[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 36 (Thursday, March 26, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1581-H1600]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1757, FOREIGN AFFAIRS REFORM AND 
                       RESTRUCTURING ACT OF 1998

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 385 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 385

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 1757) to consolidate international affairs 
     agencies, to authorize appropriations for the Department of 
     State and related agencies for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, 
     and to ensure that the enlargement of the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization (NATO) proceeds in a manner consistent 
     with United States interests, to strengthen relations between 
     the United States and Russia, to preserve the prerogatives of 
     the Congress with respect to certain arms control agreements, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 385 waives all points of order against 
the conference report that accompanies this bill, the Foreign Affairs 
Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, and against its consideration. 
The rule also provides that the conference report be considered as 
read. This of course is the traditional type of rule for considering 
conference reports and will allow expedited consideration of this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, on the conference report itself, I am pleased to say 
that I will be able to support a State Department authorization bill 
for the first time in many, many years. I am not in the habit of voting 
for foreign aid of any kind, and I am not in the habit of voting for 
the State Department authorization bill. But I think all Members ought 
to listen up, particularly those of conservative persuasion who may 
have some concern about this bill.
  First of all, one reason I support it is because of the excellent 
work by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the rest of the conferees who have managed 
to retain some very excellent provisions relating to NATO expansion 
overseas, abortion issues and the United Nations. I am most pleased 
with the retention of the provision of the European Security Act, which 
supports something near and dear to my heart, and that is the expansion 
of NATO, which will guarantee peace in that part of the world for many 
years to come.
  Twice in this century, American soldiers have gone to war on behalf 
of Europeans, and we fought a very, very costly financial war with the 
Cold War. The European Security Act designates Estonia, Latvia, 
Lithuania and Romania as eligible countries for transition assistance 
under the NATO Participation Act of 1994. It further expresses a sense 
of Congress that those four countries should be invited to become full 
NATO members at the earliest possible time.
  Mr. Speaker, as we see democracy breaking out all over Eastern 
Europe, in countries that were enslaved by communism for decades, it is 
morally and strategically imperative that we do not shut these people 
out of the Western system, that we not draw a line in the sand as we 
did back in Yalta, which created this terrible situation of enslaving 
tens of millions of people behind this philosophy of deadly atheistic 
communism. Especially as they struggle valiantly to establish democracy 
and reform their economies, these great friends of America need 
security and stability.
  That in itself is reason enough to come over here and vote yes on 
this bill. NATO of course is the key to security and stability in that 
part of the world. For 49 years, it has kept peace and helped nourish 
democracy and prosperity in Europe. Some say, let us shut it down, or 
let us keep the status quo. Mr. Speaker, some over in the other body 
wish to establish some sort of pause after Poland and the Czech 
Republic and Hungary get in. What an irresponsible and myopic policy 
that would be. We must not let that happen. That in itself is sending 
signals that we are willing to once again draw that line in the sand, 
and we cannot let that happen. In addition to betraying the people of 
that region, after decades of Communist slavery, leaving a gray area in 
Central Europe will only tempt demagogues and potential aggressors in 
that region and make it more, yes, more likely that United States 
soldiers will have to fight in Europe once again.
  To those who say why should U.S. soldiers die for Danzig or Bucharest 
or Riga, I say they are right, they should not, and if they do not want 
it to happen, support NATO expansion that appears in this bill, because 
that is exactly what this bill does.
  This conference report also retains the very strong restrictions 
supported by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) on funding of 
overseas abortions and advocacy of abortions. There is not a more 
principled Member of this body than the gentleman from New Jersey. I 
commend him for standing up for what is right for the children of this 
Nation.
  Finally, I am pleased that this conference report places strict 
conditions on the payment of our supposed arrears to the U.N. Members 
ought to listen up, because I am the author of the Kassebaum-Solomon 
amendment that has withheld dues from the United Nations until they 
cleaned up their house and they put their house in fiscal order. Yet I 
am the one standing up here today saying we ought to support this bill. 
It is because of what is written into this bill.
  I have a great deal of trouble with paying these so-called arrears to 
the U.N., given its history of waste and abuse and, frankly, its lack 
of gratitude for all the expenses and danger on our troops that we 
incur in support of U.N. resolutions.
  I also have trouble handing out any more money over to an 
organization whose Secretary General Kofi Annan has just cut an 
appeasement deal with Saddam Hussein, said that Saddam Hussein is a man 
he can work with and called U.S. weapons inspectors cowboys. That is 
what this head of the U.N. said? He ought to be horse whipped for 
saying it. I resent that, Mr. Speaker.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the conferees have done 
excellent work in placing strings on the money, strings that will help 
reduce bureaucracy, help reduce waste and abuse at that U.N. I am 
particularly pleased that they have retained

