[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 85 (Tuesday, June 11, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6141-H6159]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             GENERAL LEAVE

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on the bill, H.R. 3540, and that I may include tabular and 
extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.

[[Page H6142]]



      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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 3540.

                              {time}  1316


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, June 
5, 1996, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton] had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 
97, line 8.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 6, 1996, no 
amendments to the bill are in order except the following amendments, if 
offered by the member specified or a designee: amendments Nos. 54, 58, 
and 76 by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]; amendment No. 10 by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]; amendment No. 69 by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder]; and amendment No. 75 by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  Debate on each amendment and all amendments thereto will be limited 
to 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, except that amendments Nos. 54 and 10 shall each be debatable 
for 45 minutes.
  Consideration of these amendments shall proceed without intervening 
motion except one motion to rise if offered by the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan].


                  amendment no. 58 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. 58 offered by Mr. Obey: On page 97, after 
     line 5, insert:
       ``Sec. 573. None of the funds made available under the 
     heading ``Foreign Military Financing Program'' may be made 
     available for any country when it is made known to the 
     President that the government of such country has not agreed 
     to the Department of Defense conducting during the current 
     fiscal year nonreimbursable audits of private firms whose 
     contracts are made directly with foreign government and are 
     financed with funds made available under this heading (as 
     well as subcontractors thereunder) as requested by the 
     Defense Security Assistance Agency.''

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes in support of the amendment, and the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] will be recognized for 10 minutes 
in opposition to the amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores through a limitation a 
requirement that foreign countries agree to an outside audit as a 
condition of receiving FMF grants from the United States. It was 
included in the foreign operations bill some time ago as a result of 
several rather notable bribery cases involving U.S. funds and foreign 
officials.
  It is my understanding that the chairman is prepared to accept this 
amendment because it is drafted as a limitation. Its effect is slightly 
different than current law. I can assure the chairman I have no 
intention to change current law, and would work with him in conference 
to restore the language of current law in the appropriate place in the 
bill.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment. I have no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  amendment no. 76 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. 76 offered by Mr. Obey: On page 97, after 
     line 5, insert:
       ``Sec. 573. Not more than 100,000,000 of the funds made 
     available under the heading ``Foreign Military Financing 
     Program'' may be made 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.''

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes in support of the amendment, and the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] will be recognized for 10 minutes 
in opposition to the amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, again, this amendment restores language, again through 
the device of a limitation which has been carried in the foreign 
operations bill for several years. It limits to $100 million the amount 
that can be spent for direct commercial contracts, except for Egypt and 
Israel. 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 Export Control Act.
  Mr. Chairman, it is again an anti-fraud safeguard. I attempted during 
debate on the bill last week to restore this language in identical form 
in the appropriate place in the bill, but the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Gilman] made a point of order against the amendment because it was 
legislative in nature. Because I feel so strongly about the need to 
include this provision in the legislation, I am now offering it in the 
form of a limitation.
  Again, because of the requirement to do so in this form, its effect 
is slightly different than the current law, but it is my understanding 
that the chairman will accept the amendment. I can assure him I have no 
intention of changing current law, and will work with him to bring it 
into compliance as we meet in conference.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do intend to accept the amendment, but before the 
vote, I had agreed with the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] 
that we would enter into a colloquy. She has a committee hearing that 
she has to attend to, and I agreed to let her come in at this point to 
have a colloquy.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield for just a 
second before doing that, I also have an agreement to yield to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] on the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Wilson].
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to read into the Record a 
letter that I received from the Turkish Ambassador early this week:

       Dear Mr. Congressman: Yesterday's House action in adopting 
     two anti-Turkey amendments to the FY 1997 foreign aid bill is 
     not fitting for U.S.-Turkish relations. I cannot 
     overemphasize the importance of these issues in Turkey. It 
     was inevitable that House passage of these amendments would 
     provoke a strong reaction from the Turkish people, who 
     question anew the benefits of our five decades of alliance 
     with the United States and self-sacrificing support for U.S. 
     policy.
       The initial step we have taken in response is to inform the 
     U.S. Government that Turkey declines U.S. economic 
     assistance. The basis of our friendship with the United 
     States has never been foreign aid, even in years past when 
     the amounts were much greater. Rather, our friendship has 
     been based on shared interests, interests which are gravely 
     jeopardized by yesterday's developments.
       Nevertheless, I do want to recognize that many Members 
     stood up for strong U.S.-Turkish friendship. I want to 
     express my appreciation to you for your leadership against 
     these pernicious amendments. I hope you will continue to 
     work to ensure that these provisions are not enacted into 
     law, and offer you my total cooperation.

   Mr. Chairman, I read that into the Record just to emphasize one more 
time what I consider to be the grave consequences that resulted from 
what I considered to be unwise action.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H6143]]

  Mr. WILSON. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman makes an excellent 
point that many times we get wrapped up in debate on the floor of this 
House and we do not recognize what an audience worldwide we have. Last 
week the House sent a strong message to Turkey about something that 
took place decades ago and yet we do not chastise or demand certain 
apologies from other countries who have committed atrocities, even in 
later years.
  I agree with the gentleman from Texas about his concern. I have the 
same letter from the ambassador, and I think that the Congress made a 
mistake in the language that we inserted in the bill. I hope that it 
will not cause any injury to the fact that Turkey is a tremendous ally 
of ours in any NATO endeavor, and I hope that this Congress will not 
forget that during the Persian Gulf war and during other wars, Turkey 
has always been there, and that we have bases that we are utilizing in 
Turkey that are strategically important to our national defense and to 
the defense of other allies of ours throughout the world.
  So I think we made a mistake. But the debate was heard, and it is a 
lesson to all of us that what we say here is very important.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, that is right.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, what we say on the floor of this House is 
taken very seriously by countries all over the world, and I hope that 
some day we will be able to convey our appreciation to the Turks for 
the contributions that they have made in the past.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama very 
much, and I would simply remind him that if the Turks wanted to today, 
they could open the spigot on the Iraqi pipeline and bust the embargo, 
just as one example.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to 
enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Alabama regarding human 
rights in Ethiopia, as the House continues to consider this foreign aid 
bill.
  Let me thank the chairman, first of all, for the work that he has 
done with my office as we have worked on this, even last year, as the 
gentleman may recall. I think it is very important that we move forward 
on this issue.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to enter into a colloquy with 
the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs for 
participating, as I said, in this colloquy, especially in light of the 
limited time that we have remaining to debate this important 
legislation.
  There are numerous reports that the Ethiopian Government is harassing 
and unfairly detaining journalists, academicians, opposition party 
officials and other citizens. These events raise questions about 
freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the independence of the 
judiciary within Ethiopia.
  I know that we have come a long way, Mr. Chairman, but I would ask 
the question, does the gentleman think that the United States 
Government should do more to support human rights in Ethiopia as we 
move this foreign operations bill forward?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, yes. I encourage the State Department, as 
a matter of fact, to carefully assess the situation in the country and 
use its influence with the Ethiopian Government to encourage them to 
improve human rights. I would note that the current government in 
Ethiopia is light years ahead of the former regime in terms of human 
rights.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman recalls, I 
successfully offered an amendment to the 1996 foreign operations 
appropriations bill which requires the State Department to closely 
monitor human rights progress in Ethiopia as it monitors funds for 
Ethiopia. We have been in dialog with the State Department, I have had 
a briefing, and that is why I rise again today. We realize that all is 
not well, even though possible progress may have been made.
  The gentleman supported my amendment. As the State Department 
obligates the funds for Ethiopia in fiscal year 1997, I think that it 
is still critically important that the department continue to carefully 
monitor the country's human rights progress. Some progress has occurred 
but much remains to be done.
  I strongly believe that Congress should be on record in the debate on 
H.R. 3540, the foreign operations appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1997, as encouraging the State Department to continue this monitoring 
of Ethiopia. Does the gentleman from Alabama agree?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do agree. I believe that it is our 
role as Members of Congress not to dictate foreign policy to the 
executive branch but to express strong messages of concern to the State 
Department on human rights violations by countries who receive U.S. 
foreign assistance.

                              {time}  1330

  I am pleased that we have had this opportunity to discuss this 
important issue.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
kindness in allowing me to again bring this very important issue to the 
Congress. I appreciate his interest and concern about this matter. The 
numerous citizens in Houston and around the country who trace their 
ancestry to Ethiopia and all Americans who believe in democracy and 
human rights appreciate as well the opportunity to focus the Nation's 
attention on this issue.
  I do believe with the ability of the State Department to continue to 
monitor these human rights violations that we will find ourselves 
better placed to assist the Ethiopian people and those of Ethiopian 
ancestry.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the Obey 
amendment.
  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. zimmer

  Mr. ZIMMER. 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. Zimmer: Page 97, after line 5, 
     insert the following:


prohibition on development of shopping center near the former auschwitz 
                           concentration camp

       Sec. 573. It is the sense of the Congress that the 
     Government of Poland should prohibit development of a 
     shopping center within the 500-yard protective zone 
     surrounding the former Auschwitz concentration camp in the 
     town of Osweicim, Poland.

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 
10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The amendment I am offering is very straightforward. I would put the 
Congress of the United States on record opposing commercial development 
within the internationally recognized protective zone surrounding 
Auschwitz, the former Nazi death camp in Poland. I know that a point of 
order is being reserved because of technical rules rather than 
substance by the chairman of the subcommittee, but I strongly believe 
that the voice of Congress should be heard on this matter. The foreign 
operations appropriations bill before us is an appropriate vehicle 
given the nearly $70 million in assistance that we give to Poland.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very timely amendment. Last year, a developer 
put into motion plans to construct a shopping mall immediately opposite 
the Auschwitz main gate and within a 500-yard protective zone that 
surrounds Auschwitz. The proposed mall included

[[Page H6144]]

