amendment, 
from what I hear on this side, I think this amendment is the one that 
Members want more time on. I do not think you need to give an hour for 
all subsequent amendments.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WILSON. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, the unanimous consent request was just 
this one amendment.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I did not understand that.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reserving the right to object, Mr. 
Chairman, I will not object, but just for scheduling purposes, would it 
then be the intention, I wonder if it is proper to ask that the 
clustered votes would then take place so Members might know? I know we 
have been talking about a vote at 8. If we have a 60-minute limit, to 
which I do not object, would it then be the Chair's intention to go to 
the three votes that would then be pending? Members have been talking 
about an 8 o'clock time from the standpoint of scheduling here.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is that the intention of the gentleman from Alabama?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Radanovich].
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, in this turbulent century, we have 
witnessed humanity's great potential for good and bad--but the world 
has triumphed more often in the last 96 years than it has disappointed. 
And yet, while focusing on humanity's successes is always more 
attractive than remembering any stumbles, we as civilized peoples, 
countries, and nations must not deny the immorality of such stains on 
history as the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, today I offer an amendment which provides a 
practical incentive to Turkey to join the community of nations in 
recognition of a tragic chapter in its history. Let me explain the 
amendment.
  This amendment links Turkey's denial of the genocide to United States 
foreign aid levels. In other words, the amendment states that if Turkey 
joins the United States in acknowledging the atrocity committed against 
the Armenian population, and takes all appropriate steps to honor the 
memory of those innocent victims, it will then receive the full portion 
of aid appropriated to it in H.R. 3540.
  This amendment is reasonable. The levels of economic aid we propose 
to withhold from Turkey is approximately 2 percent or $3 million. The 
figure of $3 million is equal to the amount the Turkish Government 
spends on swaying opinion in Washington.
  Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying that such distinguished 
individuals as Ronald Reagan, Winston Churchill, and Woodrow Wilson, 
have recognized the terrible tragedy suffered by Armenians from 1915-
1923. Today this body has the opportunity of encouraging Turkey to 
respect the memory of those Armenian victims. I ask that you vote in 
favor of this amendment.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to be a cosponsor of the Radanovich 
amendment. Again, as Mr. Radanovich mentioned, capping economic support 
fund aid to Turkey at $22 million, as this does, represents a cut of 
about 2 percent of the total U.S. military and economic assistance, 
approximately $3 million. We know that the government of Turkey has 
spent at least that amount annually in its Washington lobbying and 
public relations effort.
  I was on the floor just the other day talking about some aspect of 
that. One of the things they have been doing rather successfully, is 
basically donating money to major universities to establish chairs of 
Turkish studies. Then they use that oftentimes to influence what goes 
on at those universities.
  I was very concerned about that issue, particularly in my home State 
of New Jersey, because they established one of these chairs at 
Princeton University, one of the leading institutions of higher 
learning in the Nation. And yet, we have documented that some of the 
promotional efforts that have come out of that donation, have basically 
resulted in an effort to try to deny that the genocide ever took place.
  Rather than confront the historical record of the Armenian genocide, 
the Turkish Government has chosen to instead to ignore the documented 
evidence. This pattern of denial offends the memory of those who 
perished, contradicts the historical record in our own national 
archives, and helps lay the groundwork for those who would commit 
similar atrocities in the future.
  Our amendment provides a practical incentive for Turkey to join the 
international community in coming to terms with this tragic chapter in 
history. By acknowledging the Armenian genocide, Turkey will open the 
door to full diplomatic relations with Armenia.
  I do not want to go through the historical account of the genocide 
because I think that we should try to limit our time here. But I just 
wanted to say that to this day the government of Turkey maintains this 
policy of denying that the genocide against the Armenians ever took 
place.
  I, just to give you an example from my own experience, myself and 
Congressman Porter have on various occasions written to the Turkish 
embassy and talked about the genocide. And we get very curt responses 
suggesting that the genocide never took place, And yet the historical 
record is clear. There were no Nuremberg trials, and there has been no 
official atonement by the Turkish nation. And I think the only way that 
we can make this point and to try to persuade Turkey, which receives 
millions of dollars of U.S. aid, is to basically try to pass a 
resolution like this that makes them acknowledge that the genocide took 
place.

  I just want, again, for the sake of time, I just want to point out 
that there have been many Americans and world leaders who have 
continued to point to the genocide and the example of the Armenian 
genocide.
  Just to quote two of them here today, if I could, I wanted to mention 
a statement by President Reagan that was made on April 22, 1981. He 
said, Like the genocide of the Armenians before it and the genocide of 
the Cambodians which followed it and like too many other such 
persecutions of too many other people, the lessons of the Holocaust 
must never be forgotten.
  President Clinton said this year on the anniversary of the genocide, 
April 21, that he joins with Armenians around the world on this solemn 
day in commemorating the senseless deportations and massacres of 1.5 
million Armenians that took place from 1915 to 1923 in the Ottoman 
Empire.
  The bottom line is that if we do not recognize that genocide takes 
place, it

[[Page H5901]]

will happen again. We know that it happens over and over again 
historically. One of the most disgraceful things I think is when Adolf 
Hitler said, before he started the preparations for the Jewish 
Holocaust, he mentioned that no one remembered the Armenian genocide. 
Therefore, there was no reason why he could not proceed.
  We do not want this genocide to continue. The Turkish Government must 
recognize it. Once they do, I think relations between our countries 
will certainly be a lot better. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich].
   Mr. Chairman, Germany has acknowledged the Holocaust. Japan has 
apologized for its atrocities in World War II, but regrettably Turkey 
remains adamant in opposing measures which simply recognize the 
genocide of Armenians under the government that preceded the Turkish 
Republic. All this amendment seeks is that the Turks take a step 
similar to Germany's and Japan's in acknowledging genocide crimes and 
honor its victims. The Armenians deserve at least that much.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking my colleagues who are 
joining me in offering this amendment today. The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Radanovich], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Blute], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] have all put in a 
great deal of work in bringing this issue to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  The Armenian genocide is one of the great tragedies of our century.
  Beginning on the night of April 24 in 1915, the religious and 
intellectual leaders of the Armenian community of Constantinople were 
taken from their beds, imprisoned, tortured, and killed.
  In the days that followed, the remaining males over 15 years of age 
were gathered in cities, towns and villages throughout Ottoman Turkey, 
roped together, marched to nearby uninhabited areas, and killed.
  Innocent women and children were forced to march through barren 
wastelands--urged on by whips and clubs--denied food and water.
  And when they dared to step out of line, they were repeatedly 
attacked, robbed, raped--and ultimately killed.
  When all was said and done, one and one-half million Armenians lay 
dead, and a homeland which has stood for 3,000 years was nearly 
completely depopulated.
  Mr. Chairman, we bring this amendment to the floor with the knowledge 
that all of us have a responsibility to remember the victims, to speak 
out and to make sure that tragedies like this are never allowed to 
happen again.
  We must pause today and say ``Never again.''
  We can never forget that in 1939, another leader used the Armenian 
genocide as justification for his own genocide.
  This leader said, and I quote: ``I have given orders to my Death 
Units to exterminate without mercy or pity men, women, and children 
belonging to the Polish-speaking race. After all,'' Adolf Hitler asked, 
``who today remembers the extermination of the Armenians?''
  Mr. Chairman, it is up to all of us to remember.
  For centuries, the Armenian people have shown courage and great 
strength.
  The least we can do is match their courage with our commitment.
  Because today, we must be their voices.
  If we don't remember, nobody else will.
  Mr. Chairman, some may say this amendment will alter our relationship 
with Turkey, and I agree--it will.
  It will give the Turkish government an opportunity to join with us in 
acknowledging the Armenian genocide.
  Such an acknowledgement will help to open the door to improved 
relations in the region.
  We know from ethnic conflicts around the world that differences are 
hard to set aside until history, no matter how tragic, is acknowledged. 
Only then can the healing process begin.
  Today, let us follow the example of Elie Wiesel, the noted Nobel 
Peace Prize Laureate and Holocaust survivor, who said this about the 
Armenian genocide:

       ``. . . The Turks should have understood the pain and the 
     anger of the Armenians who are denied the right to remember . 
     . . The Turks today are not responsible for the bloody events 
     that took place 50 years earlier, but they are responsible 
     for their present attitudes regarding these events.''

  Mr. Chairman, this is our opportunity to confirm the historical 
record. This is about human rights. It's about historical fact. As this 
century draws to a close, we cannot allow these tragic events to be 
erased from our memory.
  Support this amendment and stand for those who count on us to be 
their voices.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. We have already had the Visclosky amendment, and we have 
treated a NATO ally, a very strong NATO ally, in such a manner that, 
frankly, we would not dare treat other allies or other members of the 
world community.
  But this amendment takes an act, certainly an atrocity, that was 
committed by an entirely different government almost 100 years ago and 
takes a much newer country and rubs their noses in the acts that 
happened so very long ago. It is just incredible, it is wrong-headed, 
it is bad policy. I urge that Members vote against this. It is a 
destructive measure which will do nothing but offend a great ally of 
the United States and jeopardize our Nation's security.
  The measure withholds ESF moneys to Turkey unless the Turkish 
Government acknowledges the Armenian genocide and takes steps to honor 
the memory of its victims. Do we require any other nation to admit to 
blatant political statements? Of course not. This language does not 
belong in this or any other measure.
  The bill already caps ESP at $25 million. It is less than half of the 
administration's request. The intent of this language is simple: 
embarrass a valuable ally for whatever political purposes or otherwise, 
depending on who our constituents may be.
  If adopted, the language will eliminate all ESF funding for Turkey. 
While some in this Chamber are in favor of this, it will have a 
devastating impact on Turkey.
  ESF funding for Turkey is extremely important. The funds will simply 
be used to help them address long-term structural reforms necessary to 
sustain growth and ease their entry into the European Customs Union. 
The funds will also be used to help offset the economic cost associated 
with the enforcement of U.S. sanctions against Iraq, and I should 
remind Members that the bill already significantly reduces the amount 
available for Turkey.
  Turkey is, again, one of our most strong and most steadfast NATO 
allies. The strategic importance to the United States is immense. 
General Shalikashvili said it best: ``Turkey occupies the new front 
line in the post-Cold War era. The strategic value to the United States 
of having a staunch and steadfast ally situated in a critical and 
strategic location in the flanks of the Middle East cannot 
be overstated.''

  Turkey has stood with the U.S. during a number of troubling times for 
our Nation. During the Gulf war she was extremely important. They were 
one of the first countries to participate in the U.N.-sanctioned 
embargo of Iraq. This cost them over $20 billion. To this day the 
negative effects and financial loss are still being felt. Turkey 
allowed the use of NATO air bases, where over 2,700 strike missions 
against Iraq were launched. Without the use of these air bases we would 
not have been able to achieve the victory over Iraq without accruing 
greater expenses or suffering more casualties.

[[Page H5902]]

  Since the Gulf war, Turkey's importance in assistance has grown 
highlighted by their hosting ``Operation Provide Comfort'' to protect 
Iraqi Kurds since its inception after the Gulf war; participating in 
the mission to Bosnia by training the Bosnian army, thereby furthering 
the critical goal of achieving military parity in the region; signing a 
military agreement with Israel which provides for joint military 
cooperation and securing Caspian oil reserves for Western consumption. 
These reserves provide a viable alternative to OPEC dependency.
  Turkey is making serious progress in the area of human rights. It is 
important to point out that they are one of the only Muslim countries--
if not the only Muslim country--with a free press, independent 
judiciary and all elements of a secular parliamentary democracy. They 
have established a human rights commission and a human rights ministry 
designed to monitor human rights. They are a signatory of the United 
Nations and European Conventions against torture.
  Turkey has also instituted many legal reforms that reduce pretrial 
detention, enforce a detainee's rights to counsel at all stages of 
detention and ban unethical methods of interrogation such as torture. 
One point that is often forgotten in the debate is in the presence of a 
terrorist organization, the PKK, in Turkey.
  The State Department's report on human rights situation in Turkey, 
while it raised many concerns about the situation there, did raise some 
important points. Continued U.S. support for Turkey is essential, and 
the PKK represents a major threat to Turkey's sovereignty and 
territorial integrity.
  It would be wrong for us, Mr. Chairman, to include in this bill such 
inflammatory language as this amendment poses on Turkey.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Livingston was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Whether one supports aid to Turkey or not, one should 
agree that this is not the forum for such rhetoric. The substance of 
this amendment has been defeated time and time again in years past, and 
it should be defeated again.
  I urge the defeat of this amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this year marks the 81st anniversary of the Armenian 
genocide, an act of mass murder that took 1.5 million Armenian lives 
and led to the exile of the Armenian Nation from its historic homeland.
  It is of vital importance that we never forget what happened to the 
Armenian people. Indeed the only thing we can do for the victims is to 
remember, and we forget at our own peril.
  The Armenian genocide, which began 15 years after the start of the 
twentieth century, was the first act of genocide of this century, but 
it was far from the last. The Armenian genocide was followed by the 
Holocaust, Stalin's purges, and other acts of mass murder around the 
world.
  Adolf Hitler himself said that the world's indifference to the 
slaughter in Armenia indicated that there would be no global outcry if 
he undertook the mass murder of Jews and others he considered less than 
human. And he was right. It was only after the Holocaust that the cry 
``Never again'' arose throughout the world. But it was too late for 
millions of victims. Too late for the 6 million Jews. Too late for the 
1.5 million Armenians.
  Unfortunately, there are still some who refuse to admit that this 
genocide occurred. The Turkish Government has actively denied that the 
Armenian genocide happened. This amendment will encourage the Turkish 
Government to end this campaign of denial and recognize the suffering 
of the Armenian people.
  Mr. Speaker, after the genocide, the Armenian people cried out, ``Let 
us never forget. Let us always remember the atrocities that have taken 
the lives of our parents and our children and our neighbors.'' I rise 
today to make sure that those cries were not uttered in vain.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I know that the gentlewoman is concerned about the 
genocide, as we all should be, by an event that happened almost a 
hundred years ago. But does the gentlewoman feel that the country of 
Israel, whose constituents suffered greatly at the hand of the 
Holocaust, as the gentlewoman well knows, is any less interested in 
such genocide. Is she aware that Israel has just engaged in some very 
close negotiations for a warm relationship with Turkey?
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to know that, and I am pleased 
that there has been some negotiations and discussions and important 
arrangements made for security between Israel and Turkey, and I would 
hope that this amendment would encourage the Turks to certainly 
acknowledge the Armenian genocide and would take a stronger role in 
freeing Cyprus and in speaking out and acting against some of the human 
rights abuses.
  I understand, Mr. Chairman, the importance of Turkey, in fact, in our 
regional needs. I understand the importance of Turkey as an important 
ally. And what we hope to do with this amendment, as with other actions 
that we hope to take, is send a very strong signal to Turkey although 
they are an important ally, they must certainly stand up and speak out 
against all kinds of human rights abuses.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would yield further, 
perhaps the gentlewoman read the article appearing in the local press 
about 4 or 5 days ago in which it was indicated that actually Turkey is 
strengthening its ties with Israel because the United States, for 
whatever reason, is proving to be a much less reliable ally?
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. Certainly I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, the only point I wanted to make very 
briefly is, as my colleagues know, in the same way that the German 
Government, which today of course, as my colleagues know, could hardly 
be seen as the successor to the Nazi regime, constantly makes reference 
and apologizes for what the Nazis did to the Jews and other people in 
Eastern Europe, and as a result we have a very cleansing effect, if my 
colleagues will, on the German people and on the German nation. We 
would like to see the Turkish Government do the same thing. They are 
the successor to the Ottoman government. Rather than every time we 
write to them or bring up the genocide, they are coming back to us and 
saying, and I will do it from my own experience, that it never 
occurred; that they would acknowledge that this happened in their 
history and go through this same cleansing process.
  So I think the example of the Nazi Holocaust means that they should 
acknowledge it, not that they should reject that it ever occurred. And 
I thank the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. BUNN of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether we are here 
to set foreign policy or we are here to have a history lesson, but we 
are getting quite a history lesson today. Others will talk about the 
negatives of the Ottoman Empire, without question, but there are some 
other things that are left out in the discussion.
  For example, when we are told about the Nazi regime and the current 
German Government, if we looked at a map of Germany before and after 
the war, it would look fairly similar. If we looked at the Ottoman 
Empire before and after, we would not see anything that was even close. 
The Ottoman Empire included Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, 
and many other territories.
  The Ottomans chose the wrong allies in World War I. Their enemies, 
who were our allies, were not just in the war to defeat the Ottomans, 
they were also in the war to possess the Ottoman lands. Italy, Greece, 
France, England,