[[Page H1582]]

my legislation, which would prevent any arrearages from going to the 
U.N. if that body attempts to create taxes on American citizens, and 
they are talking about that, as my colleagues know. We know that U.N. 
bureaucrats would like to do exactly that. This legislation is a shot 
across the bow. Do not try it.
  The conferees have also included, and this is very, very important, 
conditions requiring that the U.N. reduce the U.S. share of the 
peacekeeping budget down to 25 percent and that the regular budget be 
no more than 20 percent. All fiscal conservatives, if they are 
listening, that is the reason they ought to come over here and vote for 
this bill.
  What is extremely important is that the conference report also 
requires the President to seek and obtain a commitment from the United 
Nations that it will provide reimbursement to the United States for the 
costs incurred by our military in support of U.N. missions. Right now 
we get no credit. We just pay all that extra money in and it is a 
terrible, terrible drain on our military budget to do so. This bill 
says that they will take into consideration all of the moneys that we 
pay in in that respect and reimburse us for it. These and other 
conditions which should lead us to spending less on the United Nations 
in the future, as well as the previously mentioned support for NATO 
expansion, and the excellent anti-abortion provisions are why I 
grudgingly support this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, in sum, this is a good conference report. I urge 
adoption of the rule so that we can get on with the expedited 
consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Solomon) for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  This resolution, H.Res. 385, is a rule that provides for 
consideration of the conference report on H.R. 1757, which authorizes 
appropriations, it makes policy changes for the State Department and 
related agencies. As the gentleman has described, this rule waives all 
points of order against the conference report. The bill, in my opinion, 
has some good sections and good ideas, especially humanitarian ideas 
and humanitarian concerns and human rights. I do have some concerns, 
though, about the bill and about the process. In his statement to the 
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), the 
ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations, 
said that the conference report was rushed through a highly partisan 
process without any consultation with the minority. The gentleman from 
Indiana stated that Democrats had almost no opportunity to review the 
language in the report. I am also very concerned about the reduced 
funding levels that will cause cuts in American embassies. In this area 
of global uncertainty, our need for strong worldwide diplomatic 
presence has never been greater.
  I want to take this opportunity to address a particularly difficult 
issue related to this bill. This is the stalemate between Congress and 
the administration over restrictions on international family planning 
and the payment of U.S. dues to the United Nations and funding for the 
International Monetary Fund. I am considering an alternative proposal 
that would allow some restrictions on family planning funds and that 
would require all future IMF financial packages to include microcredit 
programs to the poorest of the poor. Both sides could win something and 
the larger national and international interests would be advanced. I 
suggest microcredit programs because of their success, particularly 
with women. These small loans help women to invest in projects which 
can double or triple their family income. It helps pull families out of 
poverty. It reduces abortion and reduces the size of families.
  Most individuals on both sides of this issue act out of deep 
convictions, and they should. Perhaps there is no middle ground on this 
fundamental issue. But as legislator, we are charged with finding a 
middle ground on legislation and there is a difference. We need to 
support the United Nations. Despite its problems, it is the best hope 
for peace in many of the troubled regions of the world. We need to 
support the International Monetary Fund. The IMF stands as a buffer 
between the financial shock in Asia and the world economy, including 
the United States. Lives are affected by the decisions on population 
planning funds. But the greater number of lives today and among future 
generations are threatened by our failure to deal with the bigger 
issues involved. Congress and the administration must be open to 
creative solutions to resolve this stalemate.
  If my proposal is not satisfactory, then both sides need to work 
together to explore other options. I urge both sides to find common 
legislative ground so that we can pay our debts to the United Nations 
and fund the International Monetary Fund.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of the most respected and distinguished Members 
of this body who has been here for about 16 years now. He has led the 
fight for the children of this country and for human rights for all 
American people.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Solomon) for those kind remarks. My sentiments are the same 
for him. He has always been a champion for human rights in China and in 
other captive nations. I applaud and deeply respect him for that work. 
I also want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for his support 
for the rule and the bill, H.R. 1757, and for pointing out that there 
are a large number of very important human rights provisions in this 
bill that Members should be aware of, that will advance the goals that 
we care about so deeply with regard to human rights around the globe.