retail stores, a supermarket, a fast food stand, and a large parking 
lot.
  In March, the Polish Government officially halted the project after 
worldwide criticism denouncing it as desecration of the world's largest 
Holocaust site. The Government at the time said its decision was final. 
Yet just last week, wire services reported that the project developer 
had resumed construction in defiance of the Government's order and 
continued work for 2 days before construction was again suspended.
  Mr. Chairman, Auschwitz is a place of profound significance. It is a 
haunting reminder of the depravity and corruption that humanity at its 
worst is capable of. That reminder is the most powerful protection we 
have against such horrors occurring again.
  Auschwitz is also a precious memorial to the lives of 1\1/2\ million 
people, mainly Jews, whose lives were so horribly sacrificed to that 
depravity and that corruption.
  The idea of stores, a supermarket, and fast food stands being built 
within the protective boundaries of Auschwitz assaults both intellect 
and sensibility. It is an insult to those who died in the Holocaust. It 
is an insult to those who survived the Holocaust, ant it is an insult 
to all of us the world over who believe that the significance of 
Auschwitz must never be distorted or lost.
  The Government of Poland has stated emphatically that it will not 
allow such commercial development to go forward. I applaud that promise 
and the efforts the Government has made to keep it. I hope the entire 
Congress will go on record joining this opposition to what is nothing 
less than an act of sacrilege.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, first let me commend the gentleman for 
bringing this amendment to the floor today. I think it is of great 
importance and my personal thanks to him for doing so.
  Mr. Chairman, I have often been amazed during my time in the Congress 
by some of the incredible events that occur from time to time that are 
brought to our attention. I have seldom been appalled. Today I am 
appalled, appalled at the proposal of a developer in Poland to build a 
commercial development right next to Auschwitz death camp. Imagine if 
you will for just a moment a strip mall built at a place, for example, 
inside Arlington Cemetery, just about the same thing. I cannot believe 
that you can honor the millions of Catholics and Gypsies and Jews 
slaughtered by the Nazis with this kind of development.
  This is desecration and, frankly, I think it pretty sick.
  I call on the Polish Government to honor its commitment to disallow 
this project, and I call on the United States Government to use its 
full authority to assist the Polish Government in this endeavor.
  Once again, I want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Zimmer] for bringing this to the floor today.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, further reserving my point of order, I 
would also like to thank the gentleman for bringing this issue to the 
attention of this Congress. Many Americans and a lot of Members of this 
House share the concerns that the gentleman has expressed. However, 
since the amendment is legislative in nature and should be addressed by 
the Committee on International Relations, I hope be brings this issue 
to the attention of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the 
chairman of the authorizing committee.
  Since the amendment is legislative, I would hope the gentleman would 
withdraw his proposal. If this issue has not been resolved to the 
gentleman's satisfaction or at least fully considered by the 
appropriate committee of the House by the time of conference with the 
Senate, I pledged to the gentleman that I will do my best to include 
language in the statement of the managers similar to his amendment. But 
once again, I thank him for bringing his amendment to the attention of 
the House and his willingness to hopefully withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, based on those assurances, I will withdraw 
the amendment. Before doing so, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] who has introduced freestanding 
legislation on this subject some months ago.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding me the time.
  I just wanted to comment on this. I have, as the gentleman says, 
submitted a resolution talking about the events outside of the 
Auschwitz death camp. I want to make just a couple of very brief 
points. That is, I think we all agree that it is totally inappropriate 
to think about any kind of mall or commercial development at actually 
such a place that should almost be sacred ground with so many people 
murdered and martyred there.
  I think it is an absolute outrage that this mall would even have been 
contemplated being built. It violates agreements that the Polish 
Government has made internationally, stating that within a certain 
amount of feet or meters from the Auschwitz death camp that nothing 
like this could happen. It is absolutely an outrage that one would even 
consider. And when you consider that the town is 7 kilometers away, it 
is even more insulting to think that a mall could not have been built 
in the town or near the town but would be built at the entrance, to the 
infamous entrance to the death camp where those horrible words, those 
lies, Arbeit Macht Frei, work makes you free, were put by the camp.
  So many of us have been trying for many, many months to point out 
this outrage and to get the assurance from the Government of Poland 
that this would not continue. I must say the Government of Poland, to 
its credit, has shown that it does not want the mall to be built, has 
attempted to give me assurances that it will not be built. And I would 
hold them to their word. I think it is very, very important that a 
government that makes these international agreements adheres to them.
  I just want to say to my colleague from New Jersey and to others who 
have expressed similar concerns and outrage with the thought of this 
happening that I intend to pursue my resolution which is cosponsored by 
the other gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton]. We will pursue it in 
the Committee on International Relations. We think it is appropriate 
that Congress goes on record as opposing it.
  I do, again, want to say that I am happy that we have been getting 
positive responses from the new leaders of Poland and from the Polish 
Government who have told us that this will not be built. With those 
assurances and the fact that it is bipartisan and we are going to work 
to pass my resolution, I welcome the help and support of the gentleman 
from New Jersey.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to take the opportunity to commend 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] for his pending amendment, 
which would express the sense of Congress that the Government of Poland 
ensure that construction never takes place at the site of the infamous 
Auschwitz concentration camp.
  Although we have received commitments from the Polish Government that 
they will not permit development at Auschwitz, periodically there are 
problems with local developers. Accordingly, the Polish authorities are 
to be commended for their commitment to the sanctity of Auschwitz and 
the memories of the millions of innocent men, women, and children who 
crossed its portals.
  However, as our concern is still appropriately registered on this 
sensitive matter, I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment with Mr. 
Zimmer. Under leave that will be obtained I would request that the 
statement issued last week by the Polish Government be made a part of 
the Record.

                            Embassy of the Republic of Poland,

                                     Washington, DC, June 5, 1996.
       As regards the latest Reuter release on the alleged 
     resumption of the construction of a shopping center near the 
     state Museum of Auschwitz-Birkenau, please be informed of the 
     following--as received from official sources in Warsaw:
       1. No construction work has been resumed.
       2. There is no change in the clear position of the 
     Government of Poland, as well as of the local authorities 
     concerning the decision to halt the construction made on 
     March 22.
       3. The press spokesperson of the Government called the 
     announced intention of the developer to resume the project 
     ``the investor's lawlessness''. Moreover, the Chief of the 
     Office of the Council of Ministers while confirming the 
     previously undertaken decision of the Government, emphasized 
     its firmness to execute the decision by administrative 
     measures.

  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.

[[Page H6145]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.


                     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 97, after line 5, 
     insert:
       ``Sec. 573. None of the funds appropriated under the 
     heading `International Military Education and Training' may 
     be made available for Cambodia and Thailand.''

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be 
recognized for 22\1/2\ minutes and a Member in opposition will be 
recognized for 22\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer] who has some comments he wants to make about an 
amendment that was left out of the agreement.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding his time to me.
  I will not offer this amendment. I am precluded from offering this 
amendment due to the UC that was arrived at last week, but I think that 
this was a noncontroversial amendment that both Republicans and 
Democrats would have agreed to. We had it in the June 5 Record last 
week, amendment number, it was actually H.R. 3540, amendment No. 78, 
page 97. This amendment dealt with the ongoing conflict between the 
Russians and the Chechens.
  Certainly on last year's foreign operations bill, we got up and we 
spoke about the need to bring an end to this war that has killed 
probably over 30,000 Chechens and maybe close to 5,000 Russians. This 
ongoing war threatens not only the human rights situation in Russia. It 
threatens their economic stability, when they are transferring so much 
money that we are loaning through the IMF, trying to bring their 
economy back to stability and back to growth, when they are now taking 
this money to fight a war and kill Chechens day after day in a brutal 
and inhuman manner.
  We attached some successful legislation last year to the foreign 
operations bill that cut $5 million out of aid to Russia, saying we 
must bring an end to this war. And this is a signal from the American 
people and the U.S. Congress that we want to see it end now. No longer 
will this war go on. We are not going to subsidize this war.

  I think it was successful. Now they have entered into successful 
negotiations where they have exchanged protocols over the weekend, 
where they have agreed on exchange of prisoners. They have agreed on a 
cease-fire. This resolution simply says they have broken half a dozen 
cease-fire agreements already, stick to this one.
  The Congress applauds you. Republicans and Democrats applaud Mr. 
Yandarbiyev and Mr. Yeltsin for this agreement. Stick to it and stick 
to it after the June 16 election in Russia. I know the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf] has been over to Chechnya and seen this conflict 
and this tragedy go on and on and on, when the Russians first engaged 
the Chechens and thought they could overrun this country in a period of 
a couple days.
  Well, 18, 19, 20 months later we still see this brutality going on. 
So this resolution simply says, keep up the good work on diplomatic 
negotiations. Please abide by the two protocol agreements signed over 
the weekend. Please try to come to some kind of resolution on the 
territorial status of Chechnya and after the elections continue this 
good will and this diplomacy.
  I would hope that in conference that the distinguished chairman would 
continue to bring this kind of issue before the State Department and 
make this a priority. I hope that in some way with this dialog and 
hopefully with the colloquy and Members with like interests, the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] and the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Wolf] and others, that we can keep this issue as a vital part of 
foreign policy between the United States and the Russian people.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], 
let me say that I am glad that he brought this to the attention of the 
House. It is rather amazing to me how we can pick on a little country 
like Indonesia and at the same time be sending millions of dollars to 
Russia and letting them slaughter 30,000 people in Chechnya and not 
even mentioning it in this bill.
  So I think that the gentleman is absolutely correct in bringing this 
issue to the attention of the Congress, and we will certainly address 
this issue at some point in conference.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] for a colloquy.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to bring to the attention of 
the body there is a man named Robert Hussein who was converted to 
Christianity in Kuwait. As a result of his conversion to Christianity 
on May 29, a court in Kuwait has found him guilty, and the punishment 
is potential death. And the endangered species in this world today that 
we talk about so much are Christians. Christians are being persecuted 
around the world more today than any other time in this century, and I 
just wanted to urge the gentleman from Alabama if he would follow this 
because, if he recalls, and I know he does, during the 1980's we in a 
bipartisan way, Republicans and Democrats, stood firm with those of the 
Jewish faith who were persecuted in Russia. In fact, I am concerned 
that the persecution will begin again after this election. They are 
basically privatizing anti-Semitism in Russia.
  So it is important for us to rally to the defense of those who are 
being persecuted, and because of so many Christians being persecuted in 
the Middle East and other places, and Robert Hussein, who has been 
potentially sentenced to death, and the fact that the United States 
Government sent hundreds of thousands of troops in defense of Kuwait 
and 300 Americans died, if the gentleman from Alabama would be 
sympathetic in following this issue, particularly later this year, but 
next year if this does not change, or if anything should happen to Mr. 
Hussein.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I 
just found out about this atrocity that is evidently going to take 
place, or possible could take place in Kuwait, and I cannot fathom any 
government in any land condoning the execution of an individual for 
switching religions, especially to Christianity. And for me to hear 
this is most appalling.
  I should remind the Kuwait Government, just as we reminded the 
Turkish Government, erroneously so I think, about something that took 
place. A great majority of the people that came to defend Kuwait, that 
granted them the sovereignty over their nation, were Christian people. 
It is an insult, in addition to being absolutely morally wrong, it is 
an insult to the American people to have that government at this point 
begin to condemn to death people who choose a certain religion.
  So I appreciate very much the gentleman bringing the mater to the 
attention of the floor. I hope that some Kuwaiti representatives are 
listening somewhere, and I hope that they hear our message, that this 
is not something that we in the United States can or should tolerate.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] for that 
very strong statement.
  Mr. Chairman, on May 29, 1996, a judge in the Kuwaiti family court 
declared Robert Hussein to be an apostate. The judge, Amar Al-Sabiti, 
also gave a written ruling stating that Mr. Hussein's wife should be 
divorced from him and his possessions should be distributed among his 
heirs and he could be killed. ``The Imam [ruler] should kill him 
without a chance to repent.''
  Hussein Qambar Ali, a convert from Islam to Christianity, is in the 
midst of a national court case. This decision by the court sets a 
precedent as to whether or not the Kuwaiti Constitution will be 
interpreted under Islamic Sharia law. This would mean that the 
constitutional religious freedom guarantees would be void and a 
convert--or apostate--could be killed with impunity.
  Hussein has changed his name to Robert Hussein. Robert got into this 
situation through a court case over the custody of his children.

[[Page H6146]]