[[Page H5903]]

Russia, and others eyed the territory of the Ottoman Empire. Russia 
wanted Constantinople, which was the key to controlling access to the 
Black Sea. France wanted, and got, Syria and Lebanon. England wanted 
Iraq and the Persian coast to protect their interests in India.
  With the defeat in World War I, Mr. Chairman, the Ottoman Empire 
ceased to exist. It was not just one government following another. The 
empire ceased to exist, just as the Byzantine Empire before them no 
longer existed. The Sultan had been forced to surrender to the European 
powers, and the European powers were in the process of dividing the 
spoils. A group of Turks, led by Ataturk, were unwilling to have their 
land occupied by conquering armies, so they raised their own force and 
fought the authority of the Sultan and of the European powers. Turkey 
was born from this effort.
  Mr. Chairman, today's democracy in Turkey is no more responsible for 
the actions of the Ottoman Empire than the Soviet Union was responsible 
for the actions of the czars or the United States was responsible for 
the actions of England before the birth of our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, history is important and it should not be ignored, but 
neither should we dig up something from 80 years ago and ask a nation 
that did not exist to apologize for what it did not do.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I would 
like to tell Members why. I think it is very important for us to note, 
and every opportunity we have we should take advantage of, to reject 
genocide wherever it occurs.
  Sadly, more than 80 years after the commencement of the Armenian 
genocide by the Ottoman Turkish Government, the present-day Turkish 
Government, and indeed, it is a separate government, not only denies 
the occurrence of the genocide, but also has initiated a well-financed 
campaign to distort and tarnish the American historical record on this 
subject.
  Mr. Chairman, passage of this amendment will serve to deter the 
Turkish government from pursuing their unconscionable coverup of this 
internationally recognized crime against humanity. But do not take my 
word for it. Let us reference some American Presidents and how they 
referred to the Armenian genocide.
  President Reagan, at the remembrance of victims of the Holocaust on 
April 22, 1981, said:

       Like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the 
     genocide of the Cambodians which followed it, and like too 
     many other persecutions of too many other people, the lessons 
     of the Holocaust must never be forgotten.

  In 1990, April 20, President Bush said:

       Their history, though marked by a number of tragedies, 
     nonetheless reflects their faith and strength and the 
     resilience of their tradition. Those tragedies include,

and we are talking about the Armenians now,

     their tragedies include most prominently the terrible 
     massacre suffered in 1915 to 1923 at the hands of the rulers 
     of the Ottoman Empire. I call upon all peoples to work to 
     prevent future acts of inhumanity against mankind, and my 
     comments of June, 1988, reflect the depth of my feeling for 
     the Armenian people and the suffering they have endured.

  President Clinton said on April 24, 1996:

       I join with Armenians around the world on this solemn day 
     in commemorating the senseless deportation and massacres of 
     1.5 million Armenians that took place from 1915 to 1923 under 
     the Ottoman Empire. Tragically, our century has repeatedly 
     born witness to man's senseless inhumanity to man. Together 
     we mourn the terrible loss of so many innocent lives.

  There are two issues here, Mr. Chairman. One is the issue of the 
Armenian genocide. And yes, we should not hold this Government 
responsible for something that happened 80 years ago. But we can ask 
this Government not to try to revise history. We can ask this 
government to stop its campaign to distort the historical record on the 
Armenian genocide. That is why this amendment is so important. I have 
heard it characterized a variety of different ways, that it would stop 
assistance to Turkey, et cetera. That is why I would like to read the 
amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  It says:

       Not more than $22 million of the funds appropriated in this 
     act under the heading ``economic support fund'' may be made 
     available to the government of Turkey, except when it is made 
     known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or 
     expend such funds that the Government of Turkey has (1) 
     joined the United States in acknowledging the atrocity 
     committed against the Armenian population of the Ottoman 
     Empire from 1915 to 1923; and (2) has taken all appropriate 
     steps to honor the memory of the victims of the Armenian 
     genocide.

  So this is not about eliminating assistance to Turkey. This is about 
cutting back from $25 million to $22 million. Once gain, I think it is 
most appropriate for this Congress to follow the lead of a bipartisan 
list of American Presidents and the bipartisan support that we have had 
on this issue for a long period of time in making our message clear to 
the Turkish Government, that while we need them as an ally and we 
respect the progress they are making in human rights, the fact is that 
their strategic location or the fact of the Islamic fundamentalism in 
their country is no license for them to try to revise the history of 
the Armenian genocide, not to disregard the rights of the people in 
Armenia for humanitarian assistance by their blockade of Armenia.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this important 
amendment.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, tonight I rise to offer my strong support for this 
important amendment that is before us here today. The amendment we will 
vote on recognizes the Armenian genocide by simply reducing the amount 
of economic aid available to Turkey until they acknowledge the horrible 
events that occurred during the Armenian genocide.
  Mr. Chairman, those of us who are offering this amendment know full 
well that Turkey is a strong ally and a strategic ally of the United 
States, but the $3 million reduced represents a minimal amount of aid. 
Turkey will still be eligible to receive $22 million overall. It 
certainly does not in any way restrict the President in the conduct of 
our foreign policy, and it does not place Turkey at an economic 
disadvantage. Furthermore, it does not touch one penny of military aid.
  What it does do, Mr. Chairman, is link economic aid to Turkey's 
willingness to confront its history and acknowledge the Armenian 
genocide as a terrible event in the history of the Ottoman Empire that 
should not be brushed aside cavalierly. Consistently and unfortunately, 
our ally, Turkey, has neglected to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. I 
recognize that this is a difficult issue, political issue, in Turkey. 
However, the genocide of 1.5 million innocent people deserves 
recognition by this House of Representatives. No one today denies the 
Holocaust of Eastern Europe; at least no one worthy of our attention or 
respect.
  Similarly, no one should deny the Armenian genocide. We are not 
trying to assign blame, but merely trying to bring attention to a 
consistent pattern of ignoring the truth and denying historical fact. 
History is important, and as we have been told, those who forget 
history are condemned to repeat it. Genocide is a word that we should 
take very seriously, that makes the soul recoil, and in some ways 
language refuses to describe it.
  Mr. Chairman, tonight I am proud to join with my colleagues, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich], the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Bonior], and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] in 
supporting this amendment and honoring the memories of those who 
perished in this genocide, and encouraging and urging our friend and 
ally, Turkey, to acknowledge this fact of history.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment, and I 
commend my colleagues for bringing it to the floor.
  Earlier today, we debated and overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan 
amendment that will cut United States economic assistance to Turkey 
unless that nation allows humanitarian aid to flow to Armenia. Turkey, 
an ally to the United States, can and must take a humane step and end 
its blockade of Armenia. In the same vein, Turkey can and must end its 
blockade of history. The Armenian genocide was a fact.

[[Page H5904]]

  The genocide was substantiated by detailed press accounts of the day, 
as well as by thousands of pages of documents from historical archives 
all over the world. I have personally sat down with constituents who 
survived the genocide and listened to their tragic stories.
  We all read recently about a Princeton University professor who is 
the leading academic spokesman for those who deny the Armenian 
genocide. It was troubling to learn, of course, that his research is 
bought and paid for by the Turkish Government.
  Turkey must stop its historical revisionism. By once and for all 
acknowledging the crimes against humanity committed by the Ottoman 
Empire, Turkey will take a great stride forward in its international 
relations. And Turkey would take a great stride forward for the simple 
cause of truth and human decency.
  Let us make sure that this great House speaks out tonight for truth 
and justice.
  Support the Radanovich-Bonior amendment.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have never heard of such a modest request, more 
simple in form or in substance. The Armenian people simply want 
recorded in history what every schoolchild learns at the earliest 
stages of their education. They seek no revenge and they come forward 
with no rancor. They recognize that the dead die twice when the crimes 
against them are not recorded.
  In this case, not a few individuals, not just simply a few forgotten 
souls, but hundreds of thousands, indeed in excess of 1 million, a 
whole people helplessly locked inside churches, surrounded in villages, 
hunted down in the streets, the Armenian people suffered the first 
great genocide of the 20th century.
  To some it is a distant part of history, but to those who still live 
with the memories, to those who lost mothers and fathers and other 
relatives, it is a haunting nightmare. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, for those 
who care about history, and here in the final days of the 20th century 
are committed to the concept that the worst of our time will not be 
repeated, it is more than relevant. The Armenian genocide is 
compelling.

  Indeed, the story has been told every year in which I have served in 
this Congress, and it will be told every year until justice is done. In 
contemplating the genocide against the Jews, Hitler's first question 
was, ``Who remembers the Armenians?''
  Today I come to my colleagues and I ask again, who is to remember the 
Jews, the Cambodians, the Bosnians, all the lost souls of history, if 
every despot and dictator in our time and in the ages to come can 
believe that their crimes will ever be forgotten, because if they are 
forgotten, then in the eyes of history, they are forgiven.
  Mr. Chairman, there are some things that must never be forgotten. 
Crimes against humanity are one of them. I know every Member of this 
House wants only friendship with the Turkish people. They have been our 
ally. They have stood with America. But earlier tonight, in arguing on 
the corridor act, we asked justice in that it is a despicable crime to 
deny humanitarian assistance to those who are suffering. At other times 
we cite the occupation of Cyprus, aggression in the Aegean, crimes 
against the Kurds. There is a compelling argument that a pattern is 
developing with the Turkish people against her neighbors.

                              {time}  1945

  It began with the Armenians. It continues against the Cypriots and 
the Kurds, and in this Congress we do no favor to our friends in Turkey 
to deny this simple truth.
  So tonight, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment vowing 
that every Member of this House, every year until it is done. We will 
rise until justice is done for the Armenian people and history is 
written as history occurred.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, we have debated the so-called Armenian genocide issue 
for the past 13 years. I can remember when I stood at this table with a 
stack of books this high from historical experts who had studied the 
so-called Armenian genocide and took issue with the findings of the 
majority of the speakers here tonight. They do not believe the 
conclusions that have been reached by the legislation that has been 
proposed. The fact is, there was a lot of killing on both sides, and 
there is enough blame to go around. There is no question that a lot of 
Armenians were killed, but there were also a lot of Turkish people that 
were killed as well.
  Now, the fact of the matter is, there is a divergence of opinion on 
this issue. Historians from the Middle East come to different 
conclusions about the issue. And for us to start penalizing an ally 
like Turkey when there is this huge division of opinion among 
historical experts, historians, just does not make any sense to me. I 
could see us kicking somebody in the teeth who is an enemy of the 
United States, but to go back 70 years, 80 years and start dredging up 
old wounds and old issues that is going to divide the people in that 
part of the world makes no sense to me. It just makes no sense 
whatsoever.

