[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 115 (Thursday, September 4, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H6808-H6848]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Thursday, July 24, 1997, 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. 2159.
{time} 1113
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. 2159) making appropriations for foreign operations, export
financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September
30, 1998, and for other purposes, with Mr. Thornberry in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on
Wednesday September 3, 1997, the bill had been read through page 94,
line 3, and pending was the amendment numbered 38 by the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Burton].
Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendment
is in order except the pending amendment by the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Burton]; amendment numbered 1 in House Report 105-184, and the
amendment to that amendment, each under the terms of the order of the
House of Thursday, July 24, 1997; and the amendment numbered 40 by the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
Is there further debate on the amendment numbered 38 by the gentleman
from Indiana [Mr. Burton]?
{time} 1115
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
To refresh the Members' memory, last night when we rose, we were
debating the Burton amendment which would cut aid to India.
Mr. Chairman, every Member of the House supports the establishment
and maintenance of democratic governments throughout the entire world.
It is in our national interest and it is in the interest of the people
of the world that stable democracies are nurtured and supported. India
is the world's largest democracy. Outside of China, it is home to the
largest potential free market in the entire world.
Why we would want to jeopardize our relations with India by passing
an amendment to cut aid to that country by 25 percent is just beyond
me. India is not perfect. Neither is the United States; there is no
question about that. But it is also home to half of the poor of the
world. Fifty percent of its children are malnourished. Do we want to
turn our backs on these problems? Of course, we do not.
Among other things, our assistance program is targeted at economic
reform and energy development. The tremendous potential for economic
growth and trade with the United States is a key reason for our
assistance program and why it should be continued.
Now, the United States is India's largest trading partner. If
political disputes with China reduce our trade with that country, where
can we turn for an equally large market in Asia? We can turn only to
India.
I know human rights problems have existed in India in the past, but I
know few countries of the world that have escaped such problems. India
has established a national human rights commission, and police and
other security force personnel have been successfully prosecuted for
human rights violations. Local human rights groups monitor progress in
this area and regularly publish their findings.
The United States is also encouraging talks between India and
Pakistan to ease tensions between those two countries. It is hard for
the U.S. to be an honest broker if we poke India in the eye by adopting
this pending amendment.
The House has spoken on this issue before, including the
consideration of the 1997 foreign operations bill, when it defeated a
similar amendment by a vote of 296 to 127. I urge the House to do what
it did last year and to reject this amendment which would cut aid to
India.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from the Indian
Ambassador and ask that it be inserted at this point:
Ambassador of India,
Washington, DC, July 11, 1997.
Hon. Sonny Callahan,
U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Callahan: Almost a year ago when I had
just about started my assignment as Ambassador to this great
country, I had occasion to write to you on an amendment moved
by Congressman Dan Burton on the Foreign Operations Bill.
This amendment was not approved by a vote of 296 to 127. It
now appears that the House would be moved to consider a
similar amendment to the Foreign Operations Bill for FY 1998.
First, I would like to say that my year in Washington has
been a most interesting and rewarding experience, the
highlight of which has been the encouragement and support
that I have received from Members of Congress, like yourself.
We have witnessed during this period a further upswing in
Indo-US relations and in the growth of bilateral trade making
US our largest trading partner as well as the foremost
foreign investor in India.
US trade with India which was a mere $500 million in 1991
is now around $9.5 billion. Many US companies are considering
further expansion of their operations in India. Enron which
had to cross many hurdles to commence the $1.2 billion Dabhul
power project is so interested in the opportunities emerging
in the Indian market that it has plans to invest an
additional $10 billion over the next decade. Many processed
foods with American brand names have become very popular in
the Indian market. Automobiles of US design are increasing
their presence on Indian roads. Banks and financial
institutions too are taking advantage of recently created
business opportunities. In the insurance sector also, the
door has been opened for starting joint ventures in the field
of health insurance.
The coalition of parties ruling at the Centre have not only
continued with economic reforms but expanded it into many
more areas. Custom duties and other taxes have
[[Page H6809]]
been further liberalized to encourage foreign investment in
infrastructure and other areas of the economy. The US
Administration has included India among the 10 most important
emerging markets and this is borne out by the number of major
US companies operating in India. A list of these companies is
enclosed.
There is now in India much greater understanding and
acceptance of the need for foreign investment and technology
collaboration for meeting the vast needs of India's
developing economy. All sections are agreed that this is
necessary to maintain and increase the growth rate of around
7 percent that we have been achieving in record years.
While United States aid funds are relatively much smaller
than the inflow of capital into business and industry, they
do serve the purpose of enabling very important programmes to
be implemented in backward areas for the benefit of the
disadvantaged in the field of health, family welfare and
education. These programmes involving interaction of American
experts and officials with NGOs and Indian volunteers is of
great help in enhancing people to people understanding
between the two countries.
In a month from now we would be celebrating the 50th
anniversary of India's independence and democracy. While we
have achieved much during this period by way of consolidation
of the nation state, providing adequate food security for the
people, and setting the base for economic development, there
are still many challenges that we have to face and overcome
for providing the desirable level of living to large sections
of our people. At this time of review and introspection, we
are conscious of the benefits that we have derived by way of
bilateral cooperation with the US in the important areas of
agriculture, education, science and technology. At this time
when we are looking for much greater cooperation in these
areas, it is unfortunate that we might have to tackle
something of a negative nature in the House.
It was gratifying to see in the debate on the House floor
that took place in June last year on a similar amendment,
that several Congressmen very ably put forth the following
points:
(i) India has made a success of its democracy and
established powerful instituions like an independent
judiciary, a free press and vigorous political parties
providing for consultation and participation in Government in
accordance with the rule of law.
(ii) India, which like the US has a multi-religious and
multi-ethnic society, has resolved conflict situations in a
lawful, democratic manner and taken concrete steps to further
improve the human rights situation, including the setting up
of an effective National Human Rights Commission.
(iii) Indo-US business and trade relations have improved
considerably with the US companies taking good advantage of
the opportunities emerging in the Indian market, as borne out
by the large number of US companies operating successfully in
India.
(iv) The situation in Punjab had been resolved and the
situation in Jammu & Kashmir has improved.
All the above points continue to be not only valid, but
have acquired even greater force. Investment approvals
pertaining to US companies are now of the order of $8.5
billion. The opportunities existing for US companies in
infrastructure sectors like telecom, roads, ports and power
have a potential for fruitful investment of over $20 billion
per year.
The US Administration has knowledged the improved situation
with regard to human rights and also cited the problems
created by the trans-border support for terrorist activities
in India; the most recent example of which was the explosion
caused in a train in Punjab which killed thirty-four civilian
passengers on July 8th with serious injuries to many more.
This highlights the need for not doing anything to encourage
front organizations created for the sole purpose of
mobilizing support and funds for essentially terrorist
outfits.
Since last year there have been general elections to the
State Assemblies in Punjab with a voter turn-out of over 69%
and which brought the Sikh-dominated party, the Akali Dal to
power in association with another party, namely, the Bhartiya
Janata Party. There could not have been a clearer rejection
of the separatist movement in the State of Punjab.
In Jammu & Kashmir too, general elections recorded a good
voter turn-out of around 55% and resulted in Dr. Farooq
Abdullah gaining majority not only in the Kashmir valley, but
also in the regions of Jammu and Ladakh. This democratically-
elected State Government has revitalized the Government
machinery despite the strains created by terrorist gangs on
the law and order machinery with the help of agencies across
the border.
Initiatives taken by Prime Minister I K Gujral from the
time he was the Minister for External Affairs have greatly
helped in improving bilateral relations between India and its
neighbors. As part of this policy, special steps have been
taken to initiate discussions with Pakistan to tackle all
outstanding issues. Agreement has been reached in the talks
held so far to set up Working Groups for seeking solution to
specific problems including the State of Jammu & Kashmir and
terrorism. The House was good enough to applaud these
efforts. It is our hope that progress at these talks would
help create a better climate for tackling terrorist activity.
This letter has become much longer than I intended, but the
subject being very important and your consideration and
support of great value to us, I had to put the relevant facts
before you. I am confident that with your goodwill and
encouragement we shall build upon the strong foundation that
has been paid in recent years in our bilateral relations. As
always, I and my staff at the Embassy are available to assist
you in any way possible. Please do not hesitate to contact me
if you have any question.
Thanks for all your help. Best wishes.
Yours sincerely,
Naresh Chandra.
____
An Abridged List of United States Firms With Investment and Business
Interests in India
1. Abbott Laboratories.
2. Allied Signal Inc.
3. American Home Prod. Corp.
4. American Express Co.
5. American International Group.
6. American President Lines, Ltd.
7. Amoco Corporation.
8. AMP Incorporated.
9. Apple Computer, Inc.
10. Asarco Incorporated.
11. Asea Brown Boveri.
12. AT&T.
13. Avery Dennison Corp.
14. Bank America Corporation.
15. Bank of New York.
16. Bankers Trust NY Corp.
17. Bausch & Lomb.
18. Bechtel Power Corp.
19. Beckton Dickinson.
20. Black & Decker Corp.
21. Black & Veatch International.
22. Boeing.
23. Britco Foods.
24. Brunswick Corporation.
25. Caltex.
26. Caraco Pharmaceuticals.
27. Caterpillar, Incorporated.
28. Chase Manhattan Corp.
29. Chevron Corp.
30. Chiquita Brands.
31. Chrysler.
32. CIGNA.
33. Citicorp.
34. Coca-Cola Company.
35. Cogentrix Corp.
36. Colgate-Palmolive Co.
37. Compaq Computer Corp.
38. ConAgra, Inc.
39. Continental Airlines, Inc.
40. Cooper Ind., Inc.
41. Corning Incorporated.
42. CPC Int. Incorporated.
43. Cummins Engine Co.
44. Dana Corporation.
45. Del Monte.
46. Dell Computers.
47. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
48. Digital Equipment Corp.
49. Dow Chemical Corporation.
50. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours.
51. Eastman Kodak Company.
52. Emerson Electric Co.
53. Enron Corporation.
54. Estee Lauder Co. Inc.
55. Farmland Industries, Inc.
56. Federal Express.
57. Fluor Corporation.
58. Ford Motor Corporation.
59. General Electric Company: GE Capital, GE Power Systems,
and GE Transportation Systems.
60. General Motors Corporation.
61. Gillette Company.
62. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
63. GTE Corporation.
64. Harris Corporation.
65. Hasbro Incorporated.
66. Hearst Corporation.
67. Hercules, Inc.
68. Hewlett-Packard Company.
69. Honeywell, Inc.
70. Hughes Network Systems.
71. IBM Corp.
72. InaCom Corporation.
73. Ingersoll-Rand Company.
74. Intel Corporation.
75. International Equity Partners.
76. ITT Corporation.
77. J.P. Morgan & Co., Inc.
78. Johnson & Johnson.
79. Johnson Controls Inc.
80. Kellogg Company.
81. Levi Strauss.
82. Eli Lilly.
83. Lockheed Martin Corp.
84. McDonald's Corp.
85. McDonnell Douglas.
86. McGraw-Hill Co., Inc.
87. Merck & Co., Inc.
88. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
89. Microsoft Corporation.
90. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing.
91. Mobil Corporation.
92. Monsanto Company.
93. Morgan Stanley Group.
94. Motorola Inc.
95. New Balance.
96. Nordstrom, Incorporated.
97. Northwest Airlines, Inc.
98. Novell.
99. NYNEX Corporation.
100. Occidental Petroleum Corp.
101. Oracle Corporation.
102. Owens-Corning Corp.
103. Parker Hannifin Corp.
104. Pepsico Inc.
105. Pfizer Incorporated.
106. Phelps Dodge Corp.
107. Phillip Morris Companies Inc.
108. Phillips Petroleum Co.
109. PPG Industries, Inc.
110. Proctor & Gamble Co.
[[Page H6810]]
111. Raytheon Company.
112. Rockwell International Corp.
113. Rohm & Haas Company.
114. Sara Lee Corporation.
115. Shering-Plough Corp.
116. Silicon Graphics.
117. Sprint Corporation.
118. Sumitomo Machinery Corp.
119. Sun Microsystems.
120. Tenneco Incorporated.
121. Texaco Corporation.
122. Texas Instruments.
123. Textron Incorporated.
124. T.G.I. Friday's.
125. The Tiffany Company.
126. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
127. Turner Broadcasting (CNN).
128. Union Carbide Chemicals.
129. Unisys Corporation.
130. Unocal.
131. US West.
132. USX Corporation.
133. W.R. Grace & Co.
134. The Walt Disney Co.
135. Warner-Lambert Co.
136. Western Digital Corp.
137. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
138. Whirlpool Corporation.
139. Woodward Govemor Company.
140. Xerox Corporation.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to join my friend and the distinguished
chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing
and Related Programs in opposing the Burton amendment which seeks to
cut assistance to India. We have got the 50th anniversary of Indian
democracy which we have been celebrating this past month. This is not
the time to strain our relationship with the country of India; it is
the time to deepen that relationship.
India's policy of market reform has contributed significantly to our
improving political and economic relations. Should India's growth rate
of 7 percent continue over the next few years, India would be the
world's fourth largest economy in 25 years. As the base of growth
broadens to embrace more and more economic and social sectors in Indian
society, relations with the United States should intensify. Now the
United States is India's largest trading partner. We have a small but
effective foreign aid program, projected in fiscal year 1998 at about
$56 million, which focuses on economic growth, population and health,
environment and humanitarian assistance. Now is not the time to cut
that limited aid.
Thirty percent of India's population remains below the poverty level,
but this is a major improvement over 1974 when it was 55 percent. If we
are going to reach the point at which India does not need foreign
assistance, we should be doing all we can now to assist in India's
reforms.
The new Prime Minister of India promises to continue the economic
reforms of his predecessors. He has moved to try and deal with the
leadership of Pakistan to try to solve and work on their bilateral
issues. In the state of Punjab, racked by violence years ago, we have
now seen the takeover of democracy where it is thriving in that
particular state. They have conducted elections. The elections were won
by the opposition, a Sikh party; the Akali Dal now governs in the
Punjab. We have had elections in Kashmir. The violence in Kashmir is
down.
The Indian Government is worth working with. The Indian country is
important to us, and I would urge our colleagues not to take a backward
step at this time and support an amendment which would seek to cut that
aid.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. This amendment, as has been
pointed out, will ostracize India at a very, very important time. Just
as India is set and has, in fact, celebrated its 50th anniversary, this
has been brought up as well, India is moving toward very important
economic reforms.
The United States relationship with India, the world's largest
democracy, is growing stronger every day. It has been pointed out how
the investment, U.S. investment, has grown. Just 6 years ago it was 500
million; today it is 5 billion. That is a tenfold increase. This makes
India our largest overseas investor and trading partner. Of course, as
has been pointed out as well, India is still a developing country. It
does have problems, but it is working to resolve those problems. And
for all of the shouting, there is no grave threat to India's steadfast
commitment to diversity and tolerance.
The Indian Government has taken crucial steps to end any abuse of
human rights within its borders. It has established an independent
human rights commission headed by a former justice of the Indian
supreme court to investigate and to prevent human rights abuses. Last
year it prosecuted some 200 violations. In fact, the most recent State
Department human rights report praises India, praises India for the
substantial progress the country has made in the area of human rights.
Mr. Chairman, India contains within its borders a greater ethnic,
linguistic, and religious diversity than all of Europe from Ireland to
Russia, and they have more people. Earlier this year, a government
dominated by the Sikh minority replaced the ruling party, the ruling
party in the state of Punjab. The elections were open and democratic,
and over 65 percent of the electorate turned out to cast its vote.
Further, around 80 percent of Indians are Hindus, but its presidents
have included two Sikhs, one Muslim, and now a Dhalit. I would point
out also that there are more Muslims living in India than there are in
Pakistan.
I firmly believe that this amendment on the eve of the celebration of
Indian independence will have a devastating effect on the growing
relationship between the two countries. Both the chairman and the
gentleman from California have pointed that out. It will punish India
for making significant efforts to correct its problems. It will bring
to a screeching halt United States participation in one of the most
important big emerging markets, but most importantly, it will lead us
to shut ourselves out of involvement with the Indian Government and
hinder our efforts to create a free and prosperous country.
Let us accentuate the positive efforts that India has made. Let us
work to eliminate the negative, just as India herself is doing. Let us
support a valued friend, not shut the door on a growing relationship.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
damaging amendment.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, last year India held the world's largest democratic
elections. This election, called epic by the New York Times and
extraordinary by the Washington Times, resulted in a peaceful change in
government with nearly 300 million people going to the polls. The
government in the state of Punjab, a region the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Burton] claims is government repression of a Sikh minority, a
Sikh-dominated government, replaced the ruling party in open,
democratic elections. Voter turnout was actually over 67 percent.
Several Members of Congress were invited to observe these elections.
Like all developing countries, India has experienced human rights
problems. However, as the world's largest democracy, it is taking steps
to remedy them. India's free press, independent judiciary and vigorous
NGO's have been recognized as models for other developing countries.
Last year more than 200 security force personnel were punished for
their involvement in human rights violations. The most recent United
States human rights report praised the commission's independence and
noted that India has made substantial progress in the area of human
rights.
The Assistant Secretary of State for Asia, Robin Raphel, said in
congressional testimony that India's national human rights commission
has real teeth to expose the violations of human rights.
Independent national efforts to monitor the situation in Punjab, as
well as Jammu and Kashmir, continue. The International Committee of the
Red Cross went into Kashmir last year and several Members of the United
States Congress have been to Punjab and Kashmir during the past 2
years. Representatives of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the
Los Angeles Times, and CNN that have frequently visited Jammu and
Kashmir have had unrestricted access to any part of the country.
International press reports
[[Page H6811]]
underscore that India's security forces labor under constant pressure
of international terrorism. Just recently 33 innocent people were
killed and 67 injured in a terrorist bomb blast which occurred on a
train in Punjab. India recently abolished the Terrorist and Disruptive
Prevention Act which was the subject of objections by several human
rights groups.
I think the point of these facts to underscore is that when we try to
hold India to the same standards that we can hold ourselves, there are
not many countries in the world and particularly not many developing
countries that can meet that standard. But in the framework that they
are working under, I think all of us would agree that there has been a
clear effort upon their government to affect the human rights abuses
and have made strides and a great deal of progress in those areas. To
cut aid at this point in time in this manner would be sending the exact
wrong message to the Indian Government and the Indian people.
I urge defeat of the Burton amendment.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, along with the distinguished chairman of
the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related
Programs, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], I reluctantly rise
in opposition to the Burton amendment.
I agree with our good friend from Indiana that India does have a
human rights problem in Kashmir. Both Amnesty International and Asia
Watch documented proof of severe abuse by Indian security forces. But
let us not forget that these same human rights organizations have also
denounced Islamic terrorists who receive crucial support from across
the Pakistani border.
We know there has been serious misbehavior by India's security
forces. We must not lose sight, though, of the context in which that
has been taking place. For the past 150 years India has shared a border
with Communist China due to Beijing's illegal occupation of Tibet and
China added to the tensions along India's border with Pakistan and
Kashmir by transferring nuclear weapons production technology and
nuclear-capable missiles to Pakistan.
India and Kashmir are between a rock and a hard place. The situation
is even more complicated than meets the eye.
{time} 1130
While the security forces must be stopped from committing serious
abuses, we need to find another way to help end the suffering that has
gone on for so long in Kashmir. But cutting off development assistance
for democratic India is not the way to do it. It will simply harm the
poor of India that deserve an opportunity to try to improve their
lives. An economically sound India is one that will enforce human
rights standards to a higher level than a poor India. Our aid moves
India in the direction of a more prosperous nation where everyone can
live under the rule of law.
Mr. Chairman, along with some of my colleagues, I visited India last
month where we participated on behalf of the House in India's
independence anniversary, recognizing the world's largest democracy. In
our meetings, we raised the issues highlighted by the gentleman from
Indiana. We raised those issues directly with the President of India
and the Prime Minister of India. In my judgment, India is making
progress, beginning to negotiate with Pakistan and beginning to improve
human rights. Indian officials are also forging closer ties between our
democracy and theirs. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues
to oppose the amendment by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Burton amendment.
Even as the State Department reports again this year that India has
made further progress in the area of human rights, the gentleman from
Indiana continues to live in the past. His amendment may be appropriate
for some countries around the globe, but not for today's India. An
India that is the world's largest democracy, an India that has embarked
upon a far-reaching and energetic set of reforms to unleash its
economic potential, an India whose diplomatic and commercial ties with
the United States continue to grow, an India who is a force for
regional stability, and an India whose support of free and fair
elections and minority rights is a leading light in that area of the
world.
As America's most recent ambassador to India, Frank Wisner, said,
this is a crucial time for the United States and India. India is ready
for a closer relationship with America. She just needs the right
signals. Ambassador Wisner is right. The United States and India are on
the verge of a deeper and a more beneficial relationship. The signals
we send matter greatly. That is why the Burton amendment is so very
wrong.
India has made tremendous strides in the last 6 years, yet we would
slap this great Nation in the face by cutting aid. Such a move makes no
sense and is precisely the wrong signal to send. It boggles my mind in
fact, Mr. Chairman, that India is not fast becoming one of our most
important allies. As India celebrates its 50th anniversary of
independence, the world has long recognized that her commitment to
democracy is vibrant and irreversible. Following Indiana's general
election of last year, one American commentator called it the most
breathtaking example of government by the people in the history of the
world. It is a democracy that is open to all, as evidenced by the
recent elections in Punjab, which brought to power an opposition Sikh
Party who chose the ballot over the bullet to bring about change in
this region.
Respect and dignity for all Indians is further guaranteed by the
country's increasing emphasis on human rights. In just a few short
years the National Human Rights Commission has made its mark on all
facets of Indian society. Following the commission's prosecution of
more than 200 violations in 1996, the U.S. State Department commended
the panel for carving out an important role in improving accountability
for human rights abuses throughout the country. Moreover, several
versions of the commission have been set up by state governments,
including one in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
In the international community the Red Cross has conducted seminars
and training with paramilitary police and army personnel to further
increase understanding and observance of human rights within India's
military and law enforcement communities. With each passing day, India
becomes a more strategic United States partner in this crucial part of
the world. Pursuing the Gujral doctrine and similar initiatives, India
continues to be a force for stability and a force for growth in South
Asia.
Prime Minister Gujral has already reached various trade, water, and
other agreements with Bangladesh, with Nepal and with Sri Lanka. Most
importantly, Mr. Gujral and Mr. Sharif are taking concrete steps to
lessen tensions between Pakistan and India and have established a
formal framework for discussion of the disagreements which have plagued
these two great countries for so long. Now with the Burton amendment,
we are thinking of punishing India for this progress. We could go on
and on about India's accomplishments and her potential. It is clear
that closer bilateral ties are in the best interest of India, the best
interest of America and the best interest of that region as a whole.
It is also clear that in this year of India's 50th anniversary of
independence the world's oldest democracy should be congratulating the
world's largest democracy for its achievements. Instead we are debating
this very bad idea. One can trot out the same old dated information
only so many times. The people of India have moved on to a brighter
future and have demonstrated their desire for better United States-
India relations. The U.S. Congress should do the same. We should defeat
the Burton amendment.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this very modest
amendment by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
[[Page H6812]]
The Nation of India votes against the United States in the United
Nations more than any other nation except for Cuba in the United
Nations. More than 90 percent of the time they are on opposite sides
than we are in our vote in the United Nations. Not only that and
probably much more importantly is the horrendous human rights problems
that are continuing to occur within the Nation of India.
I have a very large community of Sikhs formerly from the Punjab
within India that live in my district in northern California. They
continue to relate the atrocities that take place within their province
of their friends and relatives who continue to live there.
Again, I think a minor 25 percent cut on the aid that we are giving
to India is a very minor message and at the very least a token of the
fact that we expect India to live by the same rules of other countries,
to respect human rights within their country, and also that we begin
sending a message that we are not going to continue, the taxpayers of
this country are not going to continue rewarding countries who are on
the opposite side philosophically than we are on major issues.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding.
I would like to illuminate this issue a little bit from my colleagues
who are getting their information from where I do not know. First of
all, India is getting $52 million in developmental assistance from the
United States of America in foreign aid. I know the American people are
tickled to death that after 50 years of independence we are still
giving $52 million to India in developmental assistance, and that is
not all. We are giving them millions more in other areas as well. All I
am saying with this amendment, instead of giving them $52 million of
American taxpayers money, that we cut that to $42 million.
I would like to have the American people vote on whether they want to
give any money to India, but that probably will not happen. But I would
also like to ask them if they would like to cut maybe 25 percent of the
developmental assistance and cut it to $42 million instead of $52
million, and I bet most Americans would go along with that. The
American people do not want to give money to a country that has been
independent for 50 years.
But let us get to the point of the human rights violations that one
of my colleagues just said indicates I am living in the past. On July
12, 1997, that is really living in the past, that is 1 month ago, 1
month ago, in Bombay, India, 33 black untouchables were killed by the
Indian police during demonstrations. They still have the caste system
over there and if you are black, you are the lowest form of animal
life, according to that government, and you can be killed for just
touching a Brahman and they will not prosecute. That is today, not 5
years ago or 10 years ago. And they killed 33 of them just a month ago.
That is living in the past.
On July 8, 1997, 36 people were killed in a train bombing in Punjab,
and two ministers of the Punjab government have blamed the police for
that. That was 1 month ago, and the bombing occurred a day after in
July that nine policemen were convicted of murder. That is living in
the past.
On March 15, 3 or 4 months ago, 1997, a death squad picked up Kashmir
Singh, an opposition party member, he was thrown in a van, he was
tortured, he was murdered and they tossed his bullet-ridden body out on
the side of the road. That is ancient history. That was 4 months ago.
This guy here was scalped and his fingers were cut off and he was
tortured to death. That is not ancient history, that is recently. If
there is no problem, why are there still 550,000 troops in Kashmir? Why
are there still 550,000 troops in Punjab enforcing martial law where
people are afraid to even go out of their houses? Women are still being
gang raped. People are being taken out of their homes never to be seen
again, found in canals with their hands tied behind their back and
their feet tied together and drowned.