His estranged wife, a Muslim, will not allow him to see his children 
despite his winning custody of them in court. Robert returned to court 
to have the decision enforced, and everything has been in an uproar as 
Hussein publicly confessed his conversion to Christianity.
  Several Muslim lawyers have filed cases against Hussein wanting him 
to be charged with apostasy. Members of Parliament have called for his 
death. Hussein has had to live in hiding, has lost his family business 
due to his family not allowing him to be part of it as he is no longer 
a Muslim. The Sharia family court is looking at the case to see if it 
has jurisdiction or if this is a civil matter because it deals with 
Hussein's civil rights: child custody, inheritance, and most 
importantly, freedom of religion.
  The United States still has troops in Kuwait. American troops died 
while fighting to protect Kuwaiti from Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
  We should urge the Kuwaiti Government to make a public statement 
supporting Hussein's constitutional rights and his freedom of religion 
and guaranteeing his protection from death threats from those who want 
to kill him. Also, the Kuwaiti Government should ensure that their 
judicial process has integrity, both in the legal representation 
Hussein should have, which he does not have, and in showing the 
legitimacy of Kuwait's Constitution--Will it stand?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing 
to the floor's attention this violation of human rights. Any time we 
find intolerance with regard to religion is something the entire 
Congress should stand up and fight against, and for that reason I 
commend the gentleman for his efforts and want to join with him in 
expressing abhorrence of what Kuwait has done with regard to this case.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I once again rise 
reluctantly in opposition to the amendment that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin would offer, because I deeply respect his vast knowledge of 
world affairs.
  However, while I hold my friend's foreign policy views in high 
regard, I must tell him that I do not think that this amendment will 
achieve his objective. It will simply undermine, I think, our 
relationship with a key friend in South Asia.
  The United States has an extensive security relationship with the 
Government of Thailand. Our military conducts numerous joint exercise 
programs with the Thai military, including frequent port visits by the 
United States Navy. The United States also actively collaborates with 
the Thai military.
  In addition, the prepositioning of munitions and other military 
equipment improves the readiness and logistical reach of United States 
forces in this region.
  Thailand's cooperation and reconnaissance support for our counterdrug 
effort is essential to the United States ability to cut drug 
trafficking in Asia.
  And finally, Thailand is equally essential to the success of the 
Joint Task Force for Full POW-MIA Accounting and its effort to answer 
the remaining questions about Americans missing in action.
  IMET training itself is invaluable for the Thai military. In my 
opinion, it improves professional conduct and capabilities of the Thai 
military while training them to improve, at the same time, their human 
rights performances.
  So I hope that the gentleman will see my view on this. Recognizing 
how I respect him, I will also assure the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] that I will work closely with the gentleman to strengthen 
language to emphasize the message he is trying to give and that I will 
work with him to put strong language in the bill in conference.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first of all take just a moment to comment on 
the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] with respect to 
Kuwait. I am certainly not familiar with the incident to which he 
referred, but let me say that, as one Member of Congress, I have to say 
that I have never in my life found a government or a royal family as 
arrogant or as condescending as the Kuwaiti Government and royal 
family, and I have never seen a government more quick to pursue its own 
personal and political interest above the interests of its own people 
more than the Kuwaiti Government.
  I will never forget going to Kuwait City after Kuwait had been 
liberated by NATO and United States forces, talking to a good many 
Wisconsin GI's who were in Kuwait who told me that, when the first 
United States aid came into Kuwait City, that we had Kuwaiti officials 
saying to them, ``Yes, do send it into this neighborhood; no, don't 
send the aid into that neighborhood,'' because the latter neighborhood 
had been populated by people who were not political supporters of the 
royal family. So they were perfectly willing to see loyal Kuwaiti 
citizens denied assistance after that war simply because of their 
political beliefs.
  So I would certainly join with the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Callahan] in expressing the desire to do whatever can be done from the 
outside to affect the conduct of that government, which I found to be 
incredibly arrogant and insufferable through the years that I have had 
any experience dealing with them.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Wilson] before I make my statement on the amendment that is before us, 
after which I will withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  Notice has been given of a hearing before our subcommittee chaired by 
the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] on which we all serve, and 
this concerns Kuwaiti business practices, this hearing. I believe it is 
in about 2 weeks, and I would be curious to know, and I would 
encourage, that perhaps we might expand that hearing on this business 
practices to include this matter that the gentleman brought before the 
House.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WILSON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. That would be wonderful because I am very concerned about 
the man's life. He has been threatened and sentenced to actually death, 
so I think it would be good if the gentleman and Mr. Callahan would do 
that.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, it is, of course, up to the gentleman from 
Alabama, but the hearing is scheduled for June 19; that is next week.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WILSON. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no reservation whatsoever about 
including this subject matter in the hearing that we have scheduled. 
The hearing we have scheduled is to discuss some of what I think are 
unfair business practices by the Government of Kuwait. But we can 
include human rights as well, and certainly this is a gross human 
rights violation, and I think that we should, and I will, after 
consultation with the gentleman, be happy to include in our hearing or 
part of our hearing a discussion of this execution that is pending 
there.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
want to thank the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] for doing that, 
and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], I thank him for bringing 
that to our attention.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, having dispensed with all of that, let me new explain 
what it is that has motivated me to bring this proposal before the 
body.
  Mr. Chairman, I will acknowledge that choosing the route of limiting 
IMET funds in order to get at this problem is a blunt instrument. The 
problem is that there are no other instruments available at this point. 
We have a very serious problem in that we are concerned about 
continuing timber sales by the Khmer Rouge, sales which are occurring 
with the complicity both of the Cambodian Government and the Thai 
military.
  Last year this committee heard allegations that both the Cambodian 
and Thai military were cooperating in facilitating the sale of tropical 
timber from areas controlled by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. As a 
result, last year's bill contained language which is repeated in this 
year's bill which requires the President to terminate assistance to any 
country organization that he determines is cooperating tactically or 
strategically with the Khmer Rouge and military operations

[[Page H6147]]

or which is not taking steps to prevent a pattern or practice of 
commercial relations between its members and the Khmer Rouge.

  Now, for those of my colleagues who have forgotten, the Khmer Rouge 
are those people who are responsible for the slaughter, the wholesale 
slaughter, of millions of innocent people because they were even more 
fanatic than the Red Guards under Mao Tse-tung in China, and they just 
wiped out millions and millions of people.
  Mr. Chairman, the problem with the language that was contained in the 
bill last year is that it was worded in a way as to be worthless 
because it does not fit the facts of what is going on. In fact, the 
Thai military is allowing private Thai companies to develop commercial 
relations with the Khmer Rouge to buy their timber and then allow its 
transport through their territory. So the pattern of commercial 
relations takes place between the companies themselves and the Khmer 
Rouge, not the military in the Khmer Rouge; and therefore the language 
of the bill last year was circumvented.
  I am told that that means that the Khmer Rouge are, through this 
device, through this ruse, are obtaining $10 million or $20 million a 
month. Now, I do not think Americans want to see the Khmer Rouge get a 
dime, and I certainly do not think they want us to have an aid 
relationship with a country, with a government, which is facilitating 
the delivery of that kind of assistance to some of the most blood 
thirsty people in the history of the planet.
  And so I offer this language because it was the only way that we 
could reach either of the governments in power.
  I would say that the Prince of Cambodia himself was recently quoted 
in the press as saying, quote, ``Thai traders in the Khmer Rouge would 
surely find a way to make a deal to export felled logs from its 
controlled area so the legitimate Cambodian Government would lose 
income.'' So I guess what he is saying is ``If you can't beat them, 
join them.'' It seems to me that we have got to find a way to shut this 
down, and that is why I suggested this amendment.
  But I know the administration has great concerns about going after 
IMET; in this case for other reasons. And so what I would like to do is 
to withdraw the amendment, with the understanding that the subcommittee 
chairman would help in conference so that we can try to strengthen the 
language which is in the existing bill so that we do not, to the 
greatest extent possible--we end the fact that government to which we 
are providing aid seems to be cooperating in a device by which money is 
allowed to flow to the hands of some of the bloodiest fools in the 
history of this world.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly share the gentleman's concern about the 
activity that is going on and the complicity, at least among commercial 
interests there, perhaps involving the governments as well. I do 
appreciate the gentleman's statement that the IMET tool is a blunt 
instrument and probably not the way to proceed. I think we have perhaps 
a more effective way to pressure the parties concerned, and that might 
be through the international community's massive financial support for 
the Government of Cambodia.
  There is an op-ed piece in today's Washington Post on this very 
subject. In fact, this gentleman brought a resolution to the floor 
which was passed last March expressing the concern of what is happening 
in Cambodia.
  What I think we might focus on is that July 11 and 12 donors meeting, 
a donors conference on Cambodia. I think that offers the international 
community a golden opportunity.
  We could call on the United States to take the lead at this meeting 
to impress upon the leaders in Phnom Penh who clearly play a part in 
this continuing problem of logging the KR-controlled territory. We 
could call on them for the recognition that there is a need for 
sustainable logging practices and transparency in government contacting 
that I think could help resolve the KR's logging issue, and therefore 
avoid problems with Thailand and with the Government of Cambodia.
  So I offer that suggestion which I think all of us should pursue, and 
advance it here for the administration to consider making it a priority 
at that July 11 and 12 meeting.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Let 
me simply say, I think we need to understand that in addition to 
everything else I have said, in the meantime the Khmer Rouge are 
continuing to plant new land mines every blessed day they can. That 
further displaces innocent Cambodians, and it just seems to me that the 
worldwide community has an obligation to respond to this problem.
  I would say that, with the concurrence of the subcommittee chairman, 
I will withdraw this amendment with the understanding that if we cannot 
get some language that really does the trick this year, and if we 
cannot get other action coming in other ways as the gentleman from 
Nebraska suggested, then blunt instrument or no, it will leave me with 
no alternative but to go after IMET next year and I intend to do it 
with a vengeance.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield before 
withdrawing his amendment, let me just say that I share the goal of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin. I think that we cannot tolerate the type of 
activity for which he is concerned. However, I do not think that this 
is the way to do it.
  I appreciate very much the gentleman's position. I do pledge to work 
with him to ensure that our amplified message is given to those 
governments, that we are not going to tolerate this and that indeed, if 
they do not change or unless they show some indication of nonsupport, 
that we are very seriously going to consider next year the possibility 
of reducing the IMET Program there. But I appreciate very much the 
gentleman withdrawing the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the chairman. As I say, I recognize that IMET is a 
blunt instrument to use, so it may be the wrong way to proceed. We will 
now have a year to find out, and if we do not get some real action that 
affects things in real ways on the ground, we will have no choice but 
to go back at it next year.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3540 allows continued International 
Military and Education Training [IMET] for Thailand and Cambodia. The 
Obey amendment would prohibit IMET for these countries. Passage of the 
Obey amendment will not save the taxpayers one dime, but would merely 
force the administration to move the IMET funds to some other 
countries.
  This Member considers such a prohibition unwarranted and unwise. Here 
is why.
  Thailand is a long-time treaty ally with a democratic form of 
government, located along key strategic international waterways. 
American forces conduct more than 40 joint exercises with Thailand each 
year--more than any other country in Asia. These exercises are 
important to the readiness and training of American, as well as Thai, 
forces in Asia. Moreover, Thailand provides the Seventh Fleet with easy 
access to its military facilities when needed, most recently during 
Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Particularly in light of the closure of 
our basis in the Philippines, use of Thai facilities allows us to 
maintain our forward deployed presence in the crucial Southeast Asia/
Indochina region.
  The close military-to-military ties we enjoy with Thailand are 
fostered by the fact that so many military leaders in Thailand have 
been trained in the United States through the IMET program. Not only 
does this American training provide us access to key Thai leaders, but 
it also engenders a natural preference for U.S. military hardware and 
supplies. The sale of defense equipment to Thailand allows important 
interoperability with U.S. forces in the region and creates high-paying 
American jobs in the important manufacturing sector. Just recently 
McDonnel Douglas won a $600 million contract for fighter aircraft to 
Thailand.


                          thai-kr cooperation

  THe basis for today's Obey amendment is evidence of continued 
commercial cooperation between some Thai companies and the genocidal 
Khmer Rouge forces in neighboring Cambodia. This Member's staff has 
been fully briefed on this issue, and I know it would be naive to 
suggest that no such cooperation exists, particularly in the logging 
industry. Despite this commercial cooperation, however, there remains 
some question about the extent of Thai Government involvement and 
complicity in this trade.
  In this Member's view, the use of IMET funding, both for Thailand and 
Cambodia, as

[[Page H6148]]

a stick against commercial cooperation with the KR is misguided. A much 
more effective way to pressure the parties concerned is through the 
international community's massive financial support for the Government 
of Cambodia.
  The upcoming July 11-12 Donors' Conference on Cambodia offers the 
international community a golden opportunity. This Member calls on the 
United States to take the lead at this meeting to impress upon the 
leaders in Phnom Penh--who clearly play a major part in the continued 
problem of logging in KR-controlled territory--of the need for 
sustainable logging practices and transparency in government 
contracting which would contribute much to resolving the KR logging 
issue. The international community still provides 40 percent of the 
national budget of Cambodia and should use this leverage to promote 
more responsible policies on Cambodia's leaders.