                              {time}  1415

  First, let me just make this point to all of my colleagues that this 
is not, per se, a foreign aid bill. It is a State Department bill. It 
contains important restrictions on foreign aid but authorizes no 
appropriations for these purposes except for a $38 million package of 
humanitarian assistance for the anti-Saddam Hussein, pro-democracy 
movement in Iraq.
  The bill contains a compromise version of the pro-life Mexico City, 
cutting off funds to foreign organizations that promote abortion--lobby 
for abortion or attempt to influence legislation or policy as it 
relates to abortion. The compromise would allow the President to waive 
the prohibition on assistance to abortion providers. This was very hard 
for our side to concede, but in the legislative tug of war this is half 
a loaf, and our hope is that the administration will take note of that. 
There needs to be some give and take.
  This bill also conditions funding to the U.N. Population Fund on an 
end to the UNFPA activities in cooperation with the coercive population 
control program in China.
  Wei Jing Sheng testified before our subcommittee a few weeks ago and 
was absolutely aghast and appalled and outraged that the UNFPA worked 
side by side with the oppressors of women in the People's Republic of 
China, and said so in very, very clear and unambiguous language at the 
subcommittee. Wei asked how the U.N. could join and support the 
oppressors of women, babies--the family.
  H.R. 1757 also contains U.N. reform and arrearages packages which, 
unlike some proposals, is not a blank check to the U.N. The U.N. 
arrearage money is delivered, in 3 tranches. Each payment is contingent 
on U.N. implementation of specific reforms, including reduction of U.S. 
dues from its current 25 percent to ultimately 20 percent but 22 
percent on the near term, and a reduction of U.S. peacekeeping 
assessments from 31 percent down to 25 percent.
  The bill reduces the number of Federal agencies by two. It merges the 
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and USIA, U.S. Information Agency, 
into the State Department to achieve savings through efficiency and 
resource sharing. But it structures this merger very carefully to 
preserve the integrity of arms control process and especially of the 
pro-freedom and pro-democracy functions of USIA's public diplomacy 
programs like the radios.
  This legislation enhances Radio Free Asia to provide a 24-hour pro-
freedom broadcasting to China.
  It also contains provisions designed to force deadbeat diplomats at 
the U.N.

[[Page H1583]]