That is going on today. Yet we continue to ignore it. My colleagues
say they have got a human rights group over there that they have
established that is really looking into these things. India has
established an Indian human rights group. That is correct. But why will
they not let Amnesty International into Kashmir and Punjab?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger]
has expired.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] be given 2 additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Burton amendment which would limit
developmental assistance to India. As we all know, it has been 1 year
later, and we are still fighting the same fight, the same bad idea. We
defeated a similar amendment last year by an overwhelming margin, 269
to 127.
On August 15, we celebrated India's 50th anniversary of democratic
rule. Passage of this amendment will have a devastating effect on the
growing relationship between India, the world's largest democracy, and
the United States, the world's oldest democracy.
Yes, India has had problems with human rights in the past and in the
present. But this Nation has taken exceptionally strong steps forward.
In fact, India's human rights commission, headed by a former Supreme
Court justice, has been hailed by our State Department for its, and I
quote, ``significant progress in resolving human rights problems.''
The gentleman pointed out that there are still acts of terrorism.
There still are rapes. There still is racial violence. But we also have
acts of terrorism and many problems in our own country. Cutting
developmental assistance would hurt the poorest of the poor in India.
The amendment would directly undermine the stated objectives of India's
democratically elected prime minister to improve the living conditions
of the country's poorest citizens. And finally, this amendment would be
an enormous blow to United States-India relations at the very moment
when we should be strengthening ties between our two democracies.
Last year India held a critical and historic election. Three hundred
million people went to the polls to vote in what the New York Times
writer William Safire called, and I quote, ``the most breathtaking
example of government by people in the history of the world.''
The world's most populous democracy proved that its most powerful
weapon is the ballot. We must not pass a punitive, anti-India amendment
on the heels of this great election. United States-India relations are
strong. American businesses are flourishing in India. The United States
is now India's largest overseas investor and its biggest trading
partner. The Commerce Department has designated India as one of the
most important, and I quote, ``big emerging markets for United States
exports.''
Let us send the world's most populous democracy the right message.
Let us vote for progress in India. Let us vote for democracy. I urge a
``no'' vote on the Burton amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the
Pacific, this Member rises in strong opposition to the amendment of the
distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. In that capacity and
in that opposition, I join the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations, the chairman of the Committee on International Relations,
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, and
other distinguished colleagues that have commented in opposition and
will comment.
{time} 1145
As mentioned previously, we need to reemphasize that India is the
world's largest democracy and it is making dramatic progress. Despite
civil unrest and terrorism, it has maintained 50 years of unbroken
democratic rule since it gained its independence in 1947.
[[Page H6813]]
Indians enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, a strong judiciary, and
a vigorous and independent free press.
There are persistent and disturbing human rights problems in India.
The Government of India does not deny this fact. But the gentleman's
amendment seems to ignore the remarkable progress that this 50-year-old
regime has enjoyed.
The improvements in the standard of living for the people of India
are undeniable, and India's commitment to democracy and improved human
rights has repeatedly been demonstrated.
I noted what the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] had to say
about the progress in Punjab, and that is exactly right. There have
been several encouraging, specifically encouraging, developments in the
past year that deserve to be recognized.
In Punjab, a State racked by violent confrontations in the 1980's and
the 1990's, the opposition clearly won an election that was notably
well run and inclusive bringing to power the Sikh party. Unrest has now
subsided in Punjab. In Kashmir, though violence continues, there is now
an elected government which is setting up a state human rights
commission.
The United States assistance program to India seeks to promote and
institutionalize democratic values and human rights. The United States
is working closely with India on population, health care, family,
welfare, and environmental concerns. The United States needs to
maintain and strengthen this relationship.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues, we have had remarkable
initiatives and progress from India with respect to Bangladesh, Nepal,
and Pakistan in just the last year. The Burton amendment would damage
the foundation of our relationship with India on this, the 50th
anniversary of its independence, and would achieve nothing but the
alienation of the Indian Government from the United States.
Put simply, Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not serve American
interests nor promote American influence in India. The arguments for
the amendment do not reflect the general trend of human rights
practices or progress in India today. We should not have to beat back
such amendments every year.
Mr. Chairman, India is a nation of increasing economic and political
importance to Asia and to the world. While issues of contention remain
between the United States and India, this body will not contribute to
the resolution of such contentious issues by cutting off a major part
of assistance or all assistance as provided by this Burton amendment or
ones that may follow.
Now is the time to send a very positive signal of support and
understanding to the Government of India by voting against this
amendment. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
Burton amendment.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to, first, associate myself with the remarks of
the gentleman from Nebraska. In 1991 I went to India for the first time
to look at the AIDS epidemic and what was happening there and talked
with then-Ambassador Thomas Pickering about the changes that were
coming about in India; the Rau government had come in and made a number
of changes; and he said, ``Go back to the Congress and start talking
about the changes in India, they are real.''
Now I have been back to India six times since 1961, the last time in
December, leading a delegation, a trade delegation from my own city, to
go to India. I have been in 12 of the States of India, including
Kashmir and Punjab. I talked to Punjabi farmers on the ground. I have
talked to public officials, human rights people, all through the
country.
Now the amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from
Indiana, who has never been in India, in my opinion, reflects one of
the problems of making foreign policy by sitting in the United States
and trying to decide what somebody else ought to be doing. We are
essentially having the half full, half empty glass of water argument
here.
Do they have problems? Yes. Have they moved? Absolutely.
If we take the rupee note from India, on it they have 13 official
languages. This is a country where we argue about whether English is
the official language. They have six major religions. There are more
Muslims there than in any country, except Indonesia. And this is a
country that has separated church and state in the same way we
struggled with in this country. The division of church and state and
keeping a secular government has been an enormous problem.
India was born in violence. The splitting off of Pakistan into what
is now Bangladesh at the beginning was a problem they had to deal with
from the very start, and they have struggled with this for 50 years.
They have not solved all the problems. No Indian official will say
that, no Indian journalist.
India has the same basis of common law that we do, the English
system. They have a free press that, in fact, in some ways is more free
than our own. Read the Indian press and understand that politicians do
not get away with anything there without it being in the newspapers.
So there is no question that they have problems, but they are
struggling with them, but the real question here is what kind of
relationship do we want to have with India? Is it our idea that we want
to alienate them in their year of celebration?
I remember that I think it was Jesus Christ was once cautioning
people about how they ought to view things when he said, ``Now you
ought to look at the plank in your own eye before you point out the
speck in your neighbor's eye.''
When my distinguished colleague brings a picture out here and puts it
up on the floor and says that is the reason we ought to cut off aid,
look at this horrible picture. If some Member of this House put up a
tripod here and put up a Rodney King beating picture and then suggested
to the House: Well, we ought to cut off small business loans to
California because they have human rights problems in California done
by officials, we would laugh them off the floor. We would say that is
crazy; how could anybody make such a suggestion?
Yet take one example or two or three. Remember India has 900 million
people, four times the number in the United States in an area from the
Mississippi to the East Coast. One-third of our land mass, they have
four times the people. They struggle hard, and I believe that our
development assistance is a statement to them that we encourage them.
They have never had a military coup. They have had one democratic
election after another. Not only democratic elections, they have a
well-established democratic institutional system in the country that
does not always function perfectly, but they do not need from us a
blackened eye, a slug in the face at their independence celebration by
the U.S. Congress.
Mr. Chairman, that is not the message we should send, and for that
reason I argue very strongly against the Burton amendment.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Before I get into my own remarks, I would like to say that we have
heard speaker after speaker opposing the Burton amendment and only one,
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] himself, was able to rise up on
this point to defend the Burton amendment, and I would just like to
express my disappointment that when so many people have spoken against
the Burton amendment and Mr. Burton asked for 2 additional minutes in a
unanimous consent that he was not paid the courtesy that we almost
always pay our colleagues to permit them just 2 extra minutes.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, because this debate has been
conducted in, I think, a very civil manner and I just wanted the
gentleman to be aware that Mr. Burton was afforded unanimous consent
for 5 additional minutes yesterday to speak longer on his time, and we
all graciously granted that without any objection, and there always was
the option available to the gentleman for him to speak as he did with
additional time.
[[Page H6814]]
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, the people listening to
yesterday's debate, perhaps most of the people listening today, did not
hear yesterday or the debate before on this, and the fact is that we
had a lively debate here, but was only one-sided. Mr. Burton asked for
2 additional minutes.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, and I will
give him additional time, the point is that it is always available for
a Member to seek time and yield to our colleagues, as we have done
repeatedly in this debate, and I would be pleased to take more time
later and yield to the gentleman.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have always given my colleagues the
courtesy and never stepped forward in unanimous consent and not given
them an extra minute.
Anyway, with that said, I support the Burton amendment. I am happy to
be the second person in today's debate to step forward supporting a
reduction in the taxpayers' dollars that we are sending to India, and
of course I agree with my colleague on the China question, but we
should be reducing the amount of money asked by the Clinton
administration that we would be giving the Government of India for two
reasons: No. 1, they do not need it; and, No. 2, we should not be
giving this money to a government with such an appalling human rights
record.
As to No. 1, the Indian Government maintains a huge military. They
have developed nuclear weapons. They have been spending their limited
resources on weapons and a huge military, much more than what they
need, and after finally rejecting socialism their economy is on an
upsurge. So, No. 1, if they are spending money on nuclear weapons and a
big army, why should we be giving them aid when they can then spend
their own money on weapons?
And No. 2, we are giving someone who is in competition with us, we
are providing them aid. Now that is ridiculous for the United States of
America to provide aid and assistance to a country that is going to
compete and put our own people out of work.
So, as to the second point, there are a half million Indian troops
occupying the Punjab and another half a million Indian troops occupying
Kashmir, which is considered the most densely occupied territory on
this planet. Now, if they have got those numbers of troops up there
that are putting money, more and more money, into it, why should we
subsidize this effort by giving money to India?
In both of these regions, Punjab and Kashmir, the military forces are
recognized by international human rights organizations as routinely
committing appalling human rights abuses, murdering civilians, gang
raping women, torturing prisoners with impunity.
According to our own State Department, Indian forces in Punjab have
received over 41,000 cash bounties for the murder of civilians between
1991 and 1993. Last year, the Indian police reportedly planted
explosives in the car of a U.S. citizen, Mr. Babir Dhillon, and he was
held up on trumped-up charges for 9 months, and he was tortured, and it
was only after the intervention of the U.S. Congress that he was
released last January, and these charges were dropped.
The Indian Supreme Court eventually got up to there, and there is a
rule of law in India, but what happened was they basically said that
Indian police were committing acts that were, quote, worse than
genocide, and yes, if Rodney King was just an example, one example
even, we would ignore, we would say we are fixing that. But if Rodney
King went on and on and on and on and every day we had Rodney King
beatings, we would be concerned about it. We would say California has
got to clean up its act before we extend aid to California, to its
State government. And just like in New York where this poor man was
brutalized the other day, if the police over and over and over were
brutalizing people like this.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr.
Rohrabacher] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Rohrabacher was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, there is not any indication that the
situation is getting better in India because those people who have
studied the situation, we realize the one conflict, the one flame that
is igniting the conflict on the subcontinent, is the decision by India
not to permit a plebescite in the Kashmir so those people can
determine, as it was mandated by the United Nations, whether they are
going to be part of India or they want to be part of Pakistan.
India has refused to have that election. If they would have that,
these acts of terrorism they complain about, and this massive military
buildup and occupation they have to finance in the Kashmir, would
disappear because the democratic process would have worked its will.
But they refuse to do that. This is what is causing the problem. This
is what is causing the human rights abuses.
As an incentive to the Government of India to abide by policies
guided by respect for human rights and civil liberties, we need to send
a strong message, and that is exactly what the Burton amendment will
do.
{time} 1200
We do not need to send a message that they can continue doing what
they want, that after 50 years we are going to subsidize them in their
development of weapons and their oppression. For us to provide $135
million in aid, which is the total amount, while it is wasting its own
resources on the modernization of its weapons systems and military and
its own oppression, it is ridiculous for us to do this. To spend $135
million in taxpayer dollars to subsidize one of our own competitors,
with the economy emerging as a competitor to the United States, which
allows them to spend their own money on weapons, even nuclear weapons,
is crazy.
I believe in the Burton amendment; I support the Burton amendment.
Let us not subsidize India's expenditure on weapons and the military
and oppression. Let us let them make their own decisions. If they are
not going to improve their human rights, let us say they are not going
to get any foreign aid from the United States.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, last month the people of India celebrated their 50th
anniversary of independence and democracy. It takes perhaps a special
effort for many Americans to imagine when our democracy was only 50
years old and the great hurdles we had to overcome to try to perfect
our legal, political, economic, and social systems.
India today is the world's largest democracy, 950 million people.
India is a multi-religious, multi-ethnic society, actively seeking to
build a common national identity and overcome religious and ethnic
conflict.
In that half century, India has struggled to overcome the legacy of
feudalism, followed by colonialism, and all of the problems of
underdevelopment and unequal development, including problems of
population growth, capital formation, technology development, and
infrastructure development.
They have shaped all of the basic institutions of a democratic
system, including perhaps most significantly many independent,
nongovernmental institutions and organizations dedicated to involving
and empowering people.
I rise here today in support of aid to India. Throughout my public
career I have worked with the Asian-Indian community. My strong
relationship with the Asian-Indian community in Chicago has afforded me
opportunities on numerous occasions to meet with Indian officials who
have visited Chicago, and this interaction has helped me to understand
how important democracy, economic development, and human rights are to
India.
While the cold war no longer exists, our relations with south Asia
must not be tainted by the cold war legacy. There is a constant state
of tension with some of its neighbors who have large and powerful
militaries. Several states in India, including Punjab and Kashmir, have
in essence been involved in a low-intensity war, involving terrorism
with foreign support, as evidenced by the recent bombing of a train in
Punjab resulting in 36 deaths. Despite these difficulties, India has
proven that she will not tolerate violations of democracy, and has
acted to punish those guilty of violations of law and to reduce any
such violations in the future.
[[Page H6815]]
The United States has become India's largest trading partner, now
approaching $9.5 billion per year, and her largest investor. India has
adjusted her tax policies to further encourage trade and has become a
significant player in many fields, including computer science. Yet
India is still a country in need of assistance and development,
especially in the most underdeveloped regions, needing assistance with
health and educational programs.
These programs involve financial and technical support from the
United States, which is matched by volunteer equity on the part of the
people of India. These programs have proven themselves to be successful
in addressing the problems of underdevelopment, and also as powerful
instruments of international understanding, communication and trust.
It makes sense to continue our commitment to India. India has proven
a success in its economic development and is a role model for other
developing countries. We can take this opportunity now to improve our
foreign policy relations with India. We can illustrate how the United
States is a reliable friend and model.
A vote against India in this House is not in the best interests of
the United States and its reputation as a world leader. Therefore, I
urge that we oppose any and all amendments that would single out India
for a limitation on development assistance.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield the last 2 minutes of my time to my
colleague and friend from Indiana for whatever purposes he wishes to
use them.
Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Burton amendment. I believe that it
is in the interests of the United States to show compassion, to realize
we are spending 6.5 cents per person in development assistance in
India, and my colleagues' amendment would lower that to 5.5 cents. That
is the lowest of any country that receives development assistance. For
800 million people, $51 million.
I had the privilege to go to India at my own expense last autumn. I
went to Bombay and I went down the west coast, and I have never seen
urban poverty as I have in Bombay. Earlier when I was in Delhi, I also
saw it. And yet I never saw such potential as I saw in Bangalore. As
one proceeded southward, I saw the effect of educating the population,
of cleaning the water; and the potential is tremendous to do the most
amount of good for the neediest people.
I hold up the state of Kerala, for example, as an example of where
American assistance and the Indian Government's own action have reaped
tremendous benefits in ending human suffering, largely by improving the
condition of women, increasing their education, lowering the birth
rate.
The amount of money that the United States spends is remarkably
small, given how much we spend in other countries.
Let me just illustrate where it goes. It goes to clean water, which
eliminates or at least reduces the threat of disease. It goes to
education; again, particularly important here is the education of
women. It goes to develop financial institutions so that units of local
government can float bonds that are then used to finance projects such
as the water projects to which I have referred.
Given this potential, it seems to me appropriate that our foreign
policy has a compassionate element to assist India.
I am going to conclude now with one last comment. I do intend to
yield the last 2 minutes to my colleague.
I might have heard my colleague incorrectly, Mr. Chairman, and if I
did, please, I apologize. But if I did not, I do believe the statement
was made that ``black is the lowest form of life, according to that
government,'' and it would be my assumption that the gentleman meant to
say, ``according to certain individuals.'' However, he is certainly
free to speak to this himself.
I do not believe that it is the policy of the Indian Government to be
racist, nor was it my observation that individuals in the government
were racist. But if I quoted him correctly, perhaps he could choose to
amplify or clarify.
I wish to close my time, just saying if there is a component in our
foreign aid that deals with compassion, if we really mean what we say
when we read, ``When I was hungry, you gave me to eat; when I was
thirsty, you gave me to drink; when I was naked, you clothed me,'' then
we should find that compassion and help India.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for
yielding.
Let me say the caste system is still in effect in India, and the
lowest caste in India is the Dhalits, or the black people who live
there. And the people who are in the higher castes, in the past if they
were touched, almost without impunity can inflict pain, suffering, and
even kill people in these lower castes.
That is a system that I think we in the United States should abhor,
and I think the people, until the Black Caucus who fought for civil
rights for so many years and are starting to get a modicum of success,
should be very concerned about the prejudice that exists in India. If I
implied it was a government policy, that was incorrect, but it is a
policy of the system over there that exists; and they look the other
way when people are tortured and killed that are from a lower caste.
But the fact of the matter is, I have talked about the repression of
that government, government genocide and government repression. Just
recently 1,000 cases of unidentified bodies were documented and
cremated by the military. The fact is there still are 550,000 troops in
Kashmir and Punjab; women are still being gang-raped, people are being
tortured, taken out of their houses in the middle of the night without
judicial process, never to be seen again.
These are things we should abhor as a nation. We certainly shouldn't
be giving a large amount of foreign aid to a country that continues to
perpetrate these kinds of atrocities with government sanctions.
I think my colleague from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, made a very
salient point when he said this country is spending more money, I
think, almost than any country from that region, on military hardware
and nuclear weaponry; and at the same time, they are asking us for
foreign aid. It just doesn't make sense.
All I ask for is we cut the aid by 25 percent.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Burton amendment which would
single out India for cuts in foreign assistance. As this body has done
repeatedly in the past, I urge colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
Contrary to what the gentleman from Indiana has said, opponents of his
amendment are not claiming that no problems exist. We take these
problems seriously. But we are also recognizing India's attempt to deal
with them, and our country's responsibility to encourage such efforts.
India is the world's largest democracy, a fact we celebrated on July
31 with the passage of House Resolution 157, commemorating 50 years of
democracy in India. Last year India conducted the largest free election
in history with nearly 300 million people voting. The state of Punjab
elected a Sikh government, and the nation's new president is a member
of the untouchable caste, tremendous achievements in a developing
nation struggling to maintain democracy, to build its economy, and to
improve the lot of millions of the world's poorest people.
India's government recognizes that human rights abuses have occurred
and has taken strong steps to redress these grievances. The government
has established an independent national human rights commission to
investigate human rights allegations in the states of Jammu and Kashmir
and to pursue suspected abusers. More than 200 security forces
personnel were punished last year for involvement in human rights
violations. The U.S. State Department notes that the commission is
independent and praises India's ongoing efforts to end abuses.
India has abolished the Terrorist and Disruptive Prevention Act and
has allowed the international community
[[Page H6816]]
free access to observe and report on actions in the Punjab and in Jammu
and Kashmir.
At the same time as he has moved forcefully to improve the domestic
situation, India's new Prime Minister Gujral has taken unprecedented
steps to improve relations with India's neighbors. The prime minister
has made landmark agreements with Nepal and Bangladesh, initiated a hot
line with the prime minister of Pakistan, and worked with Pakistan to
develop a framework for future talks aimed at creating lasting peace
between those two countries.
The Burton amendment offered this year, as in many past years, takes
no account of this progress. The amendment also would damage improved
and improving relationships between the United States and India. U.S.
businesses are India's number one overseas investor, and U.S. exports
to India increased by 40 percent last year alone, making our country
India's biggest trading partner. Fortune 500 companies regularly invest
in India and many U.S. high-tech firms see India as the most important
developing market worldwide for them, eclipsing even China as an
investment location.
Mr. Chairman, as our relationship with India grows, the United States
must support India's continuing efforts to respect human rights, punish
violators, and develop its economy. The issue is not only a matter of
development assistance, which amounted to about $50 million last year.
Of far greater significance would be the effort that this amendment
represents to stigmatize India just as relations between our countries
are blooming.
The Burton amendment would punish a country taking the right steps
just as it celebrates 50 years of democracy. I urge my colleagues to
support democracy in India by voting ``no'' on the Burton amendment.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I rise also against
the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Indiana, Mr.
Burton.
As many of you know, every year I have offered a resolution to
recognize India's independence. This year I offered it again. Thanks to
Mr. Bereuter, the resolution was made part of legislation, and it has
now passed this House; and I am very pleased that after all these years
of my offering a recognition amendment, that it has finally passed the
House.
{time} 1215
When I listen to the debate, there have been a lot of people speaking
on both sides. I do not really think the debate is one of U.S. foreign
assistance. When we think of the $50 million we are giving them
relative to the $12.5 billion in the foreign aid bill, it is a very,
very small amount.
I think the issue is not one of foreign assistance. It comes down
basically to this sentence. It comes down to whether we want to
stigmatize India with passage of the Burton amendment. We have two
great powers. These two great powers are working together.
There is another issue I might touch on that was recognized in a
Washington Times story on Thursday, July 10, 1997. Let me quote from
it: ``New Chinese missiles target all of East Asia.'' That includes
India. We have had satellite reconnaissance information, and it is all
outlined in this article how India itself is being targeted by China.
We have great interest in protecting India and working with India. At
this time we do not want to set up any type of amendment which would
create hostility toward India and not continue this working
relationship at India's 50th anniversary.
Let me point out that India is one-sixth of the world's population.
It is a dominant force in South Asia. Of course, it is an emerging
world power. We need to cooperate with this country.
India is a big emerging market. The United States is its leading
trading partner and source of foreign investment. India is a nuclear-
capable state that has fought three wars with a non-nuclear capable
Pakistan, and is a prime focus of U.S. concerns about nonproliferation
in reducing regional tension.
I bring this to the attention of my colleagues because this is a
larger issue, not just talking about the fiscal side. We are not just
talking about foreign aid, we are talking about how these two countries
can work together, not only in the area of democracy, but also dealing
with our mutual interests and the protection of democracy in that part
of the globe.
We need to encourage support for their policies. We need to gain
their support for nonproliferation of nuclear capability, and we must
encourage its policies that serve both our interests and theirs. We
must continue to expand bilateral cooperation, including an enhancement
of Indian peacekeeping capabilities.
We need, of course, on the drug side to cooperate on narcotic issues.
Improve human rights performance? By all means. They have done that by
setting up their commission and trying to be much more forceful in that
area.
Lastly, we need to understand that India, above all, is one of the
oldest democracies in the world. So I believe the United States should
continue its friendship with India. India has tried to strengthen their
democracy through free elections. We must strengthen our ties with them
and, of course, with all of the South Asia region and the global
community.
For this and the other reasons I mentioned, I urge the defeat of the
Burton amendment.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, those of us who are friends of India should commend the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] for bringing this amendment before
us, because it gives this Congress a chance to vote down the amendment
by an overwhelming majority, and in doing so, demonstrate our respect
for India at its 50th year of independence, and to celebrate the
increasingly close relationship between the world's most powerful
democracy and the world's largest democracy.
Most of the points that can be made against this amendment have
already been made, but I want to review a few of them, and perhaps make
a few that have heretofore not been brought to the floor.
We ought to commend the President of the United States for agreeing
to go to India to celebrate its 50th anniversary of independence. It
was mentioned that India, because it has been independent 50 years,
should not need American aid. This is the first time I have heard the
idea that there should be a term limit on development aid.
We should point out that the gentleman from Indiana is a strong
supporter of United States aid to Turkey, which has been independent
for over 500 years. I would point out that most of us support American
aid for Ethiopia, which has been independent for well in excess of
2,000 years. The question is not how long has a nation been
independent, but rather, what are the development needs and how
effectively can the United States work toward those needs.
Several of the other speakers have talked about how important our aid
is to India, how effective that aid is, and how we are providing very
little aid compared to the needs in India and its total population.
We have heard about Punjab. Yet in the Punjab, we have seen an
amazing development, the election of a Sikh Party, the election of a
party opposite many of the policies of the national government. What
better proof that democracy works in India?
We are told about Kashmir, where indeed there have been some brutal
actions. But we are given but one picture, and then statistic after
statistic without citation, without enumeration, without calculation,
and without foundation. What is really going on in Kashmir is a
tragedy, but we should remember that some of the most tragic victims
are those who support the Government of India.
Millions of Hindus have been driven from their own villages and from
their own neighborhoods and from the State of Kashmir itself. We should
remember that the human rights abuses which the Indian government is
trying to prevent on its side are more than replicated by those
entities that are supported often by Pakistan and other outside forces,
which the Indian Government has to contend with. Many of
[[Page H6817]]
the most brutal pictures that can be taken in India can be taken of the
victims of those who oppose the Government, the terrorists in Kashmir.
I know that the vote will be coming up later this afternoon. I hope
those in India recognize that at least 100 of our colleagues would vote
against foreign aid to any country at any time. I understand that level
of fiscal conservatism. I do not happen to agree with it.
When the vote comes in, as I think it will, 300 to 150 or 300 to 120,
keep in mind the first 100 of those votes has nothing to do with India
and everything to do with a brand of fiscal conservatism that some of
my colleagues embrace; that in fact, when there are 300 votes for
India, hopefully, there will be no more than 10 or 20 or 30 opposed to
India. We are overwhelmingly in this House in support of a strong
relationship between the United States and India.