                         cambodia human rights

  This Member also believes we should use the Donors' Conference to 
improve human rights and democracy in Cambodia. On March 26, 1996, this 
body passed House Resolution 345, which this Member introduced, which 
expresses serious concern about deteriorating human rights conditions 
in Cambodia. This Member remains concerned about government repression 
in Cambodia, particularly in light of the recent murder of an outspoken 
Cambodian journalist. We should not, however, use IMET as a club 
against Phnom Penh. Instead we should insist that the IMET courses 
offered to Cambodia contribute to human rights training for Cambodia's 
military and use the July Donor's Conference to pressure the Cambodian 
Government for a return to openness and respect for dissent.
  This Member urges his colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Obey 
amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.


                    amendment offered by Mr. Souder

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

       Amendment No. 69 offered by Mr. Souder: Page 97, after line 
     5, insert the following:


                   limitation on assistance to mexico

       Sec. 573. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be obligated or expended for the 
     Government of Mexico, except if it is made known to the 
     Federal entity or official to which funds are appropriated 
     under this Act that--
       (1) the Government of Mexico is taking actions to reduce 
     the amount of illegal drugs entering the United States from 
     Mexico; and
       (2) the Government of Mexico--
       (A) is taking effective actions to apply vigorously all law 
     enforcement resources to investigate, track, capture, 
     incarcerate, and prosecute individuals controlling, 
     supervising, or managing international narcotics cartels or 
     other similar entities and the accomplices of such 
     individuals, individuals responsible for, or otherwise 
     involved in, corruption, and individuals involved in money-
     laundering;
       (B) is pursuing international anti-drug trafficking 
     initiatives;
       (C) is cooperating fully with international efforts at 
     narcotics interdiction; and
       (D) is cooperating fully with requests by the United States 
     for assistance in investigations of money-laundering 
     violations and is making progress toward implementation of 
     effective laws to prohibit money-laundering.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] is recognized 
for 10 minutes in support of his amendment.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will prohibit any funds available in 
this bill from going to Mexico unless the agency receiving the funds 
certifies that Mexico has taken specific antinarcotics actions.
  I want to thank the cosponsors of this bill: Chairman Bill Zeliff of 
New Hampshire, who has been a leader in our Congress' effort to reduce 
drug abuse, cosponsored this last year with me; also International 
Relations Committee Chairman Gilman us a cosponsor. Other original 
cosponsors include my friend from Florida, Mr. Mica, who has been 
active on the subcommittee; the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. 
Blute; the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Metcalf; the gentleman from 
Indiana, Mr. McIntosh; the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 
Funderburk; the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg; the gentleman from 
Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn; and the gentlewoman from California, Mrs. 
Seastrand.
  The problem is real simple. The State Department's 1996 Narcotics 
Control Strategy concluded that no country in the world poses a more 
immediate narcotics threat to America than Mexico. Mexican drug lords 
now supply more than 70 percent of the cocaine sold and 80 percent of 
the marijuana imported into the United States, as well as growing 
quantities of heroin and methaphetamines. Drug seizures in Mexico 
lagged for most of 1995, and the final seizure total remained flat and 
well below the record level. They are making progress but they need to 
make more.
  At the same time the DEA administrator, Mr. Constantine, and the 
State Department have recently expressed serious concern that Mexico 
has, ``become the money laundering haven of choice for initial 
placement of U.S. drug cash into the world's financial system.'' Drug 
dealers are literally packing 18-wheel trucks full of cash and driving 
them to Mexico for laundering. Up to 90 percent of drug cartel profits 
move through Mexico.
  I was very privileged to go with the CODEL from this Congress to 
Mexico, as well as Panama, Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia, and we met with 
President Zedillo as well as the foreign minister and members of the 
House and Senate of Mexico. I was convinced, as were the others with 
us, that President Zedillo and the leadership of Mexico has a strong 
commitment to trying to reduce the narcotics flow to America.
  I also understand their point that it is our demand that is 
propelling much of the growth of coca leaves around the country, the 
distribution, and what is coming into our country. We do have to work 
on our internal problems but they also must work on the exporting of 
drugs into America.
  I also understand the difficulty of patroling the long borders we 
have with Mexico, particularly as we open trade. That is all true. Few 
issues are as explosive as the immigration issue and the NAFTA issue as 
well as the drug issue, the support of the peso and the environmental 
questions along the borders.
  If our two great nations are to work together, we have to have a 
strong continued commitment from the Government of Mexico not just to 
talk but to crack down on the drug lords.
  This particular amendment passed last year 411-0 when we asked for a 
rollcall vote. It is the actions that must be changed and stiffened in 
the future. I want to continue to point out that I am impressed with 
the sincerity of the Government of Mexico and I am particularly 
impressed with their commitments, but we need to see additional and 
continued progress on this issue.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from New York, 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 thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Souder amendment and commend 
the gentleman from Indiana for this initiative.
  Illicit drugs are an international threat to all countries: 
corruption, addiction, and lawlessness exact an enormous price. Because 
drug cartels have extraordinary resources, no country can fight this 
problem alone. Producer countries, transit countries, and consumer 
countries all share in the costs of the drug scourge and, therefore, 
must all share the responsibility for solving the problem.
  One very conservative estimate places the annual cost of drug abuse 
to U.S. society at $67 billion--in terms of crime, lost productivity, 
and health care. Other estimates run as high as $500 billion. Another 
tangible impact is on U.S. youth. Data suggest that if cocaine abuse 
were listed on death certificates, it would constitute the leading 
cause of death of people 14 to 44 years of age in New York City.
  Experience proves that concerted efforts that attack each link in the 
drug chain can produce dramatic results. For example, new levels of 
cooperation have led to significant strides against the Cali cartel 
kingpins. With a vigorous program that addressed each of the pillars--
eradication, interdiction, enforcement, education, and treatment--

[[Page H6149]]

cocaine use in the United States dropped 80 percent in that period, 
from 5.8 million users down to 1.3 million.
  According to the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, drug 
trafficking groups in Mexico have become the primary suppliers of drugs 
abused in the United States. Up to 70 percent of the cocaine available 
in the United States transits Mexico; 50 percent of marijuana is 
produced in Mexico; Mexican traffickers are now the largest suppliers 
of methamphetamine sold in the United States; and Mexican heroin is the 
predominant form of that product found in the Western United States.
  Several years ago, Mexican drug organizations partnered with 
Colombian producers to smuggle cocaine into the United States. As their 
expertise and operational capabilities grew, Mexican cartels began to 
demand 50 percent of the shipment as payment for their smuggling 
services; as a result, the wealth and reach of these local criminal 
bands grew dangerously as they gained an independent foothold in the 
lucrative wholesale business in the United States.
  In addition to taking control of the methamphetamine trade, drug 
organizations in Mexico have also become major figures in the diversion 
of precursor chemicals that are used to produce methamphetamine. It is 
apparent that these Mexican cartels have used the largesse of the 
cocaine trade to develop the capacity to manufacture as well as transit 
their own product, methamphetamine, whose use in major cities in the 
Western and Southwestern United States is on the rise.

  With the fall of the Cali cartel, their Mexican partners may be 
uniquely positioned to fill the void, given the proximity to the United 
States market, our 2,000-mile common border, and the political and 
economic disruptions in Mexico, both countries may suffer dramatically 
in the very near term.
  In March, President Clinton certified Mexico as fully cooperative 
with United States antidrug efforts. The administration asserted that 
the Mexican Government had pledged a major offensive against the drug 
cartels and drug-related corruption and, in 1995, had intensified 
antinarcotics efforts, prosecuted corrupt officials, and sought to 
expand cooperation with the United States and other governments.
  Some in Congress disagree emphatically with President Clinton's 
certification of Mexico's antidrug efforts, in light of infamous, well-
publicized examples of corruption. They note that, although the Mexican 
Government may have the political will to fight illicit drugs, 
corruption is common enough to undermine good intentions.
  All sides can agree that drug cartels have become so wealthy and 
powerful that they can undermine the best efforts of any government. In 
the United States, we fight internal corruption through strict internal 
inspection and integrity controls and generally well-paid, professional 
police forces. We also rely on a professional, independent 
prosecutorial system that deters and detects corruption in law 
enforcement services.
  Law enforcement experts note that Mexico's antidrug efforts do not 
have these tools at their disposal. They are hampered by weaknesses in 
their legal structure: the law does not provide for the use of 
wiretaps, confidential informants, or witness protection programs; 
prosecutors cannot build cases for conspiracy to break the law; and 
money laundering is not a criminal offense.
  These experts assert that these tools are indispensable to efforts to 
fight organized crime in the United States and they are needed badly by 
Mexico's law enforcement agencies. United States cooperation, including 
the sharing of vital law enforcement intelligence, can be expanded 
further if Mexico strengthens its own antidrug units.
  It should be noted that the Mexican Government has moved within the 
last few months to adopt some of these legislative measures to 
strengthen their capability to pursue and prosecute drug traffickers.
  The Souder amendment is simple and straightforward. It conditions 
United States aid to Mexico on efforts by the Mexican Government to 
reduce the amount of illegal drugs entering the United States. It also 
expects that government to apply its own law enforcement resources and 
cooperate fully with us to break up the drug cartels operating in 
Mexico and to fight money laundering.
  By passing this amendment, we do not prejudge Mexico and we do not 
excuse our own country from doing all that it can to fight drugs. As a 
matter of fact, many of my colleagues and I would like to see greater 
funding for antidrug cooperation in this legislation--and we will be 
working to achieve that objective.
  Mr. Chairman, the drug cartels pose an international threat. We must 
work with Mexico and other friends throughout the world to meet this 
deadly challenge.
  Once again, I commend Mr. Souder for his amendment and urge my 
colleagues to fully support his amendment.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
should be adopted overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives, and I 
commend the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. We serve on the 
same investigations and oversight subcommittee of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight. We have looked at the lack of a 
national drug policy. We heard the chairman of this committee speak 
just a minute ago about 70 percent of the hard drugs coming into this 
country, we found in our committee examination, are coming in through 
Mexico.
  The United States has bent over backward to help Mexico and this 
Congress has aided Mexico with a trade agreement. I did not agree with 
some of the provisions of that particular trade agreement. This 
administration bailed out Mexico. I cannot think of a nation who has 
done more to help an ally, to help a partner in the Western Hemisphere 
than the United States or this administration or this Congress.
  And what do we get in return? Seventy percent of the illegal drugs. 
We even went so far as to certify Mexico as compliant and we 
decertified Colombia, yet the onslaught of hard drugs coming through 
Mexico is absolutely appalling. The results should astound every Member 
of Congress and every American.
  Look at this chart showing what has happened here since 1992 when 
this administration extended this helping hand. Our 12th graders, our 
10th graders, our 8th graders are getting slaughtered. Cocaine is 
coming in record amounts, heroin is coming in, marijuana is coming in.
  This amendment sends a message to Mexico that this Congress, this 
administration, these representatives of the people who are seeing 
their children slaughtered in the streets, who are seeing juvenile 
crime skyrocket through the ceiling are saying, ``Hey, wait a minute, 
Mexico, we have taken it all we can and we are going to send you a 
message that we want this stopped.''
  It is a very clear message. The latest data by DAWN is absolutely 
startling. Cocaine-related emergencies increased 12 percent; heroin-
related episodes increased 27 percent. This is for the first half of 
1995. Marijuana-related episodes, 32 percent. Methamphetamines, 35 
percent. Designer drugs are killing our young people and creating 
crime; 70 percent of the crimes in my district are committed by people 
who are involved in narcotics and they are coming through Mexico. This 
sends a message: Stop. And we mean it.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 30 
seconds.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition so that I may 
have more time to speak.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is in opposition?
  Mr. KOLBE. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not use the entire 10 minutes and I think this 
amendment is going to go by voice. But let me say about this amendment 
that, while I think that no one disagrees with the intent of this 
amendment that we should have cooperation with Mexico, that I do think 
that it at least

[[Page H6150]]

bears mentioning here on the floor what is happening, and the, I think, 
positive things that have happened with Mexico.
  I just listened to my colleague from Florida. I could not agree with 
him more that what is happening in this country is terrible and what is 
happening with the rise of drug addiction among young people and youth 
using drugs, hard drugs, is a very serious problem. There is no 
question that we should be very concerned about it, and there is no 
question we should be concerned about both the source of these drugs 
and how they get to this country.
  It is the how they get to this country, the channel, that we are 
talking about here today, because for the most part the hard drugs we 
are talking about, the cocaine, the heroin, are not produced in Mexico 
but they become the transit point, the place from which these are 
transported into the United States. As we have been more effective in 
south Florida in cutting off the drugs coming in from South America, we 
have now found that Mexico and Central America are the key places in 
which these drugs come in.