  If there was conclusive evidence that the Armenian genocide did take 
place the way it is depicted here tonight, then I would say let us go 
ahead with it. But there is a huge divergence of opinion. We had a 
hearing before the international operations committee just a few weeks 
ago and we had historians from Turkey, historians from other parts of 
the Middle East who made it their life's goal to get to the bottom of 
all of this, and they had very strong differing opinions. It was split 
right down the middle. So for the U.S. Congress to take one position on 
this, the position that is being proposed here tonight and penalizing 
one of the best allies we have, Turkey, makes absolutely no sense 
whatsoever.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from Indiana is 
schooled on foreign affairs and I know that perhaps he has the answers 
to these questions, but the thought has occurred to me, we have just, 
at the behest of the President of the United States, opened up 
diplomatic relationships with Vietnam. Was there any precondition that 
the Vietnamese own up to the massive numbers of people that they killed 
in the revolutions of the last 40 years?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. There was absolutely none. As a matter of 
fact, 2,300 POW-MIA's were not accounted for, as every President before 
demanded.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. And perhaps the gentleman could tell me, has there 
every been any condition on Boris Yeltsin to own up to the terrible 
genocide imposed by the Stalin regime against 30 million Russian people 
and perhaps no telling how many Polish people and other people 
throughout the CIS today?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. No, there was none.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Was there any precondition on foreign aid going to 
Russia?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. There was no precondition whatsoever.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. As a matter of fact, was there any precondition on 
any assistance that we might have sent to our allies of today 
penalizing the French for what Napoleon might have done or for the 
British or for what the British Empire might have done throughout the 
world when they controlled the world, or any despot that might have 
lived in the last 150 years? Is the gentleman aware of any other 
country that we have penalized for something that happened 100 years 
ago or more and said that we are simply not going to honor our 
commitments to them as a modern day ally?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. My colleague makes a very, very valid point. 
What we are doing is dredging up an issue that happened 70 years ago, 
if it happened at all, and there is a divergence of opinion, and we are 
penalizing a friend based upon that erroneous information. I thank the 
gentleman very much for his comments.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. These is a big distinction between what the gentleman 
was

[[Page H5905]]

citing and what we are talking about here today. We are talking about a 
crime against humanity, genocide. We are talking about a country that 
made a concerted effort to wipe out a people and a country that has 
refused to recognize that that occurred.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I have 
studied this issue and debated this issue for 13 years, and I am 
telling you that we have brought history book after history book after 
history book and stuck them up on this table, and there is a strong 
divergence of opinion about what happened, and that is the problem. 
Therein lies the problem, because there is no conclusive evidence on 
one side or the other, and for us to penalize our friends because of 
inconclusive evidence makes no sense.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate tonight is not over really whether or not 
Turkey or some people in Turkey some 80 years ago performed an atrocity 
on some people. There is no doubt. History documents that. They tell us 
that that is the fact. We agree that it was an atrocity, all of us here 
tonight. So the debate is not whether or not the atrocity took place, 
but whether or not this is 1996 or 1923. Yes, the atrocities took 
place, but at the same time it is not what took place then, it is what 
is taking place today.
  If we are going to demand that Turkey apologize for something that 
took place that many decades ago, why do we not at the same time we 
praise them for some of the good things that they have done? Why do we 
not look at the fact that history has reflected that Turkey has been a 
loyal NATO ally for decades? Why are we not praising Turkey for its 
essential support during the gulf war when it saved thousands of 
Americans lives? Why are we not standing by Turkey because they stood 
by us. When the Soviet Union was shattering their borders, they stood 
by us.
  The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] made an excellent point. 
Today's Turks did not commit these atrocities. Today's Turks are 
hosting Provide Comfort to provide Iraqi Kurds comfort from Saddam 
Hussein. Today's Turks signed a military agreement with Israel, a key 
United States ally in the Middle East. Today's Turks are sworn to fight 
on the side of American soldiers to protect our interests in Europe. 
Today's Turks saved hundreds of American lives during the gulf war.
  This amendment is an unbalanced amendment, and it fails to 
differentiate the past from the future. Why do we not, as the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] suggested, talk about Vietnam? We are 
trying now to do some business with Vietnam to open trade relations. 
Why are we not demanding an apology from them? We are trying to build 
power plants in North Korea to stop them from nuclear proliferation of 
power plants. Why are we not first demanding from them before we go in 
there with KEDO and say you, you must issue an apology to the United 
States of America? Why are we not doing it to Japan? Why are we not 
doing it to Germany? Why are we just picking on Turkey?
  Mr. Chairman, I do not stand here and defend for one minute the fact 
that these atrocities took place, but I do stand here and defend this 
bill and to tell you that this is 1996. Our military, our national 
government is insisting and hoping that we will let them handle foreign 
policy, we will let them address this issue. Sooner or later, they will 
apologize. But it should not be in this piece of legislation. Let us 
not send a message to the world that just because you did something 60, 
70, 80, 100 years ago that we are not going to consider you in ally 
anymore, but rather we are going to condemn you.
  This is a good bill as it stands. We already have one limiting 
amendment to Turkey already, and this one just goes a little too far. 
So we worked hard, we worked long, we tried to reach some reasonable 
agreement on both sides of the aisle with respect to all of the issues 
in this bill, and I would encourage this body to reject this amendment 
because it simply goes too far, and unnecessarily so.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment for 
all the reasons that have been outlined by the chair and others, but 
for some others as well.
  If we are going to talk about history, I would urge new Members 
particularly not to make some of the mistakes of history, mistakes such 
as I made. I voted for this amendment the first time I was here, my 
first session, and then I started to look at it more thoroughly. 
Please, before you vote on this, look at a map, a map of the world, and 
look at Turkey and look at where Turkey is situated. Of course, it was 
even more clear-cut in the old days, the old days being what, 5 years 
ago. It was even more clear-cut that it was the Soviet Union that we 
were up against and Turkey was like a knife blade in the flank of the 
Soviet Union, listing posts for us, staging area, but someone that we 
counted upon as we contended with the Soviet menace. Well, of course, 
we do not have that anymore. But we do have a very, very real situation 
in the world today.
  Continue to look at that map, because while you are looking at the 
former Soviet Union, you are also looking at a nation that borders 
Iran, a nation that borders Iraq, a nation in its proximity to Syria, 
all very bad actors on the world scene. Yet this is a nation that we 
are going to drag up a 70- or 80-year dispute that is intensive, that 
is vitriolic, that is red hot to all parties involved, and we are going 
to insert ourselves right in the middle of it? It is insane to me.
  I also ask my colleagues to look at the present day situation in 
Turkey. Turkey is not a stable country. We like to think that it is, 
but its democracy is undergoing some rough times right now as it deals 
with what some of those bordering nations have not dealt with very 
well, as it deals with the pressure of modern day fundamentalism, the 
fundamentalist Muslim movement that threatened the government when it 
was up for election this time.
  In the last election, which was fairly recently, within the last 
year, the Prime Minister's party lost, that party which was sympathetic 
to the United States. There is a coalition that has been cobbled 
together. That coalition incidentally may fall, based upon some things 
that have happened recently. That coalition was cobbled together. In 
many ways, that is all that stands between having a secular state and 
one that is a Muslim fundamentalist state, another state which, 
incidentally, you will not have to have this debate, because if that 
happens, Turkey will no longer be on the board as an ally of the United 
States.
  I do not have to go too far back to the Persian Gulf War, if we all 
remember 500,000 men and women from the United States in the Persian 
Gulf fighting against Saddam Hussein. Who was the person we were 
looking to then for a lot of our assistance? It was Turkey. Where is it 
that we still have a lot of our materiel based right now? It is Turkey. 
Yet, this is a nation that we are going to bring up this historical 
dispute, kick around a little bit, threaten governments and say, I am 
sure things will be the same as normal.
  I do not know about the history of it. Genocide is terrible wherever 
it occurs, and everyone is going to have to form his or her own 
opinions. I do think that the chairman, full committee chairman and 
others have pointed out that there are many other instances of genocide 
as well where similar action has not been taken. But I can tell you 
this. There are going to be a lot of us that deeply regret this 
resolution passing, if indeed it passes, if indeed it should be 
enacted. We will cause, simply by passing this resolution in the House, 
particularly based upon what occurred just a few minutes ago, by 
passing this resolution will be enough to cause significant mischief in 
the foreign relations between this country and Turkey.
  Mr. Chairman, I just beg my colleagues not to pass this resolution. I 
would once again urge new Members, those of you who have been here less 
than 4 years, please, please, go look at that map before you come over 
to this floor for a vote and look at the significance of the vote you 
are casting.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will ensure that the 1.5 
million victims of the Armenian genocide will not be forgotten. By 
telling their history and evoking their names we protect them and 
indeed ourselves from those who would willfully erase from history 
their lives and the tragic events which occurred between 1915 and 1923.

[[Page H5906]]

  As with the Nazi Holocaust, we have a responsibility to society to 
recount the history of the Armenian genocide so that we do not forget 
its victims and so that we remember man's capacity to destroy others 
who differ in their opinions, race, religion or ethnicity.
  Genocide is the most egregious crime. It is not a crime of passion or 
revenge, but rather of hate--its innocent victims are guilty only of 
being born to a different mother.
  Since 1923 Turkey has virtually denied the Armenian genocide. There 
has been no justice and there were no Nuremberg trials for the victims 
and the families of the Armenian genocide. This amendment is not about 
cutting aid to Turkey, it is about justice for Turkey's Armenian 
victims.
  Ralph Waldo Emerson tells us:

       The history of persecution is a history of endeavors to 
     cheat nature, to make water run up hill, to twist a rope of 
     sand. The martyr cannot be dishonored. Every lash inflicted 
     is a tongue of fame, every prison a more illustrious abode; 
     every burned book or house enlightens the world; every 
     suppressed or expunged word reverberates through the earth 
     from side to side. Hours of sanity and consideration are 
     always arriving to communities, as to individuals when truth 
     is seen and martyrs are justified.

  This amendment gives us an opportunity to make the words of Mr. 
Emerson true. Support the victims and the families of the Armenian 
genocide and support this amendment.
  Mr. MANTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote 
in favor of this very important amendment introduced by Rep. 
Radanovich. The Armenian genocide of 1915-1923 is a tragic event that 
should never have taken place. This amendment simply states that the 
country of Turkey should recognize the devastating event that took 
place 81 years ago as a genocide. It is of vital importance that we do 
not allow any country to view this event casually.
  This amendment would ensure that Turkey take steps to honor the 
memories of the victims of Armenian genocide. Turkey must come to terms 
with this tragic event in history. Not only would this amendment enable 
Turkey to properly remember those who were brutally killed by the 
Ottoman Empire, it will open doors for full diplomatic relations 
between Turkey and Armenia.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would not only persuade the Turks to 
properly recognize the Armenian genocide, it would lay the groundwork 
for a peaceful existence for future generations in those two countries. 
This amendment does not change history, it simply asks the Turks to 
join those who still live with the nightmare and brutal memories of 
what happened to Armenian people over 80 years ago.
  I urge my colleagues to support this honorable amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Bonior 
amendment. It presents a practical approach for Turkey to finally come 
to terms with a terrible chapter in the Armenian genocide.
  Eighty-one years is far far too long to deny the deaths of 1.5 
million Armenians. And yet to this day, the Government of Turkey has 
remained silent--a silence that is deafening.
  The Bonior amendment provides a proper incentive for Turkey to 
finally end the silence. It also sends a message throughout the world 
that despots cannot and will not get away with crimes against humanity.
  History shows that we cannot forget the past lest we be doomed to 
repeat it. Only through remembering and acknowledging the past can we 
stop such horrible crimes against humanity from happening again. I urge 
my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

                              {time}  2000

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich] 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


               amendment offered by mr. burton of indiana

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana: Page 97, after 
     line 5, insert the following new section:


                   limitation on assistance for india

       Sec. 573. Not more than $48,674,000 of the funds 
     appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Development 
     Assistance'' may be made available to the Government of 
     India, or to nongovernmental organizations and private 
     voluntary organizations operating within India.

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, we have talked about human 
rights violations that may or may not have taken place 70 years ago, 
but what I want to talk about tonight are human rights violations that 
are taking place today.
  First of all, let me just say if we were not even talking about human 
rights violations, this amendment would make sense, because what it 
does is it freezes assistance to India at last year's spending level. 
We are not cutting the aid to India, the developmental assistance, we 
are just freezing it at last year's spending level.
  The administration and the bill chose to raise it by $8.3 million. So 
what we are doing really is not cutting anything, we are just freezing 
spending at last year's level, but it will save $8.3 million because we 
are not going to allow the increase. So if for no other reason than the 
fiscal impact, this bill makes some sense.
  But let us talk about what is going on in India today in a place 
called Kashmir, Punjab, Nagaland, and elsewhere. More than 150,000 
Sikhs have been killed by the Indian regime since 1984. This includes 
more than 40,000 killed in the Delhi massacre, over 20,000 killed in 
the Golden Temple attack, and 25,000 killings documented by other 
leaders over there. India has also killed over 200,000 Christians in 
Nagaland since 1947 and more than 40,000 Muslims in Kashmir since 1988 
and tens of thousands of Tamils and others.
  According to the U.S. State Department, between 1991 and 1993 the 
Indian regime paid over 41,000 cash bounties to police officers for 
killing innocent people, Sikhs. Women in Kashmir, because of their 
Muslim beliefs, are taken out in the middle of the night, their 
husbands are held at gun point in their homes, and the women are gang-
raped, and many of those women commit suicide or leave the country 
because of the shame that is brought upon them. This is happening 
today.
  This picture shows a picture of a man who has been disemboweled and 
tortured. His arm has been burned severely, he has been disemboweled, 
there are burns on his side. This is what the Indian occupied troops 
are doing in Kashmir and Punjab. They have 550,000 troops in Kashmir, 
they have 550,000 troops in Punjab, and this goes on daily.
  Recently, I want to read to my colleagues what happened when a fellow 
was stopped. One of the leaders was stopped, he was taken out of his 
car and he was killed. They took his driver, they tied his legs, one to 
one car and one to the other, and they drove off in different 
directions and cut him in two.

  This is not baloney, folks, this is really happening, and it is 
happening at the hands of the Indian Government. We are our brother's 
keeper. We should be concerned about human rights violations wherever 
they take place in the world. We may have some differences of opinion 
on what happened 60, 70, 80 years ago, but today in India, In Kashmir 
and Punjab, this is taking place. This is happening right now.
  They drained some canals in Punjab and Kashmir, and they found 
hundreds of bodies with their hands tied together and their feet bound, 
and they were thrown in the canal and drowned. They estimate, according 
to reports that we have, that almost every single person that is taken 
into prison in Punjab and in Kashmir is tortured. This goes on every 
single day.
  We might say, well, if that is happening, why does the world not know 
about it? Well, Amnesty International is not allowed in there. Other 
human rights groups are not allowed in there. Television cameras are 
not allowed in there, and so the world does not see it.
  Now, if Congressmen go over there and they seem to have a bias toward 
India, what they will do is they will take them out there with Indian 
troops and Indian guides, and they will go through to talk to people. 
But those people will not respond because they are afraid they will be 
tortured or punished later on if they say anything in front of the 
Indian officials that are with the traveling people that come in there.