One final point I want to bring up. That is the idea that our economy
is in competition with India. In fact, there are no more two
complementary economies in the world. India is still a low-wage
country. I have urged businesspeople in the Los Angeles area and
elsewhere, importers who are dependent upon goods made in China, to
look instead at India, look at India as a source of goods that require
a low-wage situation, look at a country where American exports are not
discriminated against the way they are in China, look at a country that
embraces the rule of law, look at a country that I think will be
increasingly economically important to us.
Finally, there was the point made that the ``untouchables'' or lower
caste are somehow discriminated against by the Government of India. In
fact, the phrase, and I think it was misused, was ``lowest form of
animal life.'' The President of India is from this group, and in fact
religious minorities have been at the highest levels of the Government.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Sherman]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Callahan, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Sherman
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman made a very good point, but
let me correct one misconception that has been portrayed here on the
floor, and that is that there is money earmarked in the bill for India.
There is no earmark in this bill. Therefore, there is no reason for the
fiscal conservatives to vote for this amendment, inasmuch as there is
nothing that we are cutting.
They are not cutting foreign aid by voting for this amendment, they
are simply instructing the administration that they can only give so
much money, but there is no earmark in this bill in the first place for
India, so the fiscal conservatives can join with those of us who
support the democratic regime in India and support the gentleman's
view. Therefore, there is no reason for even the fiscal conservatives
to vote against this issue.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would hope, in fact, fiscal
conservatives will vote against this amendment. I do know there will be
a perception as people walk into this Chamber that the fiscally
conservative vote is to vote for the amendment, and if the amendment
gains a number of votes for that reason, those should not be regarded
as anti-India votes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I would speak very briefly against the Burton
amendment. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on
Appropriations, I rise to support the chairman's position and oppose
the Burton amendment.
My position, I think, is that of the majority of those of us in
Congress, that we support democracy in India. While at times it may be
imperfect, it still needs our support. There are a number of good
reasons to oppose the Burton amendment, and many of those have been
stated very eloquently today and yesterday. The bottom line for me is
that India is one of the few true democracies in the developing world.
Last year, as it has been said, India held the largest election in the
history of the world. The conduct of that election was universally
regarded as free and fair, and described by the New York Times as epic
and extraordinary by the Washington Times.
As India celebrates 50 years of independence and democracy, the
United States should today, through its congressional representatives,
be sending a message of encouragement, not hostility. It is a pleasure
to support the chairman's position and to oppose the Burton amendment.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Burton amendment. I
have just gotten back from India, where I was part of the official
American delegation celebrating the 50th year of independence of India.
We were in the parliament at midnight in New Delhi as 12:01 came and 50
years was just put into place, and I could not help but looking down
and seeing this vibrant democracy.
There are so few democracies throughout the world, and India has been
a vibrant democracy. It has some flaws, and who does not have flaws,
what nation does not have flaws. But the fact of the matter is India is
a vibrant democracy. There are nearly 1 billion people in India, 943
million people. Why would we want to do anything to alienate them or
jeopardize the United States-India relationship? United States
investment was over $5 billion in India last year, a ten-fold increase
from just a few years ago.
As we went from celebration to celebration, I could not help but
thinking this is a real golden opportunity for the world's largest
democracy, India, and the world's longest democracy, the United States,
to really forge even closer ties.
We had a meeting with the Prime Minister of India, Mr. Gujral, who
wants very, very much to have increased United States-India ties. In
fact, he was telling us stories where he feels very neglected, feels
that the United States has not devoted enough attention to India in the
past years, and is delighted that President Clinton is going to be
visiting with India.
So I think we have a golden opportunity, particularly with the end of
the cold war, when there had been in previous years some kind of close
relationship between the Soviet Union and India that does not exist
anymore. So at a time when we are going to former Communist countries
like Vietnam and trading with former Eastern Bloc countries and
bringing them into NATO, why would we not want to forge closer
relations with the largest democracy? By the year 2020 they are going
to be the country in the world with the largest population.
So I believe that the Burton amendment goes in the wrong direction,
in the opposite direction from that which we should be going. It is not
good for democracy, it is not good for U.S. trade, it is not good for
U.S. business, and it is not what we should be doing.
The people of India have shown tremendous warmth and affection for
the United States. We ought to return that affection. I thought for all
the reasons we have been given, the fact that United States and India
have an opportunity to forge even a closer relationship in the future,
that we share common goals of democracy, India has improved on its
human rights violations, and with prodding from the United States will
improve even more.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman].
{time} 1230
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very untimely and the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] brings it up and recites time and
time again, as if it were a mantra, things that he continuously
mentions on the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I want to yet again extend another invitation to the
gentleman from Indiana to come with me and others, if he would like, to
actually visit India, to see the things that some of us have seen. To
come to the States of Jammu and Kashmir, as I have been several times
to travel throughout the region; to go to the Punjab, as the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Engel] and I, together with the gentleman
[[Page H6818]]
from New York [Mr. Gilman], our chairman, did just a week or so ago,
and see the horrible conditions, the terrible poverty, and the heroic
efforts that are being made to meet those challenges, and to see those
things with his own eyes so the gentleman from Indiana does not have to
rely anecdotally on the experiences of others who have agendas here in
Washington, as they are entitled to have, who bring him pictures and
photographs so that he can cite one of them on the floor of the House
as an example of national policy.
Mr. Chairman, that is not the national policy of India any more than
it is the national policy of the Police Department of the city of New
York to go at people with plungers. That is a terrible analogy to make,
Mr. Chairman, but that is exactly what is happening here. People who
work for the government sometimes do terrible things. That does not
mean that it is the government's policy or the government does that.
So it is in India, which has a large military, mostly very much under
control and cooperating with ours. But to blame it for all of the
atrocities that go on, when individuals anecdotally commit horrible
crimes, is certainly not fair or proper.
And to further state that the caste system in India, which does exist
at least in practice in some places, is the policy of the government
just is not the truth, Mr. Chairman. There is racism in America, but
that does not mean that the policy of the government is racist.
And to cite the untouchable class as the lowest form of human life
is, first of all a mischaracterization.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Ackerman, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Engel was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?
Mr. ENGEL. I continue yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is a mischaracterization. The people
of India have selected as their President a person from the untouchable
class. The gentleman from Indiana is misinformed. And I think it
behooves us all, when we come to the floor to do things, especially
when it deals with the national policy and our relationships with great
societies and large countries, and even small countries, to know from
whence we speak and to actually visit and see firsthand what these
problems are, without relying on lobbyists to provide us with that kind
of education.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out when we talk
about the caste system, that the caste system is illegal under the
Indian Constitution. Twenty-five percent of the members of India's
Parliament are so-called untouchables. The President of India, which is
the Chief of State, is from the so-called untouchable class, and
untouchables are constitutionally protected. Anyone can be prosecuted,
and people are prosecuted, if they discriminate against those people of
the so-called untouchable caste.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. I have great respect
for my friend and colleague from Indiana, Mr. Burton, however on this
issue we differ.
I believe that India is the United States' largest trading partner,
and that if we approve this amendment, it will have serious
consequences for the massive investment that we have in India, totaling
$5 billion last year, a tenfold increase from just 5 years before. We
play right into the hands of those who would turn back the clock on the
major economic reforms that have been instituted. And we are speaking
here of great private investment.
The largest democracy in the world is India, one of the few true
democracies in the developing world. Last year India held the largest
multiparty election in world history. The conduct of this election was
universally regarded as free and fair, described as epic by the New
York Times and extraordinary by the Washington Times.
Here with the 50th anniversary of independence for India, we need to
look to the fact that the elected government has been restored to Jammu
and Kashmir. The elected government has established a State Human
Rights Commission and democracy is thriving in the Punjab.
United States engagement on the Indian subcontinent through the
National Endowment for Democracy, and other efforts, contributes to the
strengthening of democratic institutions. Furthermore, human rights
problems have existed, but the Indian government is prosecuting such
violators and such violations. The National Human Rights Commission is
widely regarded as independent and aggressive in pursuing human rights.
India is a nation of increasing economic and political importance for
Asia and the world. While challenges remain, India has been a good
friend to the United States and has improved its human rights
conditions. Now is the time to send positive signals of support and
assistance to the Government of India.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I was in India during the winter, and I just
wanted to comment briefly on the Burton amendment. It misses what is
happening in the Indian subcontinent.
I was in the Punjab. The Indian record on human rights is not a
perfect one, but as the State Department has mentioned in its annual
report, India is clearly moving in the right direction and is making
substantial progress.
Mr. Chairman, the atmosphere in the Punjab was not one basically of
repression, but one of democracy growing under difficult circumstances.
We had a chance to read about and to view the work of the Human Rights
Commission of India. It, again, is performing a function that is a
valuable one and a real one in a democratic society, what is basically
a democratic society.
On this 50th anniversary of Indian independence, our country needs to
be taking constructive, not destructive, steps in terms of our
relationship. And what the Burton amendment does, in my judgment, is to
move in a destructive rather than a constructive fashion. We need to,
with India and other democracies where there are problems, work with
those countries as they need to work with us when we have problems here
in America.
That should be the spirit between our two great nations, the two
great democracies; not the negative import and context of the Burton
amendment. So I very much oppose it. India, on its 50th anniversary,
has a record much more to be proud of than ashamed of. It has a history
the last 50 years that much moves in the right direction more than in
the wrong direction.
Are there blemishes? There are. Is there perfection? There is not. Is
there movement in the right direction? Clearly so. And what this
amendment does is essentially refuse to recognize the movement in the
right direction and instead distort the record of accomplishment.
So, in addition to all of the importance of the economic
relationships between our two countries, I think we ought to remember
supremely the linkage of the United States and India as two democracies
each with its own set of problems, but each moving surely in the right
direction when it comes to human rights.
This country is a beacon for India in terms of human rights. It is
moving, I think, to meet the test of that beacon, and we should not
indicate otherwise through actions like the Burton amendment.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] to cut development assistance
to India, but I do want to state clearly for the record, the gentleman
is motivated by the best of all reasons and intentions on this floor
today. The gentleman from Indiana has displayed himself a caring
advocate of people of human rights around the globe, and those who
would suggest, as I heard a moment ago, that he is motivated by some
[[Page H6819]]
other reason are absolutely wrong. His heart is in the right place and
his interest for people is well-known and his record is distinguished
in protecting human rights, whether it is in India or China or anywhere
else on the globe where human rights matter, and it matters to this
Member.
Mr. Chairman, just recently we have celebrated the 50th anniversary
of the independence of India, and it is a thriving democracy. Like all
developing countries, India has had its experiences with human rights
problems; however, India, the world's largest democracy, is making
great strides in addressing the human rights concerns that have been
addressed by the gentleman from Indiana.
India's free press, independent judiciary, and vigorous
nongovernmental organizations have been mentioned as models for other
developing countries. Allegations of human rights violations in Jammu
and Kashmir prompted India to form an independent National Human Rights
Commission, which has already punished more than 200 security personnel
for their abuses.
Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Robin Raphael has said
that India's NHRC ``has real teeth'' to expose violations of human
rights. The most recent U.S. State Department human rights report
praised the commission's independence and noted that India ``made
further progress in resolving human rights problems.''
I appreciate, again, I state clearly, the concern for human rights
expressed by the gentleman from Indiana. However, while the amendment
being debated today will do little to improve India's already
significant progress in that area, it will do harm to build strong
relationships between the United States and India. And I stress that
that is vitally important at this time.
We have witnessed a debate on MFN and China and developing problems
in that portion of the world, and we have to recognize India is a
friend and a nation of great potential to protect and keep stability in
the region; a nation that we can count that we have established great
trade opportunities and relationships with.
Mr. Chairman, while problems remain, we need to constructively work
with the Government of India, not reproach it. The United States is now
India's largest overseas investor, its biggest trading partner, and its
preferred source of technology. Let us not needlessly damage this
important relationship. Let us work to cement it, but also underscore
the concerns of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] and work
diligently to protect those people in India, protect human rights, and
solve this in a deliberative fashion.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, in opposing the amendment that is before us, I, of
course, mean no disrespect to the sponsor of this amendment. The
gentleman is a respected Member of this House; it is just that we
differ on this particular issue.
It seems to me that it is not a wise thing for us now to be reversing
a policy of moving in the direction of greater cooperation with India.
That is in the interest of the people of the United States as it is in
the interest of the people of India and, I believe, generally in the
interest of the people of the world.
We have much in common with this country. That, I think, is obvious.
We share a common language, we share a basic economic system in common,
and we share a basic political system in common.
India is a democracy. That fact has been proven if by no other reason
than the recent elevation to the highest office in the land of a person
from the lowest strata of society. It shows that there is political
mobility based upon democratic principles, democratic ideals that we
hold in common with them.
Mr. Chairman, it makes no sense for us to back away from a
relationship with this country. By the middle of the next century,
India will be the most populous nation in the world, and my remarks are
based upon not just observations in the abstract but based upon the
fact that I have had the opportunity to be there and to see firsthand
the kinds of things that are happening in that country.
{time} 1245
Not perfect by any means, a great many things that have to be
corrected, obviously and for sure, but progress is definitely being
made. We need to continue to work with them on that progress. We have
major investments there. India is America's largest trading partner.
That trading relationship is only going to grow and it will grow to the
benefit of Americans as well.
This is a bad idea. It is something that we ought to reject. We ought
to continue to promote better relationships and a closer affinity with
the people of this country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take up a lot of time.
I just have been listening. I know there have only been one or two
speakers in favor of this amendment. Unfortunately, they have made some
really incorrect remarks. The remarks about the caste system, you could
look back 2,000 years and know that the caste system has existed in
India. But the fact of the matter is that for the last 50 years this
democracy has tried to root out the caste system. They have made it
illegal under their constitution. They have repeatedly tried to go out
of their way to establish affirmative action programs so that those of
the so-called lower castes are able to play a significant role in
Indian society, the point being the President, the chief of state of
India.
In addition, I have heard comments about people being killed recently
in a lot of different instances. A lot of that is happening because of
terrorists, militant terrorist organizations that continue to operate
in India.
The bottom line is, if we were to pass this amendment today, which I
know we will not, but if we were, we would encourage those terrorists
to continue their activities against innocent people in India. It is
those militant organizations that are inflicting a lot of the crimes
and a lot of the deaths that are talked about by the gentleman from
Indiana.
In addition to that, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher]
talked about how there has been no indication that the situation is
getting better in India in terms of human rights. Just, in fact, the
opposite is the truth. Our State Department annually for the last few
years has talked repeatedly about progress. There has been incredible
progress.
The human rights commission puts out a report on a regular basis, I
brought one of the copies today, where they are prosecuting 200 people
annually, more people every day. They have these training programs
where they deal with the military forces and they explain to them how
they are properly supposed to act. They have been dealing with the
situations in rape, with rapes. They have been going against child
prostitution.
The very things that the two supporters of this amendment talk about
are actually being rooted out by the human rights commission on a
regular basis. The Government has been spending money trying to do
that.
The problem that we have here with the supporters of this amendment
is that they do not look at the facts on the ground in India. They are
not talking to the people. They do not understand what is going on.
They continue to talk about things that have happened in the past.
I have to say, finally, when you talk about Kashmir and again about
the Punjab, in both cases there have been democratic elections in those
two states of India. So it is wrong to say that there is no plebiscite.
It is wrong to say that there is no democratic process. People have
voted, the majority of the people. More people than voted in our
elections here in the United States have voted for the governments are
against separatism in those states in India.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Indiana, whom I have worked with on other issues. But on this issue I
clearly disagree with him. It is ironic that we offer this amendment to
cut assistance India on the 50th anniversary of its independence. This
amendment takes a swipe at one of the most vibrant and energetic
democracies in the world,
[[Page H6820]]
and it is the wrong approach to take. It seeks to punish a country
which has been a democracy since its independence, it seeks to punish a
country that has improved and is improving its human rights record.
Since 1996, India has been taking positive steps to improve its
neighborhood. The amendment comes at a time when both India and
Pakistan are working to resolve the disputes that exist between them,
including Kashmir, in a bilateral manner. Earlier this year this House
passed Concurrent Resolution 16 which congratulated the people of India
on reaching a 30-year agreement with their neighbor Bangladesh on
sharing water from the Ganges River. These are two of the more
conspicuous unilateral efforts India has been making with its neighbors
to increase cooperation in south Asia.
The amendment charges that India is a country without respect for
human rights, particularly in the states of Jammu and Kashmir and
Punjab. Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that the party in charge
of Punjab is the Akali Dal, a Sikh-controlled party. They control 74 of
the Punjab's 117 seats. They came to power after 69 percent of the
eligible voters in Punjab went to the polls. Democracy exists in Punjab
and the voters spoke by casting their ballots and electing a new party
to power. That is democracy.
Let us not forget Jammu and Kashmir. Under the threat of violence and
terror from separatist elements, nearly 55 percent of eligible voters
in the Indian states of Jammu and Kashmir went to the polls for state
assembly elections last September and October. The people of those
specific states went to the polls despite a boycott called by
Pakistani-backed separatist rebels and despite the separatist threats
on their lives.
Our own State Department notes in its annual country report that
during 1996 India made further progress in resolving human rights
problems. After 3 years of existence, India's national human rights
commission continues to play a key role in bringing accountability for
human rights abuses and continues to enlarge its useful role in
addressing patterns of abuse.
What we are being asked to do today is to cut funds to India that
uses such funds to encourage economic growth, which has a direct
correlation to our trading with India, stabilize population growth,
enhance food security and nutrition, protect the environment, reduce
HIV transmission and educate girls and women.
We cannot forget that we are India's largest trading and investment
partner. So let us celebrate India's golden jubilee by defeating this
amendment.
India has been a success as a democracy with its independent
judiciary, free press, and energetic political system. It sought to
address conflicts in a lawful, democratic manner. Instead of pursuing
punitive measures against a free and democratic country, we should be
seeking to expand our economic, political and strategic ties with India
so that we can move forward together.
We should pursue an agenda which will not worsen the climate in India
and south Asia. We should instead stand steadfast to its commitment to
free markets, as well as its commitment to human rights. It is in the
national interest of the United States to defeat this amendment and to
promote those market reforms and democratic government that India has
been pursuing.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I have been listening to this debate in my office, and I felt I
should come down to the floor just to talk a little bit about some
feelings I have about this. I think we forget that, first of all, let
us look at history.
India was subject to the most brutal colonial power possible. I talk
about this with a little personal knowledge. My mother was in India
when the great Mahatma Gandhi was first arrested by the British police.
She witnessed and told me as a child of the terrible situation for the
people of India under that colonialism.
They threw that off. They have for 50 years been a democracy. Who are
we, who are we really to talk about these issues that I hear discussed
today?
Rape, I have heard a lot of talk about rape. How I wish, as a woman
in the United States, how I wish I could say that there is no rape in
this country. How many women live in fear of rape? That is not because
we are not a great country. We are, and a good country. But bad people
do bad things.
We talk about the brutalism. I have heard all this talk about brutal
treatment of prisoners. I would remind us, I would remind us of the
treatment by the Los Angeles police of Rodney King. Bad people in good
countries do bad things.
Then I have heard a great deal of talk about terrorism. Is each of us
in this country responsible for the deaths at Oklahoma City when a
terrorist, a terrorist decided to attack innocent people? Who are we to
speak of this?
I think what we should do is see what the people themselves have
said. And the Indian people have spoken. They have gone to the polls
and they have voted this government. The Punjabi people have spoken.
They have gone to the polls. They are the ones we should listen to,
those who have spoken for their own right to be free people in a free
country. That is what democracy is about. That is why India can say it
is a democracy.
India would never say it is perfect. Can we in this country say we
are perfect? No, we are striving for perfection. We are striving to be
the best country in the world. We are the greatest of all democracies
but India has gone in only 50 years from the most brutal colonial power
ruling everything they did. We must remember that as you struggle for
perfection, other countries need to help you on that path.
I oppose the Burton amendment. It is the wrong thing to do. We must
support democracies. We must encourage them.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. In doing so, I
want to commend the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] for shining the
bright light of our country on the human rights abuses that take place
in India and indeed other places in the world. He has a strong human
rights record, and I am not here today to defend any of the alleged
actions of the Indian Government or their security forces outlined by
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] in his amendment.
I am, however, going to vigorously defend the humanitarian aid
programs that are funded through AID and, among other initiatives, help
one of the most populous countries in the world deal with family
planning issues, among other issues which I will address.
The chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
Callahan], is the foremost champion in the world on the issue of child
survival. It is the keystone of his foreign operations bill. The United
States is now engaged with India in providing much needed assistance
for child survival, as well as other issues, population planning, the
environment, economic reform. This amendment would cut 25 percent of
this modest program, the vast majority of which benefits the poorest
and most vulnerable portions of Indian society.
I have been and am extremely concerned about the reports of serious
human rights abuses in India, particularly in Kashmir and Punjab. The
United States has been and remains seriously engaged with the Indian
Government on these issues. Limited progress has been made on the human
rights front with recent elections in Kashmir and Punjab, as my
colleagues have cited, the successful prosecution of the security force
personnel and police and military officials and the establishment of a
local human rights groups that are now able to monitor events there.
These developments are positive but not definitive. However, the
essential point remains: We should not be cutting off aid to help
millions of poor in India with some fundamental aid programs that
enable them to survive. We should be working with the Indian Government
to promote human rights, as we are, and we should know that at risk, if
this amendment should pass, is assistance to the women's initiative.
Women are a key human resource for economic development and their full
participation in a democratic society is an absolute necessity.
The HIV/AIDS activity could be cut back. This would be particularly
harmful to the international and global fight against AIDS in view of
fact that
[[Page H6821]]
India is particularly vulnerable to a dramatic increase in AIDS.
And the environment and energy portfolio would be cut back. There are
obvious global pollution implications of a cutback, in addition to the
loss of opportunities for U.S. technology providers. It is in our
national interest to provide humanitarian assistance to India.
I believe it is important to shine the light of democracy on human
rights violations there but I do not think that the Burton amendment is
appropriate, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against the
Burton Amendment to H.R. 2159, the Foreign Operations Appropriations
for fiscal year 1998, which would prohibit all development assistance
funding for India in fiscal year 1998, unless such aid is provided
through nongovernmental organizations or private voluntary
organizations.
As the world's largest working democracy India is a model for the new
world order which is emerging after the collapse of communism in the
former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The level of diversity in
races, languages, ways of life and thought and in its wide disparities
in education and illiteracy, in poverty and wealth, India has created a
model for others to learn from.
In the 50 years since India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru
announced that India, the nation, would be born at the stroke of
midnight on August 14, 1947, this great new nation set many standards
for progress that is responsible and responsive to the needs of a
diverse population.
Democracy and freedom are more than just words put to paper, they are
the fabric of government policy and laws which knits together a
multitude of people. It provides the ground rules that each must play
by in order to be included as a good member of that society or nation.
In the early history of the United States, Thomas Jefferson wrote,
``We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness,'' in this Nation's Declaration of Independence. This
statement did not extend itself to all men nor to women, but in the
course of time and with a strong zest for the survival of this new
Nation's democracy, those words now do mean all shades of Americans
that we have today.
Today should our Nation's entire Federal Government be condemned and
labeled because of the attack on the Haitian gentleman who was in the
custody of police officers in the City of New York? I would think and
hope not, but from the perspective of governments from around the world
this view may be dimmed by culture and custom.
There is no perfect Democracy, but a democracy working toward
perfection is more likely to find a state of existence that is
rewarding to a majority of its people than one which has given up all
hope of ever reaching perfection. This goal of perfection will also
allow the people who govern to keep a fresh and open outlook on their
role and the role of the people in the proper function of a democratic
government.
I believe that the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights with
that idea in mind. That they had not created a perfect union of former
colonies, but were starting a work of democracy in progress.
Like the United States, our sister democracy in India had also taken
great pains to craft a constitution and legal system to sustain itself
during times of plenty and times of need. With a long history of
contributing to the cultural, political, and religious diversity of the
world, India has forged a working democracy.
We should do all that we can in this body to support a democratic
India and hold judgment until there is real evidence to the contrary.
I would ask my colleagues to join me in voting against this
amendment.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the amendment
offered by my friend and colleague, Mr. Burton of Indiana. I have been
working on issues involving India for probably a decade now. The roots
of my interest were India's efforts to counter the plague of terrorism.
However, in this process, I have had the opportunity to learn more
about India and the importance of its relationship to the United
States, and am now the co-chairman of the India Caucus in the House.
India has become not only a key trading partner with the United States,
but our relationship is also important to U.S. national security.
It is this unique relationship that would be damaged by my
colleague's amendment. This amendment would be a slap in the face to an
ally with over 4,000 miles of border with China, a very unknown
quantity.
Terrorism is a growing threat throughout the world. Much of it is
spawned by radical Muslims who see it as a way to accomplish goals and
objectives. Some governments in the Middle East and the Near East have
permitted and sometimes encouraged the training and arming of
terrorists. The U.S. has directly felt these terrorist activities in
the bombings of the World Trade Center and more recently, of Khobar
Towers in Saudia Arabia where many U.S. servicemen lost their lives.
But so too have others felt their acts, India being first among these.
India has the second largest Muslim population in the world. Radical
Muslims who use terrorism as their weapon want to control governments
of all countries with large Muslim populations. We have an interest in
making sure that does not happen.
India and the United States share a lot of bonds in fighting
terrorism. We share growing concerns with China, too. And we share an
increasingly larger trading interest. Why should this be jeopardized?
I realize that some have pointed to India's human rights situation as
a reason to tweak India's nose. I would not deny that there have been
some violations in India. But the government is continuing to improve
its record in this regard. In fact, there is an independent human
rights commission which has brought justice to hundreds of human rights
violators. The State Department has gone to great lengths to make note
of India's progress by stating that ``during 1996, India has made
further progress in resolving human rights problems. The National Human
Rights Commission has continued to enlarge its useful role in
addressing patterns of abuse, as well as specific abuses.''