                              {time}  1415

  Let us not in a sense blame the messenger, blame the people who are 
simply there geographically at our doorstep, because of our problem we 
have. I think clearly Mexico has a responsibility to work with us on 
this, and I think they are. That is what I wanted to take this time, 
just to mention some of the things that have happened in Mexico under 
the Zedillo administration.
  Not long ago, just a few months ago, the Mexican Government, at our 
request, arrested and expelled very promptly from Mexico to the United 
States so we could try the individual, Juan Garcia Abrego, the head of 
the Gulf cartel, one of the key people we had been trying to get 
apprehended and get into the United States for drug violations. That 
was a major step by the Mexican Government to cooperate with us.
  I might say as the chairman of the United States-Mexico 
Interparliamentary Meeting just a few weeks ago in Mexico, I heard from 
Mexican parliamentarians about how they thought this was outrageous 
because they had violated their own legal procedures and protections in 
extraditing this individual so promptly and quickly to the United 
States, and yet it is what we requested. I think we should at least 
acknowledge when we are talking about this there have been positive 
steps that have taken place.
  At the end of May, a couple of weeks ago, the Mexicans arrested and 
expelled Jose Luis Pereyra Salas, a major Bolivian drug trafficker. So 
they are picking up some of these major drug traffickers, they are 
getting at the head of this Hydra of drug cartels that is operating 
there in Mexico.
  They recently extradited two Mexican nationals, something they were 
not able to do before, to the United States, who were wanted for 
heinous crimes. That is an important departure from their past 
procedures on extraditions. Under the extradition treaty, we have been 
able to get American nationals extradited to the United States, but 
never Mexican nationals. Now, the two that were extradited, they were 
not extradited on drug-related crimes, but they were heinous crimes, 
one of which has been talked about in this body on several different 
occasions by one of our colleagues. So that was an important step.
  But I think the most important thing that I think should be mentioned 
today is the passage in Mexico within the last 6 weeks of the most 
important, the first and most important, money laundering legislation 
to counter money laundering, and the first time that Mexico has taken 
up this issue.

  There is no question, the Mexican banks, as has happened with banks 
all over the world, whether in the Cayman Islands or whether sometimes 
in Switzerland or often in the United States, banks inadvertently, or 
sometimes through sloppiness or carelessness or sometimes because they 
do not care, allow themselves to be used for money laundering. That is 
why you need to have tough laws that make it clear to the banks what 
their responsibilities are in money laundering.
  This legislation was drafted and worked on, they asked us for some 
assistance on it, we gave them technical assistance. This is their 
legislation. But we think it is a very good piece of legislation. Now 
they have to go through the process of making it work, of getting all 
the rules to implement it, the specifics to the banks, what they must 
do. But it is a very tough piece of legislation. It is what we have 
been asking the Mexicans to do for a long period of time.
  I rise only to mention this, because I think it is important at the 
same time we say, and I think it is appropriate that we say that money 
under this law should not go to the Mexican Government, or any 
government for that matter, that is not cooperating with us on drug 
interdiction and interdicting drug trafficking. We would not be sending 
money to those countries. But I think it is important at the same time 
that we say that, that we do acknowledge that there have within some 
important steps that have been made by Mexico.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Callahan].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this deals with another slightly different subject, but 
I rise to engage the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations, Mr. Callahan, in a colloquy.
  I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, that earlier I had intended to 
offer an amendment to increase funding for the Micro and Small 
Enterprise Development Program. Although I did not offer that 
amendment, I strongly support this program. This is a highly successful 
program that helps people help themselves.
  By helping poor people to increase their income and assets, we are 
enabling them to improve their own welfare, health, housing and 
education, all at a very small cost-effective investment. This is a 
program that works, and this is the type of activity that we as a 
Congress should be encouraging.
  Mr. Chairman, when the opportunity presents itself, as you go into 
conference with the other body, it is my understanding you will work 
with me to support additional assistance for the Micro and Small 
Enterprise Development Program.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Florida for his observations and share his support for the Micro 
and Small Enterprise Development Program.
  I would be pleased to work with the gentleman, and with others in 
this body and the other body to support and possibly even expand this 
program.
  Mr. Chairman, we are going to accept the amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder].
  The amendment was agreed to.


            amendment offered by mr. frank of massachusetts

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment 
pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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


              prohibition of imet assistance for indonesia

       Sec. 573. None of the funds appropriated in this Act under 
     the heading ``International Military Education and Training'' 
     may be made available to the Government of Indonesia.

                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. WILSON. How much time will there be on this amendment and how 
will it be allocated?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Frank] will be 
recognized for 22\1/2\ minutes, and a Member opposed, the gentleman 
from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], will be recognized for 22\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I ask unanimous consent, because I will 
be

[[Page H6151]]

due in a markup, that I be permitted to turn over the management for 
our side of the time to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike out the international 
military education and training for the country of Indonesia. Indonesia 
made an international solemn agreement through the U.N. to take over 
the area known as East Timor. Indonesian rule in East Timor has been 
one of the most oppressive and brutal we have seen.
  East Timor had been controlled by Portugal. This is a case where 
colonialism looks pretty good to people in retrospect. Indeed it is to 
the credit of the people of Portugal that they have continuously spoken 
out against the oppression which the Government of Indonesia has 
visited on the people of East Timor.
  What the Indonesians have done is simply violate their international 
obligations, agreements they had made, to treat the people of East 
Timor fairly. There continues to be one of the most oppressive regimes. 
The people of East Timor, who have sought to preserve their own 
identity, their freedom of religion, freedom of speech, have been 
consistently and brutally mistreated.
  That is going to be documented in the debate. But I want to deal now 
with the arguments we are going to hear that will say, oh, yes, the 
Indonesians have not done what they should do, but this is not the way 
to do it.
  One thing should be very clear. When we are talking to those who 
specialize in foreign policy, to them there is never a way to do 
anything. Whatever method anyone puts forward for dealing with any 
wrong anywhere in the world turns out to be not the right method at a 
given time. Any effort to try to vindicate human rights will run up 
against a whole variety of arguments. One is that we must rely on 
Indonesia, in part for its strategic stability.
  One thing that strikes me when we debate foreign policy, we are 
constantly being told that America must be careful less we alienate, 
unsettle, destabilize, other nations. How come nobody ever has to worry 
about what we think?
  I do not understand the logic that says because we are quite wealthy 
and quite powerful, we therefore must accept the fact that our views 
ought to be disregarded and we must worry about offending others? Is 
the relationship between the United States and Indonesia useful in 
preserving stability? I believe it is. I believe it is so useful, that 
the Indonesians will not jeopardize it based on this.

  The argument is always given that we should not take this or that 
step because we will anger some nation who has been the recipient of 
our protection, cooperation and investment. None of these nations that 
I am aware of are doing this as a favor to us. They are doing it 
because it is even more in their self-interest than ours.
  There is a particular reason why I think it is important for us to 
begin a policy of refusing American assistance to blatant violators of 
human rights is Indonesia and elsewhere in Asia. There is a distressing 
pattern in much of South Asia of people, nations, progressing 
economically, while showing a fundamental disregard for democracy and 
human rights.
  One of the things we like to tell ourselves has been there is some 
necessary connection between expanding free market economy, between 
capitalism at its best, and democracy. I wish I were more confident of 
that. But I think the pattern is emerging in much of Asia where nations 
are showing a capacity to develop economically while remaining from the 
standpoint of human rights quite retarded.
  Indonesia is a nation with very little democracy internally, a great 
deal of corruption, and with a terribly oppressive record against East 
Timor. I believe there are important strategic reasons why they welcome 
American cooperation sufficiently so they are not going to repudiate it 
altogether. The question is: Do we do anything whatsoever to effectuate 
our view that the systematic mistreatment of the people of East Timor 
must stop? I know we will be told, at least I have been told this 
privately, we have changed the IMET around. It now becomes a force for 
good, naked to the eye. I do not understand how that argument can be 
made when we see a continuation of the pattern on the part of Indonesia 
of a systematic mistreatment of those people.
  Therefore, in pursuance of human rights, in pursuance of the 
obligation the world has to the people of East Timor who were turned 
over to Indonesia through international means, and in defense of the 
principle that human rights cannot simply be disregarded, I hope this 
amendment is adopted, and that the Indonesian Government will get a 
strong message from the United States that this behavior is not 
acceptable.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I reserve the balance of my time, which will 
hereafter be managed by the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed].
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, I hope his amendment is not adopted.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman].
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I regret that I rise to oppose the Frank amendment, 
which would prohibit international military, education and training 
[IMET] for Indonesia.
  The provision contained in the amendment before us would restrict the 
IMET program to the more human rights oriented expanded IMET courses. 
This provision is identical to existing law in the fiscal year 1996 
foreign operations appropriations bill, as well as the authorization 
bill that was adopted by both the House and the Senate.
  However, while I am opposing this amendment, I want to make it clear 
that I continue to have strong reservations about Indonesia's human 
rights record. Indonesia's military has an abhorrent human rights 
record. There is no debating that fact. The House needs to speak with 
one voice in condemning the continuing human rights abuses being 
perpetuated by the military.
  That said, it is my view that continuing an IMET program in Indonesia 
will enhance rather than diminish United States ability to positively 
influence Indonesia's human rights policies and behavior. We need to 
stay engaged with the Indonesian military. Providing IMET will 
contribute to the professionalism and human rights sensitivity of 
Indonesia's military.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Frank 
amendment.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which is 
offered by myself and my colleagues, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. 
Kennedy of Massachusetts, and Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island. It would 
prohibit all military education and training funds for Indonesia, IMET 
funds.
  Currently, Indonesia receives expended IMET. Unfortunately, the 
Indonesian military has not made progress in improving its human rights 
record. The record is very clear. Indeed, the Department of State's 
``Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1995'' states that the 
Indonesian Government continues to commit serious human rights 
violations in East Timor.
  The report further states:

       The armed forces continued to be responsible for the most 
     serious human rights abuses.
       On East Timor, no progress was made in accounting for 
     missing persons following the 1991 Dili incident or the 10 
     other Timorese that disappeared in 1995.

                              {time}  1430

  And finally, ``The armed forces used excessive force in making 
arrests following anti-integration rioting in Dili in October.''
  Mr. Chairman, our IMET resources are designed to provide training for 
other military forces around the world. It is not designed to encourage 
or in any way aid or abet in such human rights abuses. And, in fact, 
one would hope that these resources and the training that is involved 
with them

[[Page H6152]]

would be a strong barrier against such abuses of human rights.
  We are not at this juncture criticizing the IMET program. The IMET 
program, as it is practiced around the world, is a valuable source of 
American foreign policy and military preparedness and national security 
strength for our country and our allies. But we cannot, I think, sit 
idly by, watching these abuses in East Timor against a people who were 
the victims of an invasion 20 years ago and continue to fund this type 
of military support for their regime, their military, those people who 
have been identified by our State Department as being the perpetrators 
of these types of human rights abuses.
  In 1992, Congress, in a sense of shock and outrage, cut off IMET 
funds to East Timor. In 1991, on film, the British Broadcasting Corp. 
filmed the massacre of 250 East Timor residents by the forces of the 
Indonesian Armed Forces. That was such a shocking revolting incident 
that we acted properly and cut off those funds. We restored those 
moneys, but we restored those moneys with the idea that the Indonesian 
military had learned their lesson; that they would not continue these 
practices of human rights abuses.
  Sadly, sadly, Mr. Chairman, that lesson has not been learned. It is 
incumbent upon us today to once again reiterate our strong opposition 
to these abuses and to do it in a palpable, tangible way, to do it by 
eliminating IMET funds for the Government of Indonesia and their armed 
forces. This is a position which, I think, has strong support in many 
different quarters.
  Mr. Chairman, I will at the appropriate time introduce a letter in 
the extension of remarks from the Catholic Conference in support of 
this amendment, and included in that letter is the following language: 
``Curtailing IMET funding to Indonesia constitutes a small but 
symbolically important expression by our government of the need for 
Indonesia to show greater will in resolving these problems.'' We cannot 
allow another 20 years of abuses to continue in East Timor.