[[Page H5907]]

  The fact of the matter is that area should be opened up. The world 
should be able to see. If they could see what is going on in Punjab and 
Kashmir and Nagaland, the world would shudder, because it is as bad as 
what was going on in Bosnia.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed 
for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, we have talked about this 
before, and I know I have a lot of my colleagues who have Indian 
constituencies who are going to stand up here tonight and say all of 
this is baloney and it is not really happening. Well, I want to tell my 
colleagues I have had CIA informational reports, I have had other 
documented reports that have come into my office over the last 13 
years, and I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that these things 
are occurring.
  All I am asking tonight is to send a signal. I am not saying cut off 
all developmental aid to India, I am not saying cut off every dollar, 
although I think we should. We should not be supporting a regime like 
that. But what I am saying is let us just send one little signal to the 
Indian Government that the United States Congress does not want to 
stand still for human rights violations, and the way to do that is to 
freeze spending at last year's spending level. We are not even asking 
to cut it. Just freeze it at last year's level and do not give them an 
$8.3 million increase.
  The people over there every night go to bed in fear for their lives, 
not knowing if they are going to be dragged out in the middle of the 
night to be tortured or killed or raped. It is time to at least give 
them some solace by letting them know that the Congress of the United 
States does care about human rights and does care about what is going 
on in that part of the world.

  I do not care if human rights violations take place in Africa, in 
India or anyplace else, we should be concerned and we should send a 
signal, and we should not be rewarding that kind of activity. So I 
would just like to say to my colleagues in closing, let us send a 
little signal tonight, a little small signal saying we do not tolerate 
this sort of action.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that my colleague from Indiana is extremely 
serious about the matter that he brings to the attention of the body 
this evening. I would only urge upon him when we discuss human rights 
around the world that we be mindful also of human rights violations 
within the confines of the United States.
  I listened actively to the debate a moment ago about asking the Turks 
to apologize for atrocities that took place some years ago against 
Armenians and many Members will come to vote on that rollcall vote with 
this country never having apologized to black folk in this country for 
slavery in this country, and I am not talking about the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton]. I am talking about the country. We need to be 
very cautious when these elections are taking place like in Turkey and 
in India and we recognize the value of these countries for a variety of 
reasons.
  Right here in our country, for example, there is no massive outcry in 
this body--there is among some Members--about church burnings that are 
taking place in the South at black churches. So let us get a 
little careful before we throw stones.

  I rise in opposition, Mr. Chairman, to my good friend Dan Burton's 
amendment. This marks the third year that the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Burton] will submit an amendment that singles out India for 
punitive treatment. Ironically he was on the floor a moment ago arguing 
about others singling out treatment for Turkey. It sounds to me like a 
whole lot of political pandering is going on in this body. These 
alleged claims of India's human rights violations, despite the fact 
that the State Department has praised India for its progress in this 
area, have always been based on outdated and mistaken information. Yet 
this year these attacks will be especially damaging to United States-
India relations in light of India's recent economic reforms.
  Present the United States is India's largest trading partner with 
investments reaching $5 billion this year. United States firms such as 
General Motors, McDonnell Douglas, GE, AT&T, Boeing, and Citicorp, 
major investors in India, are taking advantage of its strong 
intellectual property rights laws and highly skilled work force, many 
of whom are in the United States of America. The Enron Oil & Gas Co., 
which I received, as did a lot of Members, a letter from dated June 3, 
has three plants throughout India which together make Enron the largest 
non-Indian energy developer in India. Such investments are currently 
possible as India is taking increasing steps away from a command and 
control economy. Yet Dan Burton's amendment would send the wrong 
signals to India, discouraging it from continuing with these reforms 
and improving its economic ties with these United States companies.
  My good friend's amendment also ignores that India is not only the 
world's largest democracy but has just completed the world's largest 
free and popular election ever. Our foreign policy should be aimed at 
encouraging democracy rather than punishing it with unjust punitive 
measures, and I caution my friends with reference to the Turkish matter 
that they be mindful of elections and the results there as well.
  Finally, my good friend's attacks on India's human rights record is 
not consistent with its ongoing improvements in this area. An 
independent human rights commission found the Indian Government to be 
cooperative and consistently complying with the proposals and reforms 
of its human rights commission.
  India, the world's largest democracy, is currently taking tremendous 
strides to open its economy and improve its relations with the United 
States. I believe that your amendment caps development assistance but 
it does nothing but damage these relations by sending the wrong signals 
to India's Government as well as hurting our own American companies 
that are already working to make future projects possible in a truly 
promising market.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. First of all Mr. Chairman, let me thank my 
colleague for yielding. I would like to say that there is money to be 
made in India. I will not discount that fact. There is a lot of 
American companies who want to go over there and are over there making 
money and they are very concerned because they have an ax to grind. But 
the fact remains that human rights atrocities are taking place in 
Punjab, Kashmir, Nagaland, and elsewhere. When we were talking about 
Turkey just a few short minutes ago, we were talking about something 
that may or may not have occurred. There is a big divergence of opinion 
among historians in Turkey.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hastings of Florida was allowed to proceed 
for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the 
gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If I might conclude, my concern is these human 
rights violations do occur. All I want to do tonight is send a signal 
to the Indian government that we do not approve and that there ought to 
be some change in policy. It is not punitive from the standpoint that 
we are penalizing them because we are not cutting the aid they got last 
year by one dime. We are only not allowing them to get an increase.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I just suggest not only 
as pertains to India but elsewhere around the world, and I do not 
accuse the gentleman from Indiana of being arrogant, but very often we 
start because of our parochial or personal political considerations to 
point fingers at others. We would almost be in a position of not being 
able to do any business anywhere in the world if we were to just 
identify human rights violations as the only link that we must have 
considered before we do business.
  We are getting ready to do MFN China, we do business with Russia, we 
do business all over this world. With Nigeria we have on one 
decertification

[[Page H5908]]

link; Pakistan, we do not on another and I have not even reached South 
America. I could go on and on.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been involved in working with India for the 
past, oh, 7, 8, or 9 years now and the beginning of that relationship 
was because of the great work that was being done there as well as here 
in trying to combat the rising tide of international terrorism. But in 
that process, I have learned a lot about India and I have watched the 
development of a relationship between the United States and India which 
has changed and grown and become far greater in terms of the strength 
and importance to the United States not only as a trading partner with 
India but also from a strategic and national security standpoint.

                              {time}  2015

  I regret to say that the proposal of the gentleman from Indiana 
tonight would do a great deal to undermine this growing relationship 
that I believe would be detrimental to not only our trading partner 
interest but our national security interest. We are seeing today that 
we have had since 1991 joint military exercises with India. They have a 
4,000-mile border with China. China is a very unknown quantity for us 
in the future.
  As our relationship with this great emerging democracy of India has 
grown and is growing, we need to be secure in knowing that we will have 
a long-standing and firm relationship in the Near East with a democracy 
that will be there and be our ally for a long time into the future.
  I can describe any number of atrocities that I know have occurred in 
lots of places in the world, and I do not deny for a minute that we 
have had some human rights violations in the past in India. But to the 
best of my knowledge, in doing the research and trying to keep up with 
this, the Government of India, both past and certainly the new one 
coming in, which has had nothing to do with that in the past, the one 
that was just elected recently, but the government that was in charge 
for quite a number of years has taken great strides to eliminate those 
violations.
  My judgment and observations are that those strides have been very 
effective. Now to say that every single violation in every place has 
been eliminated, I could not stand here tonight and tell you that. But 
I can say that they made great progress. It would be insulting and 
improper and not a good thing for us to do to go back and slap them in 
the face.
  This same type of proposal was offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Burton], slightly a variation on the terms, for several 
Congresses, in an effort to criticize and to rebuke India for these 
perceived violations which are old hat by now.
  Yes, we are dealing with the facts of today's world, and I can tell 
you, looking at the terrorism issue, for example, that there are 
tremendous problems that exist out in the world in this regard. We have 
a rising, growing movement of a messianic totalitarian world out there 
in the Muslim area. We are seeing in Iran and Sudan a grave movement of 
governments that are going to promote this, to try to take control of 
their way of looking at things throughout southern Europe, northern 
Africa, the Middle East, the Near East, all the way to the Philippines. 
That is a movement that is very strong right now. Most Muslims do not 
believe in it, but there is a radical group that wants to have those 
governments.
  India has the second largest Muslim population in the world. The same 
terrorists that have come here to bomb the World Trade Center do not 
like the life in the United States. They see us as getting in their 
way. They want to move us out. They want to control all those 
governments, including ultimately the government of India.
  We share a lot of bonds in trying to combat that terrorism, among 
other things. We share growing bonds of concern over China and perhaps 
an axis someday, depending upon the results of the elections in Russia, 
between China and Russia and the threats that come from the 
destabilization that is going on out there of nuclear controls after 
the fall of the Berlin Wall and the breakup of the Soviet Union.
  What I am saying in short is that between the tremendously new 
relationship that was described by my colleague from Florida on the 
trading front with all of the investment of the United States in India 
and all the Indian trade investments here that have grown over the last 
5 or 6 years from a mere $500 million to over $5 billion, we also have 
in addition to that concern with this Burton amendment the disruption 
of a growing relationship on the national security front with the 
country of India. It is something that I just do not think we should 
risk with this type of an amendment.
  There are ways to protest, and we should protest human rights 
violations anywhere in the world. But I do not think that this is the 
appropriate place tonight to do it, with all due respect to the 
gentleman from Indiana, with this amendment. I would strongly urge my 
colleagues to vote no on the Burton amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me say in its report Dead Silence, the 
Legacy of Abuses in Punjab, Asia Watch said that over the last 5 years 
there were between 4,000 and 5,000 people that were tortured in one 
police station alone, according to a police official there. This is in 
one police station alone in the last 4 to 5 years in Punjab. We are not 
even talking about Kashmir.
  Let me just say one more thing, if I might, if the gentleman will 
yield.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. McCollum was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The inadvertent depiction, I hope, that 
Muslims in America are out to overthrow our government, at least that 
is the way I interpreted it.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, I did not say that Muslims in 
America were out to overthrow our government. I said there is a 
messianic totalitarian movement in Iran and Sudan that would spread 
across the world, if it could, and like to capture the control of 
governments, that India is an important link to stopping that terrorism 
threat.
  I would like to say to the gentleman that Asia Watch has not been 
accurate about a lot of this in the past. I do not believe they are 
accurate today about the human rights violations. I would cite that the 
American Conservative Union, no less, has a paper out today that I have 
in mind that says we should not be adopting your amendment, that things 
have changed with India, that we ought to look at the national and 
international strategic alliance that India's new vibrant democracy 
provides to us.
  While, yes, we do not want to put our heads in the sand about 
violations of human rights, we have to look out about America's 
national security interests first. We have to look at reality, which is 
India is emerging from the past. It is doing a good job now.
  We should defeat the Burton amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. McCollum was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I just want to say to my colleague that I have 
been to a lot of meetings with Christians and Muslims around this 
country. The Muslims are very sensitive because they feel like they are 
being depicted as terrorists. Probably 97, 98, 99 percent of them are 
very patriotic Americans and law abiding. I think it is real important 
that we in the Congress of the United States bear that in mind when we 
are debating issues of this magnitude.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would concur with 
the gentleman completely, and I agree. I do not make speeches anywhere 
where I do not say something similar to what he said. But that does not 
take

[[Page H5909]]

away from the fact that there is a messianic totalitarian movement of a 
minority of Muslims to control all Muslim governments in the world, and 
they are terrorists by nature in how they operate.
  They are involved in India. They are involved in wanting to thwart 
the United States interest in that part of the world, and they are 
involved in things like bombing the World Trade Center. We have that 
plus the relationships that I have described with India that we need to 
keep and maintain. The idea of going in and slapping India's face with 
this amendment tonight in the face of the need for the new 
relationships with India is wrong. I urge a vote against the Burton 
amendment.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana. This amendment is not a cutting amendment, 
rather, it is strictly an attempt to stigmatize India and I think the 
gentleman from Indiana has essentially said as much. This amendment 
will unfairly tie the hands of those agencies, including 
nongovernmental organizations, religious relief efforts, and AID 
receive U.S. Government assistance. This is the wrong amendment at the 
wrong time.
  Recently the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, 
which I cochair with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], hosted 
a briefing presented by Linda Morse, the India program director from 
United States AID. Miss Morse also briefed staff of the Asia and 
Pacific Subcommittee. What we learned was that the AID program in India 
supports economic growth, child survival, and environmental protection.
  At a time when India is 5 years into a economic reform program, the 
AID program in India is helping with privatization, deregulation, 
increased foreign investment, and development of capital markets and 
encouraging competition.
  In the past, the gentleman from Indiana has criticized India on human 
rights and he does so again tonight. Let me report that India's human 
rights record is steadily improving. An independent National Human 
Rights Commission with unprecedented powers has been established. The 
commission has been lauded by many international agencies, including 
our State Department, for its aggressiveness and independence.
  Again last year, the chairman of the Human Rights Commission, a 
former chief justice of India's Supreme Court, came to Capitol Hill, 
again under the auspices of the India Caucus and addressed Members and 
staff. I only wish the gentleman from Indiana had been there to hear 
about the great progress and what was said. This is the kind of 
development we would like to see happen in many of India's Asian 
neighbors.
  The Indian Human Rights Commission has won praise by our State 
Department. Assistant Secretary of State Robin Raphel says the 
commission ``has surprised the skeptics and begun to establish itself 
as an effective advocate for human rights.''
  During his visit to the United States last year, Mr. Misra, the 
chairman of India's National Human Rights Commission, met with 
representatives of Asia Watch, Amnesty International and the 
International Red Cross. He indicated that there will be progress on 
these organizations sending representatives to India. Clearly the steps 
taken by India to remedy human rights problems are far superior to the 
efforts of India's neighbors; I particularly mention Pakistan and 
China.
  Whether it is market reforms, democracy or human rights, time and 
again, it is India that is taking the lead in providing a model for 
other developing countries in Asia and throughout the world.
  What I find most disturbing about this amendment is that it set its 
sights on the wrong target. Under the guise of sending a message to the 
government of India, the amendment frustrates our ability to work with 
the Indian people to aid the poorest and neediest people in that 
country, and to make important economic reforms.
  An amendment offered in the name of human rights should not go after 
the humanitarian programs. This is not the right way to make America's 
moral persuasion felt around the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned that the debate over human rights 
in India, and specifically in Punjab and Kashmir, seems to focus 
entirely on one side of the issue. I do not want to get into a debate 
over which side did what, or who struck first or why. The important 
distinction is that the Indian Government is being held accountable for 
actions by its security forces while the separatist groups operate with 
no accountability at all. By cloaking themselves in the mantle of 
freedom fighters, these organizations reserve unto themselves the right 
to strike at civilian targets with impunity.