The criticisms raised by my colleague from Indiana are old hat. This
amendment has been defeated soundly and repeatedly in the past while
what little rationale there is for it continues to dwindle.
One specific example is in the state of Punjab. This area is
mentioned as a place of oppression against the Sikh minority. However,
a Sikh dominated government replaced the ruling party in open
democratic elections in Punjab. Furthermore, the Indian and Pakistani
governments have shown signs that there can be real negotiations on the
divisive issue of Kashmir.
Mr. Chairman, India is the world's largest democracy. The human
rights record in India is improving--just ask the State Department. Now
is not the time to send negative signals to India. They are important
strategic allies. India is also a key economic ally with over $5
billion in U.S. investment in India.
In the end, India has proven itself worthy of its relationship with
the United States. This is not the time to support my colleague's
amendment to unfairly stigmatize India. I strongly urge a no vote.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the ill-
conceived and highly destructive amendment that has been offered by our
colleague from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. His amendment would cut United
States development assistance to India in the next fiscal year.
Mr. Chairman, we have had repeated debates for more years than I
would care to remember that have been similar to the one we are having
today. Our colleague from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has offered this or a
similar amendment whenever we have debated the foreign operations
appropriations bill and whenever we have debated an international
relations authorization bill. The House has repeatedly voted to defeat
this unfortunate proposal, and I urge my colleagues again to vote
against this distasteful demagoguery.
While this annual exercise has not resulted in reducing the small
amount of development assistance that the United States has provided to
India, it has become an annual opportunity for a few Members of this
body to make unfortunate and harmful remarks about the world's largest
democracy.
Mr. Chairman, instead of using this opportunity to bash the
Government of India, this should be an opportunity for us to join in
paying tribute to the people of India, to join in celebrating the 50th
anniversary of the founding of this great country. It was just 50 years
ago, in August 1947, that the era of British colonial rule ended in
India, and a democratic republic was established. Now, 50 years later,
there is ample reason to celebrate India's independence and its
statehood.
The institutionalization of democracy in India has had its difficult
moments--periods of violence, including the bloodshed which accompanied
the partition of India and Pakistan at the time of the establishment of
the Republic of India in 1947 and more recently at the time of the
tragic assassination of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. There have
been instances of ethnic and religious violence, but a multiethnic,
multireligious state like India is not immune to the sectarianism and
racism that has afflicted so many countries around the world.
This is a time, Mr. Chairman, to celebrate and rejoice with the
people of India in a half-century of great achievements. India remains
a democratic society with a democratically
[[Page H6822]]
elected parliament and a democratically elected prime minister.
Democracy has flourished in a country that has a population of 900
million people. In a society that is multireligious, multiethnic, and
multiracial, in a country that recognizes 16 official languages.
Further complicating the effort to maintain and foster democracy in
India is the fact that this country has a growing population and it
suffers from a low level of economic development. I welcome the
economic progress that we are witnessing in India, and I welcome the
growing economic ties between India and the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I am not one to underestimate or to minimize human
rights violations, and I will not ignore or overlook such problems when
they occur anywhere. There are human rights violations in India, and I
deplore them. At the same time, however, there is evidence of progress
in this important area. The 1996 annual State Department Country
Reports on Human Rights notes that advances have been made in resolving
human rights problems. The establishment of an independent National
Human Rights Commission by the Government of India has been an
important factor in this development. The governmental and judicial
system of India provides legal and constitutional safeguards for human
rights. The serious social tensions and violent successionist movements
that exist in India create special problems, and police training is
deficient in many cases. These are explanations, but they do not
justify human rights violations. The important consideration, Mr.
Chairman, is that the violations that do occur are not the consequence
of government policies and government intentions. These problems are
the result of failures in the system, and these failures are in the
process of being remedied.
Mr. Chairman, as political, economic, and other relationships between
the United States and India are developing and expanding and improving,
it would be unfortunate and extremely counterproductive for this House
to adopt the ill-conceived amendment that we are now considering. I
urge my colleagues to join me in a resounding vote against the Burton
amendment.
Mr. MANTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Burton
amendment. India has taken great strides in improving its human rights
record. As a member of the Congressional India Caucus, I take great
interest in issues which directly affect India.
In addition, I am proud to represent one of the largest Indian-
American populations in the United States. Should this misinformed,
outdated amendment pass, it would have a devastating impact on India;
socially, economically as well as politically.
I believe we must continue to fully recognize India's potential as a
free, democratic nation, rather than punish them for past human rights
abuses.
I am not arguing that India has had a perfect human rights record;
however, we cannot turn our backs on the tremendous strides India has
made, especially as they celebrate 50 years of democracy and continue
to look ahead to great potential for its people.
The United States has played an enormous role in assisting the Indian
Government in building itself into a strong democracy and a leader in
the Asian region. We should be proud of our strong support of India
over the years and the substantial economic doors we have opened for
United States businesses.
The United States has benefited greatly through increased investments
in India. This amendment would greatly jeopardize the strong business
interaction that has flourished between our countries.
I urge my colleagues to continue our current common sense policy
toward India. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Burton
amendment.
Clearly, India's human rights record has been less than perfect, but
we must recognize that it is improving, even in the face of some very
extraordinary circumstances. In the Indian States of Kashmir and
Punjab, terrorist violence has cost the lives of more than 20,000
people. Violence has become a way of life for many who live in this
region of the country. International press reports confirm that India's
security forces and civilians live under the constant threat of
terrorist attack. Just last week, 33 people were killed and 67 injured
in a bomb blast on a train in Punjab.
In recognition of international concern, India has taken steps to
address these problems. For instance, India has established the
National Human Rights Commission, an independent office established to
investigate claims of abuse. The commission's work resulted in the
prosecution and punishment of over 200 security force personnel last
year. In testimony before Congress, Assistant Secretary of State for
South Asia Robin Raphael, stated that the watch dog agency ``has real
teeth.'' In addition, India has abolished its highly controversial
Terrorist and Disruptive Prevention Act [TADA].
Our own State Department, in its annual report on human rights,
stated that India has made progress in ``resolving human rights
problems.'' The report goes further to state that the ``National Human
Rights Commission has continued to enlarge its useful role in
addressing patterns of abuse, as well as specific abuses.''
India has also made great strides in reforming its economy and
improving conditions for foreign investment. Since 1990, foreign
investment has grown from $90 million to a record $10 billion in 1995
with the United States leading the way.
The United States is now India's largest overseas investor. From 1991
to 1996, United States investment in India was 29.5 percent of all
foreign investment. United States investment in India totaled more than
$5 billion last year--a 40 percent increase in 1996 alone. The U.S.
Department of Commerce has designated India as one of the ten most
important ``Big Emerging Markets'' for American business.
A virtual ``Who's Who'' of American companies is doing business
successfully in India today including: Ford Motor Company, General
Motors, Chrysler Corporation, IBM, AT&T, Coca Cola, Levi Strauss,
Kellogg Company, Motorola, and Northwest Airlines.
The prospects for continued growth continue. The ruling coalition in
India, brought to power last year in the world's largest democratic
election in history, has remained committed to the path of economic
reform laid by the previous government. In April of this year, India's
Prime Minister I.K. Gujral stated, ``India can look forward to the
continuation of the reform program, and to its deepening, and
widening.''
Not only has India's Prime Minister made continued economic reform a
priority, he is also committed to reducing tensions between his country
and Pakistan. Just last month, Mr. Gujral met with Pakistan's Prime
Minister Nawaz Sharif to begin a dialog by which the two countries
might be able to resolve their differences. While the two could only
agree on incremental steps, the meeting was a positive step toward
resolving the differences between these neighbors.
In light of these developments and others, I firmly believe that
cutting aid to India is both unwise and unwarranted. Not only would it
be a slap in the face to India and the many accomplishments it has
achieved, it would have a severe impact on our relationship with the
world's largest democracy. Many of the improvements that have been made
in the areas of human rights, economic reform and regional stability
could be lost. These would be contrary to both our national and
economic security interests.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. It sends
the wrong signal at a time of great opportunity for our two countries.
(Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to proceed out of order
for 1 minute.)
Legislative Program
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman and to
commend him for his professionalism in the handling of this bill. I
think he has been very fair and that the Chair has presided in a very
professional manner.
Mr. Chairman, I know that the Chair will explain the series of votes,
but it is my understanding that the Burton amendment which we have just
debated will now be voted upon, that that will be a 15-minute vote.
Then, following the Burton amendment, we will proceed with a 5-minute
vote on the additional five amendments that were debated yesterday.
After the vote on the Burton amendment and the other five amendments we
debated yesterday, we will then proceed immediately to the Smith
amendment, which time will be divided on the Smith amendment between
Mr. Smith and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
Then there will be an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] to
the Smith amendment.
{time} 1300
Following the vote on the six pending amendments and then the vote on
the Smith amendment and the Pelosi-Gilman amendment, we will go to
final passage. Is that the Chair's understanding of what we are going
to do?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Burton].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
[[Page H6823]]
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July
24, 1997, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Indiana [Mr. Burton] will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July
24, 1997, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which
further proceedings were postponed in the following order: Amendment
No. 38 offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]; amendment
No. 76 offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell];
amendment No. 32 offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul];
amendment No. 41 offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox];
amendment No. 17 offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Torres];
and amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 105-184 offered by the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 38 offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(presiding the short title) the following new section:
limitation on assistance in india
Sec. 572. Not more than $41,775,000 of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act under
the heading ``Development Assistance'' may be made available
for assistance in India.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 82,
noes 342, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 356]
AYES--82
Aderholt
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bonior
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Canady
Chenoweth
Coburn
Condit
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Duncan
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Gibbons
Goodling
Granger
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Holden
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Istook
Jenkins
Jones
King (NY)
Klug
Largent
Lewis (KY)
McIntosh
McKeon
Miller (CA)
Myrick
Nussle
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Radanovich
Ramstad
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Salmon
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sessions
Shadegg
Shuster
Smith, Linda
Solomon
Stump
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thune
Towns
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Wolf
NOES--342
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cubin
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inglis
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Snowbarger
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Gonzalez
Hilliard
McCollum
McIntyre
Neumann
Pryce (OH)
Schiff
Thompson
Waxman
{time} 1323
Messrs. GANSKE, BALDACCI, RANGEL, and NADLER changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. HERGER, DELAY, DOOLITTLE, and ADERHOLT changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Personal Explanation
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote No. 356, the Burton
amendment, I was unavoidably detained. I would like the Record to
reflect that I would have voted ``no.''
Announcement By The Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July
24, 1997, the Chair announces he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes
the period of time within which a vote by electronic device will be
taken on each further amendment in this series.
Amendment No. 76 Offered By Mr. Campbell
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on Amendment No. 76 offered by the gentleman from California [Mr.
Campbell] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 76 offered by Mr. Campbell:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. 572. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for ``economic
support fund'', and increasing the amount made available for
``contribution to the african development fund'' as
authorized by section 526(c) Public Law 103-306; 108 Stat.
163, by $25,000,000.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
[[Page H6824]]
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 273,
noes 150, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 357]
AYES--273
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Bachus
Baesler
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Calvert
Campbell
Canady
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Reyes
Riggs
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
NOES--150
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Baker
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Cannon
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Collins
Combest
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goss
Graham
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Knollenberg
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Manton
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McIntosh
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Porter
Regula
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Ryun
Salmon
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (OR)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Walsh
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--10
Becerra
Conyers
Cox
Farr
Foglietta
Gonzalez
McCollum
Neumann
Pryce (OH)
Schiff
{time} 1330
Mr. HOBSON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Paul
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The unfinished business is
the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 32 offered by the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul] on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 32 offered by Mr. Paul:
After the last section (preceding the short title), insert
the following:
limitation on funds for abortion, family planning, or population
control efforts
Sec. 572. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may be made available for--
(1) population control or population planning programs;
(2) family planning activities; or
(3) abortion procedures.
Recorded Vote
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 147,
noes 278, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 358]
AYES--147
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Duncan
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Forbes
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Graham
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Kucinich
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Redmond
Riley
Rogers
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Young (FL)
NOES--278
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Callahan
Calvert
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Coyne
Cramer
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
[[Page H6825]]
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
White
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--8
English
Gonzalez
McCollum
Neumann
Pryce (OH)
Schiff
Smith (NJ)
Wolf
Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. ROYCE and Mr. SMITH of Michigan changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote No. 358, I was
mistakenly recorded as voting ``no.''
I ask unanimous consent to have it reflected in the appropriate place
in the Record that I should have been recorded as voting ``aye'' on
this rollcall vote.
personal explanation
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 358 I inadvertently voted
``yes.'' I intended to vote ``no.'' I have, throughout my service in
the Congress, consistently supported international family planning
funds, as long as those funds are not used to perform or promote
abortions. The Paul amendment would have cut off all family planning
funds, a position which I do not support.
{time} 1345
Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on amendment No. 41 offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Fox] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 41 offered by Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania:
Page 94, after line 3, insert the following:
Sec. 572. None of the funds made available under the
heading ``development assistance'' may be used to directly
support or promote trophy hunting or the international
commercial trade in elephant ivory, elephant hides, or
rhinoceros horns.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 159,
noes 267, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 359]
AYES--159
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Bentsen
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Conyers
Cook
Coyne
Crane
Cummings
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foglietta
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Furse
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Goodling
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Hutchinson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rivers
Rogan
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Tauscher
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--267
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Boswell
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Deal
Delahunt
DeLay
Dickey
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Obey
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Poshard
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
McDade
NOT VOTING--7
Boucher
Gonzalez
Greenwood
McCollum
Neumann
Pryce (OH)
Schiff
[[Page H6826]]
{time} 1353
Messrs. KLECZKA, McINTYRE, MORAN of Kansas, and SANFORD changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. WYNN, Mr. FORD, and Ms. Harman changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Torres
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on amendment No. 17 offered by the gentleman from California [Mr.
Torres] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Torres:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
PROHIBITION ON FUNDS FOR SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS
Sec. 572. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by
this Act may be used for programs at the United States Army
School of the Americas located at Fort Benning, Georgia.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 210,
noes 217, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 360]
AYES--210
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bunning
Camp
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Goode
Goodling
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hefner
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hulshof
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Adam
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Talent
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--217
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boyd
Brady
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clyburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Radanovich
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Scott
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Visclosky
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--7
Bilbray
Gonzalez
Houghton
McCollum
Neumann
Pryce (OH)
Schiff
{time} 1402
Mr. WISE and Ms. BROWN of Florida changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Stearns
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Thornberry). The unfinished business is the demand
for a recorded vote on amendment No. 3 in House Report 105-184 offered
by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] on which further
proceedings were postponed and on the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Stearns:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING COSTS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE
PROGRAM AND NATO EXPANSION
Sec. 572. It is the sense of the Congress that all member
nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
should contribute their proportionate share to pay for the
costs of the Partnership for Peace program and for any future
costs attributable to the expansion of NATO.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 425,
noes 0, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 361]
AYES--425
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
[[Page H6827]]
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Gonzalez
McCollum
McKeon
Moakley
Neumann
Pryce (OH)
Rothman
Schiff
{time} 1411
Mr. BERRY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 359, I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with
the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], and I thank the gentleman
for taking this time and opportunity to discuss the funding for the
U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman and I are both aware, the U.S. Man and
the Biosphere Program operates through the State Department with
funding from 15 different Federal agencies. Despite the fact that this
program is 100-percent taxpayer funded, it has never been authorized by
Congress. And in fiscal year 1996, the last year for which figures are
available, the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International
Development, and the Peace Corps contributed through interagency
transfers over $311,000 to the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program.
Almost a third of that total was funds appropriated under the Foreign
Operation Appropriations Act.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to ask whether the Subcommittee on
Foreign Operations had appropriated such funds for or supports such
interagency transfers for the U.S. Man and the Biosphere in the fiscal
year 1998 appropriations.
{time} 1415
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] for bringing this matter to the
attention of the full House. In answer to his question, no, the
subcommittee did not appropriate funds for such interagency transfers
for fiscal year 1998 or any other year of which I am aware.
As to whether or not the House supports the interagency transfer to
U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program, I would have to answer, no, based
upon the fact that the House passed Foreign Affairs Authorization Act,
H.R. 1757.
As our colleagues are aware, on June 11 of this year the House passed
by a vote of 222 to 202 the Coburn amendment to the Foreign Affairs
Authorization Act. This amendment prohibits funds authorized by that
act from being used in support of the U.S. Man and the Biosphere
Program or other related programs. Based upon the actions of this body,
no funds appropriated by H.R. 2159 should be used in support of the
U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program. Consequently, no Federal agency
funded under this act should attempt to transfer funds to the U.S. Man
and the Biosphere Program.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for that
clarification. As the Members of this body are aware, the U.S. Man and
the Biosphere Program has raised a number of questions ranging from
violations of private property rights to misuse of tax dollars. Without
specific congressional authorization that defines the role of the
Biosphere Program and without congressional oversight, it is impossible
to answer any of these questions. I can guarantee my colleagues that it
is reassuring to my constituents and those of many other Western States
to know that their tax dollars will not be used in support of a program
which is not accountable to Congress.
On behalf of myself, our colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Peterson], the gentlewoman from Missouri [Mrs. Emerson], the
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Stearns], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], all of
whom have assisted in bringing this program to light and assuring the
proper use of Federal funds, I would like to thank the gentleman for
providing this guidance to the agencies funded under this act.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
I am pleased to have had this opportunity, and I thank the gentleman
for engaging me in this discussion.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to state my position with regard to
this program and to respectfully disagree with my distinguished
chairman and the maker of this, the initiator of this colloquy.
I do not agree that the statements accurately reflect the status of
the Man and the Biosphere Program. Funding for the Man and the
Biosphere Program was requested and has not been prohibited in this
bill. I therefore want to clarify that, despite the statements made
here this afternoon, and I rarely disagree with my distinguished
chairman, funding for this project can move
[[Page H6828]]
forward if Congress takes no further action, no further definitive
action on it.
The citation to the Foreign Affairs Authorization Act does not apply,
because that is not even the law. So at this time, this afternoon, at
the time of this colloquy, there is no prohibition on Congress'
spending funds for the Man and the Biosphere Program.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me. There has been a great deal of discussion over whether
Congress has given proper statutory guidance and authorization to the
Man and the Biosphere Program and whether Congress has exercised enough
oversight. These are of course functions and duties of Congress rather
than the responsibility of the Man and the Biosphere Program and thus
should not be cited as a reason for terminating funding for the
program. These are also matters I have sought in good faith to address.
The Man and the Biosphere Program is a program of scientific research,
education, and training.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn]
has expired.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. BROWN of California. Continuing with my remarks, Mr. Chairman,
the program does not regulate private property rights, and I am aware
of absolutely no evidence that Federal officials have misused
taxpayers' funds in carrying out this program.
I would point out that about two-thirds of the program is research
conducted by a dozen or more different Federal agencies under their
existing authorization to conduct research and does not need to be
separately authorized by this legislation or any other. However, I
would like to reiterate my areas of agreement with the gentleman from
Oklahoma.
In view of the controversy that appears to surround the program, I do
believe that it is appropriate to enact a specific organic statute for
the program. I have introduced such legislation in the form of H.R.
1801, which, I might add, enjoys bipartisan support. I have also
requested the Committee on Science to conduct oversight hearings on
this program, and I might also point out that we are the only committee
which has ever conducted oversight on this program, although it has
been several years ago. Although it is somewhat rare to focus this
level of legislative attention on such a small program, I am in full
agreement that it would be healthy.
Finally, I would point out that nearly all of the funding expended by
the Man and the Biosphere Program is for scientific research. The
gentleman's expressed concern, however, is the impact of biosphere
designation on private property rights. I would question the wisdom of
killing off good peer-reviewed scientific research based on what is
essentially an administrative concern. I suggest that it would be far
more constructive to simply place a moratorium on new biosphere
designations until these concerns are met rather than terminate ongoing
scientific research. In fact, I recognize that the gentleman from
Oklahoma is a supporter of good research, and I commend him for that.
This is the type of compromise, the one that I am suggesting, that I
believe could be accommodated if the gentleman would join me in my
efforts to advance H.R. 1801.
May I say further with regard to this whole debate that I want to
commend the gentleman from Oklahoma and the gentleman from Alabama for
the way in which it has been conducted. I feel that we have
considerably enlightened the other Members with regard to this program.
I want to thank them for their cooperation.
There has been a great deal of discussion on the floor of the House
regarding the merits of the Man and the Biosphere Program and whether
Congress has provided adequate legal authority to the executive branch
to carry out the program.
In the fiscal year 1998 foreign operations budget request, as in
previous years, the Man and the Biosphere Program is specifically
detailed as a component of the international contributions for
scientific, educational and cultural activities account. The foreign
operations appropriations bill on page 37 and report on page 61
indicate no change to the President's request for this program. The
principles of appropriations law are clear here--the effect of the bill
and past appropriations bills has been to provide the requisite
authority to the executive branch to expend funds on the program. When
a lump sum appropriation is made for a collection of requested
programs, and no specific intent is indicated to provide funds in
addition to or less than the request, the executive branch may expend
the requested funds. A conflicting intent expressed in another bill, in
this case the foreign operations authorization bill, does not have any
effect whatsoever on this authority if it is not enacted into law.
If, as the opponents of this program have implied, this is not the
case and Federal officials have illegally expended such funds in the
past, this would be a very serious violation of law. It would also mean
that our somewhat elaborate system of checks and balances to ensure
financial integrity within the executive branch has failed and that the
chief financial officers for the participating agencies, the
Comptroller General and others have been derelict in their duties. I do
not believe this to be the case but if that is in fact the allegation
that is being made, I would suggest that this be accompanied by a more
serious showing of evidence and facts.
In addition, opponents of this program have questioned the authority
of the executive branch to make interagency transfers in order to
aggregate funds for common scientific purposes. Not only does this make
good sense in reducing overhead and interagency duplication of effort,
it is a principle that has long been followed and rests on a solid
legal basis. The Economy Act of 1932, U.S.C. 1535, provides authority
for Federal agencies to effect such transfers.
In addition, 22 U.S.C. 2656 authorizes the Secretary of State to
conduct foreign policy including the coordination and oversight of
science activities between the United States and foreign countries.
Together, these statutes clearly provide the necessary administrative
authority to carry out the Man and the Biosphere Program and no further
authority is needed in appropriations bills. Thus, it can be said that
the appropriations bill such as the foreign operations bill does not
provide specific authority for the Man and the Biosphere Program simply
because it is not needed.
Likewise, literally thousands of other Federal programs are included
in appropriations bills that have not been authorized and are not based
on specific organic statutes. To insist that each such program be based
on a separate and unique enabling statute would place an unreasonable
burden on the legislative process.
For example, the Committee on Science authorizes about $25 billion
per year for programs under our jurisdiction. If each program of
magnitude of the Man and the Biosphere Program received a separate
organic statute and hearing, this would entail over 1 million hearings
and bills per year.
However, given the obvious policy questions that have been raised
over the Man and the Biosphere Program, it is entirely appropriate that
just such special attention be given it in the legislative process.
Thus I have introduced H.R. 1801 in an attempt to clarify what this
program should do and what it should not do.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's graciousness
in bringing forth his offer.
I think that the American public still needs to recognize that this
is a program that has never been authorized by anybody, House or
Senate. It has never had recent oversight. The line item appropriations
have never been approved in any appropriation process, and the House
has voted four times already this year to totally eliminate any funding
and any authorization for this program. So I will join the gentleman in
bringing forward his bill. I am not sure that I will support it, but I
will fully support that we should have a vote on whether or not this
should be an authorized program.
That has been my point from the start. If it is unauthorized, it
should not be paid for. We should come forward with a bill to authorize
it, if that is the will of this House.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's
statement.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the
last word.
[[Page H6829]]
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to respond to the gentlewoman
from California. We seldom disagree. Many times we disagree on issues
which is what this body is all about. But let me just give you a brief
history of where we are on this.
First of all, it was because of my request to this House under a
unanimous consent, that the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] was
unable to present his amendment, even though he had filed it in a
timely manner. If the amendment had been allowed to come to the floor,
very obviously the House would have voted the same way they voted on
the foreign relations bill, and indeed there would have been a
prohibition in this bill.
My response to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] in our
colloquy was simply, he asked, was there any money designated in this
bill for the Man and the Biosphere Program. And the answer is, no,
there is nothing in here. If there is any authorization in here for
transfer, no, there is no authorization for transfer. So I think that
the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] and I represent a majority of
the views of this House that it is not the will of the U.S. Congress to
spend money on this program. In my colloquy, that is what I said. I
simply said that based upon the vote on June 11, I have to answer no.
It is not the direction of this House to spend money on this program.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for
yielding to me and appreciate his elucidation of his previous remarks.
However, the authorization bill, as the gentleman knows, is not the
appropriations bill. While it is interesting for us to speculate as to
what the will of the body is, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn]
regretfully did not have the opportunity to present his amendment and
have a vote on it to legitimize the point of view and to have support
one way or another registered.
I was only pointing out that there was no action taken by this House
and by the Congress, that the law does not prohibit the funding of the
Man and the Biosphere Program. I was making a more general statement
that no such prohibition exists at this time despite the vote in the
authorization.
Mr. CALLAHAN. There is no prohibition against spending a lot of this
money in the State of Alabama, but they are not going to do it. And
there is no prohibition, that is true, on this program. But it is the
will of the House, based upon the June 11 vote, that obviously 222
Members of this body feel it should not be spent.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, as
an appropriator, I want to protect our prerogatives. And as
appropriations chairman, I would hope that the gentleman's statement in
favor of the position of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] would
not therefore apply to all other amendments or provisions passed
through the authorization process to, therefore, be foisted onto the
appropriations process as law, just protecting the prerogative of the
Appropriations Committee for those amendments that are not the law.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman again
for yielding.