  I would also say for the record, which I think is important, Mr. 
Chairman, we have spent our the last several days debating this bill, 
in different guises, talking about Desert Storm and over valiant 
efforts to liberate Kuwait from the unprovoked aggression of Iraq in 
1991.
  Well, the similarities in this situation are ironic but associate, 
but in this situation it was the Government of Indonesia that struck a 
defenseless country, overran it without any justification under 
international law, and today not only do we not condemn that invasion 
vigorously but we continue to assist the Indonesian military. It would 
be as if we had stood by idly and passively in the gulf and now today 
continued to assist the Iraqi Armed Forces.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I think justice and human rights and sound policy 
is on the side of this amendment and I hope it passes.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Wilson], the ranking Democrat on our subcommittee.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I rise in opposition to the amendment. Of course, the 
administration is also opposed to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, IMET for Indonesia was completely cut off from 1992 to 
1995. In fiscal year 1996, as part of a compromise on the issue, 
Congress agreed to allow for expanded IMET only. This means any 
training provided has to contain some elements of human rights 
training. The bill contains the same restriction as last year, that is 
only expanded IMET for Indonesia which ensures training and human 
rights.
  I would, therefore, vigorously oppose this amendment. The committee 
has taken a compromise position and it should be sustained.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like also to read a couple of paragraphs from a 
letter that I just received a few minutes ago from Secretary of Defense 
Perry and General Shalikashvili.

       Strategically located Indonesia, with the world's fourth 
     largest population, is increasingly important to United 
     States interests. It is influential regionally, where it has 
     been a force for stability, and globally. As we continue to 
     rationalize and economize on our overseas military 
     deployments, military cooperation with key countries such as 
     Indonesia becomes an ever greater element in our ability to 
     project power and influence. The IMET program in Indonesia 
     enhances rather than diminishes U.S. ability to positively 
     influence Indonesia's human rights policies.

  That from the Secretary of Defense.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would say that the United States has very, 
very broad interests in Indonesia, ranging from vast commercial 
contracts to arms sales. It represents one of Asia's most promising 
expanding markets for American goods, with the United States occupying 
12 percent of total imports. Our aid program helps protect the 
environment, improve conditions in East Timor, open opportunities for 
U.S. business, and stop the spread of AIDS. Any of those reasons, I 
submit, are reason enough to vote against this amendment and I urge the 
House to do so.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York [Mrs. Lowey].
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Frank 
amendment to eliminate international military education and training 
funding for Indonesia.
  First of all, I would like to commend Chairman Callahan for his 
efforts to address my concerns on this issue. I appreciate his support 
for expanded IMET for Indonesia when I know he might rather have 
allowed Indonesia to receive full IMET assistance. However, as the 
chairman knows, I still have very serious concerns about Indonesia's 
human rights record.
  In 1992, we voted to end all IMET assistance for Indonesia because of 
that country's abysmal human rights record and their continued 
oppression of the people of East Timor. Despite the lack of improvement 
in Indonesia's human rights record, and the opposition of myself and 
many of my colleagues, a modified IMET program was approved for 
Indonesia in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 
1996.
  When this provision was added to the foreign aid bill last year, we 
said we would monitor the human rights situation in Indonesia very 
carefully and act accordingly this year. Well, the State Department's 
country report on Indonesia was released in March, and according to the 
report, ``The Government continued to commit serious human rights 
abuses.''
  The State Department report also said that in Indonesia ``reports of 
extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and torture of those in custody 
by security forces increased.'' Not decreased. Not stayed the same. 
Increased. Should we really be sending Indonesia more military 
assistance now when they have not addressed these critical human rights 
issues? I don't think so.
  Indonesia's policy in East Timor is about the oppression of people 
who oppose Indonesia's right to torture, kill, and repress the people 
of East Timor. It is about the 200,000 Timorese who have been 
slaughtered since the Indonesian occupation in 1975; 200,000 killed out 
of a total population of 700,000. It is about genocide.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and send a message to 
Indonesia that we will not tolerate continued human rights abuses.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on International Relations, the 
House of Representatives' most leading expert on Southeast Asia and on 
trade and American businesses in the region.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate his coming to the floor and especially 
waiting for an hour to make his observations.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his kind 
remarks.
  I rise in strong opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. We have to remember always, when we approach 
these issues, what is in our national interest and what is not; what 
has a positive impact and what does not.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentlewoman from New York began to make clear,

[[Page H6153]]

Indonesia does not have an IMET Program from us, they have an E-IMET 
Program or an expanded IMET Program, and there is quite a difference. 
In fact, an expanded IMET Program is specifically oriented to focusing 
on improving human rights activities and practices within a military.
  We also have to get over the idea that the IMET or E-IMET Program is 
a grant of assistance to a foreign government. We do it because it is 
in our national interest to increase military-to-military cooperation, 
and because it is in our strategic interest to have this relationship.
  There are many economic and strategic reasons why the E-IMET Program 
should be continued for Indonesia, but I would like to focus on the 
Human rights concerns and why, in fact, the frustrations of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] are not well taken. He can 
certainly be frustrated with the failure, as he sees it, to improve 
conditions in East Timor, but, in fact, the E-IMET Program is designed 
specifically to deal with human rights issues and human rights policies 
within the military. The E-IMET Program improves their performance in 
that respect. It is to our advantage, if we are interested in improving 
the human rights conditions.
  The E-IMET Program is one of the most effective tools that we have 
for promoting both our security interests and improving human rights 
performance in other countries. The IMET or E-IMET Program in Indonesia 
enhances rather than diminishes our ability to influence the Indonesian 
military's policies and behavior.
  Now, I understand that the gentleman from Massachusetts, and both 
gentlemen from Rhode Island have very big Portuguese American 
populations in their districts. These are great people, exceptional 
Americans, but they have to, in fact, I think be educated to the fact 
that there are better methods for improving human rights performance 
than to deny E-IMET.
  Mr. Chairman, the E-IMET Program is bringing results within the 
military, and I will provide an example in a few minutes. The E-IMET 
Program exposes Indonesia's military students to western values, to 
civilian rule, and to the role of a professional military in a 
democracy. It will encourage efforts underway in the Indonesian 
military to improve professionalism, accountability, and respect for 
human rights.
  The E-IMET Program for Indonesia, which is a product of this 
gentleman's amendment in a foreign aid bill in the past, is all that 
H.R. 3540 allows for Indonesia. It is designed to address issues, 
again, in democracy, human rights, military justice, and the concept of 
civilian control over the military. We should support human rights 
training for Indonesia through E-IMET, and this Member urges his 
colleagues for that reason to vote ``no'' on the Frank amendment.
  As some of my colleagues know, one of the troubled areas in Indonesia 
right now is a part of the island that is a part of Indonesia called 
Irian Jaya. The legal adviser on the staff of the Kodam command in 
Jayapura, Irian Jaya, it has recently been revealed, is the author of a 
human rights handbook distributed to all troops in the command; it 
contains his innovations. They have also issued rules of engagement 
annexes to operational orders, which specifically says what troops 
should do and, more important, what they should not do when they engage 
in field operations in that respect.

  I am talking very specifically about how they treat the citizens of 
their country, regardless of religion.

                              {time}  1445

  It has been said that since January when he started issuing these 
rules of engagement annexes, there have been no human rights violations 
in the Indonesian military in Irian Jaya. When asked where he came up 
with these innovations, he said it all came out of his experience at 
the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's School, where he was an IMET 
student.
  Let me end by reminding my colleagues why the E-IMET Program is a 
positive step toward improving human rights in Indonesia. The United 
States engagement with the Indonesian military, through IMET and 
specifically through E-IMET and other programs, enhances our ability to 
influence Indonesian human rights behavior and serving our broader 
interests in the region.
  Second, it provides the Indonesian military with the human rights 
courses in the E-IMET Program that will contribute to their 
professionalism and the human rights sensitivity of the Indonesian 
military.
  Third, in 1991, Congress established the expand E-IMET Program with 
four explicit objectives, three of which directly relate to human 
rights issues: A, to foster greater respect for the principles of 
civilian control of the military: B, to improve military justice and 
military codes of conduct in accordance with internationally recognized 
human rights; and the third of the four points that relates to human 
rights, to enhance cooperation between the military and local police in 
the area of counternarcotics.
  Mr. Chairman, these elements in our E-IMET Program are exactly what 
we need to have happening within the Indonesian military. The human 
rights concerns that we have with Indonesia should be addressed by 
appropriate means. The E-IMET Program is an appropriate means to 
address human rights performance within the Indonesian military.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, therefore, to reject the Frank 
amendment. It is not only a questionable amendment in its impact; it is 
a step in exactly the wrong direction.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a 
supporter of IMET. This is a program which is right in the right time 
and in the right place, but IMET in Indonesia at this time represents 
the wrong place at the wrong time.
  Congress did the right thing in 1992, when at the urging of my 
predecessor from Rhode Island, Ron Machtley, we cut off IMET to 
Indonesia. When Congress did that, they sent a clear message to the 
dictatorship in Jakarta. They said: You need to stop the human rights 
abuses in East Timor; your record in East Timor does not merit your 
receiving IMET.
  Last year, unfortunately, Congress restored IMET to Indonesia. Since 
this time human rights abuses have continued and have gotten worse. 
Another year will just provide more encouragement for those carrying 
out these abusive practices.
  Since Indonesia brutally invaded East Timor 20 years ago, almost one-
third of the population has been killed. One-third of the population 
has been killed. This could not have happened without the knowledge and 
participation of the military, the very military that we are going to 
reward if we pass this IMET in this bill and if we do not pass the 
Frank amendment.
   Mr. Chairman, the record of leadership in Indonesia is clear and 
unmistakable. After the Santa Cruz massacre, General Try Sutrisno, the 
commander of the Indonesian military at the time, and he is now 
currently the vice president of Indonesia, was quoted as saying that 
those who had gathered at the cemetery were disrupters who must be 
crushed. He said, and I quote, ``Delinquents like these have to be 
shot, and we will shoot them,'' he said. General Mantriri, the regional 
commander for East Timor, was quoted just after the Santa Cruz massacre 
as saying, quote unquote, that, ``The massacre was proper,'' and, I 
quote, ``We do not regret anything.''
  These are the words of the military commanders that this U.S. 
Congress is about to lend assistance to. These very military commanders 
who are saying these things.
  These abuses continue. Just yesterday, just yesterday, there are 
reports that are yet to be confirmed that East Timorese youths were 
shot at by police forces in Baucau. They were protesting the 
destruction of the portrait of the Virgin Mary, and youths took to the 
streets. There are reports that house-to-house searches were conducted.
  My office has learned that Bishop Bello, who is recognized by all as 
the conscience of East Timor and is one of the most respected human 
rights leaders in the world and was one of the finalists for the Nobel 
Peace Prize last year, Bishop Bello was more upset than friends have 
said they have heard him in years.
   Mr. Chairman, I think we need to send a clear message to the leaders 
of Indonesia that we will not sit by and