  Many of the militant organizations receive support, both moral and 
financial as well as arms, from other nations. Most importantly, 
Pakistan has frequently had links to terrorist organizations in India 
in a direct attempt to destabilize its neighbor.
  Under these conditions, imposing punishment on the Government of 
India will have the unmistakable effect of encouraging and emboldening 
those groups which seek by violent means to pursue their separatist 
agendas. This is the type of behavior we are going to be rewarding with 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment has nothing to do with what is really 
going on in India today, in 1996. We should reject this amendment. If 
it is necessary to make spending cuts and restructure AID, so be it. 
But let us base it on fair criteria, not unfairly singling out India 
for a symbolic slap on the wrist that this emerging country clearly 
does not deserve.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the Burton 
amendment. I agree with my good friend from Indiana that India has a 
very serious human rights problem in Kashmir and the Punjab. Amnesty 
International and Asia Watch have well-documented proof of torture, 
rape, and executions by Indian security forces.
  But we should not forget that these same human rights organizations 
also denounce the Muslim terrorists who receive crucial support from 
elements of the Pakistani Government.
  There are no excuses for India's security forces' serious 
misbehavior. But we must not lose sight of the context of which it is 
taking place. For the first time in India's history it shares a border 
with Communist China due to Beijing's illegal and violent occupation of 
Tibet. For this reason China fuels the fire between India and Pakistan 
by transferring nuclear weapons production technology and nuclear 
capable missiles to Pakistan.
  India and Kashmir are between a rock and a hard place. The situation 
is more complicated than what meets the eye. And while the security 
forces must be stopped from committing its outrageous and inexcusable 
abuses, we need to find another way to help end the suffering in 
Kashmir and the Punjab.
  Accordingly, I reluctantly oppose my good friend's amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the way the 
gentleman has presented his arguments. I would just like to ask one 
question rhetorically and that is this: If you lived in a neighborhood 
and you were a Muslim in Kashmir and they held you at gunpoint in your 
home and a bunch of soldiers took your wives down the street, out in 
the streets and gang raped them, do you think you would want to rebel 
and fight back?
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I certainly do, and that is why I 
criticized the Indian security forces for its abuses.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly urge a vote against any amendment 
that may be offered to freeze, cut, cap, or condition foreign 
assistance to India and particularly the amendment currently before the 
House.
  The Burton amendment, if it passes, will do damage to the growing 
economic and diplomatic relationship between the United States, the 
world's oldest democracy and India, the world's largest democracy.
  While the loss of even one precious life should always be a cause for 
our

[[Page H5910]]

concern, the human rights violations that have been alleged concerning 
India are greatly overstated.
  A 1995 human rights report by the State Department sharply 
contradicts many of the claims that are being made, particularly those 
claims about loss of life.
  That same 1995 report, moreover, also forcefully praised India for 
establishing an independent Human Rights Commission under the direction 
of a former Supreme Court Justice. To date, the Commission has 
prosecuted more than 200 human rights violations, convicting and 
imprisoning those security personnel found to be guilty of abuse.
  The relationship between the United States and India is growing 
stronger every day. The United States is now India's largest trading 
partner and largest investor. United States investment in India has 
grown by 500 percent in the past 5 years, from $500 million in 1991 to 
$5 billion this year. American companies, such as GE, Boeing, AT&T, 
Merrill Lynch, Motorola, and Amoco, are finding the Indian marketplace 
as large and as vibrant as the marketplace of China.
  Unlike China, however, India is a democracy, with the world's largest 
middle class, an active free press, enforceable property rights, and a 
common-law legal system.
  We should not retard the progress we have made with India during the 
past 5 years by passing the Burton amendment. There are elements in 
India who welcome the Burton amendment, elements who would turn back 
the clock of progress that has been made between our Nation and India. 
We must not play into their hands.
  I strongly urge you to vote no on any amendment that may be offered 
against India during consideration of the foreign operations bill.
  Vote ``no'' on the Burton amendment.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express opposition to the amendment offered 
by my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. The biggest 
concern I have is this amendment will ostracize India at a very 
critical point in time.
  India is moving forward, as others have said, on important economic 
reform programs, making it one of the most important big emerging 
markets. The United States is working to build a stronger relationship 
with India, and we are now India's largest overseas investor and 
trading partner.
  These steps have come about very strongly in the last 4 or 5 years. 
These steps help to bring India closer to the United States. This 
amendment, I believe, is needless and damaging to this progress that is 
being made to the relationship between the United States and India.
  India is a developing country, and it does have problems and the 
gentleman has alluded to those, as have others. But India is working to 
solve those problems. The Indian Government has taken important steps 
to end any abuse of human rights within its borders. It has, as others 
have mentioned, established an independent national human rights 
commission to investigate and prevent human rights abuse cases, as the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] stated a moment ago.
  Assistant Secretary of State Robin Raphel has said the Commission, 
and I will not repeat it entirely, but it has surprised the skeptics in 
a very, very strong way and has begun to establish itself as an 
effective advocate for human rights.
  India is bringing greater accountability to all government forces. 
And the Indian Government is allowing access for international efforts 
to monitor its progress. The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights 
has praised the advances India has made on human rights.
  I firmly believe that passing this amendment will risk jeopardizing 
our close ties with India. Damaging our relationship with India will 
weaken our ability to use the persuasion and cooperation that we have 
to help India move toward full democracy and development, and we can 
best encourage the resolution of the problems that face India by 
remaining involved, and this is one of those ways of remaining 
involved.
  This amendment will punish India for making significant efforts to 
correct its problems. This amendment will lead us to shutting ourselves 
out of involvement with the India Government and hinder our efforts to 
help create a prosperous and free country.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, briefly, the gentleman just said 
that U.N. Human Rights Commission said they were making real progress. 
I want to read to him one paragraph from the Washington Post on May 19, 
less than a month ago. They said Human Rights Watch Asia said State-
sponsored militias are committing grave human rights abuses, including 
summary executions, torture, and illegal detention in the only Muslim 
majority state in mostly Hindu India. This is less than 1 month ago.
  And if I might say one more thing briefly, and that is this. Does the 
gentleman really think not giving them an additional $8.3 million is 
going to hurt our economic ties with them?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the 
gentleman that we have been through that already this evening a number 
of times. I do not stand for that. I know the gentleman does not stand 
for that. Nobody stands for those kinds of things.
  The fact of the matter is we have something ongoing with India that 
can improve those situations. By slamming the door on India, we do not 
help that situation.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
want to commend him on his statement. I want to focus on two aspects of 
it.
  One, the world's largest democracy just had an election. In the 
Punjab, the source of tremendous strife, the source of terrorism, the 
source of massive state reaction to that terrorism, they have an 
election, a free election, where the Congress Party, the government in 
power during much of the strife, was thrown out of power, where a Sikh 
Coalition Alliance won almost all the seats in that province and it 
will now represent the State of Punjab in the Federal Parliament.
  It is the best example of the process of moving away from this kind 
of terror toward democratic participation. To come in now and cut the 
aid, not that goes to the Indian Government, but that goes to private 
voluntary organizations that are helping the poorest of the poor, and 
we are talking about 600 million poor people, malnourished, a terrible 
situation where they still manage to participate in a democratic 
process, to now take this niche out of the aid going to these people to 
me makes no sense, does not accomplish America's purposes, does not 
serve the people we try to help with foreign assistance, and I want to 
commend the gentleman for his statement.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Knollenberg] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Burton of Indiana, and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Knollenberg was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, let me say this. This is an 
article that is less than 1 month old. The gentleman talked about the 
free elections. On May 24, this is a report here in the Washington 
Newspapers, armed troops, armed troops herded Kashmirians to the polls 
yesterday for the rebellious state's first elections in 7 years, 
forcing Kashmirians to participate in an Indian Government election 
they wanted no part of.
  So they literally forced them to vote.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, my comments were directed to what happened 
in the State of Punjab, which is the area of India which the gentleman 
addressed his initial comments to when he spoke. There is no doubt the 
Indian Elections Commission has affirmed that there was coercion and 
intimidation in the vote in Kashmir.

[[Page H5911]]

  We can spend the next 2 hours talking about the miserable problems in 
Kashmir, the terrorism, the state militias that are wreaking havoc 
there, but let me tell the gentleman one interesting thing about the 
election in Kashmir.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Knollenberg] has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Berman and by unanimous consent, Mr. Knollenberg 
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, there was a 90-percent turnout in Jammu in 
the Hindu areas, and a 40-percent turnout in the rural areas of 
Kashmir. In Srinigar, which is the center of much of the strife, there 
was only 10 percent voting.
  As I said, the gentleman is correct, there was intimidation and 
force. But what was interesting is, when they went to the ballots, 
where there were secret ballots, no doubt about that, only 7 percent of 
the people who voted cast blank ballots or scribbled on them. The rest 
participated. Some of those people wanted to be able to go to the polls 
and were afraid what would happen if they went voluntarily.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Knollenberg] has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Burton of Indiana, and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Knollenberg was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if there is a gun pointed at an 
individual's back taking that person to the polls, and that person goes 
in and votes, they are not going to turn in a blank ballot. The 
gentleman knows that and I know that.
  When we talk about Punjab and Kashmir, we are talking about two areas 
that are very similar in many respects and not so similar in others, 
except in one respect, and that is there is torture and human rights 
violations going on by 1.1 million Indian troops, and that is the 
problem.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I used to serve in the State legislature many years ago 
with a man by the name of Harvey Dueholm. He was a Danish farmer. He 
looked like a basset hound. He had the strongest character of any human 
being I have ever known, and he had a lot of observations about life. 
And one of the things he said once is, he said, ``Did you ever notice 
that the poor and the rich get the same amount of ice, but the poor get 
theirs in the wintertime?''
  I think that really will be the result of the adoption of this 
amendment. I think India has a serious human rights problem, and I 
think we need to hold them to task on it at every opportunity.
  I greatly respect the legitimate concerns expressed by the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. I know he is sincere. But I just have to say 
that when we pick up a gun, it is nice, if we are hunting a rabbit, 
that we hit the right target. It does not help if we are trying to 
reform the conduct of the government that we wind up hurting the folks 
who are doing the most to try to change some of the nastiest aspects of 
any society. That is what I think this amendment would do.
  I am also struck, frankly, by the fact that in this part of the world 
there are only two or three major players. India is a major player and 
China is a major player. I have to tell my colleagues that I am a whole 
lot more frustrated right now by the conduct of China than I am India, 
with all of the failings that they have demonstrated.
  I wonder how many people will vote for this amendment tonight and 
then, when Most Favored Nation status is brought up for China, will 
then turn and vote to grant China most-favored-nation status, in spite 
of the fact that they employ slave labor, in spite of the fact that a 
large number of American workers have seen their jobs put at risk 
because of products produced by that slave labor that then wind up in 
this country. It just seems to me that that would be a quaint double 
standard.
  So I would suggest that we remember that if we are going to try to 
change conduct, that we focus on actions which will, in fact, have that 
effect and not the opposite effect. I think the amendment being offered 
tonight will have the opposite of that which is intended, and that is 
why, while I do not think that in terms of a United States-India 
relationship $8 or $9 or $10 million one way or another is going to 
make that big an impact, I do think that the mindset that it 
demonstrates is not one which is easily explainable.
  I would, therefore, urge that we oppose the amendment, and I would 
urge that we support the gentleman from Alabama in his resistance to 
the amendment.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to urge my colleagues to oppose my friend from 
Indiana's amendment. I am convinced that most of what should be said 
has already been said tonight. I am worried that the adoption of this 
amendment would play into the hands of elements in India who would like 
to turn back the clock on the economic improvements and reforms that 
have led to our improving relationships and also turn back the hands on 
an improving human rights record.
  Nobody is here to defend the human rights record of the State of 
India forever, but we must admit, even as our State Department has, the 
human rights report that substantial progress has been made in the area 
of human rights. India has an Independent Human Rights Commission, 
which is headed by a former justice of the Indian Supreme Court. Last 
year it prosecuted more than 200 human rights violations. The State 
Department has applauded this commission's independence and 
aggressiveness.
  There are human rights abuses across this globe, including on behalf 
of some of India's most close neighbors. None of that can be defended, 
but we should not be punitive. We should not single out a nation to try 
to make a political point here. There is no question that improvements 
must be made, but India, the largest democracy in the world, has done 
more than any other nation in that part of the globe to bring in 
disparate ethnic groups and include them in the electoral process, give 
them opportunities to be heard, such as we just heard from the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], about the Punjab, to be heard 
not only publicly but with the vote.