I commend the chairman, the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee, for the precise language that he has used and which I
think is correct. I should point out, however, that the Senate, the
other body, in its own wisdom, rejected this language in connection
with the interior appropriations bill, and in all likelihood this will
remain to be resolved in conference.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman would further agree
that the wisdom of the House is generally superior to that of the
Senate.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would always agree, but it
does not always prevail.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the
last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a colloquy with the
distinguished chairman, the distinguished ranking member, and I want to
state that Bucheit International, a company in my district, at the
urging of the Vice President, the State Department and the Commerce
Department and Builders for Peace was granted political risk insurance
from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation [OPIC], to build a
concrete molding plant in Gaza, and they are the first to have done so
at the request of the administration and try to bring some investment
American dollars to Gaza.
In 1995, the company received a $1.1 million OPIC loan. After they
invested $4.4 million, the company has experienced unethical if not
illegal treatment, and activity which has resulted in almost a default
of this OPIC loan. In addition, the company was never reimbursed for
any value-added taxes collected on goods headed for Gaza as it was
supposed to have been. The company had been promised a 5-year tax
moratorium. That was not granted.
The Palestinian Authority agreed to establish and supervise a
monetary authority in Gaza, Mr. Chairman, in accordance with
international banking law. However, the Bucheit International Co. has
found the banking system to be below international standards. For
example, I want to cite for the Record and for the gentleman's
cognizance and understanding the importance of this issue as a
microcosm of other investment in that region.
Corporate accounts of Bucheit International were opened without
proper corporate documentation. Corporate checks denominated in dollars
were endorsed and cashed by individuals without first being deposited
into the corporate account. Canceled checks were not returned.
Corporate funds in excess of $100,000 were used to guarantee an
overdraft of a private individual without knowledge or approval of the
corporation.
{time} 1430
And a letter of guarantee was written by a bank without notifying the
company, in violation of the management's strict instructions at the
time of the process. Here is exactly what I am saying, Mr. Chairman. I
had a number of amendments and I agree with the gentleman that
legislating in appropriations bills is not the vehicle. We have the
authorization chairman here and I am glad he is listening to this. But
I ask for the gentleman's help in the conference report, to direct the
administration, the Clinton administration and the executive branch, to
look into this issue and resolve these lax standards of international
banking law and the fact that this first company that was motivated and
urged on behalf of the administration to make an investment, could get
some justice, some fairness. They have been ripped off.
I am asking that there be some appropriate language placed in the
conference report that would at least direct the administration to
resolve these issues, to state these issues on the fact, as I believe
this is the beginning, and if the Palestinian Authority wants to join
the brotherhood of nations, they are going to have to be up-front and
honest businesspeople. They cannot have banking systems that are going
to rip off American investors who have been encouraged by the White
House to make investments there.
I have no other choice here, and I have no other recourse for my
company. The Palestinian Authority should not shirk its duties and
obligations by blaming any individuals or any bank. I think it is
imperative that we as a Congress must insist that Chairman Arafat take
immediate steps to reimburse OPIC and the company for the investment
before any further damages or any American company decides it is not
worth investment in Gaza.
With that, I know it is a very complicated issue, but it is the
beginning, Mr. Chairman, and there will be other American companies
that will be
[[Page H6830]]
ripped off because the precedent has been set. It has been un-American,
to say the least, and downright illegal. Mr. Chairman, I ask for the
gentleman's support.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio bringing this
matter to my attention. Hopefully we can begin the process of resolving
this issue even before conference, because I have already instructed my
staff to contact the administration to ask that they expeditiously look
at this problem that the gentleman contends exists, which I am sure it
does if he says it does, and to hopefully resolve it before that. But
if indeed the gentleman's allegations are correct, and I have no reason
to believe they are not, then we should take immediate steps to have it
corrected.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Traficant was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from
California, the ranking member of the subcommittee.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am pleased to
follow the lead of our chairman on this issue. He has been a champion
for American business investment abroad and has called to the attention
of foreign leaders problems that our businesses have had in newly
emerging democracies and countries where we are encouraging investment.
I know he has established his expertise and his standing on this issue,
and I am pleased to follow his lead as he stated in the colloquy.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the
subcommittee, and I am also glad the chairman of the authorizing
committee is here because I plan to sit down with the authorizers to
see if we could address some general language so that these types of
problems can be resolved through a proper authorizing mechanism as
well. I again thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his leadership
and his courtesy.
I would like to engage Chairman Callahan in a colloquy on Bucheit
International, a company in my district that has investments in Gaza.
In 1994, Bucheit International, with the support of the Office of the
Vice President, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and Builders for
Peace, was granted political risk insurance from the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation [OPIC] to build a concrete molding plant in
Gaza.
In 1995, Bucheit received a $1.1 million loan from OPIC for the
purchase of additional equipment and working capital.
After investing $4.4 million in the area, however, Bucheit has
experienced transportation and standards barriers, a mismanaged system
of regulations, and unethical, if not illegal, activity, which has
resulted in Bucheit's default on the OPIC loan.
In addition, Bucheit has never been reimbursed for any value-added-
taxes [VAT] collected by Israel on goods headed for Gaza.
Bucheit has had difficulty obtaining proper invoices from Gaza
suppliers, so simply day-to-day accounting has become an impossible
task. Bucheit currently has a $75,000 payment pending.
Moreover, Bucheit had been promised, a 5-year tax moratorium by the
Palestinian Authority which was never granted. Rather, Bucheit income
taxes are automatically deducted on all final payments by the
Palestinian Ministry of Finance.
The Palestinian Authority agreed to establish and supervise a
monetary authority in Gaza, in accordance with international banking
law. However, Bucheit has found the banking system to be well below
international standards.
For example, Bucheit has discovered that: corporate accounts were
opened without proper corporate documentation, corporate checks
denominated in dollars were endorsed and cashed by individuals, without
first being deposited into the corporate account, canceled checks were
not returned, corporate funds in excess of $100,000 were used to
guarantee an overdraft facility of a private individual, without
knowledge or approval by the corporation, and a letter of guarantee was
written by a bank without notifying Bucheit, in violation of Bucheit
management's strict instructions.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for your commitment in including report language
in the conference report on this bill, directing the Clinton
administration to settle this matter between Bucheit, OPIC, the Cario
Amman Bank, and the Palestinian Authority--in favor of Bucheit.
In many ways, the establishment of a lasting peace in the Middle East
hinges on the ability of the Palestinians to develop the economies of
the West Bank and Gaza strip. That development, to a large degree, will
depend on U.S. investment in the region. Bucheit took a considerable
risk in investing in Gaza.
Through no fault of its own, Bucheit has endured significant losses.
Unless our Government takes strong action to redress this wrong, it
will be extremely difficult to convince other U.S. companies to invest
in Gaza and the West Bank.
Addendum From Pete Bucheit
1. The Palestinian Authority issues all bank charters and
is responsible for monitoring and governing their local
operations. Bucheit was a locally registered company with all
employees.
2. The PA and the U.S. Government have a signed agreement
wherein the PA guarantees and holds harmless U.S. companies
(from what has happened to Bucheit, i.e., expropriation of
its bank account which ultimately caused the OPIC loan
default and the expropriation of its $4.4 million plant).
3. The PA should not shirk its duties and obligations by
blaming individuals or the Cairo Amman Bank. Bucheit has
complained to the PA for 1\1/2\ years to act and they have
ignored all requests.
4. We demand that Chairman Arafat take immediate steps to
reimburse OPIC and Bucheit for the money they invested in
Gaza before damages (political and financial) go out of
control.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 105-184 offered by
Mr. Smith of New Jersey:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short tile) the following new section:
foreign organizations that perform or promote abortion overseas; forced
abortion in the people's republic of china
Sec. 572. (a) Section 104 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection.
``(h) Restriction on Assistance to Foreign Organizations
That Perform or Actively Promote Abortions.--
``(1) Performance of abortions.--
``(A) Notwithstanding section 614 of this Act or any other
provision of law, no funds appropriated for population
planning activities or other population assistance may be
made available for any foreign private , nongovernmental, or
multilateral organization until the organization certifies
that it will not, during the period for which the funds are
made available, perform abortions in any foreign country,
except where the life of the mother would be endangered if
the pregnancy were carried to term or in cases of forcible
rape or incest.
``(B) Subparagraph (A) may not be construed to apply to the
treatment of injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal
abortions or to assistance provided directly to the
government of a country.
``(2) Lobbying Activities.--(A) Notwith- standing section
614 of this Act of any other provision of law, no funds
appropriated for population planning activities or other
population assistance may be made available for any foreign
private, non-governmental, or multilateral organization until
the organization certifies that it will not, during the
period for which the funds are made available, violate the
laws of any foreign country concerning the circumstances
under which abortion is permitted, regulated, or prohibited,
or engage in any activity or effort to alter the laws or
governmental policies of any foreign country concerning the
circumstances under which abortion is permitted, regulated,
or prohibited.
``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to activities in
opposition to coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
``(3) Application to foreign organizations.--The
prohibitions of this subsection apply to funds made available
to a foreign organization either directly or as a
subcontractor or subgrantee, and the certifications required
by paragraphs (1) and (2) apply to activities in which the
organization engages either directly or through a
subcontractor or subgrantee.''.
(b) Section 301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) Limitation Relating to Forced Abortions in the
People's Republic of China.--Notwithstanding section 614 of
this Act or any other provision of law, no funds may be made
available for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) in
any fiscal year unless the President certifies that--
``(1) UNFPA has terminated all activities in the People's
Republic of China, and the United States has received
assurances that UNFPA will conduct no such activities during
the fiscal year for which the funds are to be made available;
or
``(2) during the 12 months proceeding such certification
there have been no abortions as the result of coercion
associated with the family planning policies of the national
government or other governmental entities within the People's
Republic of China.
[[Page H6831]]
As used in this section, the term `coercion' includes
physical duress or abuse, destruction or confiscation of
property, loss of means of livelihood, or severe
psychological pressure.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July
24, 1997, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Pelosi] will each control 20 minutes.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gilman to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith
of New Jersey
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment
pursuant to the Solomon unanimous-consent request of July 24.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment to the
amendment.
The text of the amendment to the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman pursuant to the unanimous-
consent agreement of July 24, 1997 in lieu of amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 105-184 to the amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 105-184 offered by Mr. Smith of New
Jersey:
Strike all after the title heading and insert the
following:
SEC. . POPULATION PLANNING ACTIVITIES OR OTHER POPULATION
ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act or any other provision of law, none of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act for
population planning activities or other population assistance
may be made available to pay for the performance of abortions
in any foreign country, except where the life of the mother
would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or in
cases or rape or incest.
(2) The limitation contained in paragraph (1) shall not
apply to the treatment of injuries or illness caused by
unsafe abortions.
(b) Limitation on Lobbying Activities.--(1) Notwithstanding
any other provision of this Act or any other provision of
law, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act for population planning activities or
other population assistance may be made available to lobby
for or against abortion.
(2) The limitation contained in paragraph (1) shall not
apply to activities in opposition to coercive abortion or
involuntary sterilization.
SEC. . UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND.
(a) Limitation.--Subject to subsections (b), (c), and
(d)(2), of the amounts made available for each of the fiscal
years 1998 and 1999 to carry out apart I of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, not more than $25,000,000 shall be
available for each such fiscal year for the United Nations
Population Fund.
(b) Prohibition on Use of Funds in China.--None of the
funds made available under this section shall be made
available for a country program in the People's Republic of
China.
(c) Conditions on Availability of Funds.--(1) Not more than
one-half of the amount made available to the United Nations
Population Fund under this section may be provided to the
Fund before March 1 of the fiscal year for which funds are
made available.
(2) Amounts made available for each of the fiscal years
1998 and 1999 under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 for the United Nations Population Fund may not be made
available to the Fund unless--
(A) the fund maintains amounts made available to the Fund
under this section in an account separate from accounts of
the Fund for other funds; and
(B) the Fund does not commingle amounts made available to
the Fund under this section with other funds.
(d) Reports.--(1) Not later than February 15, 1998, and
February 15, 1999, the Secretary of State shall submit a
report to the appropriate congressional committees indicating
the amount of funds that the United Nations Population Fund
is budgeting for the year in which the report is submitted
for a country program in the People's Republic of China.
(2) If a report under paragraph (1) indicates that the
United Nations Population Fund plans to spend China country
program funds in the People's Republic of China in the year
covered by the report, then the amount of such funds that the
Fund plans to spend in the People's Republic of China shall
be deducted from the funds made available to the Fund after
March 1 for obligation for the remainder of the fiscal year
in which the report is submitted.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July
24, 1997, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] will each control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, a ``Dear Colleague'' letter signed by my good friends
and colleagues the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the gentleman
from California [Mr. Campbell], and the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Greenwood] came to my attention by a colleague who came this close
to being deceived by it. The bold headline read and I quote from the
letter, ``Gilman-Pelosi-Campbell-Lowey-Greenwood-DeLauro-Slaughter
oppose abortion and support voluntary family planning.'' I looked at
that headline again and again and thought, that looks just like one of
my letters.
Did the leading activists in the abortion rights cause, did the seven
Members whose abortion advocacy is so extreme that they are opposed
even to the partial-birth abortion ban that was before this body
recently, had they done an about face and joined the pro-life cause?
Are the seven most pro-abortion Members of this House really offering a
right-to-life amendment? I mean, that would be truly historic.
I do not think so. In judging their amendment, you might for starters
afford them the same amount of credibility to offer a right-to-life
amendment that you would give to me or to the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Hyde] or to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia] or to the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] if we tried to convince you
that we were offering a pro-abortion amendment. Somehow you would know
that if you really wanted to promote abortion around the world, you
should vote against an amendment by some of the most prominent pro-life
leaders in the Congress no matter what we decided to call it. It would
not pass the straight face test. And you would be right. And if you
really want to protect unborn children, you will know enough to vote
against this amendment, the so-called amendment offered by my friend
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], offered again by some of the
most prominent leaders of the abortion rights movement.
The ``Dear Colleague'' letter, and I say this with all due respect to
its authors, simply does not tell the truth. Perhaps it is unwitting,
but do not take my word for it. Look at the language.
It says, and I quote, that the ``Gilman-Pelosi-Campbell-Lowey-
Greenwood-DeLauro-Slaughter amendment prohibits all U.S. funds from
being spent on abortion or abortion counseling overseas.'' That is
simply not true. Current law does that, but the plain letter of the
language that is being offered says nothing of the kind. It was
misleading, and at least one Member came to me suggesting that he had
been misled by that.
Let me also point out, Mr. Chairman, the letter states that the
Gilman, Pelosi and company amendment prohibits U.S. family planning
assistance from going to foreign NGO's and multilateral organizations
that promote abortion as a method of family planning.
My question is, would an abortion done for so-called health reasons,
such as mental health, be considered or construed as an abortion done
as a method of family planning? And of course we all know the answer to
that. What about a woman whose birth control method has failed? It is
interesting that Planned Parenthood itself says that no abortion is
ever done as a matter of birth control. Adopt this amendment offered by
my good friend the gentleman from New York, and you render the policy
of the underlying language absolutely meaningless.
As it relates to the Mexico City Policy, and I would remind Members
during the Reagan and Bush years, abortion as a method of family
planning had a precise definition, the definition that is contained in
our amendment, the Hyde - Barcia - Smith - Oberstar amendment, and that
is no funding except in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother.
My simple question to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] today
is, and I would ask him to respond if he would, is that his definition?
That is the longstanding definition of the Mexico City Policy. Is that
his definition, which again is clearly delineated in our amendment?
Mr. GILMAN. If the gentleman will yield, I would reserve the
opportunity to respond as part of my remarks, and I will be pleased to
respond to the gentleman's question.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would hope the gentleman would define it
in detail.
Let me just say that there is vagueness in the language that is
contained before us promoting abortion as a
[[Page H6832]]
method of family planning. When we look at it, it is not even the worst
thing about the so-called perfecting amendment. There is one point that
there is no ambiguity about it. If the amendment is adopted, it will
absolutely be legal for U.S. family planning grantees and contractors
to perform abortions, as many as they like, under whatever
circumstances they like overseas.
The Mexico City Policy I would remind Members had two important
prohibitions to it. First, foreign organizations could not get U.S.
family planning money if they performed abortions overseas except in
rape, incest, and life of the mother situations. Second, they could not
get the money if they promoted abortion overseas, again with the same
three exceptions.
As I have pointed out, I believe that this amendment that is being
offered by my friends on the other side of this issue is vague and it
will give the Clinton administration a blank check to do whatever it
wants to do in the area of promotion of abortion. But to take out the
performance part, which this amendment guts, means that again they can
perform abortions for gender selection or for any other reason and
still get a fat payday from Uncle Sam.
The Smith-Barcia-Hyde-Oberstar amendment on the other hand is clear
and nonambiguous. The pro-abortion killer amendment injects sweeping
vagueness and gives the administration a blank grant of authority to
pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the overseas abortion
industry, which means in the end, Mr. Chairman, more dead babies and
more injured mothers.
Let us not kid ourselves. The Gilman-Pelosi amendment is a killer
amendment and if it were to pass today, and I do not think it will, but
if it were I would ask every pro-life Member of this Chamber to vote no
on the underlying amendment because I think that is better than
adopting a sham.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this perfecting
amendment and yes on the underlying amendment. Let us erect that wall
of separation between abortion and family planning and then the money
can flow unfettered to those organizations that will no longer be in
the abortion business.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment on behalf of myself, the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood], the gentlewoman from New York [Ms.
Slaughter], the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], the
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] and the gentlewoman from New
York [Mrs. Lowey].
Our amendment marks a significant turn in the seemingly endless
debate about the Mexico City Policy. Under our amendment, Mr. Chairman,
the supporters of voluntary family planning programs would accept the
Mexico City Policy but would apply it only to organizations that
promote abortion as a method of family planning. We would accept the
restrictions blocking funds to organizations which lobby for or against
abortion laws but would apply this restriction only to organizations
that promote abortion as a method of family planning.
Most important, we agree to cut off all funds to the U.N. Population
Fund if the fund restarts any program in China. As we all know, we have
worked tirelessly on behalf of human rights in China, many of us have
done that, and I have joined the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]
and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] on countless efforts
to help the victims of human rights abuses in China.
Recognizing the serious situation there, we are willing to send a
message to the United Nations that no U.N. population program should
move forward until the situation in China changes in a major way. I
think that is a major concession. In past bills we offered to reduce
our contribution to the U.N. Population Fund by the amount it spent in
China. Now we are willing to accept a total cutoff of funds if a
program is restarted.
I will remind Members that as of today, the U.N. Population Fund has
no program in China. The previous program has expired and the Fund has
only an office in Beijing that is used to manage its program in
Mongolia. If a program is started, then we would agree with the
gentleman from New Jersey to cut off all such funding. That should put
the matter of China to rest.
The key issue before us is whether or not our Nation will continue
its 30-year lead supporting voluntary family planning. Family planning
reduces population pressures that damage our environment, destabilizes
governments, and suppresses economic growth. Most important, voluntary
family planning has proved to be the best way to improve the survival
of mothers and children by increasing the interval between births.
Voluntary family planning also frees women to choose when they will
have children, allowing them to advance in school and the workplace
where unintended pregnancies have held them back. Most important, the
best way to stop abortions is to stop unintended pregnancies.
{time} 1445
Voluntary family planning is the best way to stop unintended
pregnancies, and, therefore, Mr. Chairman, any opportunity for
abortion.
With regard to the gentleman's inquiry about abortion used as a
method of family planning, I note that this was common in many
countries, especially the former Soviet Union.
I will also note our amendment alternative has teeth. It accepts the
major portions of Mr. Smith's amendment.
I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood],
the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi], the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter],
the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], and the gentlewoman
from New York [Mrs. Lowey] for working with us to craft this bipartisan
amendment, and I urge Members to adopt this amendment to the amendment
by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
Mr. Chairman, to control the balance of my time, I yield to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood], who has done so much to
support children, to support their mothers, in our voluntary family
planning program.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gilman-Pelosi-
Campbell-Lowey-DeLauro-Slaughter-Greenwood amendment, and associate
myself with the remarks of the distinguished chairman of the Committee
on International Relations in acknowledging the bipartisan nature of
this amendment, and commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Greenwood] for his leadership on it and in strong opposition to the
Smith amendment.
Our effort, and we worked hard and long on this, was the result of
listening, listening, listening to our colleagues' concern about this
issue over the years. As a result, our amendment has two parts to it.
The first part says that if the U.N. family planning is involved in
China, they will receive no funding. We yield that point to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]. He has fought that fight.
Members on both sides of the aisle expressed their concern about the
forced abortion policies in China. We concede that point because that
was a time when that point was being reconsidered.
Second, Members have said they want a separation between family
planning and abortion. We do, too. We reject abortion as a form of
family planning. We say that family planning is the best way to reduce
the number of abortions, and this amendment would disqualify any
organization from any assistance here for any foreign and
ungovernmental and multilateral organization that, with U.S. funds or
with their own funds, promote abortion as a method of family planning.
It would also prohibit U.S. family planning assistance to organizations
unless they use those funds to prevent abortion as a method of family
planning.
We have built this firewall. We have separated abortion and family
planning as is appropriate. We have cut off funding unless it can be
certified that the UNFPA is not involved in the program in China.
I urge my colleagues to accept this, I believe, smart alternative to
the gentleman from New Jersey's [Mr. Smith], which accomplishes all
that we want to do to reduce the number of abortions while promoting
international family planning which in turn will reduce the abortions.
[[Page H6833]]
Mr. Chairman, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and I would ask the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] if they would answer this:
Under the Agency for International Development's policy, during the
1980's and early 1990's, before Mr. Clinton, there was a clear
definition as to what abortion is, a method of family planning. It was
abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother.
Now to legislate ambiguity and vagueness and just toss it all over to
the White House and say, ``You decide,'' I asked AID how they would
define the Gilman amendment. They do not have a clue. They said, ``Look
at what goes on on the House floor.'' I would hope during the course of
this debate that my friends on the other side will say yes, there is
health abortions, gender-selection abortions, so-called sex-selection
abortions. What are we talking about?
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. PELOSI. On the gentleman's time, I am pleased to answer the
question that he just posed, what are we talking about? The gentleman
asked what do we mean by abortion as a form of family planning.
Abortion as a method of family planning in the Gilman-Pelosi amendment
means abortion that is used as a substitute for contraception.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, this is the problem.
When the administration says that it does not know what it means, and
we sent them a copy of the amendment exactly as it was proposed, it
suggests to me that we are playing a game here that we will then act as
if we are doing something when, frankly, my colleagues, we are doing
absolutely nothing.
As my colleagues know, I have been in this body 17 years, and it
galls me, and it should gall each of us, when we do not legislate with
preciseness, and that is what our amendment does. It says there are
three instances: rape, incest, and life of the mother; they are
exceptions. But after that we are talking about no promotion of
abortion.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs.
Chenoweth].
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I come forward today to express my
strong support for the Smith-Barcia-Hyde-Oberstar amendment that would
essentially restore the two policies that were in effect during the
Bush and Reagan administrations.
One concerns future U.S. funding of the United Nations Population
Fund, and the second is intended to prevent U.S. funding of
nongovernmental organizations which performs and promotes abortion as a
method of family planning.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2159, as reported from the House Committee on
Appropriations, would allow hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayers'
dollars to fund the international abortion industry.
Today, we will hear that we must protect the lives and help the women
and children across the globe by providing the necessary economic
relief, and we will be told that supporting population funds is not a
vote about abortion. But, Mr. Chairman, this is false and misleading.
U.S. family planning funds are subsidizing groups in foreign countries
that do provide abortions. Millions of U.S. taxpayers' dollars have
enabled organizations to expand their field of operations and perform
even more abortions.
In fact, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and other
organizations, heavily subsidized by U.S. dollars, have been active and
outspoken in trying to change the laws of countries regulating or
prohibiting abortion.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is necessary and consistent with our
system of laws and heritage. We must not be fooled by the false claims
of many international population groups who claim that this is not an
abortion issue because it clearly is.
As lawmakers, we have a responsibility to protect the lives of the
very youngest, most vulnerable of American citizens, and, in addition,
we must protect the sacred little lives in foreign countries where we
are providing financial assistance for international family planning
programs. As such, we must prevent the abuse of taxpayers' dollars from
providing excessive subsidies to organizations that perform and promote
overseas abortions.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues today to support responsible
family planning and vote for the Smith amendment and against the
Gilman-Pelosi-Campbell-Lowey amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Lowey], a cosponsor of the amendment.
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Smith
amendment and in support of the Gilman-Pelosi amendment.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] is
just an extreme piece of legislation that aims to end family planning
aid overseas. What our amendment will do is ensure that voluntary
preventive family planning services continue.
The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] claims that his amendment
simply cuts abortion funding. What he has not told us is that abortion
funding overseas has been prohibited since 1973. His amendment would
cut abortion funding from zero to zero. Therefore, the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] must be after
something more, and that something is family planning.
One of the most important forms of aid that we provide to other
countries is family planning assistance. No one can deny that the need
for family planning services in developing countries is urgent and the
aid we provide is both valuable and worthwhile. Nearly 600,000 women
die each year of causes related to pregnancy and childbirth, most
living in developing countries.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey
for his leadership in this very difficult and complicated issue, but
actually this issue we are dealing with today is not all that
complicated. The difference is between two words, perform and promote.
The amendment that the gentlewoman from California and the
distinguished gentleman, and I do not see him here now, from New York
[Mr. Gilman] is offering goes halfway. It denies funds to organizations
that promote abortion. Unfortunately, it does not use the word
``perform,'' and I do not care what they promote, it is the performance
that counts. That is where the homicides occur or the feticides occur,
that is where the unborn children are destroyed, in the womb.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. PELOSI. The gentleman knows full well because he has been such a
leader in this field that U.S. law prohibits any funds from going to
any organizations for the performance of an abortion.
The law prevents that. We are just going beyond that.
Mr. HYDE. The gentlewoman from California would have no objection
then to including ``perform'' along with ``promote'' in the amendment?