to pay child support judgments and to ensure that diplomats who commit 
crimes in the U.S. will be prosecuted for those crimes.
  It reforms the State Department personnel law to restore the 
Secretary's power to fire convicted felons from the Foreign Service and 
to eliminate duplicative pension and salary provisions that allow 
double dipping at taxpayers' expense.
  It contains provisions that will ensure vigorous enforcements of the 
Helms-Burton law which is designed to bring freedom and democracy to 
the Cuban people.
  It sets aside $100 million of the State Department budget for 
implementation of the congressional directive that the U.S. Embassy in 
Israel be moved to Jerusalem, and it incorporates the McBride 
principles designed to end employment discrimination against Catholics 
in northern Ireland as a condition of U.S. foreign aid.
  H.R. 1757 also includes a number of important provisions relating to 
human rights and refugees from Tibet, Burma, Vietnam, Cuba, Africa and 
elsewhere. These provisions have been endorsed by leading 
organizations, including the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Council of 
Jewish Federations, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, and 
the U.S. Committee for Refugees.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a yes on the rule, and I hope the Members will 
also vote yes on the conference report.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield another 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for the purpose of a colloquy with the 
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my friend and colleague on 
this measure, and I understand the gentleman from New Jersey wants to 
engage in a colloquy.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Yes. First of all, I want to call attention 
to the language, Mr. Speaker, that deals with incorporation of the U.S. 
Information Agency into the State Department.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference committee on H.R. 1757 carefully 
structured the merger of the U.S. Information Agency into the State 
Department so as to preserve the integrity of the pro-freedom, pro-
democracy public diplomacy activities now carried out by USIA. This 
bill should not be interpreted as an authorization for the State 
Department to take the money and run by converting USIA resources into 
a massive domestic State Department public relations operation.
  Accordingly, the programs to which the Smith-Mundt and Zorinsky 
amendments apply must be construed broadly in accordance with the 
purpose of the legislation to ensure that these important protections 
continue to apply to the activities now conducted by USIA once they 
have been incorporated into the State Department.
  This is a matter on which a number of House conferees on both sides 
of the aisle felt very strongly. We should never have agreed to 
incorporate USIA into the State Department except on the understanding 
that the integrity of all USIA functions will be preserved. 
``Programs'' means not just the materials that USA produces and 
disseminates, but also the resources, including personnel and support 
services, that are necessary to conduct our public diplomacy abroad. I 
would ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) to comment on this 
very important provision.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's understanding is correct. 
USIA is to be incorporated into the State Department for protection for 
the integrity of its activities. The managers in this legislation do 
not contemplate any diminution of our public diplomacy activities or an 
expansion of the State Department's public affairs activities as a 
result of this merger.
  I understand we have a bipartisan consensus on the issue both in the 
House and in the other body, and will engage in vigorous oversight to 
make sure the purpose of this legislation is faithfully implemented.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 1757, the Foreign 
Relations Authorization Act (FY 1998-99).
  I would like to call attention to several important features of the 
bill:
  First, this legislation is not a foreign aid bill. It contains 
several important restrictions on foreign aid, but authorizes no 
appropriations for these purposes--except for a $38 million package of 
humanitarian assistance to the anti-Saddam Hussein pro-democracy 
movement in Iraq.
  This bill contains a compromise version of the pro-life ``Mexico City 
Policy'', cutting off funds to foreign organizations that perform or 
promote abortion. It enacts this policy as permanent law--not just for 
this year but forever. The compromise would allow the President to 
waive the prohibition on assistance to abortion providers--but not 
promoters--in exchange for a reduction in total population assistance.
  This bill also conditions funding to the United Nations Population 
Fund (UNFPA) on an end to UNFPA activities in co-operation with the 
coercive population control program of the government of China, or on 
an end to forced abortions in that program.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1757 contains a U.N. reform and arrearages package 
which, unlike some other proposals, is not a blank check to the U.N. 
The U.N. arrearage money is delivered in three ``tranches''; each 
payment is contingent on U.S. implementation of specific reforms, 
including reduction of U.S. dues from 25% to 22%, reduction of U.S. 
peacekeeping assessments from 31% to 25%, and an end to UN ``global 
conferences'' after 1999.
  The bill reduces the number of federal agencies by two. It merges the 
Arms Control Agency and the US Information Agency into the State 
Department, to achieve savings through efficiency and resource-sharing. 
But its structures this merger carefully, to preserve the integrity of 
the arms control process and especially of the pro-freedom and pro-
democracy functions of USIA's ``public diplomacy'' programs.
  This legislation enhances Radio Free Asia to provide 24-hour pro-
freedom broadcasting to China. It also contains provisions designed to 
force ``deadbeat diplomats'' at the U.N. to pay U.S. child support 
judgments, and to ensure that diplomats who commit crimes in the United 
States will be prosecuted for these crimes.
  It reforms State Department personnel law to restore the Secretary's 
power to fire convicted felons from the Foreign Service, and to 
eliminate duplicative pension and salary provisions that allow 
``double-dipping'' at taxpayer expense.
  It contains provisions that will ensure vigorous enforcement of the 
Helms-Burton law, which is designed to bring freedom and democracy to 
the Cuban people.
  It sets aside $100 million of the State Department's budget for 
implementation of the Congressional directive and that U.S. embassy in 
Israel be moved to Jerusalem.
  It incorporates the ``McBride Principles'', designed to end 
employment discrimination against Catholics In Northern Ireland, as a 
condition of U.S. foreign aid.
  H.R. 1757 also includes a number of important provisions relating to 
human rights and refugees from Tibet, Burma, Viet Nam, Cuba, Africa, 
and elsewhere. These provisions have been endorsed by organizations 
including the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Council of Jewish 
Federations, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, and the U.S. 
Committee for Refugees.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the conference 
report.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations will stay on his feet, I yield 2 minutes to the 
very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). He is one of 
the few Members who has been a Member of this body longer than I have, 
and he has truly been a great, great leader in the field of foreign 
policy.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the 
rule on the conference report on the Foreign Relations Authorization 
Act. This measure reflects the serious efforts of Members of both sides 
of the aisle and the administration to try to craft a workable foreign 
affairs agency consolidation, to also provide reasonable funding levels 
to sustain our overseas operations and embassies, and to provide 
necessary forms linked to payment of our arrearages to the United 
Nations.
  I think it is shortsighted of the administration to threaten a veto 
on this comprehensive measure because they are unwilling to work on a 
family planning compromise. This Congress needs to advance the 
authorities, to consolidate the foreign affairs agencies in