                              {time}  2045

  No nation in that part of the world has done as much as India has 
done to include ethnic diversity in their political processes. They 
should not be punished for trying to do well. They should be criticized 
for not doing well enough yet, but they are doing far better than some 
of their neighbors.
  I would urge Members to defeat the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Indiana.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that there are human rights problems 
in India, that one would deny that, but that is true of many countries 
around the world. In fact, anyone who travels around the world or even 
reads the newspapers knows that in virtually any country you can find 
examples of human rights violations. We ought not to overlook them. We 
ought to be doing everything we can to have them corrected by those 
countries in which they are occurring. And I think that that is 
precisely what is being done in the case of India.
  I think that this country is trying to deal with some very difficult 
and very complex problems. After all, it is a young country. It has 
been in existence for less than 50 years. It comes out of a colonial 
background, but it is a country with which we have much in common. 
Obviously, there is the commonality of language. We have the English 
language in common.
  We also have the commonality of governance. We are two democracies. 
We have much in common with this country, and we need to encourage the 
creation and development of democratic principles in India, where, in 
fact, in comparison to many other countries around the world, they are 
flourishing.
  To cut this aid at this particular time flies in the face of all of 
that effort. It would make it more difficult

[[Page H5912]]

for India to achieve the full democratization of its institutions, and 
it would also, in fact, not lessen human rights violations in that 
country but, in fact, it would in all likelihood make them worse. So 
while I very much respect our friend and colleague from Indiana and 
respect what he is doing and respect the motivation which gives birth 
to this amendment, nevertheless, I find myself in strong disagreement 
with it, because I think from his point of view as well as from the 
point of view of most Americans as well as from the point of view of 
India and most Indians, it would be counterproductive. It would, in 
fact, not reduce human rights violations but it would, in fact, 
increase them.
  This is a huge country, a country of 900 million people, almost a 
billion people. It will, sometime in the next century, supplant China 
as the most populous country in the world. They need the help of other 
countries, particularly democratic countries with which they share 
common beliefs and common principles and common traditions. That is 
true of our relationship with India, and we ought to continue to assist 
them in whatever way we possibly can, particularly with this form of 
aid.
  While I very much appreciate the motivation of my friend and 
colleague from Indiana, I must reluctantly say that it would accomplish 
the wrong thing. Therefore, I am in opposition to it.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman on his 
fine statement. The words that have been said by the chairman and 
ranking member of this committee are the advice that we should follow 
tonight. Let us not kick our old friend India at this very crucial 
point in the transition of its government. India is our friend. They 
have been our friend for a long time and are becoming even closer to 
America as time progresses.
  It is important that we heed the advice of the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of the authorizing committee. India has 
stood with us and is a bulwark against even China today, as China 
encourages and helps Pakistan with nuclear weapons and ring magnets and 
other things that we know it should not be trading. India is trying to 
open itself up to outside investment. I know there have been human 
rights problems in that Punjab area. We all need to counsel our friends 
in India because of that, but this House basically is a friend of 
India. Let us not blemish that record here tonight by kicking this 
country in the teeth with even a symbolic diminution of the small aid 
that we have given.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his sensitive 
and sensible words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews].
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise 
in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my friend from 
Indiana.
  I rise in opposition because there are very few things we can be 
certain about in this world, but there are some things we can be 
certain about. The first is that Asia will be an incredibly important 
area of the world for our country for years to come, and there is no 
credible Asia strategy for America that does not include a strong 
relationship with India, potentially as a counterbalance to the 
People's Republic of China but for the relationship in and of itself.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Brown of Ohio, and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Hinchey was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, the second argument is that there is no 
scenario for the future of our economy that does not include increased 
global trade, and there is no trade strategy that does not focus upon 
enhanced trade with India.
  Another thing we can be sure of is the fact that people all over the 
world are watching what we do here. They watched as 1 in 10 citizens of 
the world voted in a free and fair election in India. If we reward that 
desirable conduct with this undesirable amendment, we will be 
abandoning our own principles. For these reasons and others, I would 
strongly urge a vote in opposition to the Burton amendment.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I often agree with the gentleman from Indiana. In fact, 
we have worked together many times to cut waste, fraud, and abuse from 
Federal Government programs.
  We work on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. In fact, 
when we work together and we slay dragons together, the dragons usually 
have a bad day. But I rise tonight really in opposition to the good 
gentleman's amendment and it is with some hesitation. I respect his 
opinion.
  Mr. Chairman, no one supports human rights violations in India or in 
any other country. Unfortunately, human rights violations occur there, 
they occur in the United States. And they occur in numerous other 
nations.
  In fact, I brought with me tonight, and some of my colleagues have 
seen it referred to, this 1996 report by Amnesty International. It 
details dozens of countries that have been recipients of the United 
States foreign assistance and their violations.
  Let me read a few of these. Egypt, one of the top recipients, just a 
few of the violations: Detention of thousands of political opponents, 
systematic use of torture against political detainees, increased number 
of political detainees who died while in custody, deliberate and 
arbitrary killings by armed opposition groups.
  Let me read just a couple more, if I may, here.
  Saudi Arabia, another huge recipient: Arrest and detention of 
suspected political opponents, torture and ill treatment during 
pretrial detention, alarming upsurge in numbers of executions, wide use 
of judicial punishments by flogging and amputations.
  Then we go to Bolivia, which we support assistance to and we are 
going to be working for: Arbitrary detentions, torture and ill 
treatment, rape, the same types of offenses, extrajudicial executions. 
The list goes on.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, why should we single out India 
in this fashion? This amendment will, in fact, hurt our ability to 
assist a close ally, to assist in the situation that we have a problem 
in. It will hurt us with a great trading partner.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, we can do much more, I submit, by 
calling attention to human rights violations whether they are in India 
or anywhere else in the world.
  If we recognize differences, if we promote democratic institutions, 
if we increase trade, exchanges, communications, tonight we do not need 
to embarrass by singling out the world's largest democracy in this 
fashion. We must recognize the strides India has taken. We must help 
India now as it changes its government in this most historic election 
and this most historic fashion that we have seen the election take 
place the last few weeks.
  Let us tonight not take a step backward in our relationship with 
India. I admire the gentleman's interest. I opposed his potentially 
damaging amendment. As India steps forward, we do not need to be a 
Congress stepping backward.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
I have about a minute left.
  I rise in opposition to the Burton amendment. I have to say tonight 
that there are a lot of people that have come on the floor to speak 
against it. So I think this is the third time the gentleman has offered 
it. Certainly, I think the feeling is that this amendment certainly 
would not be appropriate after they have had their largest election in 
world history in which about half a billion people have voted.
  I think most people would regard the election as universally free and 
fair. And I think, as William Safire of the New York Times put it: ``It 
is the most breathtaking example of government by the people in the 
history of the world.''
  Every year I offer a resolution, a House Resolution to recognize 
India's national independence. This is the 49th

[[Page H5913]]

year. I think now is not the time to pass a personal affront to this 
country when they have been so successful a democracy. I urge the 
defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, my colleague mentioned that 
there were a number of countries that had human rights violations that 
were getting our aid. I would like to say to my colleague, I have no 
objection whatsoever to him or any Member of this body proposing a cut 
in aid to any country that violates human rights, that violates women's 
rights, that gang rapes women and tortures people and throws them into 
rivers with their hands bound, and gagged. I think that those kinds of 
countries should be penalized. We should hold them up to public 
scrutiny throughout the world.
  When we talk about Egypt torturing people, I will support the 
gentleman's amendment if he wants to cut some of their aid.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, with this strong array of Members coming to the floor 
to oppose Mr. Burton's amendment, I have been trying to figure out what 
this is really all about. I think it was said during the opening 
minutes of this discussion by Mr. Burton himself, I think those Members 
who are interested in cutting aid of any kind have to listen to what 
Mr. Burton said.
  This is not about cutting aid, because no money is saved here. Not 
one dollar, not one penny, not one rupee is saved. What this does is it 
just limits the amount of money India can take out of an existing pot.
  We are all against human rights abuses, Mr. Chairman. We are all 
offended by the kind of things that we see in the pictures that Mr. 
Burton has brought before us. But I have to tell Members, when he says 
things or anybody says things over and over and over again, that does 
not make it so; and it does not necessarily make it true.
  We were all horrified by that picture that was up on the easel. Mr. 
Chairman, looking at the speaker, looking at the picture and hearing 
the words that this is the abuse that is taking place in India today 
right at this minute, that is the same picture we saw last year when we 
heard the same story. I have seen that same picture, 3 years in a row. 
I have even seen pictures that Members from the other side bring me 
that Members, say, the other terrorist did this and this is one of our 
guys. Three years in a row that guy died. Unless he is triplets, I am 
not sure what is guy died.
  I do not mean to make light about violations of human rights. But to 
say that this is going on and sponsored by the Government of India is 
not necessarily what is happening, Mr. Chairman.

                              {time}  2100

  This amendment, which is not a cutting amendment, admittedly, by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], is meant solely and strictly to 
stigmatize a sister democracy, and that is not what we should be doing. 
India, according to the human rights report that Mr. Burton cited, and 
I will quote it, India, quote, ``has made significant progress in 
resolving human rights problems,'' end of quote. The Indian Government 
has responded to our initiative when we objected to one of the bills 
that they have, their Terrorist Destructive Activities Act. They no 
longer have that.
  Contrary to what our colleagues heard, the Indian Government has 
reached agreement with the International Committee of the Red Cross to 
permit visits to Kashmir. I visited Kashmir; I visited Kashmir again. 
Many Members of this body were there. My colleagues heard that we were 
escorted and monitored by Indian troops. I visited with the very people 
who oppose the Indian Government, I had dinner in their homes, I met 
with their council, I met with every single opposition group in 
Kashmir. I was stuck there during a blizzard in January. I met with 
more people I had not intended to meet with, and not once in the 
presence of Indian troops, and not once was anybody restrained in what 
they had to say to me.
  The insurgent violence in Punjab has largely disappeared, and there 
is visible progress in correcting the abusive practices by the police 
which has occurred. The National Human Rights Commission continues to 
play a useful role in addressing whatever patterns of abuse and 
specific abuses there might be. Last year the commission, which was not 
even referenced by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], prosecuted 
more than 200 cases.
  Economic reforms: India has done everything that we have asked of 
her. Since 1991 the Indian Government has substantially reduced 
inflation. Their budget deficit has been reduced. They have privatized. 
They have cut subsidies to inefficient state owned industries. They 
made the rupee convertible.
  In international trade they reduced tariffs and industrial licensing 
controls in order to attract foreign investment, and, as a result, 
United States investment in India, Americans investing over there as we 
do in all strong democracies, has gone from $500 million a year in 1991 
to $5 billion this year alone. That is a thousand percent increase. 
That is the kind of confidence the American business people have in 
India and the reforms that are going on there. The United States is 
India's largest trading partner and largest investor.
  The democracy issue is probably the most important issue of all. 
India is, as has been stated, the world's largest democracy. They have 
a free press, they have civilian control of the military, they have an 
independent judiciary, they have active political parties and civic 
associations. The election that we have just seen was really ho-hum. It 
did not take a lot of attention.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Ackerman was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. ACKERMAN. An election that did not gain that much attention 
because there were no very serious violent abuses during the entire 
electoral process. Over 400 million people going to the polls 
democratically, even turning out the controlling government 2 weeks 
ago. That is democracy in action. One out of every ten people on the 
planet going to vote; imagine that.
  At a point where India is struggling to form a coalition government 
right now, this is a terrible message to send. There are only very, 
very few countries within the purview of this legislation that we look 
to cap in any way from the pot of money that is provided. Those 
countries include North Korea, the Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. 
Certainly not even the most ardent of India-bashers can come to the 
floor and seriously suggest that the world's largest democracy, and 
getting more democratic all the time, belongs with such a group.
  This is an attempt to stigmatize and not an attempt to legislate.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the 
Burton amendment. I know that some members of the committee may think 
that the debate is going on for some time here, but I think it is 
important for the sponsor of the amendment, the American people, the 
Congress, to understand the depth of support for India, for improved 
American-Indian relations, for Indian democracy and for improvements in 
civil and human rights that are underway in India.
  The Burton amendment should be opposed for many reasons. One 
important consideration is the fact that in April and May of 1996, as 
mentioned here, India conducted the largest democratic election in the 
history of the world. In a monumental undertaking of more than 640 
million eligible voters, about 65 percent of whom took the time to 
vote, the Indian electorate chose a new parliament in elections that 
were widely judged to be free, fair, and largely peaceful.
  Mr. Chairman, for the United States to respond to this remarkable 
accomplishment by the world's largest democracy by passing the Burton 
amendment will send to India and to the rest

[[Page H5914]]

of the world precisely the wrong signals about United States support 
for Indian democracy. This Burton amendment would prove to be the most 
expensive $8 million amendment ever approved. It is important that it 
be rejected overwhelmingly.

  In addition, the new Indian Government is headed by Prime Minister 
H.D. Deve Gowda, the leader of the United Front, a coalition of center, 
center left, and regional parties. The leadership of this new 
government is at the very moment hammering out policies on a number of 
issues of great interest to the United States, including the fate of 
economic reform, India's nuclear program, its policies toward Pakistan, 
and other neighbors.
  Although the proposed change is a small one in dollar terms, for 
Congress to single out India in this fashion at this time will, for 
symbolic reasons, have a very negative impact on United States-Indian 
relations that would be disproportionate to the amount of money 
involved. At a minimum, any cut in United States development assistance 
to India at this critical juncture, apart from a broad cut in the 
overall development assistance account, could severely damage the 
spirit of cooperation the United States should be establishing with the 
new Indian Government.
  Although a number of parties which support the United Front 
government have a long tradition of left-leaning economic policies, 
Prime Minister Gowda has expressed strong support for the economic 
reforms begun under the government of former Prime Minister Rao. Early 
evidence of Prime Minister Gowda's intention have been the naming of a 
highly progressive U.S.-educated finance minister who is extremely 
supportive of the economic reforms begun in the 1990's as a commerce 
minister in the Rao government.
  Current and ongoing United States development assistance provides 
important support for India's effort to open its economy to trade and 
investment. Included are programs that promote private sector 
involvement in energy production and distribution, United States-India 
commerce, technology joint ventures, programs to provide urban areas 
with badly needed infrastructure, and assistance for Indian enterprises 
attempting to restructure and become competitive.
  Although India is beginning to push forward economically, it remains 
a very poor country with millions of people still well below the 
poverty line. In fact, half the world's poor people, very, very poor 
people, live in India today. The United States development assistance 
program focusing on family planning, preventive health care, and 
nutrition are very critical areas that support the Indian family.
  Now, the number of political parties that comprise the United Front 
represent the millions of people who make up India's poorest of the 
poor groups, minorities, members of the lower caste, those that were 
once called the untouchables. A diminution, symbolic or otherwise, of 
U.S. development assistance that would benefit these groups would 
certainly send a wrong message to a part of the leadership of the new 
government.
  There has been strong evidence that the Gowda government intends to 
hold talks with the leaders of the Kashmiri separatist movement to seek 
a peaceful and just solution to the Kashmir crisis. V.P. Singh, a major 
United Front leader and the former Indian Prime Minister, visited 
Kashmir during the election campaign. He has promised talks with the 
separatists as well as an offer of political, social, and economic 
peace package.
  Prime Minister Gowda has promised to take steps to improve relations 
with Pakistan. On May 31, Gowda said quote: ``As far as Pakistan is 
concerned, I have an open mind. I will definitely take an initiative to 
diffuse the tension between the two countries,'' end of quote. The 
United States should do nothing to undercut the new Indian Government's 
efforts to initiate rapprochement with Pakistan by sending a negative 
message via cuts in development assistance.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Bereuter was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Asia and the Pacific, I called our senior career ambassador to India 
today, Ambassador Frank Wisner. He said the Burton amendment would 
quote, ``send a very negative message,'' close quote, to a newly 
elected government in India, and as pointed out by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman], democracy, it would seem very specifically 
supportive of the dissident forces in Punjab, has been vindicated, a 
step in the right direction.
  The same is true of the direction of the vote in Kashmir. These are 
two very favorable signs for improving the situation there.
  Finally, let me close by quoting briefly from a letter from the 
political director of the American Conservative Union. He says about 
the Burton amendment:

       It would be interpreted as a gratuitous slap, and could 
     even contribute to undermining the fragile coalition 
     government that just assumed power--possibly bringing to 
     power a government dominated by the very people Mr. Burton 
     professes to opposes.