Ms. PELOSI. It is already prohibited. It is already prohibited.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The problem here is that performance, the
Helms amendment of 1973 said very simply, direct funding. What was
found to be very infirm about that language, and that is why the Mexico
City policy was constructed in the early 1980's under the Reagan
administration, was that it was like Swiss cheese. It was not stopping
the performance of abortions by the very people that we heavily
subsidize in the developing world. They were the abortion mills. We
were giving them $500,000 here, and then they would say, and it is not
totally concluded that they did not do this, they would say, ``Oh,
we're not going to use your money to kill the unborn babies, we'll use
our own.''
[[Page H6834]]
The problem with that is who we give to does matter. If they were
absconding with funds and theft was the issue, this so-called lying of
accounting would be meaningless.
The issue comes down to whether or not we want to give to
organizations that are promoting and doing abortions on demand, and
that is the essence of our amendment and it is simplicity. Their
amendment absolutely guts it.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman further yield so I can
answer his question?
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I would rather the gentlewoman from
California use her time.
Mr. Chairman, how much time have I got left?
The CHAIRMAN. Fifteen seconds.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield me an additional 15
seconds?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to take issue with a line in the
Planned Parenthood fact sheet that says there is no evidence that
abortions exist for gender selection, a problem that does not exist. I
recently read a news article about families in British Columbia of the
Sikh religion who when the females get pregnant they have a
determination as to whether it is a little male or a female. If it is a
female, they travel into the State of Washington where an abortionist
has a clinic, a mobile clinic, to perform gender-selection abortions,
because their custom is to have a rather large dowry with the little
female girl when she gets married and they cannot afford it so they
have a gender-selection abortion.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Greenwood] will control the time of the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Gilman], and the gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
There was no objection.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Smith
amendment and very much in favor of the Gilman-Pelosi et al. amendment.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]
strikes directly at women's rights to access family planning
information to space and time their pregnancies to suit the needs of
their families.
As my colleagues know, access to family planning information and
contraception decreases abortion. The gentleman from New Jersey, by
cutting off funding of organizations solely because they have an
opinion on abortion will deny money to those groups which have been
most effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies.
{time} 1500
The amendment would endanger women's health, deny women and couples
access to family planning information, and increase, not decrease,
abortions.
On the other hand, the Gilman-Pelosi et al. amendment would emphasize
U.S. commitment to prevention of abortion. Organizations could continue
their current uses of USAID population funds to increase family
planning information and services, along with supportive investments in
related health and population activities, which together result in more
couples using contraceptive methods, and therefore, in prevention of
unintended pregnancies and abortions.
Furthermore, under the amendment, funding would be prohibited to any
organizations that ``promote abortion'' as a method of family planning.
We in this Chamber have discussed this before. We know that this vote
is about family planning, not abortion. We know that to reduce
abortion, we must increase access to family planning. We know that
women with access to family planning space their pregnancies, producing
healthier children; and we know that lack of access to contraceptives
leads to abortion, legal or otherwise.
Access will reduce maternal deaths from illegal abortions. Almost
600,000 women die annually during pregnancy and childbirth, including
75,000 due to unsafe abortion, UNICEF figures.
There are many more facts that we have with regard to the fact that
family planning will prevent abortion. Vote for the Gilman-Pelosi
amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina, [Mrs. Myrick].
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I urge a yes vote on Smith-Barcia-Hyde-
Oberstar, which will restore the pro-life Mexico City policy; and a no
vote on the Gilman-Pelosi-Campbell-Lowey-Greenwood-DeLauro-Slaughter
amendment, which would substitute vagueness for clarity and, therefore,
defeat the purpose of this important pro-life policy.
The question before the House is simple: Should the United States
give many millions of dollars for family planning programs to
organizations actively engaged in performing abortions overseas?
When we choose the surrogates in foreign countries, the groups that
will represent our country in matters related to family planning and
population control, do we really want to choose organizations that are
known primarily as abortion providers? What message does this send
about American values?
The substitute amendment would substitute a vague, and therefore,
unenforceable standard, promoting abortion as a method of family
planning for the clear and precise standard in the Smith-Barcia
amendment.
Under the substitute language, U.S. family planning grantees can
promote abortion as vigorously as they want, so long as the Clinton
administration was willing to certify that these abortions were not
done as a method of family planning. The Smith-Barcia amendment, in
contrast, would prohibit our grantees from either performing or
promoting abortion, except in three cases clearly defined: rape,
incest, and danger to the life of the mother.
Mr. Chairman, when it comes to protecting human life, we must choose
precision and clarity over vagueness and uncertainty. Please vote no on
the substitute, and yes on the Smith-Barcia-Hyde-Oberstar amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer].
(Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the substitute
and against the Smith amendment.
Without the support of U.S. international family planning funds,
countless millions in developing countries will have no access to
information and services that most of us take for granted. This
information is especially important in the developing world, where
population, driven by an uncontrolled demographic inertia to explosive
levels of growth, threatens the fragile stability of political and
social systems.
Population stability is essential to ensuring adequate resources for
future populations and real sustainable development.
United States assistance is grounded in a fundamental American value,
the freedom of people to choose their own future, to space and plan
their families, to reduce infant mortality, and to give children a
healthy start in life. That is what this is really all about.
Family planning saves lives. It reduces abortions, reduces infant and
childbirth-related mortality, and helps those in developing countries
live healthier lives.
The Smith amendment would end family planning services and lead to
more unintended pregnancies, more unsafe abortions, tragically, and
more infant and childbirth-related mortalities.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote to save lives and to vote
for the Pelosi substitute against the Smith amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin].
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I heard the discussion of the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and I
would like to quickly respond, to put this in perspective.
When I was Assistant Administrator of AID in the late 1970's, we
faced this very issue of fungibility, so we set up methods to make sure
that American dollars were insulated from any expenditure for abortion-
related activities.
[[Page H6835]]
We faithfully carried out the Helms amendment. It mostly related to
IPPF. It does not spend any substantial amount of its own funds, its
central funds, on abortion-related activities. It has affiliates that
spend its funds. These are essentially semiautonomous or autonomous
affiliates who raise their moneys in countries where abortion is legal.
The result of the Mexico City policy is, we could not give any funds
to any organization that had any affiliate that spent the funds it
raised for anything relating to abortion. That meant we would prevent
an organization from being in family planning because, in a third
degree, some affiliate spent some money it raised in its local country
for something that was legal in this country.
That is why this effort really strikes at family planning throughout
the world, and why we should turn it down.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Arkansas, [Mr. Hutchinson].
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith-Barcia-
Hyde-Oberstar amendment. Our tax dollars should not support countries
and organizations that use abortion as a family planning tool.
Every year since 1985 we have denied funds to the United Nations
Population Fund because it provides financial support for programs that
support overseas abortions.
Mr. Speaker, in 1993, the administration changed the rules and
reinterpreted U.S. law in order to claim opposition to coercive
population programs, but then actually provide for their financial
support. The administration does this by prohibiting our tax dollars
from providing direct support for forced abortions or sterilizations,
but that does not stop our money from freeing up funds in other
accounts to be used for these inhumane acts. This deception must end.
The Smith amendment simply interprets U.S. law as it was originally
intended. It stops all payments for organizations that support and
provide abortion services.
As a nation deeply concerned about human rights abuses, we have no
business sending such signals. For these reasons, I urge a ``yes'' vote
on the Smith amendment.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California, [Mr. Campbell].
(Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, the important distinction between what
the Smith amendment provides and the Pelosi-Greenwood amendment
provides is this: Many women seek family planning counseling after they
realize that they are pregnant. I wish it were not so, and I am sure
everybody agrees with me that they wish it were not so. But as a
result, if you deny any opportunity for the United States to assist
with the family planning agency because it also offers advice on
abortion, you would prevent the opportunity for giving family planning
advice that would prevent second abortions, third abortions, fourth
abortions.
Let me get into some of the statistics, because it is fascinating how
the use of family planning has prevented those subsequent abortions.
The AID studies tell us that in Tanzania, Egypt, Turkey, Kazakhstan,
Hungary, and Russia, studies they have made in each category of each
country, when opportunities were available for contraception, incidence
of abortion dropped dramatically.
It would be the wish of everyone in this debate that the incidence of
abortion be eliminated in this world. But we face today an imperfect
world, and if you say to a woman, you may go and seek advice, but the
agency from which you seek advice cannot offer you help on abortion,
she will not go there. And then that woman may have a second, third,
and fourth abortion, the horrors that my colleagues have presented to
us.
So in good faith, if your concern is to prevent the incidence of
abortion, then please support family planning and recognize that you
cannot have it both ways. If you wish to encourage women not to have an
abortion, then get them into family planning counseling, a family
planning clinic, family planning advice, as quickly as possible, and do
not tell them that if you go to this particular family planning
counseling, advice, service, you cannot receive the advice you seek
because of U.S. law.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment a little bit on
what we have heard here today.
First of all, I would like to make clear, as a practicing physician
and obstetrician, I believe in family planning. I believe that women
should be counseled and offered the opportunity. But I also do not
believe that one of those options ought to be the termination of the
life. And as the gentleman from California just alluded to, it is his
hope we would prevent further abortions, that is not really what
happens. Oftentimes they come and get talked into an abortion; and then
they are very upset about that after the fact.
So if we, as a country, truly are concerned about women in the Third
World and their ability to have a choice of not reproducing, then what
we ought to do is do the best we can and, at the same time, offer real
concern that this body has had for a long period of time that this
other option, with which we have much difficulty ourselves in terms of
our debate in this body.
I would agree with what Mr. Campbell said. The real problem is
unintended pregnancy. It is not abortion. It is a shame that our body
continues to get hung up on this issue. But we have to be truly honest
about what the real issue is.
It is like Ms. Pelosi's amendment. Is it a straightforward amendment
that addresses the issue that we are talking about, or is it an
amendment that is somewhat less than straightforward so we can cloud
the issue?
We all want the same thing. We just disagree on how we get there. And
I have the utmost respect for Ms. Pelosi and her views, and she
represents a very different part of the country than I do. But we ought
to keep in mind that we do want the same thing, and that there is a
large body in this country and in this House that says this is a
worrisome area to us, this idea of abortion.
So let us be very, very honest about what we are doing and not try to
trick the American public. The fact is, there are some disagreements on
how we do it. Let us vote to make sure we get family planning money
there.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBURN. I would just like to finish my point, and if I have any
time left, I will be happy to. I think the gentlewoman controls some
time on her side.
Ms. PELOSI. The gentleman was questioning the honesty of our
proposal.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman has plenty of time
to answer that.
Mr. Chairman, I would even propose that we might increase those
funds. But I think we ought to be very careful about what we want and
what the truth is in terms of what really happens in international
family planning.
I will support the will of this House, regardless of how this vote
comes out, because I think it is important that women do have this
service.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to respond briefly to the gentleman, who was questioning the integrity
of our proposal while saying that he recognized the need for
international family planning. It is interesting to hear him say that
in light of the fact that he just voted for the Paul amendment which
would have eliminated all the funding for international family planning
in the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York [Ms. Slaughter], a member of the Committee on Rules.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Somebody has to speak for the millions of women around
this world who desperately want access to family planning. Even with
the family planning money, we don't reach enough of them.
Pregnancy and childbirth are very risky propositions for women in
many parts of this globe that lack electricity, running water, medical
equipment or trained personnel. In Africa, a woman has a 1 in 16 chance
of death from pregnancy and childbirth during their lifetime--585,000
women die from
[[Page H6836]]
bodies that are worn out from child bearing, child after child, who
simply cannot take another.
And there are complications from pregnancy. For each one that dies,
100 others suffer from associated illnesses and permanent disabilities,
including sterility.
Studies indicate if we can space a child for 2 years apart, we can
prevent an average of 1 in 4 infant deaths.
We are talking about saving people's lives here. Who are we in the
United States, where we have so much and so much has been given to us,
that we can say to people who have almost nothing, we are not going to
give you the information or the knowledge that you need to save your
life and to save your family's?
This is the cruelest kind of family planning of all, to let women die
from excess pregnancies or self-induced abortions.
{time} 1515
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to
respond briefly that nothing in my amendment or the amendment offered
by the gentleman Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Barcia] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] cuts
family planning. It holds harmless the amount of money.
This policy, known as the Mexico City Policy, first announced at a
U.N. conference in 1984, separates abortion from family planning. So
you can have it both ways. You can say you are pro-life and also pro-
family planning, because the money will flow to those organizations
that divest themselves of killing unborn children with suction machines
or with injections of high concentrated salt or any of the other
hideous methods that are used to kill and abuse and destroy unborn
babies.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Porter].
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, for his tremendous leadership on this issue, and thank
him for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, the Gilman-Pelosi amendment will allow family planning
services in the Third World to continue, while safeguarding the
fungibility of funds for abortion services. This amendment will allow
U.S. funds to be used only by private and multilateral organizations
that do not promote abortion as a method of family planning. I do not
know, Mr. Chairman, how this could be any clearer. The Gilman-Pelosi
amendment provides this important funding and addresses the concerns of
those who would support the Smith amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this debate is not about abortion, it is about women.
It is about whether women, poor women in the developing world, will be
allowed to use their minds and choose their future. Today, they gather
the firewood, they gather the water, they till the fields, and they
tend to the children. They have no other opportunity to participate in
family and community development beyond these tasks. These women are
not offered the opportunity to be educated, no chance at all; They are
not given the chance to bring anything economically to the table, to
their families, where it is valued.
It seems to me it is time that we value women across the world. They
should be valued for their minds and their potential to add to the
global community. It seems to me as long as we prevent women from being
able to space and number their children through voluntary family
planning, which is what the Smith amendment will do, we are
undervaluing them in a way that is cruel and wrong.
It is time that we stand up for voluntary family planning throughout
the world. Abortion is not a issue in this. None of us favor abortion
as a method of family planning. All of us oppose the use of any funds,
especially public funds, for abortion in any way. We support voluntary
family planning because we support women and their role in society.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette].
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I guess I do not understand some of the
arguments in favor of the Smith amendment, because it seems to me that
if we oppose unnecessary abortions, as I do, and as I think everyone
here does, then we would support the Gilman-Pelosi amendment and oppose
the Smith amendment.
The Smith amendment would cause women in developing countries to face
more unwanted pregnancies, more poverty, and more despair. What it
would do is prevent birth control information and family planning
information from going to women in developing countries who desperately
need it. It will increase abortions and it will jeopardize the health
of millions of women and children internationally.
The Smith amendment will deny funding to international family
planning organizations who are giving women desperately needed
reproductive health services and delivering vital pre- and post-natal
care. I do not see anybody else who is going to do that, other than the
fine organizations who are performing those services now. For that
reason, I would oppose the Smith amendment and support the Gilman-
Pelosi amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen].
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey
for his many years of leadership on this important issue for us in the
House.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to reiterate my support for the rights of
the unborn, and to state my strong opposition to the use of taxpayer
funds for the promotion and performance of abortions. The Smith
amendment would prevent the use of U.S. taxpayers' moneys, which now
give large subsidies to organizations that provide or lobby for
abortions at any time.
We must not allow our hard-earned money to go to these groups. By
passing the Smith amendment today, we will in fact prevent hundreds of
millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars from being used to fund the
international abortion industry, for it is an industry.
Specifically, the amendment would, first, prohibited funding of the
U.N. Population Fund if it continues to comply with China's coercive
and abusive abortion program. It is not a family planning program, it
is an abortion program.
Second, it would restore the Mexico City policy, which prohibits
international family planning groups from receiving our taxpayer
dollars if they in fact promote abortion as a so-called method of
family planning.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to pass the Smith amendment today,
so our hands and our dollars are not further tainted with the worldwide
killing of the innocent unborn. We must put an end to infanticide.
Abortion is not family planning, it is murder. I urge my colleagues to
reject the bogus Pelosi amendment, which is being presented today as a
pro-life vote.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey began his remarks by
indicating that he found it disingenuous that those of us who have
drafted this amendment would advertise it as an amendment designed to
prevent abortion.
The gentleman's argument seems to rely on a myth. The gentleman's
myth is that there are two kinds of Americans. There are Americans who
are opposed to abortion and want fewer of them, and there are Americans
who want more abortions, who favor abortions. That is the myth, that is
the damning myth that makes this debate so difficult to overcome.
The fact of the matter is that there is one kind of American on this
issue, and those are all of us Americans who want fewer abortions in
this country and around the world.
This language is offered as a compromise. We acceded to the
gentleman's view on China because we share his concern about coercive
abortion in China. We have a difference of opinion, probably, about
what the effect of the American presence might be on that coercive
abortion, but we acceded to that. That is a huge compromise on our
side.
Then we said this. When all the myths are put aside and we look at
the real world, here is what happens in the real world. In a place like
Kazakhstan, in a place like Romania, in a place like Russia, where
family planning is not
[[Page H6837]]
available, women have repeated abortions. It is a horror. It is bad for
their health. It is bad for their mental health. It is no way to
prevent pregnancy. It is no way to plan the number of children in a
family.
The language of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], unamended
by that of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], says when you have
that situation, fold up our American tents and go home; turn your head
away, put it in the sand, do not be there, do not be part of the
solution. Just let those abortions, let those Russian women, Romanian
women, have abortion after abortion after abortion, the thing they
decry with such passion.
What our amendment says is we are going to be there. We are going to
be there for one reason and one reason alone. That reason is to convert
these women into women who will use contraception as a method of family
planning, and not abortion.
So there are two options on this vote. Members can vote against the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], and they turn away from the rest
of the world and they say, have as many abortions as you want, because
we will not be there to help you with family planning, and you will
have no other choice.
Or Members vote with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] and myself, the gentlewoman
from New York [Ms. Slaughter], the gentleman from California [Mr.
Campbell], and you say, we are going to be there to help those little
agencies in those backward countries to enter the modern age, and
empower women to plan the size of their families using contraception.
Mr. Chairman, if we vote down the Gilman amendment, here is what will
happen. We throw the compromise away. This language will be
unacceptable to the Senate, unacceptable to the administration. We will
be back here voting this over and over and over again. It will be the
last thing that keeps us here. It will keep us here in gridlock, and we
will be voting it in February.
If Members accept this compromise, we will put this issue behind us.
We will save women's lives, and we will move ahead.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
First of all, if it does cause inconvenience, that is unfortunate,
but saving a child's life from the cruelty of abortion, dismemberment,
chemical poisoning is worth inconvenience. I know these votes are
inconvenient, but that is just a simple fact of the matter.
Let me also point out that during the Reagan and Bush years we
provided more than 40 percent of the population control family planning
funds going around the world with the Mexico City Policy intact. What
we had was contraception, birth control, separated from abortion, and
that is all our amendment does. It does not expand or contract the pool
of funds available for population planning.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, so often when we write
legislation in this body it is complex, and is made up of provisions
that are so arcane our explanations when we go home are really
convoluted. But in this case I can go home and say I am voting for
Pelosi-Greenwood for exactly four words as a reason: Family planning
saves lives. It frees women from the risk of disease and then death
from pregnancies when their bodies just cannot take one more pregnancy.
It frees children from the dire consequences of losing that parent in
an undeveloped region. It absolutely frees struggling nations to devote
more of their resources to improving the lot of their people. That is
what this is all about.
Far from promoting abortion, this amendment explicitly continues
current United States law which prohibits this use of our funds. I
thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] for being so
eloquent in his explanation of where we are today, and what the Pelosi
amendment does to the Smith amendment.
This whole debate disappoints me so profoundly. For years in this
country the best of our people in our communities, Republicans and
Democrats, all were for family planning. We put it now in the abyss of
the litmus test on this very difficult debate.
I thank those who brought us to this point, and vote, please, for the
Pelosi amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the distinguished whip.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I really thank the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Smith] for all his hard work in these areas. There is no greater
champion for the unborn than the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
Mr. Chairman, as the world's last remaining superpower, the United
States plays a very important role in international affairs. Everything
it does is scrutinized and interpreted, and in many cases, our country
is looked up to as a role model. Therefore, we have to take everything
very seriously, and the decisions that we make we have to take
seriously, especially those decisions about the kinds of policies we
want to pursue in other countries.
In this particular case, the debate is about the kinds of family
planning organizations we want to assist with funding. According to the
State of World Population, 1997, compiled by the U.N. Population Fund,
the United States is the largest donor to international family planning
programs, contributing about 47 percent of all the external population
control moneys worldwide.
{time} 1530
So, therefore, it is even more important that we in the United States
pursue international family planning principles that are consistent
with the kinds of values we want to represent and promote.
Now, President Clinton has already made very clear the kinds of
values he would like to promote abroad. In 1993, the Clinton
administration abandoned long-standing pro-life policies because of his
belief that legal abortion is, and I quote, ``a fundamental right of
all women and part of the overall approach to population control.''
Mr. Chairman, I disagree with those values. I do not believe
population should be controlled by abortion, and that is why I stand in
strong support of the Smith amendment and strong opposition to the
Pelosi amendment.
The Pelosi amendment, and we all know what it is, it is a killer
amendment and we have to defeat it. It provides, in my opinion, a
lesson in ambiguity, as its prohibition on funds going to organizations
that promote abortion as a method of family planning is open to all
kinds of interpretations, particularly from this pro-abortion White
House.
The Smith amendment is very clear. No mistake about it. No United
States funds will go to organizations that provide or lobby for
abortions at any time for any reason. Now, that is not vague. There is
no vague issue regarding the intention of an organization's
participation in abortion or the reasons for providing it.
Other than in cases of protecting the life of the mother or forcible
rape or incest, the intentions are irrelevant. Intentions are
irrelevant. What is relevant is the position the United States is going
to take as the largest provider of funds to the international
population control programs.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the United States should stand for life.
And as the Reagan-Bush years proved, there are hundreds of
organizations that are willing to agree to the conditions that they
neither perform nor actively promote abortion in order to receive
America's taxpayers' dollars.
These organizations are perfectly capable of providing the family
planning services called for by the proponents of the Pelosi amendment
that are so valuable to the poor throughout the developing world, and
these are the ones that we should be supporting.
So I just urge my colleagues to separate the issues and look very
strongly at what the two amendments do. One is the Pelosi amendment, an
amendment of ambiguity. And there is no mistaking what the Smith
amendment does. So I urge my colleagues to support the Smith amendment
and oppose the Pelosi amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], using
my own time, if he would respond to a
[[Page H6838]]
question. I was concerned about the characterization of the Pelosi
amendment and I had some ambiguity on my mind about the position of the
gentleman from Texas on international family planning.
Mr. Chairman, I would inquire if the gentleman supports international
family planning?
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman that I
support the international family planning that is included in this bill
with the Smith amendment added to the bill.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, then one would wonder
why the gentleman from Texas voted with the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Paul] to remove all international family planning from the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate my remarks with
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] and respectfully
disagree with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], my colleague. I am
shocked to find that there would be any ambiguity on any legislation
considered by this House.
But, Mr. Chairman, I think this is an honorable compromise. We are
going to have disagreements over abortion in this House and in future
Congresses.
Let us talk about what this really is. This is about whether or not
we are going to have an international family planning program sponsored
by the United States. And it is about whether or not we, as the last
remaining superpower, as the gentleman from Texas just said, we are
willing to step up to the plate on this issue, willing to take the
lead, as we should as that superpower, on the question of family
planning.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] was
very appropriate in saying that we could stick our head in the sand and
ignore these problems. I think that would be a mistake for this country
and a mistake for the world.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to cut through the
ideological purity issues of this and look at pragmatism of the Gilman-
Pelosi amendment and adopt it.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts].
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I come before the House today to urge my
colleagues to vote for the Smith amendment and against the substitute
offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
The pro-life safeguards of the Mexico City policy were in effect
during the Reagan-Bush years as a way to fully fund family planning
without promoting abortion. And the Mexico City policy, which the Smith
amendment would reinsert, is both pro-family and pro-life.
During those years the policy was in place, in excess of 350 family
planning organizations, including Planned Parenthood affiliates in 57
States and countries, accepted those conditions.
If the bill is passed without the Smith amendment, the House will
appropriate $385 million for international population control without
the pro-life safeguards. Opponents of Mexico City will argue that this
policy is not necessary because we already have the Helms amendment in
law. But, Mr. Chairman, the Helms amendment was found to be infirmed.
Yes; it stopped direct funding, but there were loopholes and the pro-
abortion groups used those loopholes very effectively.
Under current law, U.S. taxpayer dollars go to the international
abortion industry which performs abortion on demand, which actively
lobbies to overturn foreign country's laws on abortion. This is a fact
and our law protects against this blatant misuse of American family tax
dollars.
Mr. Chairman, this issue is about abortion. Abortion is violent. It
is violence against women. It is violence against their unborn
children. We need family planning without abortion. Abortion hurts
women. It is humiliating. It is painful. It is demeaning. It is
disruptive. It breaks the heart of a woman.
We need to do family planning without abortion. We can live without
it. Let us stop our taxpayer dollars from funding this type of
international violence. It is our moral obligation to reinstate Mexico
City. Vote for the Smith amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] deputy whip as well as a member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan
amendment. This debate is not about promoting abortion. Not one penny
of U.S. funds can be used for abortion. This vote is a vote to prevent
abortion, to improve the health of women and children, and above all,
to save lives.
U.S. family planning aid saves the lives of women. UNICEF says that
it reduces unintended pregnancies by one-fifth. It would reduce
abortions and could save the lives of as many as 120,000 women who
would die in childbirth. If the Smith amendment passes, family planning
and health clinics across the world will close. Women will be denied
Pap smears and will suffer from cancers which could easily have been
treated if caught early. Sexually transmitted diseases will go
undiagnosed and untreated. More mothers, infants, and children will
die.
For 30 years, the United States has been an international leader in
reducing the number of maternal and child deaths through its support
for family planning. We need to renew this commitment. Vote to reduce
abortions, vote to reduce maternal and child death. Vote to support
Gilman-Pelosi.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jones].
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Smith
amendment. This amendment will prevent taxpayers' dollars from being
spent on abortions overseas. I find it very disturbing that each year,
the Federal Government sends millions of taxpayer dollars to family
planning organizations in foreign countries that, in turn, use the
money to pay for abortions. In essence, these are taxpayer-funded
abortions.
Surveys have shown time and time again that whether they are pro-life
or pro-choice, the vast majority of Americans do not, and I repeat, do
not support federally funded abortions, whether in the United States or
overseas.