[[Page H1584]]

keeping with the President's decision to merge those agencies and to 
hold the United Nations accountable for reforms while committing to the 
payment of arrearages.
  Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to vote yes on this important 
rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Slaughter) a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House 
consideration of H.R. 1757, the Foreign Affairs Reform and 
Restructuring Act. This bill seeks to send our Nation's foreign policy 
back to the dark ages of women's reproductive health. This act would 
reinstate the Reagan-era Mexico City policy which seeks to limit the 
reproductive freedom of women in other nations, but it goes even 
further than Mexico City in posing arbitrary and cruel restrictions on 
women's legal health choices.
  Not only does H.R. 1757 ban U.S. foreign assistance to any 
organization that engages in any kind of lobbying on the issue of 
abortion, but it defines lobbying to cover attending conferences or 
workshops, drafting and distributing materials on abortion laws. It is 
not enough that the majority wants to deny women access to reproductive 
health services, now they want to restrict the freedom of assembly and 
speech for women's health organizations.
  We have this same debate time and time again on the House floor, and 
yet still many cannot grasp the critical importance of providing full 
and balanced information on reproductive health to women in developing 
nations.
  This is a matter of life and death for many women. Denying access to 
vital health information and services will lead to the cruelest birth 
control of all: death. If we do not fund family planning organizations, 
women in the developing world will and are suffering.
  For my colleagues who profess to be proponents of children's health, 
I would note that the availability of contraception has important 
health benefits for both women and their families. By spacing births, 
infant survival improves dramatically and families can ensure that they 
have the resources to support their children.
  Studies indicate that spacing births at least 2 years apart could 
prevent an average of 1 in 4 infant deaths. Studies have also proved 
time and again that access to family planning reduces abortion. In 
Russia, where for decades abortion was the primary form of birth 
control, contraception first became widely available in 1991. Between 
1989 and 1995 abortions in Russia dropped from 4.43 million per year to 
2.7 million per year, a decrease of 16 percent.
  Someone must speak for the millions of women around the world who 
desperately want access to family planning. Pregnancy and childbirth 
are still a very risky proposition for women in many parts of the globe 
that often lack electricity, clean running water, medical equipment or 
trained medical personnel.
  The statistics are grim. In Africa, women have a 1 in 16 chance of 
death from pregnancy in childbirth during their lifetime. Over 585,000 
women die every year from complications of pregnancy and birth. For 
each woman who dies, 100 others suffer from associated illnesses and 
permanent disabilities, including sterility.
  According to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, 
family planning can prevent at least 25 percent of all maternal deaths, 
and many of these are women with families who then leave their children 
motherless.
  How dare we in the United States, blessed as we are with information 
overload and the best health care system in the world, attempt to deny 
the only source of information and services to families in the 
developing world? Who are we to dictate the terms under which these 
groups provide essential services across the globe? We would be 
outraged, and rightly so, if the legislative body of any other nation 
had the audacity to impose its will over organizations operating 
legally in our country by dictating the terms under which those groups 
would continue to receive the financial support that they need to 
operate.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and send this proposal 
back to the committee for revision.
  Other reasons that I have, Mr. Speaker, for not voting for this bill 
is that Democrat Members of this House were completely excluded from 
any participation in this conference report. Indeed, the Democrat 
Members were not even shown a copy of the conference report until after 
it was filed. All Democratic Members refused to sign the conference 
report, and the partisan procedure undermines the longstanding 
tradition of bipartisanship on foreign policy issues.
  For these reasons and all others, Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on 
the rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) a very distinguished Member from close by in 
Maryland and a member of the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in support of 
the rule but, reluctantly, in strong opposition to the bill itself. 
What this bill does is to unfence $100 million that was fenced in 
appropriations last year and sends it on its way to the United Nations. 
It also authorizes another roughly $900 million, and this was about a 
billion dollars total. All that stands between that and moving our 
taxpayers' money to the U.N. is the appropriation of that money. The 
GAO report indicated that from 1992 to 1995 we spent $6.6 billion on 
legitimate U.N. peacekeeping activities. We were credited with 1.8 
billion of that against dues. That recognizes the legitimacy of these 
figures.
  More recently, CRS, the Congressional Research Service, says that 
between 1992 and May of last year we spent $11.1 billion on legitimate 
U.N. peacekeeping activities.