  I urge my colleagues to cast a strong, strong vote against the Burton 
amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Burton amendment. It is the wrong 
amendment at the wrong time. The issue, Mr. Chairman, is that there has 
been, particularly over the last 5 years, there has been great progress 
in India. There has been progress in the area of human rights. Time and 
again we hear about the national human rights commission that the 
Indians have established, that they have actually prosecuted human 
rights violations, some 200 in India, that they have had it up to human 
rights commission with a former justice of the Indian supreme court, 
that our State Department has recognized progress in Indian human 
rights.
  In the last 5 years India's economy has liberalized greatly; market 
reforms, free and open markets. It is a country that has welcomed 
American investment to the tune of $5 billion.
  I have been to India, I have been to Bombay, and Delhi and Amritsar 
and seen the kind of progress they have made both in human rights by 
talking to people at the Golden Temple in Amritsar and talking to 
people, as my friend from New York, Mr. Ackerman said, that are 
opponents of the Indian Government, but nonetheless will say that, yes, 
in fact major human rights progress has been made. The same people who 
again are opposed to the present government in India as of 3 months 
ago, the Congress party, will again talk about the progress that has 
been made in economic liberalization.
  There has also been major progress in India in the last 5 years in 
building a stable democracy, as has been pointed out on the floor over 
and over and over again. India just conducted the largest, the greatest 
election, the most wide-ranging election, the most participatory 
election in the history of humankind. Some 500 million people voted. 
That says to me again in the last 5 years India has made major 
progress.
  The other area of great improvement in India the last 5 years is what 
India means to the United States. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] talked abut the major players in Asia or India in China. India is 
a much more reliable ally. India is a country that, as has been said 
repeatedly, is the largest democracy in the world. India is a country 
that we can rely on for strategic reasons for the United States. This 
is just putting the thumb in the eye of the Indian people and a thumb 
in the eye of the Indian Government by sending this message to India 
that, no, the United States does not appreciate the kind of progress 
that India has made in the last 5 years.

  Again it is the second largest democracy--it is the largest democracy 
in the world; it is the second largest nation in the world. As the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] said, it is very, very important 
strategically for us as a nation in South Asia and what that means to 
us. And India, again, is a democracy. We do not treat a democracy this 
way; we work with that country, we see the kind of progress that India 
has made in the area of human rights and the kind of progress India has 
made in their economy and the

[[Page H5915]]

kind of progress India has made as a democracy and the kind of progress 
India has made as a friend of the United States.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I have been pretty silent during this 
debate, and reasonably neutral, but I must bring to my colleague's 
attention the fact that in New Delhi today they are building SU-34's, 
they are building MiG-29's, and they are building T-80's. They have, 
throughout the cold war, allied themselves in the Soviet Union. So I 
think it is a little bit of a stretch to call them an ally.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Taking back my time, Mr. Chairman, my friend, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], brings up a good point. But that 
only proves my point that in the last 5 years India has made progress. 
The pro-Pakistani tilt at the State Department has begun to right 
itself. As we have seen as we have extended an arm to India and they 
have to us, they are becoming much more of an ally to us. They will 
become much more of an ally to us as we begin to treat them with 
respect and treat them as the kind of ally they should be.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I would say we have always treated them 
with respect. We should continue to treat them with respect. But they 
continue to be a military ally of Russia, and I would submit, although 
I am not sure how I am going to vote on this amendment, I would submit 
that if the Soviet Union should be born again, that India would again 
be closely allied because of their military alliances.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Taking back my time, Mr. Chairman, I absolutely 
reject that thinking, when India has become a more and more liberalized 
economy, an economy much more in line with ours, an economy which has 
welcomed $5 million in American investment, an economy in which, if we 
continue to sell arms to Pakistan, a whole other debate, then perhaps 
we might drive them a little more away.
  But the last time I checked, the cold war was over. We need to make 
friends with these countries like India that were not necessarily our 
friends before. This is a golden opportunity to reach out to India and 
make friends with India. If we pass the balanced budget amendment, and 
the Soviet Union is reborn in some form, as the gentleman suggests, he 
can be sure India will turn back to them. Do not let this opportunity 
pass to be friends with them in a bigger way.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr.Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Burton amendment to 
freeze the foreign aid levels we give to India to last year's levels, 
which is basically an $8 billion cut.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, let us make it really clear; India is 
not, N-O-T, not an old friend of the United States. The gentleman from 
Texas, Charlie Wilson, was absolutely correct, and I guess everybody 
else in this House has amnesia, but throughout the entire cold war 
India kicked us in the teeth every time they got a chance to do so. 
When we were down, they kicked us in the gut. When we turned around to 
protect ourselves, they kicked us in the back, and they accepted our 
money the whole time; and especially they wanted the money to come from 
the United Nations, from us to the United Nations, so they would not 
even have to show any gratitude to the United States for accepting all 
of our hundreds of millions of dollars of aid while they were kicking 
us in the teeth and supporting the Soviet Union's aggression in 
Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world.
  Mr. Chairman, India receives more aid right now, $156 million, and 
votes against us more than any other country in the United Nations. 
That is 83 percent of the votes in the United Nations are against our 
position. That is their level of support against us, while getting $156 
million in aid from us.
  Indian should not even be getting any aid, much less just a simple 
little cut of $8 million. They take our aid, our hundreds of millions 
of dollars; and do Members know what they do with their own money? They 
are building nuclear weapons. That is what it is all about. We give 
them humanitarian aid so they do not have to spend their own money on 
their people, and then they spend it on nuclear weapons. Good deal, is 
it not?
  Mr. Chairman, we are being Uncle Saps here if we are giving that type 
of country money from us so they can build nuclear weapons, and to 
intimidate their neighbors or whatever. But that is not the question 
tonight. We are not going to end all aid to India. We just want to send 
a little message, $8 million worth of message, cutting off aid by $8 
million, to say ``Please clean up your human rights abuse in the 
Kashmir.''
  Come on, folks, we can call these people terrorists in the Kashmir, 
but the real problem we all know is, and no one wants to say it, is 
that India has refused to hold an honest plebescite, as they were 
required to do by the United Nations, for the last 40 years. If the 
people of Kashmir had a right to vote on their own destiny, they would 
probably vote not to be part of India and there would be no conflict. 
There would be no excuse for 1 million Indian soldiers to be stationed 
up in northern India to repress those people who want nothing more than 
a right to vote as to whether to be a part of India or not, which is 
what the United Nations required them to do.
  India has been condemned by Amnesty International, by Asia Watch, by 
people, honest people who are looking and trying to support human 
rights around the world. They have been condemned over and over and 
over again. The examples given by the gentleman form Indiana are only a 
few examples. These people are trying to fight for their rights in the 
Kashmir, and as a reaction, the Indians are saying ``we are not going 
to let them get away with it,'' so they are condoning monstrous human 
rights abuse against the people of Kashmir.
  It can be stopped very easily. Let those people in the Kashmir 
determine their own destiny through the ballot box, rather than through 
bullets. That is the bottom line. If we do that, if we insist on that, 
if we send that message tonight with this little tiny cut of $8 
million, I will tell the Members this much: The tensions on the 
subcontinent will subside. We will have done what is right, and in the 
long run it will create a more peaceful world because the people of 
Kashmir will have their right to vote and there will be no excuse for 
the violence that exists there today.

  Mr. Chairman, I plead with all of the Members, come on, let us get 
beyond all of this rhetoric. Let us not talk about India as our old 
friend, or create some false images of how we have to help this 
developing country. Let us get down to the facts. Let us get down to we 
must stand for human rights there and elsewhere, because it furthers 
the cause of peace to do so. Let us send that message to India. Please, 
end the repression, give those people a right to vote on their own 
destiny, $8 million.
  Instead, what we are going to do is send them a message that they can 
do anything they want to and they are going to get hundreds of millions 
of dollars of aid from the American taxpayers. That is not the message 
we should send.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Wilson, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Rohrabacher 
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I just cannot let these things go without 
being spread on the record. As I say, Mr. Chairman, I do not have 
extremely strong feelings about this amendment, but some things must be 
said. I would ask the gentleman, who I know with great personal courage 
visited Afghanistan many times, but Afghanistan was a major, major, 
major, major conflict in the cold war. I would ask the gentleman if he 
remembers and agrees with me that in every instance, in every instance, 
India supported the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Not only did they support the Russian invasion but 
during the war Indian pilots, we were told, were actually flying 
missions in

[[Page H5916]]

Afghanistan for the Communist-supported government.
  Mr. WILSON. Would the gentleman remember that Najibullah was received 
with great honors as the head of state in India?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is correct.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, again, I must repeat that as we speak 
tonight, SU-34s, MIG-29s, and T-80s are being built in New Delhi. Does 
that sound like an ally to the gentleman?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Not only are they being built in New Delhi, but we 
are giving them $150 million in aid, so who is actually paying for 
that, indirectly?
  Mr. WILSON. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just say 
this. The questions the gentleman from Indiana asked are very relevant 
questions. They are: ``What would you do if it was your wife that was 
gang raped? What would you do if it was your child that was murdered 
and dragged through the neighborhood as a symbol to the neighborhood 
not to resist the Indian authorities?''
  Why that is relevant is because if we Americans were denied the right 
to choose our own destiny through a free election, if we were denied 
that right, we too would resist, and perhaps those people that we were 
resisting would use the same type of brutality and ugly repression that 
the people of Kashmir have had to suffer, and we, our families, would 
be the ones being dragged through the streets and the women raped in 
such a way. We cannot let this sit. Standing for freedom, standing for 
human rights, insisting that this $8 million be cut out as a message to 
India is not only right morally, but will help create a more peaceful 
world.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana appears to have a noble 
purpose--to focus the attention of the House on human rights abuses.
  But despite his intentions, the amendment will do great harm to the 
very people it purports to help. And the timing of the amendment could 
not be worse.
  Yes, India has had problems with human rights in the past. Yes, there 
are still incidents. But this nation--this democracy--has taken 
exceptionally strong steps forward.
  India's Human Rights Commission, headed by the former Supreme Court 
Justice, has been hailed by the State Department for its ``significant 
progress in resolving human rights problems.''
  Freezing developmental assistance would hurt the poorest of the poor 
in India. The amendment would directly undermine the stated objectives 
of India's newly elected Prime Minister to improve the living 
conditions of the country's poorest citizens.
  And finally, this amendment would be an enormous blow to United 
States-Indian relations at the very moment when we should be 
strengthening ties between our two democracies.
  India just completed a historic election. Nearly a tenth of the 
entire population of the globe went to the polls in what the New York 
Times' William Safire called ``the most breathtaking example of 
government by people in the history of the world.''
  This momentous free and fair election must be rewarded. It must be 
held out as a shining example of how democracy can work. We must not 
pass a punitive anti-India amendment on the heels of this election.
  United States-India relations are strong. American businesses are 
flourishing in India. Let's send the world's most populous democracy 
the right message. Let's vote for progress in India. Let's vote for 
democracy.
  I ask my colleagues to oppose the Burton amendment.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have listened to much of the debate. I am amazed. The 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] is only seeking to freeze the aid 
we give India at this year's level. All he is saying is what we are 
giving them now is what we will give them next year, which means they 
are going to get $48 million in this particular category.
  It is good that India has had a change of government. That is very 
recent. We ought to take at least a wait-and-see attitude, and give 
them a year to perform before we increase the aid, borrowing money 
which we do not have to give away to foreign countries which, like this 
one, have not been very loyal supporters of the United States. In fact, 
they have been charged with and have been found to have committed 
serious human rights abuses, including the extensive taking of innocent 
human life.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just restate 
what my colleague has stated. That is that we are not cutting aid to 
India. We are going to give them the same amount of developmental aid 
we did last year. We are just not giving them an $8.3 million increase, 
and we are doing that to send them a message. A lot of my colleagues 
have just said this is going to be a cataclysmic experience if we do 
this. That does not make any sense. My colleagues know it.
  The fact of the matter is that all we want to do is send a signal 
that the United States will not tolerate these human rights abuses. 
Some of my colleagues have talked about Libya and other terrorist 
states and the kinds of human rights abuses that are going on there. 
They are right, there are horrible human rights abuses. But we do not 
give them aid. Wherever we do give aid and there are human rights 
abuses, we should cut that aid to send a signal. We are our brother's 
keeper.
  Almost every speaker who spoke here tonight has admitted there are 
human rights abuses in Kashmir, Punjab, Jagaland and elsewhere in 
India. So we know what is going on. They say there is a human rights 
commission in India. What would you expect them to say? They are 
government-sponsored. They are going to say things are getting better.
  But listen to what the paper said just last week. This is the 
Washington Post:

       Human Rights Watch Asia said state-sponsored militias are 
     committing grave human rights abuses, including summary 
     executions, torture, and illegal detention in the only Muslim 
     majority state in mostly Hindu India, and it is going on in 
     Punjab as well.