As a Member of Congress, we are elected to represent and to serve the
American people. It is wrong to go against the American people's will
and to continue to spend their tax dollars on abortions in foreign
countries.
That is why it is critical that we pass the Smith amendment. Without
this amendment, American dollars will still be used to fund forced
abortions in the People's Republic of China. This is not only a very
important human rights issue, it is also a matter of protecting the
lives of innocent children around the world.
I personally do not think that Americans should ever have to fund
abortions with their tax dollars, especially in foreign countries. But
now more than ever during this time of fiscal responsibility and budget
tightening, the Federal Government has no business sending American
dollars to destroy the lives of innocent children overseas. I strongly
urge my colleagues to support the Smith amendment.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York [Mrs. Kelly].
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Smith
amendment. I find the restrictive Smith amendment to be superfluous. We
all know that the 1973 Helms amendment which prohibits any U.S. funds
for abortion in international planning is part of the permanent foreign
aid statute.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that any recipient of U.S. funds,
any recipient of U.S. funds, has ever violated the terms of the Helms
amendment. This is unnecessary layering of restrictive law and can only
work to harm women and children worldwide by denying them the various
health services provided by international family planning
organizations.
The effects of the Mexico City policy are far-reaching and negative.
According to UNICEF, ``each year, 600,000
[[Page H6839]]
women die of pregnancy-related causes. Seventy-five thousand of these
deaths are associated with self-induced, unsafe abortion.''
Do we want the blood of these women on our hands? If my colleagues
vote for the Smith amendment, that is what they will get.
In addition, the Mexico City policy serves as a threat, a gag order,
that results in failure to assist women in need. For example, if a
woman is suffering from a life-threatening infection that is the
consequence of a self-induced abortion, members of an international
family planning organization might fear that treating such a woman
could result in a loss of funds. Is this the result we want?
Family planning is a very critical and complex issue. It is prenatal
care; it is child nutrition; it is followup with preventive care; and
the education provided by international family planning is often what
enables children to survive their first year and enables women to
survive their pregnancy.
We must not impose this gag order. We must provide the world with
family planning education that works to eliminate the need for
abortion.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to please support the Gilman-
Pelosi secondary amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the Smith amendment would work irreparable
harm for women and children throughout the developing world. Gilman-
Pelosi is a literal direct response to the concerns of antiabortion
advocates. It is almost impossible to sustain a principled position
against abortion, without supporting voluntary family planning as it
appears in Gilman-Pelosi.
Mr. Chairman, we must have one standard for family planning
throughout the world. I would want the same standard there as I would
want for myself and my constituents. Family planning is one of the
great success stories in economic development. It is not in
agriculture; it is not in trade. It is family planning which has been
the essential key to economic development itself in the developing
world.
Denying family planning is like denying food to children, because
that is exactly what happens when families in the developing world have
more children than they can support. Gilman-Pelosi is the rational
response that is consistent with the values of the American people who
strongly support family planning.
{time} 1545
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brady].
Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith amendment.
The principle involved here is a serious one, that of the sanctity of
a human life. The policy we debate is one of accountability. Do we
enforce the law of the American land or do we reward agencies who
circumvent our laws?
We are giving agencies overseas who pretend to do family planning a
choice, to accept our dollars to conduct true family planning or, as
they seek to do, to seek dollars under the guise of family planning to
conduct, encourage, and support the promotion of abortion.
To us, to the hard-working people in my district who work very hard
for their taxes, who want accountability, we support the Smith
amendment and believe it is the best, not just for this country but for
every country as well.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], distinguished ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I support family planning both at home and
internationally because I think it is the best way to prevent
abortions.
The last time the Smith amendment was before the House, I supported
it because I thought that he was right and I was personally fed up with
the way that the administration and the United Nations continued to
finance and apologize for the coercive abortion policy in China. So I
voted with the Smith amendment.
I, at that time, asked the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] in
the future to please separate the issue of Mexico City from the issue
of China because I thought that would at least guarantee some positive
steps forward with respect to the Chinese issue. That has not been done
in his amendment, but it has been done in the Pelosi amendment.
The Pelosi amendment in essence will say that unless the U.N.
population program gets out of China, and there is no question that
they practice coercive abortion policies in that country, that we will
get our money, we will take our money out of the United Nations
population program. That is what ought to happen.
I urge support for the Pelosi amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
I rise in support of the Smith amendment, and I encourage my
colleagues to vote in support of it and against the Pelosi option. The
Mexico City policy was established by Ronald Reagan in 1984. It
basically said that no family planning organizations that do abortions
and promote abortions can get Federal funds. There were claims made at
that time that all of these family planning organizations would have to
close up shop and all these women would be denied contraceptive
services. In truth, all but two of them stayed in business. They made
the commitment. They took the money and they stopped promoting
abortion.
Now we have a substitute that has been put forward, the Pelosi
language, that says that no money would go to an organization that
promotes abortion as a method of family planning. The person who will
certify whether or not that is the case is Bill Clinton, the man who
rescinded the Mexico City policy in 1993, the first act he ever
performed. He does not like Mexico City. But we are going to trust him
now, the man who vetoed the partial-birth abortion bill. ``Trust Bill''
is what we are being told today.
Another thing that this language does is, they can be performing
abortions and, yes, they can be using their U.S. dollars to buy fax
machines and dollars from somewhere else to perform the abortions, but
as long as they are not promoting it, they can still get all these U.S.
dollars. I believe that if you are really pro-life and you are really
committed to the principles that are in the Declaration of
Independence, which is we are all endowed by the Creator with certain
inalienable rights, including the right to life, then you need to
support the Smith amendment.
This was Ronald Reagan's policy. The Members who are proposing this
alternative are the people who never supported Ronald Reagan's policy.
I believe, if we are committed to the principles that this Nation was
founded on, we will support the Smith language. I encourage all of my
colleagues to vote with Smith.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], a member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as you will recall, we debated
this issue of the Mexico City policy back in February when we talked
about whether the family planning funds should be released. We debated
it again in June when we talked about the State Department
authorization. And we will continue to be debating it next year and
every year thereafter until we come up with a constructive solution.
This is a constructive compromise.
This addresses what the opponents have said that they objected to.
This says that we will not fund family planning programs where abortion
is used as a method of birth control. This says that we will not. So
why not agree, shake hands? We have resolved a very difficult issue and
now we can work constructively in other countries where women and
children and men are forced to live lives of abject poverty, because
that is what we condemn them to if we do not make family planning
information available to women so that they can control the size of
their families.
We have a responsibility, we who live in a country so prosperous and
so free, to do something for those people who
[[Page H6840]]
do not. Please support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform the Members that the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining, the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] has 6 minutes remaining, and
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] has 4\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California, [Ms. Woolsey].
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, each year in the developing world 600,000
women die from pregnancy-related complications. Maternal mortality is
the largest single cause of death among women during their reproductive
years. That is why support for family planning services is becoming
more important every year.
Voluntary family planning services give mothers and families new
choices and new hope. These services increase child survival, promote
safe motherhood. Without support for international family planning,
women in developing nations face more unwanted pregnancies, more
poverty and more despair.
Mr. Chairman, it is ironic that the same people who would deny women
in the developing world the choice of an abortion would also seek to
eliminate support for family planning programs.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Pelosi-
Gilman substitute.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Shays], my good friend.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time. I have come to this floor on a number of issues, particularly as
they relate to the budget. I think of what we have tried so hard to do,
of getting our country's financial house in order and balancing the
Federal budget and saving our trust funds for not just future
generations but for present generations, and moving from a caretaking
society to a caring society. I think of how important those things are.
Yet they pale in comparison to the fact that many of the people
around the world live in abject poverty. We have a population in this
world of about 5.2 billion and it is climbing. I think of some
societies, whose economies grow, but their population growth outstrips
their economic growth and they become poorer and poorer and poorer.
For the life of me, I do not know why this great country, the United
States of America, would not want to help those countries become more
prosperous, and I would like to understand why we would not want them
to help control their population growth. This amendment does this.
I just urge, with all that I could urge my colleagues to recognize
that this is not the United States of America. I lived as a Peace Corps
volunteer overseas. I have seen how people live. They want to live a
better life. They want their children to have better lives. But they
have got to have a way of knowing how to control their populations and
to be able to grow in a logical way.
I urge my colleagues to recognize, this is not about abortion. This
is about whether we are going to allow for logical family planning so
we do not need abortions and we do not have so many people living in
abject poverty.
I urge Members to support the Pelosi and Greenwood amendment. I urge
them to allow and help other countries have logical family planning.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler], my good friend and colleague.
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Smith amendment and in opposition to the substitute.
The Supreme Court has opined in Roe versus Wade and its erroneous
progeny that we have to allow the killing of preborn children. Clearly
this was a misread of the Constitution by the Court.
In any event, the Court has not opined that our Government has an
obligation to provide this service here in America or in any other
land. We should not take to this course by our own will.
The sanctity of life transcends international boundaries. It is time
to say no to a careless export, the notion that abortion is acceptable
as a means of family planning.
I would prefer to block all international family planning funding. It
is fiscally irresponsible to do otherwise. But if we are to fund this
type of program, and the Smith amendment does not end international
family planning, we must do all we can to see that we do not fund those
which promote abortion.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Maloney].
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
Smith amendment and in support of the bipartisan amendment.
I would like very much to be associated with the comments of my
colleague on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood], and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey] that pointed out the compromises in this amendment, particularly
with the China language.
Federal funds cannot be used to perform abortions overseas. That is
the law. But it appears that some of my colleagues are so jittery over
a woman's right to choose that they confuse it with a person's right to
medical education and a family's right to plan their lives.
The U.N. Fund for population activities is not an organization which
encourages abortion. What it does encourage is the prevention of
unwanted pregnancies in 140 different countries. Not only does the U.N.
fund work to prevent abortions, it provides programs which promote
better nutrition, health and longer life expectancy. Vote for the
bipartisan Pelosi-Gilman amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I rise in
opposition to the Smith amendment, clearly, to say that this is not a
vote on abortion and we should recognize that. This is about saving
lives, because family planning funds are used to provide effective
means of birth control, health care for pregnant mothers and newborns,
and education on family planning options.
Let us look at the role and responsibility of this country, sharing
its expertise with those nations who need our help in family planning.
I support the Gilman-Pelosi amendment, a viable approach to making sure
that we save lives, that we do not support abortion in this instance,
but we support saving lives through fair and adequate family planning.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith amendment to H.R.
2159, the foreign Operations appropriations bill. My colleagues, it is
disheartening to see this legislation once again before us on the floor
of the House and I urge you to join me in opposing this amendment.
Despite attempts of this amendment's proponents to characterize it as
such, this vote is not about abortion. Proponents of the Smith
amendment wrongly claim that release of family planning funds without
restrictions will allow U.S. aid to support abortion services abroad.
These funds, however, can not by law be used to provide or promote
abortions. They argue that funding is fungible, but the Agency for
International Development has a rigorous process to ensure that the
current ban on the use of U.S. funds for abortions is adhered to and
that no U.S. funds are spent on abortion services.
Funds to support family planning are not funds for abortions. Family
planning funds are used to provide contraceptives to persons who would
otherwise not have access to them. Family planning funds support
education and outreach on family planning options, family counseling,
health care, and technical training for personnel.
These funds help to improve the health and increase the survival rate
of women and children during pregnancy, in childbirth, and in the years
after. Family planning allows parents to control the number of children
that they have and the timing of those births. And in so doing it
allows women the opportunity to reach beyond the walls of their homes,
to get an education and to work outside of the family. A recent report
of the Rockefeller Foundation argued that devoting less time to bearing
children, reducing family size, and improving the
[[Page H6841]]
health and survival of women and children results in better economic
prospects in developing countries.
Withholding these funds will reduce access to contraception and in so
doing increase unintended and unwanted pregnancies. Experience
demonstrates that as unintended pregnancies increase, so does the
abortion rate. In fact, United States funding to Hungary has coincided
with a 60-percent reduction in abortions in that country. In Russia,
increased use of contraceptives has led to a 30-percent reduction in
abortions.
My colleagues, this is not a vote on abortion. This is a vote to
provide more options and opportunities for the people of developing
nations around the world.
For these reasons, I call upon each Member to signal their support
for the health and welfare of women, children and families and vote
against the Smith amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis].
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my support
for my colleague's amendment. I do not believe America should offer
financial assistance to any foreign organization that supports
abortion. Under today's policies, several agencies that are supported
by U.S. funds can do just that.
Groups like the U.N. Population Fund and Family Planning
International Assistance freely take U.S. monetary support and use
those funds to perform and promote brutal abortion policies. Some of
them, like the U.N. Population Fund, help fund China's coercive
population control policies which result in thousands of abortions and
forced sterilizations.
These organizations are also attempting to change abortion laws in
many different countries. They are actively lobbying for abortion with
the assistance of U.S. tax dollars.
This amendment will prevent these atrocities. It guarantees that no
U.S. funds will be used in any way to promote abortion or sterilization
by any group.
If these agencies want to promote abortion as a form of birth
control, let them do it without the support of American funds. I
encourage all my colleagues to support this amendment and prevent U.S.
funds from being used to support coercive family planning.
{time} 1600
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards], a member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, we in Congress have a responsibility to
look at not just the intent of our actions but the consequences. In my
opinion, the reality is that to restrict funding for family planning is
to increase abortions, thousands of abortions. In addition, I think the
impact of the Smith language, intended or not, will be to stop tens of
thousands of women from getting the kind of prenatal care that I am
grateful that my wife was just able to have in having a healthy, happy
baby.
Let us be clear. The law does not allow any U.S. dollars to be used
to fund abortions abroad. If we used the stretch logic of some of the
supporters of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], we would also
cut off all military aid to our allies, because the defense money we
send to those allies which helps them and us could then be channeled to
funding abortions in those countries. Let us support the right of
families in other countries to do what we cherish for our families here
in America, to plan for our families' futures. Support Gilman-Pelosi.
Oppose the Smith amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia], one of the sponsors
of the amendment.
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I offer my gratitude for the tremendous job
that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] is doing on the debate
on this very important amendment which he has offered.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the
exact ramifications of our amendment and the alternative amendment
offered by my esteemed colleagues the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Greenwood], the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], the gentlewoman from New York
[Mrs. Lowey], and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Quite simply, our amendment will ensure that U.S. tax dollars are not
allocated to foreign nongovernmental organizations for international
family planning programs unless they agree to, No. 1, not violate the
laws of other countries with respect to abortion, No. 2, not wage
campaigns to alter a country's laws on abortion except to oppose
coercive abortion practices and, thirdly and finally, not perform
abortions except to save the mother's life or in cases of rape or
incest.
Our amendment is necessary to close a loophole that allows U.S. tax
dollars to subsidize organizations which work to increase the
availability of abortions around the world. The Gilman - Pelosi -
Campbell - Lowey - Greenwood substitute will certainly result in a
deadly version of the pea in the shell game when we try to identify
those responsible for these abortions. It may not be our dollars, but
our dollars freed up those that did not pay for the abortion.
I urge my colleagues to support the Smith-Barcia-Hyde-Oberstar
amendment and oppose the alternative. The lives of the unborn are too
important to leave to the whimsical nature of a loophole.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 2\1/
2\ minutes.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, we have heard the rhetoric once again.
Members of Congress sitting here, standing here in the Capitol of the
United States talking about this issue. On the other side of this
amendment, mostly men, but this is not the real world. What really
happens in the real world, whether it is in Kazakhstan, whether it is
in Bolivia, anywhere around the world, a real woman, somebody's mother,
somebody's sister, somebody's daughter, somebody's wife is pregnant and
she has five children or six children, she may have lost one or two to
hunger or disease already and she is pregnant again because she has no
access to family planning and she is terrified and she is determined to
get an abortion. She sees that as her only option, rather than starve
the children that remain at home. She is going to get that abortion.
She is going to get it in some dingy little concrete, damp, dank clinic
somewhere out in the middle of nowhere if she is lucky, or she is going
to get it in a back alley of some faraway place, terrified, unhygienic,
threatening to her health.
That is the world. That is happening as we speak all over the planet
every day. There are two things we can do about that. We can turn away.
That is what the Smith language does. ``Go away. Don't be there. Let
that happen. As long as we're not part of it, nothing we can do about
it. It's not our problem. It's not our mother. It's not our sister.
It's not our daughter.''
Or we can be there. We can be there with a few scant American dollars
to turn on a light bulb in that clinic, to set up a desk, to put some
pamphlets on the table, to have a human being with care to say to that
woman, ``You do not want to come back here again under these
circumstances. We want to give you the birth control pill. We want to
teach you how to use a condom. We want to empower you not to have to
put yourself or be put in this position again.'' That is what the
Gilman amendment does. Please support the compromise.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas].
(Mr. PAPPAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Smith
amendment.
I have only been here in Congress for 8 months yet this is my third
debate on this floor on the issue of whether we ensure that American
tax dollars are not used to change the pro-life laws of other
countries, whether we truly guarantee that our tax dollars will not be
used to pay for abortions, or whether we will allow our tax money to go
to organizations that violate the laws of the country to which the aid
is sent. Maybe the third time is a charm. The vast majority of
Americans agree
[[Page H6842]]
with the goals and purpose of this amendment and I urge its passage
today.
This amendment is a commonsense effort to make sure that America's
foreign aid policy is both morally and fiscally responsible and I
gladly support both aspects of the Smith amendment.
My time is short so let me get to the point on the U.N. fund. My
parents were able to decide to have more than one child. Because of
this freedom, my older sister, Olga, has a younger sibling--a brother--
me. However, parents in China do not have this basic right. Until, the
UNFPA condemns this brutal coerced abortion policy in China or any
other country, no United States tax dollars should go to this misguided
program. The bipartisan Smith-Barcia-Hyde-Oberstar amendment is the
only way to clearly define what U.S. tax money can be used for in this
program.
I would like to concentrate on another aspect of this amendment,
specifically the ``Mexico City'' language.
This language is clearly the safeguard that the taxpaying public
wants to see on the large expenditure in population control activities
that this country pays for. We are talking about $385 million of U.S.
tax money. The Smith amendment specifically addresses the ever
increasing scourge of U.S. tax dollars being used to change the laws in
other countries. Just as this Congress and Nation are seriously
concerned about possible efforts by foreign nations to influence our
elections and laws, we must not be hypocritical and allow U.S. tax
dollar recipients to do the same things to laws in other countries.
Clean up this practice and vote for the Smith amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise this Congress' attention to one
of the greatest ironies of this entire overseas abortion debate. Many
of my colleagues who will stand here on this floor and oppose this
amendment to restore the pro-family, pro-cultural, pro-child, and
successful Mexico City policy are many of the same members who
regularly lambaste this body for not moving on campaign finance reform.
Well, if you truly believe in campaign finance reform, this is your
vehicle. This is a campaign finance reform vote. This is international
campaign finance reform. Vote for the Smith amendment and you will walk
the walk of campaign finance reform. Otherwise you are saying that it
is OK for U.S. foreign aid money, our hard-earned tax dollars, to be
used as soft money to lobby and change laws throughout the world.
Planned Parenthood and their kind do not like the pro-life laws in many
countries around the world. They will not rest until they bring down
these safeguards for the most vulnerable. Make no mistake about it,
failure to enact the Smith amendment will be interpreted by the world
community that this Congress wants our tax dollars going to foreign
lobbyists to change other countries' laws. I am against welfare for
lobbyists, especially lobbyists for the abortion industry. So are the
American people. The Smith-Barcia-Hyde-Oberstar amendment will prevent
this and I urge my colleagues to clean up this travesty and to support
the Smith amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Let me just speak for a moment to my friends who may feel they can
somehow rationalize voting ``yes'' on Gilman-Pelosi and ``yes'' on the
underlying pro-life amendment. Please do not. It is not honest law
making. If you are against pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into
the abortion industry overseas, the only honest vote is ``no'' on
Gilman-Pelosi and ``yes'' on Smith-Barcia-Hyde-Oberstar.
Today, Mr. Chairman, the pro-life laws and policies of almost 100
countries that restrict abortion are under siege and the engine driving
this global pro-abortion push are the nongovernmental organizations
funded by the U.S. Government. Our amendment permits the flow of funds
only to those organizations that provide only family planning and not
abortion. The innocent children are not put at risk. Who we subsidize,
not just what, but who we subsidize does matter and who we give
millions of dollars to does matter.
Mr. Chairman, the simple fact of the matter is the long-standing law
that no U.S. funds can be directly used for abortion was found to be
incomplete. It was like Swiss cheese. The organizations were doing
abortions on demand and yet seemingly adhering to the letter of the law
with regards to the Helms amendment. That is why we have the Mexico
City policy. We do not want to put these unborn children at risk.
Let me be very clear on this. The effect of the Gilman-Pelosi
amendment is that even if a foreign nongovernmental organization
performs abortion on demand, even if they perform abortions on demand
at any stage of the unborn child's development, even if they perform
abortions on demand on teenagers without parental knowledge or consent,
they still could get huge Federal grants so long as they say they are
not promoting abortion as a method of family planning, whatever that
is.
To add insult to injury, the phrase ``promote'' is not defined. I
asked some questions earlier, define it very clearly like our amendment
does, and the answers were not very enlightening. To adopt Gilman-
Pelosi is to sacrifice clarity for vagueness, and the consequence will
be that the administration will have breathtaking latitude to find that
even the most aggressive abortionists in the world are eligible for
funding.
The Smith-Barcia language is straightforward. It is absolutely
transparent. It establishes a wall of separation between abortion and
birth control. By contrast, the Gilman-Pelosi language intentionally
blurs the line of demarcation between abortion and contraception and
keeps the abortionists overseas on the Federal dole.
Let me make this very clear, Mr. Chairman. The pro-life vote is no on
Gilman-Pelosi. This is no compromise. The Gilman-Pelosi amendment is
clearly a killer amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote on it.
Let me just remind Members, the 7 sponsors of this amendment, with
all due respect, are like a who's who of the abortion rights in this
Congress. They all voted against the partial-birth abortion. To suggest
that somehow this is a pro-life compromise simply does not have any
currency to it. Please vote ``no'' on the first amendment, ``yes'' on
the second.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 2\1/
2\ minutes.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank our colleagues for this very, very
informed and serious debate this afternoon. I think those of us who
worked hard and long, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood]
in the leadership of this issue, to put together an appropriate
response to the concerns that have been expressed by my colleague in
the House, found expression in the supporters of the Gilman-Pelosi-
Greenwood-Campbell, the list goes on and on, amendment to the Smith
amendment.
I say I am proud of those who spoke on our behalf because they spoke
with conviction and consistency. Our colleague in his closing remarks
talked about some other issues that have been voted on by those of us
who are sponsoring this amendment and since he brought up the subject
of votes, I want to bring up the subject of votes as well.
Of the 15 people who spoke in support of the Smith amendment, in
opposition to the Gilman-Pelosi-Greenwood amendment, 13 of them voted
against international family planning, votes just moments ago, moments
before this debate began, for the Paul amendment to eliminate the
family planning, international family planning money from this bill.
One, the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] voted against the
Paul amendment. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], the maker of
this amendment, was silent on the Paul amendment. He did not vote on
that issue. So we do not know where he would stand on that particular
amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I will yield if the gentleman would like to say where he
would have voted on the Paul amendment, how he voted on the Paul
amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would like to make it very clear that
without, and this is why Members voted for the Paul amendment, without
pro-life safeguards we are giving money to the abortion industry
overseas. That is why Members voted that way.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I take back my time. Clearly the gentleman
does not want to state where he would have been on the motion to cut
all family planning funds from this legislation. It should be clear to
our colleagues what the intention is of the Smith amendment and of
those who spoke in the well to support it. Indeed, the leadership of
the Republican Party in this House, the gentleman from
[[Page H6843]]
Texas [Mr. Armey] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr.DeLay], who spoke on
the issue, they all voted for the Paul amendment to cut the family
planning funds from here.
So to my colleagues who have a discomfort level with this, I hope
they take some comfort in the fact that we came together in a
bipartisan fashion, we listened over the years to your concerns and
addressed them. Some of my colleagues even today, the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Jones], mentioned the force abortion program in
China. That is not in the bill any longer. That is not in the bill any
longer. And we have widened the separation wall between family planning
and abortion.
This is an issue about family planning. Those who oppose our
amendment oppose international family planning. If you support
international family planning, support the alternative amendment to the
Smith amendment.
Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith amendment.
This amendment is nothing more than a global gag rule, denying U.S.
funding to overseas family planning agencies.
Agencies which provide women's reproductive health services, improve
children's health and reduce the number of abortions around the world.
This amendment will result in the closure of family planning clinics
in some of the poorest countries in the world and will surely increase
the number of abortions, worldwide.
The Pelosi/Gilman amendment is a fair compromise; it denies funds to
any organization which promotes abortion as a method of family
planning; and diverts any UNFPA funding that would have gone to
operations in China to USAID family planning programs.
People of faith carry the responsibility of stewardship, particularly
in the area of human reproduction. Striving to ensure that each child
is a blessing for its family and for the world.
The gentleman from New Jersey is clearly a man of conviction. As
colleagues on the International Relations Committee he and I have been
able to work out compromises in the past. And I hope that we can
continue to do so on this important issue.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
the Gilman-Pelosi-Campbell-Lowey-Greenwood-DeLauro-Slaughter substitute
to the Smith amendment to H.R. 2159, the Foreign Operations
Appropriations bill. This bipartisan substitute amendment is important
to protecting the lives and health of women and children around the
globe.
Opponents of this amendment have attempted to paint this vote as one
about abortion. That is simply inaccurate. This is not a vote about
abortion, but about women having the ability to plan their own
families. It is a vote about preventing unintended pregnancies. It is a
vote about improving the quality of life for people around the world,
fighting overpopulation, and preventing hunger.