[[Page H6154]]

let these abuses continue. And I urge my colleagues to support the 
Frank amendment and send a clear message to Indonesia we are not going 
to sanction continued abuses of human rights.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Pickett].
  (Mr. PICKETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, I am here in opposition to this amendment 
not because I condone the human rights policies of Indonesia but 
because I am very, very strongly committed to our own Nation's defense 
program. Make no mistake about it, the IMET program is one of the most 
valuable tools that we use as a Nation to engage in preventive defense 
on behalf of our country.
  This program enables us to bring to this country distinguished 
military officers from other countries and train them in the way that 
our military does business, in the way our military relates to the 
civilian sector, and the way our military works with other militaries 
around the world. It is a very important program. It is not a program 
designed exclusively for the benefit of in this case Indonesia or, for 
that case, any other foreign nation. It benefits the United States of 
America.
  It makes our defense program stronger. It extends the scope of 
influence of the United States of America.
  When these people come and visit in this country, they take back with 
them characteristics that we cannot communicate or instill any other 
way. And time and again we have heard the military of our Nation talk 
about working with other military members that are in foreign countries 
and having a first-time relation with them because of the fact that 
these people have come to the United States of America, have worked in 
our schools here, have worked with our military people, and have taken 
back with them personal relationships that they continue to build on 
year after year after year.
  It is a magnificent investment that we make, and one that has 
returned dividends manyfold on the money that has been invested in it. 
It should not be looked upon as simply a gift over something to trade 
off for some kind of conduct of another nation. It is much, much too 
valuable for that. This is a very strong component of our Nation's 
defense program. And you might ask, well, why is it in the foreign 
operations bill? And my answer is I do not know. I think it more 
properly belongs in the defense appropriations bill. But nevertheless 
we are here with it. But we should not let the fact that it is in the 
foreign operations bill obscure from us the reality that this is indeed 
a defense expenditure and one that is a very valuable component of our 
Nation's defense program and experience has shown that it works well.
  For example, the top three military officers in Indonesia have all 
participated in this program, and they are people that our military 
works with on a regular basis, based upon the contacts that have been 
built up as a result of their working with the IMET program.
  As has been said before, this program is going to enhance rather than 
diminish the ability of our Nation to influence the conduct of 
Indonesia in the way it handles its human rights policies.
  I would urge the Members to recognize the importance of this program 
to our own military and to reject this amendment because I think it 
will not serve the long-term interests of our Nation.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I respect a great deal both the gentleman from Nebraska 
[Mr. Bereuter] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Pickett] and their 
comments.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not an amendment attempting to undercut the 
very important goals of IMET. I spent 12 years in the U.S. Army, and I 
had the opportunity to actually train with and serve with foreign 
officers who were brought into this country through the IMET program. 
It is a very valuable program and a very worthwhile program. And it 
does, as the gentleman from Virginia indicated, give our country an 
opportunity to impress upon foreign officers our values, both our 
democratic values and our professional standards.
  But the other side of that equation is that this program gives, in 
many respects, an imprimatur to the military forces that participate in 
the program, and I think we have to ask very serious questions at this 
juncture, given the record in Indonesia, whether we want to give the 
imprimatur to the armed forces of Indonesia. There have been 
indications that progress is being made.
  But progress in human rights in East Timor is in the eye of the 
beholder. And I would refer to the letter I made reference to before 
from the Catholic Conference from Father Drew Christiansen: ``Rather 
than improvements in human rights, there have been over the past year 
numerous reports from authoritative sources of continued harassment and 
arrests of many, especially young people, seeking to express in a 
nonviolent fashion their disagreement with the status quo. There 
continue to be vicious attacks by gangs of paramiliataries and a 
climate of fear created by the security forces that at times amounts to 
a reign of terror.''
  And so I would argue, based upon the observations of Father 
Christiansen and his colleagues in the Catholic Conference, that our 
IMET training has not achieved success yet and, in fact, what it does 
is provide a symbolic approval of these operations in East Timor by 
Indonesian security forces. And also it has not yet moved forward the 
Government of Indonesia together with other world leaders in the world 
community to recognize their occupation, their illegal occupation of 
East Timor, and to give justice to the East Timor and to its people. 
And I think in that regard we have again invoked the leverage of 
withdrawing IMET from the armed forces of Indonesia.

  Now, the gentleman from Nebraska talked about the strategic value of 
Indonesia. I believe there is strategic value there. But I would point 
out that in the period from 1992 until about a year or so ago, when we 
restored expanded IMET, the Government of Indonesia did not turn away 
from the United States, did not seek to ally itself with other regional 
powers. And I would suspect that if once again we revoked IMET, they 
would not turn away from us, turn away from their own self-interest, 
which is a relationship with the United States in the world community.
  We are not at all seeking to undercut the economic ties that we are 
developing with the Government of Indonesia. Those ties, I think, also 
are based upon mutual self-interest, but what we are doing is trying to 
establish very clearly that the Government of Indonesia and its armed 
forces must act with more sensitivity, more consideration of the people 
of East Timor, and if they cannot do that, they then would not be 
allowed to participate in this expanded IMET. And for all of the above 
reasons, I would urge that this measure be adopted and the amendment be 
accepted by the committee.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], which would cut off all IMET to 
Indonesia.
  Mr. Chairman, I notice that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] had other business and could not be here to hear the extended 
debate; not here to hear the eloquent statements of people that are 
knowledgeable in this affair. But I am sure that had he been here, no 
doubt he might have taken serious consideration to withdraw this 
amendment.
  But since it has not been withdrawn, as the gentleman knows, the 
subcommittee has been very attentive to this issue and in last year's 
bill we agreed to provide expanded IMET to Indonesia. Expanded IMET is 
only for training the military in the areas of democratization, respect 
for human rights, and the rule of law. It really should be called 
restricted IMET.
  Because our fiscal year 1996 bill was not enacted into law until 
early this year, Indonesia really has not had the benefit of this type 
of training. The committee's position this year simply reflects last 
year's compromise on this issue--it allows the expanded IMET program to 
work with Indonesian officers to improve their human rights 
performance. No military training is provided. Personally, I support 
full

[[Page H6155]]

military training for Indonesia, but I reached a compromise with my 
colleagues on the committee and last year I supported the House 
position in conference.
  Currently the administration is planning visits to Indonesia by the 
U.S. Naval Justice School's Military Justice Mobile Education Team and 
the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School's Civil-Military Relations Mobile 
Education Team. Are these really the types of IMET programs that the 
House should be prohibiting? Well, that is exactly what the amendment 
by the gentleman from Massachusetts will do.
  I strongly oppose this counterproductive amendment which will deny, I 
repeat deny, human rights training to the Indonesian military. Please 
vote ``no'' on the Frank amendment.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Frank, 
Kennedy, Reed and Kennedy amendment to the fiscal year 1997 foreign 
operations appropriations bill which will prohibit all international 
military education [IMET] funding for Indonesia.
  The Indonesia invasion and occupation of East Timor in 1975 was the 
beginning of a period of repression and human rights abuses in East 
Timor that has continued for over 20 years. It has claimed the lives of 
200,000 Timorese, one-third of the original population. It has been 
done in defiance of the U.N. Security Council, which has twice called 
on Jakarta to withdraw without delay. The United States fully supported 
these resolutions.
  The human rights situation remains serious in East Timor. In this 
year's State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices, the 
Department notes ``the most serious abuses, by Indonesia, include harsh 
repression of dissidents in East Timor * * * Reports of extrajudicial 
killings, disappearances and torture of those in custody by security 
forces increased.''
  Since the November 12, 1991, Santa Cruz Cemetery massacre, in which 
Indonesian troops armed with American M-16's gunned down more than 200 
Timorese civilians, Congress has taken a series of initiatives which 
have begun to shift the direction of United States policy.
  While imperfect, the ban on IMET funding for Indonesia has been one 
source of leverage. First imposed in October 1992, the ban has sent an 
important message to Indonesia about our concerns regarding human 
rights in East Timor. By approving IMET military training funds, 
Congress turns a blind eye to continued abuses in East Timor and lets 
Indonesia off the hook.
  The political issue in East Timor is a very basic one: The people 
simply want the right to vote in a U.N.-supervised referendum, in which 
they would be given the right to choose whether they want to be 
independent or become part of Indonesia. Without any international 
pressure on the regime in Jakarta, the ability of the people in East 
Timor to exercise their right of self-determination will continue to be 
infringed upon.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Frank 
amendment to prohibit the use of international military education and 
training funds for Indonesia. It appears to me that this amendment is 
designed only to insult Indonesia and would have only negative effects 
on United States-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 United States 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 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 United States-
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 United States 
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 Indonesians, 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 rights here at home. The only ones really cheering 
for the misguided symbolism of the 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 Frank amendment is merely pandering to only 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 in Indonesia.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for America's best interests 
and reject this misguided amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Frank-Kennedy-Reed 
amendment to prohibit IMET for Indonesia. I appreciate Chairman 
Callahan's initiative last year and again this year to limit IMET for 
Indonesia to expanded-IMET only. Nonetheless, in light of continuing 
human rights abuses and Indonesia's economic strength I do not believe 
that the Indonesian military should be trained with United States 
taxpayers' dollars.
  According to the U.S. State Department's country reports on human 
rights practices for 1995, human rights in Indonesia continued to be a 
problem. The report notes that--in Indonesia ``there continued to be 
numerous, credible reports of human rights abuses by the military and 
police * * *.'' The human rights problems in Indonesia noted by the 
State Department report include:

       The (Indonesian) Government continued to commit serious 
     human rights abuses. The most serious abuses included harsh 
     repression of dissidents in East Timor, Aceh, and Irian Jaya. 
     Reports of extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and 
     torture of those in custody by security forces increased. 
     Reports of arbitrary arrests and detentions and the use of 
     excessive violence (including deadly force) in dealing with 
     suspected criminals or perceived troublemakers continued.

  The State Department's report also states:

       Elements of the armed forces continued to be responsible 
     for the most serious human rights abuses. Military leaders in 
     some cases showed willingness to admit publicly abuses by 
     military personnel and take action against them, including in 
     a brutal incident in East Timor. Punishment, however, rarely 
     matched the severity of the abuse.

  Some of our colleagues will argue that IMET benefits the United 
States by increasing the professionalism of the armed forces of other 
nations. That may, in some cases, be true. Unfortunately, history is 
now littered with cases of egregious human rights abuses being 
perpetrated by people who received U.S. military training. In some 
countries, IMET training endows those who receive it with a mantle of 
prestige and privilege. IMET provides a seal of approval of sorts for 
military people who receive it and therefore bestows a seal of approval 
on their military practices. The United States should not be in a 
position of supporting repressive or abusive practices either in an 
explicit or implicit way.
  It is clear, to those who are willing to look, that the human rights 
situation in East Timor is terrible. The State Department's report 
provides documentation of some of last year's atrocities, many of which 
were perpetrated by the military. These practices have not ended. I 
have in my possession a list provided by a reputable human rights 
organization of 17 East Timorese people who have been arrested, beaten 
and tortured by the Indonesian armed forces at various locations around 
East Timor since January 1996. This list is incomplete, but it is 
representative of the ongoing practices of the Indonesian military.
  The repressive activities of the Indonesian armed forces are by no 
means limited to East Timor, which Indonesia occupies illegally.

[[Page H6156]]

They also occur in many other places in Indonesia, including Irian 
Jaya, where NGO and church sources provided eyewitness accounts of over 
40 victims of torture by the Indonesian military in late 1994 and early 
1995.
  I urge my colleagues to express their concern about human rights 
abuses in Indonesia by supporting the Frank-Kennedy-Reed amendment to 
prohibit IMET for Indonesia.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to 
funding for expanded international military and education training 
[IMET] for Indonesia. The actions perpetrated by Indonesia against the 
people of East Timor have been no less than reprehensible and do not 
deserve to be condoned by this Government. I do not question the 
efficacy of IMET programs in general, but rather the value to be gained 
by the United States in providing assistance to the Indonesian 
Government. As a champion of human rights throughout the world, the 
United States should make every effort to ensure that systematic 
aggression, like that against the East Timorese, is not allowed to 
continue. In order to do this, though, it is imperative that the 
Indonesian Government receives a firm answer from this country--such 
behavior will not be tolerated.
  Indonesia's invasion of East Timor spawned an era of oppression 
directed against the East Timorese. Torture, abductions, 
disappearances, and massacres have all been common occurrences under 
its rule. The result has been the annihilation of nearly one-third of 
the East Timorese population. Portugal has strenuously objected to 
Indonesia's conduct in East Timor, but these objections have gone 
unheeded. Instead, the international community has silently accepted 
the situation. However, I refuse to stand idly by as the Indonesian 
Government is no less than rewarded for its actions with funds from 
this country.
  The violence which has been unleashed against the people of East 
Timor must be stopped. A restoration of IMET funding to Indonesia, 
though, does not send this message. Rather, it encourages the 
Indonesian military to perpetuate the cycle of abuse. The East Timorese 
must be recognized for the basic human dignity we all share. For this 
reason, I stand opposed to this country's financial support of the 
Indonesian regime.