  Let me say to my colleagues one more time: Put yourself in the place 
of people who live in Punjab, Kashmir, Nagaland, and elsewhere in 
India. You have got a wife. You have got a kid. You have got a son. You 
have got a husband. They take your husband out in the middle of the 
night and you do not see him again. They find his body in a canal with 
his hands wrapped together and a gag in his mouth. Your wife is taken 
out in the middle of the night, they hold you at gunpoint and they take 
her out and gang rape her, because they know it is going to hurt her 
and you and everybody else, because of your Muslim beliefs. Those 
things are going on today. They take your son out and they remove a 
kidney because they want to use that for somebody that needs a kidney 
transplant, and that has happened as well.

  These are not happening in the past, as many of my colleagues have 
said. They are going on today, right this minute. There are 550,000 
troops in Kashmir and Punjab, and these things are going on as we 
speak.

                              {time}  2130

  So I just want to say to my colleagues tonight, if you care about 
your brothers around the world, if you care about human rights, I am 
not asking for the moon, I am just saying, do not give them any more 
money than you gave them last year. And the American taxpayers will 
applaud you for it. Because they do not want you to give that 
additional money anyhow. And all you are going to be doing by cutting a 
paltry $8.3 million is sending a signal. We do not want any more gang 
rapes for women. You would not want them in the United States. We do 
not want any torture, throwing people in canals with their hands bound 
and gagged. We want that to end, we want your government to stop these 
things and if you do that, we will applaud you and we will start 
working with you.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. I

[[Page H5917]]

know the hour is late and this has been debated, but we are talking 
about the largest democracy in the world and our relationship with that 
democracy, and a new government that is being elected there, and what 
in fact we do has meaning to that new government, and I think the 
debate is important.
  Mr. Chairman, every year in the foreign operations authorization 
bill, Members are presented with the same amendment to punish India, a 
secular democracy.
  It is wrong to vote for this amendment this year in particular. India 
has just completed its 11th general elections. Mr. Chairman, these were 
fair and free elections in which over 350 million Indian citizens voted 
and elected a new government.
  Speakers for this amendment will cite examples of human rights 
abuses, cold war, dollars to many of previously cold war countries. 
Well, let me take this opportunity to cite examples of Indian voters 
who rejected the agenda of separatists at the ballot box in Punjab. In 
this state, where violence was common in the 1980s and early 1990s, 
70 percent of the eligible voters chose to support moderate parties 
over separatist ones.

  In Jammu and Kashmir, approximately 40 percent of the eligible voters 
defied the death threats of armed militants to cast their ballots. In 
many cases these militants do not even come from Jammu and Kashmir. 
According to the State Department's ``Global Report on Terrorism for 
1995,'' Pakistan was the base for many terrorist groups operating in 
Kashmir, and Indian authorities have detained Mujahedin from Sudan, 
Afghanistan and Pakistan. These are the same types of militants who are 
still holding 4 Western hostages captive, including Donald Hutchings of 
Spokane, Washington. The same militants who beheaded a Norwegian 
hostage last August.
  Why is this amendment to cap assistance to the world's largest 
democracy being offered?
  The Government of India has taken positive steps to address concerns 
raised by the United States in regards to human rights. In October 
1993, India established a National Human Rights Commission. According 
to the 1995 State Department Human Rights Report ``the National Human 
Rights Commission continues to play a useful role in addressing 
patterns of abuse, as well as specific abuses, and is consolidating an 
attitudinal shift toward acknowledgement of human rights problems.''
  The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, special 
security legislation under which people had been held without charges, 
was allowed to lapse in May 1995. This amendment tries to inflict 
punishment on a country that has made significant progress in resolving 
its human rights problems.
  Let me remind Members of the violence that exists in parts of India. 
Separatist militant groups and terrorists caused hundreds of deaths in 
1995. These were all politically motivated killings that targeted 
civilians and community leaders who dared to call for an end to the 
violence. In Kashmir, terrorist threats have disrupted the judicial 
system, including the assassination of judges and witnesses. Many of 
these armed militants support secession from India and try to scuttle 
any progress towards a political process and dialog.

  By supporting this amendment, we would only be hurting ties between 
the United States and India, the world's two largest democracies. The 
punitive nature of this amendment would only serve to isolate India, 
diminish the prospects for constructive dialog and add to the misery of 
the poorest and most desperate people in India.
  Isolation of India would eradicate the potential for even greater 
economic and political changes and ties between the United States and 
India. So let us promote democracy in India, let us continue the 
progress that we have said as a country it is making in human rights. 
Let us vote against the Burton amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 
seconds.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply take this time to say that it 
is my understanding, and I think it is the understanding of the 
gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Alabama, that if discussion 
ends on this amendment, we can have a series of votes on the pending 
amendments and go home tonight, and I would urge that we do that.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I think that 
is correct. This will be the fourth vote that we have to take tonight, 
and it is my understanding that once we can end debate on this issue, 
have the vote on the four amendments that are pending, that we will 
rise for the night. So I am hoping that we can begin to limit debate.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] told me just a few minutes 
ago that maybe we ought to offer a bounty of $10 to anybody who says 
something new. I do not think we would stand to lose much money 
tonight, because everything has been said, but nevertheless, people 
want to be heard. I would encourage my colleagues to be brief. We are 
not going to change any votes at this late in the night. I think the 
amendment is going to be soundly defeated, and I know I am going to 
vote against the amendment, and I know many people on my side are going 
to vote against the amendment, but I would encourage my colleagues to 
be brief in their remarks. Instead of closing, I will just do something 
unique. I am going to submit my statement for the Record.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, under this 
open rule, we have approximately at this point 8 Members who wanted to 
speak. However, we have reached an agreement on our side because of the 
late hour, we have agreed to have two more speakers for 3 minutes 
apiece, if that is okay with the chairman.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. With that, then I would like to also request for our 
side, we will limit it to one more, and after, that, I will just submit 
mine for the Record. So I will assume that on our side that the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] will be the last.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have many Sikhs in my district and, like I said, 
nothing has been said new except that the Bulls are going to win 
tonight and you can pay me my $10, Sonny.
  Mr. Chairman, the atrocities have gone on long enough. India has been 
anti-American. I support the amendment strongly.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that that $10 offer is very tempting, but I 
just want to make a brief statement, I will not take all of my time.
  First of all, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I think as 
people have said, it is ill-timed and it is the wrong amendment at the 
wrong time. The people who raise the cold war, the cold war is over, 
the Soviet Union has collapsed. We do not have a cold war anymore, it 
is a whole new ball game and I do not think we ought to dwell on the 
past.
  India and the United States are developing a very good relationship. 
It has been said it is the two greatest democracies in the world, and I 
think again that India showed in the past several weeks that it is a 
democracy. A government was elected, that government was unpopular, it 
was doing some unpopular things, the government fell, and a new 
government was put in place, all in a democratic way. That is something 
that we wish the rest of the world could do. That is one of our stated 
policy aims. We want to increase democracy in the world. We want to 
promote democracy in the world.
  When 400 million people participate in an election in India, I can 
think of nothing greater than to say that democracy works. They are 
making progress in human rights, there have been difficulties, no one 
denies that, but they are making progress. And United States investment 
in India being $5 billion, this would just cut $8 million to the 
poorest people in India, the people that really need our help.
  So I think that again, the United States and India need to look to 
the future. The United States has worked with India; India has been 
working with the United States. Let us not go backwards, let us move 
forwards. This is a good investment in democracy; it is a good 
investment in United States-India relations, and we ought not to cut 
it.

[[Page H5918]]

  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield
  Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  (Mr. WARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I realize that the hour is late, but you know, it is 
only so often we get an open rule, so if I am going to be here at this 
time I might as well take this opportunity.
  I just want to rise to voice my opposition to this amendment. Each 
year the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] finds it necessary to 
offer the same amendment to cut foreign assistance to India. 
Fortunately each year this amendment fails, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote against this amendment and defeat it again this year.
  India is the largest democracy in the world and continually displays 
its commitment to democratic principles. Recently 350 million people 
exercised their right to direct the future of their country by voting 
in democratic elections. India has maintained its allegiance to freedom 
and democracy.
  Understandably, this amendment is being offered to punish India 
because of the country's poor human rights record. However, India has 
taken steps to improve its record and continues to do so. The Indian 
Government has allowed the United Nations offices, the Western media 
and the Red Cross into many regions to document their success.
  Furthermore, we will not improve the government's record on human 
rights by cutting aid, which will cause thousands of India's residents 
to suffer. As Representatives of this Congress, we must be aware of our 
message on this vote and what it will send to nations struggling for 
democracy, to invest it in the United States and abroad. Cutting 
development assistance or making aid conditional on unwarranted 
premises will stigmatize India and make it less attractive to 
businesses and development that that country desperately needs. It is 
our responsibility to help invest in and help stabilize any nation 
willing to let citizens live in freedom and participate in government. 
Let us show our support for the largest democracy of the world and vote 
against the Burton amendment, and I thank the majority for having an 
open rule. It is seldom that we get this opportunity.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, may I respond to the gentleman that it 
was not my idea to have an open rule, but nevertheless, I appreciate 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to urge the Members to vote against the 
amendment and remind the Members that we have four pending amendments 
that will be voted on before we rise. We have the Obey amendment No. 1, 
Obey amendment No. 2, Radanovich and the Burton amendments, and the 
committee and I would urge a ``no'' vote on all four amendments.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to voice my opposition to this 
amendment. Each year, Mr. Burton finds it necessary to offer the same 
amendment to cut foreign assistance to India. Fortunately, each year, 
this amendment fails. I urge my colleagues to join me again this year 
to defeat it.
  India is the largest democracy in the world and continually displays 
its commitment to Democratic principles. In recent countrywide 
Presidential elections, preliminary results show that over 350 million 
people exercised their right to direct the future of their country by 
voting. India has maintained its allegiance to freedom and democracy 
despite being surrounded by autocratic regimes and unstable 
governments.
  Villages in India need outside aid to help foster their citizens' 
entry into modern living; 75 percent of all the bikes and portable 
radios sold in India are sold in small villages. Sixty percent of all 
the table fans, sewing machines, bath soaps, and wristwatches are being 
bought by people who live in isolated areas that are years behind in 
technology.
  Reports show that foreign aid dollars can translate into lower 
mortality rates, higher gross domestic product levels and higher 
literacy rates. Currently, health and medical conditions are so poor in 
parts of India that 40 percent of the women in India die in childbirth, 
50 percent of all children are undernourished, and 50 percent of all 
polio patients die for lack of vaccinations. Food security is still a 
national security concern in this country--if this aid is cut thousands 
will go hungry, many more could die.
  This amendment is being offered to punish India because of the 
country's poor human rights record. However, India has taken steps to 
improve this record and continues to do so. The Indian Government has 
allowed United Nations officers, western media, and the Red Cross into 
many regions to document their progress. Furthermore, we will not 
improve the Government's record on human rights by cutting aid that 
will cause thousands of India's citizens to suffer.
  As Representatives to the United States Congress, we must be aware of 
the message our vote on this issue will send to nations struggling for 
democracy and to investors in the United States and abroad. Cutting 
development assistance or making aid conditional on unwarranted 
premises will stigmatize India and make it less attractive to the 
businesses and development the country desperately needs.
  As our world grows smaller, it is to our responsibility to help 
invest in and help stabilize any nation willing to let her citizens 
live in freedom and participate in government.
  Let's show our support for the largest democracy in the world. Vote 
against the Burton amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and pending 
that, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


          sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, proceedings will now resume on 
those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the 
following order: Amendment No. 29 by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin; amendment 
No 30 by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin; amendment No. 67 by Mr. Radanovich of 
California; and amendment No. 5 by Mr. Burton of Indiana.


                     amendment offered by mr. obey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 231, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 215]

                               AYES--191

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TX)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clement
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther

[[Page H5919]]


     Markey
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Talent
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weller
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Zimmer

                               NOES--231

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Gutknecht
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meek
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rose
     Roth
     Salmon
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Allard
     Browder
     Flake
     Gephardt
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Studds
     Thornton
     Yates

                              {time}  2204

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Yates for, with Mr. McDade against.
       Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas for, with Mr. Scarborough against.

  Messrs. DEUTSCH, HEINEMAN, and DOOLITTLE and Mrs. CUBIN changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SKAGGS, SMITH of Michigan, and WAMP, Mrs. LOWEY and Mrs. 
ROUKEMA, and Mr. SERRANO and Mr. GREENWOOD changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     amendment offered by mr. obey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 30 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240, 
noes 181, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 216]

                               AYES--240

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TX)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Zimmer

                               NOES--181

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Canady
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fields (TX)
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hoke
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manton
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt

[[Page H5920]]


     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rogers
     Rose
     Roth
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Scott
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stump
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thornberry
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Allard
     Browder
     Ensign
     Flake
     Gephardt
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Studds
     Thornton
     Yates

                              {time}  2212

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Yates for, with Mr. McDade against.

  Messrs. CASTLE, GUNDERSON, and WHITFIELD changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  amendment offered by mr. radanovich

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Radanovich] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 268, 
noes 153, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 217]

                               AYES--268

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Sisisky
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Williams
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--153

     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Combest
     Cramer
     Crane
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Gunderson
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     King
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McDermott
     Meek
     Meyers
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Montgomery
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Sabo
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schaefer
     Schroeder
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Vento
     Walker
     Ward
     Waxman
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Allard
     Browder
     Flake
     Gephardt
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lincoln
     McDade
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Schiff
     Studds
     Thornton
     Yates

                              {time}  2220

  Mr. SAXTON and Mr. BALDACCI changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 217, my intention 
was to vote ``no''. I inadvertently pressed the ``aye'' button. I ask 
that the Record reflect accordingly.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the Record reflect my strong 
support of the Bonior-Radanovich amendment to the foreign operations 
bill.


               amendment offered by mr. burton of Indiana

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 127, 
noes 296, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 218]

                               AYES--127

     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bonior
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Canady
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fazio
     Foglietta
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodling
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)

[[Page H5921]]


     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     King
     Klug
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Martinez
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Miller (CA)
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Neumann
     Nussle
     Orton
     Owens
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pombo
     Porter
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Salmon
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--296

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cremeans
     Cummings
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Allard
     Browder
     Flake
     Gephardt
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Schiff
     Studds
     Thornton
     Yates

                              {time}  2228

  Mr. SHADEGG changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I commend the Chair for his 
professionalism today and his tolerance.
  Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Taylor of North Carolina) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hansen, 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 3540) making appropriations for foreign operations, export 
financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 1997, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________