The Gilman-Pelosi-Campbell-Lowey-Greenwood-DeLauro-Slaughter
amendment will preserve current law prohibitions on the use of U.S.
funds for abortion. It will continue the ban on the use of U.S. funds
to lobby for or against abortion funds. This amendment will disqualify
from U.S. family planning assistance any foreign nongovernmental and
multilateral organizations that with their own funds ``promote abortion
as a method of family planning.'' The amendment will, in fact, prohibit
U.S. family planning assistance from going to these organizations
unless they use U.S. funds to ``prevent abortion as a method of family
planning.''
Despite the claims of its authors, the Smith amendment will not
reduce abortion funding in the foreign operations bill by a penny
because there is currently absolutely no abortion funding. The only
effect of the Smith amendment will be to defund organizations providing
voluntary, preventative family planning services which are the most
effective way to reduce abortions.
Around the world, a staggering 585,000 women die each year from
pregnancy-related causes, including 70,000 from unsafe abortions. The
best way to save lives and reduce the number of abortions is to reduce
the number of unwanted pregnancies. The most effective way to do this
is through voluntary family planning. Voluntary family planning
safeguards the lives and health of mothers and enhances the prospects
of their young children.
Abortion is not and should not be a substitute for contraception.
Family planning is the primary means of reducing unintended pregnancies
and unwanted births. The Gilman-Pelosi amendment addresses and supports
this priority and ensures that organizations which promote abortion as
a family planning method will be ineligible for funding.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the Gilman-Pelosi-
Campbell-Lowey-Greenwood-DeLauro-Slaughter amendment and in so doing
vote for family planning and the lives of women and their families.
Thank you.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gilman-Pelosi
amendment, which will ensure America's continued support for
international family planning programs. Global family planning is
essential for protecting the health of women, ensuring the health of
children, and reducing the demand for abortions. We must not sacrifice
the well-being of families around the world on the altar of abortion
politics.
Each year, approximately 4 million women will have an unwanted or
dangerous pregnancy, resulting in nearly 2 million more abortions or
miscarriages. These women do not have access to modern contraception,
medical advice or prenatal care.
In the absence of family planning, over half a million women die each
year from pregnancy-related causes, including 70,000 from unsafe
abortions. Funding restrictions will only add to these numbers.
U.S. support for international family planning has helped families
space the birth of their children and has increased the odds that there
will be enough food and other essentials to be shared among all family
members. We've enabled women to bear children when they are physically
strong and can breast-feed normally--increasing child survival by as
much as 20 percent.
The Gilman-Pelosi amendment will continue our support for family
planning programs while preserving current prohibitions on the use of
U.S. funds for abortion. It continues the ban on the use of U.S. funds
to lobby for or against abortion rights. It prohibits any organization
that promotes abortion as a method of family planning with their own
funds from receiving U.S. family planning assistance. And it ensures
that organizations that provide voluntary, preventative family planning
services will receive the necessary funds to continue their work to
reduce the number of abortions and the number of pregnancy-related
deaths.
Mr. Chairman, anyone who is serious about promoting the health of
women and children must support family planning. And anyone who truly
wants to reduce abortions must support these programs as well. I urge
my colleagues to support the Gilman-Pelosi amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I
strongly support international family planning because it will improve
women's health, reduce poverty, and protect our global environment. Our
family planning programs save lives, and they should be continued
without unnecessary restrictions.
The only reason why we are even considering the Smith amendment again
this year, even though it is already included in the State Department
authorization bill, is because the proponents of this amendment are
scared their unpopular provision may never be enacted. Apparently, they
are confident that, despite support in the House, their view is in fact
an extreme position which is not supported by the Senate, by the
President, or by the American people.
Why? Because the American people understand that family planning is
necessary, successful, and addresses a critical need. According to the
World Health Organization, nearly 600,000 women die each year of causes
related to pregnancy and childbirth. When couples cannot control the
number and timing of births, maternal and infant mortality increases.
It is estimated that one in five infant deaths could be averted by
birth spacing alone. Our family planning efforts directly address these
problems, and as David Broder commented in the Washington Post ``the
success of the program is undeniable.'' For example, studies show that
our efforts, as part of an international strategy, have prevented more
than 500 million unintended pregnancies. I am shocked that proponents
of the Smith amendment claim that our family planning program actually
increase the number of abortions, when, in fact, the exact opposite is
true.
The Smith amendment would severely limit our efforts and lead to a
dramatic increase in the number of abortions worldwide. When the so-
called Mexico City restrictions were in place during the Reagan and
Bush administrations, U.S. funding for the International Planned
Parenthood Federation was suspended. This organization currently
supports family planning in over 150 countries and helps serve at least
10 million couples annually in developing countries. The Smith
amendment may prevent the U.S. Government from funding this
organization and helping so many people. That would be a terrible
mistake.
This amendment is pernicious, unnecessary, and harmful. If enacted,
it would severely limit family planning efforts and simply result in
more unwanted pregnancies, more fatalities among women, and more
abortions. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Smith amendment.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith amendment
reinstating restrictions on American assistance to international family
planning.
[[Page H6844]]
The Smith amendment, if adopted, would have three effects: First, it
would deny U.S. funds to overseas family planning agencies that perform
legal abortions with their own funds; second, it would deny funding to
the United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA] which is active in more than
140 countries should it spend any funds in China, and third, it would
kill all chances for this legislation to be signed into law.
We all deplore policies of forced abortion or coercive population
control. There is no doubt that where these policies exist, such as in
China, we should make every effort to reverse them.
Mr. Smith and his cosponsor should support the Gilman-Pelosi
amendment which has been carefully crafted to achieve a middle ground
in this long-running congressional debate.
This amendment prohibits the use of U.S. funds to lobby for or
against abortion.
It prohibits the use of American aid to perform abortions in any
foreign country unless the life of the mother is endangered if the
fetus were carried to term or in cases of rape or incest.
It prohibits American aid from being distributed to UNFPA if it
operates population planning programs in China.
Many would argue that the Gilman-Pelosi alternative concedes too much
ground in its effort to find a compromise. With a world population
approaching 6 billion people of which 1.2 billion reside in China, many
would argue that the best way to convince Chinese authorities to change
their policies of coercive abortion and forced family planning is to
support legitimate family planning programs by international agencies
and nongovernment organizations in China. However, Mr. Gilman and Ms.
Pelosi offer their compromise in a sincere, bi-partisan effort to reach
the political middle ground in order to move forward with this
important legislation.
I support the Gilman-Pelosi alternative and urge my colleagues to do
so.
H.R. 2150
Offered By: Mr. Gilman
Amendment No. 9: Strike all after the title heading and
insert the following:
SEC. . POPULATION PLANNING ACTIVITIES OR OTHER POPULATION
ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act or any other provision of law, none of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act for
population planning activities or other population assistance
may be made available to pay for the performance of abortions
in any foreign country, except where the life of the mother
would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or in
cases of rape or incest.
(2) The limitation contained in paragraph (1) shall not
apply to the treatment of injuries or illness caused by
unsafe abortions.
(b) Limitation on Lobbying Activities.--(1) Notwithstanding
any other provision of this Act or any other provision of
law, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act for population planning activities or
other population assistance may be made available to lobby
for or against abortion.
(2) The limitation contained in paragraph (1) shall not
apply to activities in opposition to coercive abortion or
involuntary sterilization.
SEC. . UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND.
(a) Limitation.--Subject to subsections (b), (c), and
(d)(2), of the amounts made available for each of the fiscal
years 1998 and 1999 to carry out part I of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, not more than $25,000,000 shall be
available for each such fiscal year for the United Nations
Population fund.
(b) Prohibition on Use of Funds in China.--None of the
funds made available under this section shall be made
available for a country program in the People's Republic of
China.
(c) Conditions on Availability of Funds.--(1) Not more than
one-half of the amount made available to the United Nations
Population Fund under this section may be provided to the
Fund before March 1 of the fiscal year for which funds are
made available.
(2) Amounts made available for each of the fiscal years
1998 and 1999 under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 for the United Nations Population fund may not be made
available to the Fund unless--
(A) the Fund maintains amounts made available to the Fund
under this section in an account separate from accounts of
the Fund for other funds; and
(B) the Fund does not commingle amounts made available to
the Fund under this section with other funds.
(d) Reports.--(1) Not later than February 15, 1998 and
February 15, 1999, the Secretary of State shall submit a
report to the appropriate congressional committees indicating
the amount of funds that the United Nations Population Fund
in budgeting for the year in which the report is submitted
for a country program in the People's Republic of China.
(2) If a report under paragraph (1) indicates that the
United Nations Population Fund plans to spend China country
program funds in the People's Republic of China in the year
covered by the report, then the amount of such funds that the
Fund plans to spend in the People's Republic of China shall
be deducted from the funds made available to the Fund after
March 1 for obligation for the remainder of the fiscal year
in which the report is submitted.
____
Zero Population Growth,
Washington, DC, August 21, 1997.
Hon. Howard Berman,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Berman: On behalf of the nearly 60,000
members of ZPG across the country, I am writing to ask you to
support the Gilman-Pelosi amendment when the House resumes
consideration of the Foreign Operations appropriation bill.
The Gilman-Pelosi amendment will come up when Rep. Chris
Smith once again offers his amendment to impose a ``global
gag rule'' on international family planning providers. As you
know, the Smith amendment would deny U.S. funding to overseas
family planning agencies that either perform legal abortions
(with non-U.S. funds) or which publicly support any changes
in the abortion laws or regulations in foreign countries.
This far-reaching amendment would have the result of closing
family planning clinics in some of the poorest countries in
the world, thereby dramatically increasing the number of
abortions. The Smith amendment would also deny funding to the
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which runs effective
family planning programs in more than 140 countries, if they
spend so much as one penny in China. While no one denies that
the Chinese population program is often brutal, and always
coercive, there is not one sliver of evidence that UNFPA has
ever been involved with any involuntary practices.
The Gilman-Pelosi amendment is a new effort at compromise
that offers real hope for solving this seemingly unending
debate. It responds directly to the claim that the U.S.
subsidizes the promotion of abortion by denying funds to any
organization that promotes abortion as a method of family
planning. Rep. Smith and his allies will oppose this
amendment because he knows that it will be impossible to find
any organization that receives U.S. family planning aid that
does truly promote abortion. The Gilman-Pelosi amendment also
concedes the UNFPA argument, but says that if UNFPA does
operate in China the money appropriated for that agency would
instead be given to U.S. Agency for International Development
for family planning programs.
While we believe the Gilman-Pelosi amendment is
unnecessary, and that strong enough protections already exist
to keep U.S. funds from being used to perform abortion, we
believe this represents the best opportunity to move beyond
this divisive debate and get on with the business of
providing important family planning services to women around
the world.
I hope you will vote yes for the Gilman-Pelosi amendment.
Sincerely,
Peter H. Kostmayer,
Executive Director.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the Smith, Barcia, Hyde,
and Oberstar amendment. This amendment would reinstate the Mexico City
restrictions and prohibit U.S. funding to any private, nongovernmental,
or multilateral organization that directly or indirectly performs
abortions in a foreign country. But the 1973 Helms amendment to the
Foreign Assistance Act already prohibits U.S. funds from being used to
pay for abortions. This amendment would prevent U.S. assistance to
agencies that--with their own funds, to U.S. funds--provide abortion
counseling or services. The effect of this amendment would be to deny
reproductive choice to women in other countries, not matter what their
own beliefs, laws, and cultures have to say about this intensely
personal and important issue.
The amendment would also prohibit all United States funding for the
U.N. Fund for Population Activities [UNFPA] unless it ceases activities
in China. But UNFPA has no China program right now, and the
authorization bill language already reduces United States contributions
to UNFPA, dollar-for-dollar, for any amount UNFPA spends in the future
on a China program--meaning that the United States will not be
supporting the reprehensively forced-abortion policy.
The Smith amendment cuts family planning--but it won't reduce
abortions. Cutting family planning assistance will mean millions more
unintended pregnancies--and more, not fewer abortions. Just the reverse
happened after contraceptives and family planning were introduced in
Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union--Russia's reliance on
abortion was reduced by one-third. The United Nations estimates that 40
percent of pregnancies worldwide are unintended, and of these, 60
percent end in abortion. Family planning can dramatically reduce these
tragic statistics.
International family planning efforts also help protect the health of
women and children by reducing the number of high-risk births from
pregnancies spaced too closely together. Everyday more than 31,000
children under the age of 5 die in developing countries from low
birthweight and other complications of high-risk pregnancies. The U.S.
Agency for International Development [AID] estimates that, by spacing
births at least 2 years apart, family planning can prevent an average
of one in four infant deaths; and family planning can
[[Page H6845]]
prevent 25 percent of all maternal deaths by allowing women to delay
motherhood and avoid unintended pregnancies.
Family planning programs can have a dramatic influence on our ability
to do something about uncontrolled population growth in many parts of
the world. According to AID, more than 50 million couples in the
developing work use family planning as direct result of U.S. population
program. In the 28 countries with the largest AID-sponsored family
planning programs, the average of children per family has declined by
one-third, from six to four.
Assistance to other nations that seek voluntarily to limit their
population is in our profound national interest. There is no greater
threat to our national security than an exploding world population. The
world's population now stands at 5.8 billion, and adds another 80
million people every year--the equivalent of adding another New York
City every month. If we don't constrain population growth, our work to
improve living standards, control pollution, and battle disease is
hopeless. More than 95 percent of population growth is occurring in
developing countries, where burgeoning population growth contributes to
deforestation, water scarcity, global warming, wildlife extinction and
other environmental problems that effect us all.
American leadership is crucial to making family planning assistance
available to couples in the developing world. Partly because of our
leadership, a growing number of countries now provide family planning
services of their own. If we retreat, accelerated population growth
will pose a direct threat to our national interest.
Support family planning. Oppose the Smith amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXIII, the Chair
announces he may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the period of time
within which a recorded vote, if ordered, may be taken on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 210,
noes 218, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 362]
AYES--210
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Boswell
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klug
Kolbe
Lampson
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
White
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--218
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Forbes
Fox
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Redmond
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--5
Boucher
Gonzalez
Neumann
Pryce (OH)
Schiff
{time} 1632
Messrs. SENSENBRENNER, METCALF, WELLER, and SESSIONS changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. BENTSEN and Mr. SHAW changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 234,
noes 191, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 363]
AYES--234
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
[[Page H6846]]
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--191
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Klug
Kolbe
Lampson
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moran (VA)
Morella
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
White
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--8
Boucher
Gonzalez
Jones
Nadler
Neumann
Pryce (OH)
Schiff
Sessions
{time} 1641
Mr. WATT of North Carolina and Mr. DINGELL changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1645
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a brief colloquy with my
chairman, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], chairman of the
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today because it had been my intention, and I
appreciate the patience of the chairman for entertaining my
consideration of an amendment which ultimately we withdrew, which
talked about the total elimination of any and all funding from the U.S.
taxpayers to the Palestinian Authority.
That amendment was under consideration going back to early July,
before we had some of the most recent and horrendous tragedies: the one
on July 30, in which 150 people were injured, the tragedy of July 30,
which we all are now only too familiar with, in which 13 people were
killed, 150 were injured. Five Americans, Mr. Chairman, five Americans
were killed in Israel at the hands of the Islamic terrorists and those
who would bring Israel down.
Just this morning, as our day was beginning here, we got the news of
the tragedy at the Ben-Yehuda Pedestrian Mall in West Jerusalem. We
know of at least one American from New Jersey that was killed in that
horrendous attack, and this all is with the backdrop of the chairman of
the PLO hugging and embracing what I would best describe as an
international outlaw, the head of the Hamas terrorist group that is
wreaking havoc in Israel.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the patience of the chairman of the
subcommittee in entertaining my concern for continued U.S. dollars
being sent to the Palestinians. I think it is only fair to understand
that by anybody's definition the peace process is dead. How many
Americans, much less how many Israelis, must be murdered before we
understand as a nation that we cannot continue to try to prop up a man
who has blood on his hands, who has failed to live by the Oslo accords,
who has violated those accords repeatedly?
While we could not get this amendment considered to cut off all aid
to the Palestinians, I would just suggest that our State Department
seriously consider, as they approach the coming days and discussions
with the PLO, that they seriously consider whether it is appropriate to
further try to prop up this peace process in the wake of the tragedies
and the murders and the wanton disregard for Israeli as well as
American lives.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, in closing, that they know the
characters that have killed half-a-dozen Americans. We know that the
PLO has refused to step forward and prosecute them or turn them over to
the Americans. That is egregious enough. I think all Americans would
join us in what I think can only be an act of conscience, and beginning
to focus reality on this entire process.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman and the ranking minority
member's indulgence in considering earlier my bid to try to offer this
amendment. It is obviously now not appropriate, but I do appreciate the
chairman's allowing me to talk about this. It is a tremendous tragedy
in the world community, and I think we need to rethink where we are in
this whole process.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today--during consideration of the Foreign
Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998, that provides aid
for the Palestinians--to condemn today's bombing of the Ben-Yehudah
Pedestrian Mall in west Jerusalem, that has left at least five dead and
well over 100 injured.
This atrocious act comes days before Secretary of State, Madeleine
Albright's visit to Israel; and right on the heels of the July 30, 1997
suicide-bombing of western Jerusalem's open air, Mahane Yehuda market--
another act of cowardice by militant Islamic terrorists that injured
over 150 people, and claimed the lives of 13 others, including 5
Americans.
One of those killed was Leah Stern of New Jersey. Described by
friends as a woman with no political interest, Ms. Stern's move to
Israel had nothing to do with the peace process--that is, until two
homemade explosives containing nails and screws tore apart her body.
Ms. Stern came to the United States, via Israel, after World War II.
According to her daughter, Yocheved Kushner, Ms. Stern had moved to
Israel to, live out the rest of her life in peace. Instead. Ms. Stern
has become a victim of what is, ironically, called the Middle East
peace process.
Mr. Chairman, between September 13, 1993 and the July 31, 1997
bombing, there were six Americans murdered by Arab terrorists in
Israel. At this moment we cannot tell how high this tally will climb.
One thing we can be certain of is that there will be more to come. Imad
Falouji, a former Hamas leader now serving in Arafat's Cabinet--when
asked whether more suicide bombings are likely--said, ``Another
explosion will happen, of course, Palestinians
[[Page H6847]]
have patience, but if this starvation continues, watch for the
revolution.''
As a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations,
I am in a unique position to follow the progress of the Middle East
peace process in great detail; and have done so since coming to
Congress 3 years ago. It is with great disappointment that I report to
you--there hasn't been any progress. Since the signing of the Oslo
accords in 1993, have we had peace? Have the Palestinian Authority and
the PLO lived up to their commitments in the Oslo accords? No, we have
not, and no, they have not. This is why I coauthored the Forbes-Saxton
amendment that suspends U.S. assistance to the Palestinian Authority
and PLO until the President can report and certify that they are
complying with various elements of the Oslo accords and other human
rights laws.
Personally, I would like to eliminate all assistance for the
Palestinians, however, I offered this amendment because it is the right
amendment at the right time. The State Department has failed the peace
process by allowing Arafat's reign of terror to continue, and by not
demanding better compliance. There are too many violations and
instances of misconduct on the part of the Palestinians for us as a
nation to ignore. We need to step back and reexamine what we're getting
for our money. Are we getting an honest peace partner who respects its
commitments to the Oslo accords? Is the U.S. assistance furthering the
peaceful coexistence of Israelis and Palestinians? Currently, this is
not the case.
Now the President has nominated Martin Indyk to be Assistant
Secretary of State for Near East Affairs. Hopefully Mr. Indyk will be
made to answer for his compliance in this conspiracy of silence during
his confirmation hearings before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations this fall. I strongly oppose Mr. Indyk's nomination.
Year after year, the violations and gross misconduct of the
Palestinian Authority and PLO continue to grow. History is sometimes a
cruel, but honest teacher. We can never allow the politics of the
moment to obscure the essential facts: the Palestinian Authority and
the PLO openly violated the Oslo accords and continue to disregard the
human rights of Israelis and Americans in Israel.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FORBES. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his efforts,
and for agreeing to allow us to do something that I feel is in the best
interests of this country. I do not think it is any secret to anybody
in this body that I am a big believer in giving the administrative
branch of this Government the authority to handle foreign policy.
Nothing in this bill is earmarked for any country, including Israel.
I happen to agree with the gentleman about the PLO, and agree that I
am not satisfied with the direction that seemingly they are taking
there, and that the administration should ensure that they do
everything to put a stop to this.
But my belief, however, is that the administrative branch of
Government has the constitutional charge to handle this measure; that
they, indeed, agree with the gentleman that different directions should
be taken.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. FORBES was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FORBES. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, that is to make certain that our leaders
in our foreign policy, Madeleine Albright, the President, have an open
book and an open mind going into these negotiations.
I think the gentleman's message has been heard loud and clear. I am
sure that the people of Israel and the supporters of Israel agree with
the gentleman, as I do, that we must look very seriously at the very
serious occurrences that are taking place there and take some actions
accordingly.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to compliment the members of
the Foreign Operations Subcommittee for what they have done regarding
aid to Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabagh. For the first
time in recent memory there will not be a floor debate on several
amendments regarding Armenia. This is because they have fashioned a
fair consensus position.
The provisions included in this bill preserve the House of
Representative's longstanding support of the people of Armenia and
Nagorno-Karabagh by maintaining the economic sanctions against the
Government of Azerbaijan for its blockade of Armenia, while allowing
funds to be made available in Azerbaijan for democracy building.
The bill also allows for the crucial delivery of humanitarian aid
through nongovernmental organizations to meet the tremendous needs of
those affected by the conflict in the Transcaucus region, including
refugees, wounded and displaced persons.
Unfortunately, the Senate has not chosen the path of consensus. They
have chosen to lift the sanctions against Azerbaijan to curry favor
with an oil-rich nation. I therefore urge the chairman and ranking
member in conference to remain strong and oppose any weakening of
section 907.
In 1992, Congress passed the Freedom Support Act. This law included a
prohibition of direct nonhumanitarian assistance to Azerbaijan. This
action was taken in response to the blockades placed on Armenia and
Nagorna-Karabagh by Azerbaijan. These blockades have remained in place
for over 5 years, and the effect has been devastating. They have denied
fuel, heat, shelter, and other basic necessities to the people of
Armenia and Karabagh, increasing their exposure to disease,
hypothermia, and other public health crises. This misery only amplifies
the problems created by armed conflict and nearly 400,000 refugees and
displaced persons. We should strengthen our resolve to change Azeri
Government behavior. Now is not the time to weaken section 907.
Once again I commend all of those who worked to resolve this issue,
and hope this a good omen for the future.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, it is with great concern that I express my
opposition to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
[FY] 1998. Nations around the world look to the United States to set
the stage for the foreign affairs arena. U.S. citizens look to Congress
to set the stage for domestic priorities. This measure sets a poor
example for other nations to follow and demonstrates that we care very
little for the people in our own country.
H.R. 2159 calls for a $33 million decrease from fiscal year 1997 for
the nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining and related programs
account. China continues the proliferation of nuclear weapons by
providing information and materials to rogue nations. The United States
must continue to make a concerted global effort to assist foreign
countries to combat this threat of nuclear destruction. It is clear
that we are making progress toward nuclear nonproliferation but until
weapons of mass destruction have been eradicated, we cannot accept
cutbacks to these programs.
Meanwhile, we are giving a combined total of $5.2 billion to Israel
and Egypt. Of this amount, $1.8 billion is allocated for Foreign
Military Finance which can be used for advanced weapons systems.
Another $475 million is made available for procurement of defense-
related goods and services, including research and development in
Israel. Egypt is provided with $1.3 billion with which to purchase a
tactical command and control system for its army. It is
incomprehensible how we propose to send billions of dollars overseas
for foreign defense, yet we expect our elderly to prolong receipt of
Medicare benefits until they are sixty-seven. Five billion dollars for
defense does not help the people of Israel, Egypt, or the United States
when they are sick and in need of health services.
H.R. 2159 fails to provide a separate account for population
development assistance. Instead, this measure allows up to $385 million
to be provided for international family planning through various
accounts, including the child survival account. The Child Survival and
Disease Programs fund was established to reduce infant mortality and
improve the health and nutrition of children, especially in the poorest
nations. It is counterproductive to appropriate funds for one program
so that it can support another. If children's health is a priority,
then we should treat it as such and leave its funding alone. If women's
health is a priority, then we should reinstate a separate account for
international family planning activities.
Each year the majority party touts its platform of family values, yet
cuts funds and puts restrictions on international family planning.
Given that women are the primary caretakers and household managers
throughout much of the developing world, their health and well-being
undeniably determines how their children will fare in life. According
to a 1996 report from the United Nations Children's Fund [UNICEF]
almost 600,000 women die during pregnancy and childbirth each year. Of
these tragedies, 75,000 die attempting to abort an unwanted pregnancy
themselves or with the help of an untrained and unsafe provider. These
deaths render at least 1 million children motherless every year. The
United States is hypocritical in its message of promoting family
values, but limiting assistance for women's health in developing
nations.
[[Page H6848]]
I will not support a measure that cannot lead by example. I will not
support a measure that seeks to limit efforts to end the threat of
nuclear destruction yet builds military defenses in foreign lands. I
will not support a measure that restricts medical resources from women
worldwide. I will not support the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 1998.
The CHAIRMAN. No further Members seeking recognition, the Clerk will
read the final lines of the bill.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1998''.
The CHAIRMAN. There are no further amendments permitted by the order
of the House of July 24, 1997.
Under that order, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hastert) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2159)
making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and
related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for
other purposes, under the previous order of July 24, 1997, 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 375,
nays 49, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 364]
YEAS--375
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rogan
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
NAYS--49
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barton
Berry
Campbell
Carson
Chenoweth
Coburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Deal
Doolittle
Duncan
Ford
Goodling
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Hilleary
Hostettler
John
Jones
Lucas
Minge
Moran (KS)
Norwood
Paul
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pombo
Rahall
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Royce
Sanders
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Solomon
Stearns
Stump
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Traficant
Watkins
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Boucher
Gonzalez
Greenwood
Kind (WI)
Neumann
Pryce (OH)
Salmon
Schiff
Smith (TX)
{time} 1713
Mr. FORD 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.
____________________