[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.

                          ____________________