                              {time}  1500

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 149, 
noes 272, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 227]

                               AYES--149

     Andrews
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--272

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Roth
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bateman
     Brown (CA)
     Calvert
     Deutsch
     Gibbons
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Rose
     Schiff
     Studds
     Torricelli

                              {time}  1520

  Ms. BROWN of Florida and Mr. WAXMAN changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Ms. WATERS and Messrs. CLAY, FLAKE and VOLKMER changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to address the Committee 
for 1 minute.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Porter] for a colloquy.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, very recently, elections were held in 
Albania that international observers feel were rife with 
irregularities--including ballot stuffing, physical intimidation of 
voters and other acts of fraud and coercion. This is a grave cause of 
concern and I would inquire whether the Chairman would be open to 
consideration of provisions withholding assistance to Albania unless 
new elections are held.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I understand the gentleman's concern over the 
disturbing elections in Albania, and I will remain open to 
consideration of this matter in our conference committee with the 
Senate on this legislation.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule and the order of the House of June 
6, 1996, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hefley) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hansen, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union,

[[Page H6157]]

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, pursuant to House Resolution 445, he 
reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by 
the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
House for 2 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a few seconds to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] for a comment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, in the few seconds that I have allocated to 
me I want to commend the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], our 
chairman, for his excellent leadership of our subcommittee and for his 
shepherding us through these different issues. While I do not agree 
with all that is in the bill, I do commend the gentleman.
  In addition to commending our excellent chairman, the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan], for his magnificent shepherding of this 
legislation through subcommittee, full committee and to the floor, I 
want to join with him in acknowledging the fine work of our ranking 
member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson]. While he will be on the 
floor when we take up the conference report, I am certain, this is the 
last bill that he brings to the floor from the committee, and I know 
that all the members of the subcommittee join our colleagues in 
commending him and thanking him for his leadership on the committee, 
his good humor in the face of strong opposition on some issues in the 
committee and his leadership to rally us around some of the issues of 
agreement.
  With that, I want to once again commend the gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Callahan]. I do not think our colleagues have any idea how 
difficult it is for this bill, to reach consensus on it, and we are all 
deeply in the debt of the gentleman.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Reclaiming my time, I am sorry that the confusion and 
the timing does not permit us to do justice to the gentleman from 
Texas, who is sitting in on his last few minutes of an appropriation 
bill, who has been sitting here for 19 years doing this same thing 
every 2 years. And I would like to thank also the subcommittee members 
who have worked so hard and are so allied with us in trying to 
formulate a bipartisan bill. And certainly the staff deserves 
recognition for the yeoman job that they have done, as does the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and all the people of our 
committee.
  The gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] also deserves recognition for 
his yeomanship and his great handling of this bill sitting in the 
Speaker's chair.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, in the final passage of this bill there have 
been those who came and tried to increase this level of spending that 
we do on foreign aid, but thanks to this committee and this Congress, 
we are cutting foreign aid, we are cutting the President's request by a 
billion dollars, we have now, with the passage of this bill, reduced 
the level of appropriation for foreign operations to less than 1 
percent of our total budget.
  So this is a vote to cut foreign aid and to appropriate responsibly 
what limited amount of money we are going to. I would encourage each 
Member to vote ``aye'' to cut foreign aid and to pass this responsible 
legislation.
  Mr. DURBIN. I rise in support of assistance to Israel in the Foreign 
Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1997.
  The legislation before us today includes the President's full request 
for assistance to Israel, including economic support funds, foreign 
military finance grants, counterterrorism assistance, and funds for the 
resettlement of refugees from Eastern Europe. In addition, the 
legislation requires that this assistance be provided on an expedited 
basis.
  The security and the prosperity of the United States are intricately 
interwoven with the security and prosperity of Israel. The American 
people and the people of Israel are inseparably joined by a common 
heritage, shared values and democratic forms of government. The threats 
to Israel--from political conflict, extremism, economic instability and 
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction--are also threats to 
the people of the United States.
  We have seen historic changes in the Middle East in recent years as 
Israel has reached out to its neighbors for peace. But real dangers and 
significant obstacles to peace remain.
  The people of Israel have just recently held elections and voted for 
new leaders. This is a time of transition for Israel, and Israel's 
people must know that the United States will remain a steadfast and 
strong ally.
  The assistance we provide to Israel will strengthen our most 
important ally in the Middle East, deter aggression from hostile 
nations in the region, and ultimately protect the security of the 
United States. This assistance will help Israel to preserve a 
qualitative advantage in defense, even though it is heavily outspent by 
its larger neighbors. It will help Israel to absorb the economic cost 
of maintaining a strong defense. And it will once again assure the 
people of Israel, and its adversaries, of unwavering American support.
  We must support Israel because it is the right thing to do, and 
because it is the wise course to take. I urge my colleagues to support 
the President's request for assistance to Israel and vote for final 
passage of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 
1997.
  Ms. PELOSI. I commend Chairman Callahan and Ranking Member Wilson for 
their successful efforts for the second year in a row in putting 
together a foreign aid bill which has bipartisan support. As a member 
of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I know the work that has gone 
into this bill and the efforts that have been made to bridge many 
differences on the purpose, the priorities, and the funding level of 
our foreign aid programs. I would like to thank the subcommittee staff, 
Charlie Flickner, Bill Inglee, John Shank, and Lori Maes, and our 
Democratic staffpersons Mark Murray and Kathleen Murphy for their hard 
work on this bill.
  In the current fiscal climate, we have to make many difficult choices 
cutting funding for many worthy programs. Our decisions must be based 
on fact, not myth. We have before us today one of the most 
misunderstood and maligned bills the Congress is regularly privileged 
to consider. The misperceptions surrounding foreign aid are legion and 
we, as leaders, have an obligation to set the record straight.
  We will hear today from some of our colleagues that the American 
people do not support foreign aid. That is not true. The American 
people's overwhelming humanitarian response to crisis, to famine, to 
tragedy overseas, is evidence of their concern. According to recent 
surveys, Americans believe we should spend 15 percent of our budget on 
foreign aid--they think we spend 40 percent on foreign aid--and do not 
know that we spend less than 1 percent on foreign aid. Today's bill 
continues the recent downward trend in spending on foreign aid, 
providing $1 billion less than the President's request for fiscal year 
1997 , and $458 million less than the fiscal year 1996 level.
  Foreign aid is a good investment in a number of ways. Our limited 
foreign aid dollars provide returns to our country many times over 
through assisting our allies and increasing our national security, 
providing much-needed humanitarian relief and easing human suffering. 
In addition, we get numerous economic benefits from our foreign aid 
investments. Eighty percent of our development assistance is spent here 
in the United States, providing jobs for American workers, and 
expanding markets abroad.
  I support a number of this bill's provisions and thank Chairman 
Callahan, in particular, for his continued leadership in providing 
funding for global AIDS programs and for his assistance in addressing 
my concerns about some reporting requirements related to Hong Kong. 
That said, I cannot ignore the parts of this bill which I believe 
should be changed. I am particularly concerned about the impact of 
funding cuts on programs to meet the needs of the poorest of the poor 
around the world, including IDA and the IADB's Fund for Special 
Operations. I am also concerned about the reduced ability of our 
foreign aid programs to meet the development challenges on the 
continent of Africa. I believe we should reinstate the Development Fund 
for Africa as a separate account and provide funding for the African 
Development Bank and African Development Foundation, for example.
  And, I am particularly concerned about the consequences for the 
global environment of cuts in funding for global environment programs 
and of cuts in funding and restrictions on population assistance funds.
  Overpopulation is a threat to us all. The world is already 
experiencing a serious strain on its natural resources; increased 
population

[[Page H6158]]

growth at current rates will only increase environmental degradation. 
We cannot be close-minded or short-sighted on this issue. What happens 
in other countries must be of interest here at home. Pollution does not 
stop at our borders. Diseases also do not stop at our borders. 
Stabilizing population growth is critical to us all.
  In addition, I am very concerned that the population provisions 
contained in this bill will have the opposite impact of what our well-
meaning colleagues intend. The 35-percent cut in population assistance 
funding contained in this bill can 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 abstract arguments. These are real 
people whose suffering and whose deaths that we have the power to 
prevent.
  U.S. foreign assistance has been at the forefront in saving lives, 
building democracy and achieving economic growth in the developing 
world. While failures associated with foreign aid programs have been 
well publicized, the success stories receive little attention. We can 
be proud that hundreds of millions of people around the world have 
achieved substantial improvements in their living standards around the 
world. We can be proud of the millions of children in developing 
countries whose lives have been saved by the immunization programs 
which we have funded.
  Yes, improvements can still be made. Everything can always be 
improved. The administration should be commended for the progress it 
has made in increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of our 
development programs. We should make every effort to fund these 
programs at adequate and appropriate levels. This bill is a step in 
that direction.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my support for 
the foreign operations appropriations measure before us today. I am not 
satisfied with all of the bill's provisions, notably the continued 
restrictions on international family planning. However, I believe that 
this bill contains some provisions that deserve our support, including 
our Nation's continued commitment to the Middle East peace process.
  A new era in U.S. foreign assistance has been taking shape since the 
end of the cold war. New trends are developing which will guide the 
direction of our foreign policy and foreign assistance programs well 
into the next century. In light of these changes, I believe it is 
important for the United States to remain committed throughout the 
world. Such a commitment will serve to advance our global interests and 
influence.
  This bill will appropriate $11.9 billion for foreign aid and export 
assistance, $1 billion less than the administration's request and $458 
million less than the fiscal year 1996 appropriation.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the committee has continued to show 
its support for sustainable agriculture programs. Programs like the 
small ruminants collaborative research support program at the 
University of California, Davis, promote sustainable agriculture in the 
developing world in the conjunction with the U.S. system of land grant 
colleges and universities. Finding and implementing sustainable, 
environmentally safe, agricultural techniques and crops is critical to 
providing long-term food security in Africa and throughout the world.
  In addition, I would like to express my support for the efforts of 
Representatives Visclosky, Bilirakis, Durbin, and others to strengthen 
the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act and increase pressure on Turkey to 
lift its 3 year blockade of United States relief supplies to Armenia.
  This amendment will send a clear message to Turkey that the United 
States Congress will not tolerate, much less subsidize, the illegal 
blockade of American humanitarian relief aid to needy populations in 
Armenia. Turkey's embargo not only perpetuates the humanitarian crisis 
in Armenia, but also increases the costs of American assistance 
programs because of the necessity to circumvent Turkey. The amendment 
will ensure that Turkey complies with the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act 
before it receives any additional economic support funds.
  I would also like to extend my support for the amendment offered by 
Representatives Radanovich and Bonior. This amendment would withhold $3 
million of United States aid to Turkey until the Turkish Government has 
acknowledged the atrocities committed against the Armenian people. By 
linking Turkey's denial of this genocide to United States foreign aid 
levels, this amendment provides a practical incentive for Turkey to 
finally acknowledge its role in this genocide. Moreover, it would begin 
to decrease regional tensions and open the door to improved relations 
between Armenia and Turkey.
  I would also like to express my support for the amendment offered by 
Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts to prohibit funding for the U.S. Army's 
School of the Americas. While the amendment was withdrawn, his 
underlying bill, H.R. 2652, is a legislative proposal worth supporting.
  The School of the Americas and its graduates have linked the United 
States to some of the worst human rights violators in Latin America. 
These human rights abusers have been responsible for murders, coups, 
and numerous disappearances. This shameful record casts doubts on the 
intentions of the United States and damages our relationships. We need 
to take a serious look at the school and the awful legacy that it has 
left in Latin America.
  I believe that reasonable, responsible levels of foreign assistance 
will continue to serve the economic, humanitarian, political, and 
strategic interests of the United States. I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--yeas 366, 
nays 57, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 228]

                               YEAS--366

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts

[[Page H6159]]


     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--57

     Barrett (NE)
     Beilenson
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Chenoweth
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Fattah
     Foglietta
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hefley
     Herger
     Jacobs
     Jones
     Laughlin
     Lucas
     McDermott
     Meyers
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Payne (NJ)
     Pombo
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Solomon
     Stark
     Stump
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Volkmer
     Whitfield
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bateman
     Calvert
     Deutsch
     Gibbons
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Radanovich
     Schiff
     Studds

                              {time}  1546

  Mr. HEFLEY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________