                              {time}  1430

  The Department of Defense, the Pentagon itself, says that, last year, 
where he spent $3 billion dollars on legitimate U.N. peacekeeping 
activities. We are shortly going to vote on an emergency appropriations 
bill to cover the expenditures that are at $1.3 billion. We have spent, 
since 1992, about $14 billion on legitimate U.N. peacekeeping 
activities. We have been credited with only $1.8 billion of that 
against our dues.
  What we want is a recognition in this bill that we may owe them some 
back dues, but they owe us five or more times as much money in 
legitimate expenditures against U.N. peacekeeping activities. We want 
an accounting of that before any of our hard-earned taxpayers' money 
goes to support the U.N.
  What we get in return for this, if we vote this bill, is, by the 
admission of my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, a really 
watered-down Mexico City language.
  The President is going to veto this bill. The Senate voted 90 to 10 
yesterday on a Helms amendment that there was no dues until there was a 
tally. That is an accounting. The Senate has voted 90 to 10.
  All we would do in this vote is to send the message that we owe a 
billion dollars dues to the U.N., and we are not going to require an 
accounting. That is the wrong message to send.
  It is not the message that the American people want sent. I have been 
on dozens of talk shows across the country. I have not had one caller 
that called in to say cough up a billion dollars for U.N. dues.
  I have had unanimous support for our position that we need an 
accounting, we need an accounting before this becomes law. Please vote 
no on this bill. Do what they should have done, take it back to 
conference, and bring out a bill that the American people can support.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, there is some distance between myself and 
the gentleman who just completed speaking on this subject. While our 
interests may have differences, I certainly agree that we ought to 
reject the rule, and we ought to reject the bill.
  This is both bad policy and bad process. Bad process often is 
ignored, but it is usually a symptom of an inability to confront the 
real issues. It is wrong simply to take the Mexico City language and 
tie in knots our entire foreign policy apparatus.
  Additionally, I would say that those who are in favor of the Mexico 
City language in this bill, as earnest as they

[[Page H1585]]

are, their logic is faulty. If their argument is that any dollars going 
to organizations that help with family planning are fungible, and 
thereby even 1 cent to tell people about birth control policies 
actually increase the availability of abortion, one, statistically that 
is wrong. If you look at countries where there is more information for 
alternatives, for education, for contraception, there is less abortion.
  But if you carry their argument to its illogical conclusion, you have 
to come away believing that even food assistance to these countries 
would somehow leave more dollars for family planning and other areas 
where there is an objection.
  I think the United States has a right to come to an agreement on a 
family planning policy that may not necessarily reflect my own views 
completely. But what is clear here is that the Congress and this 
country is being hammered on this issue and preventing us from moving 
forward on the fundamental foreign policy of the Nation.
  There are serious issues at hand here. I have differences with the 
substance of the underlying legislation, but it seems to me that, as a 
Congress, the lesson we should have learned in the great government 
shutdown was that the losers are, one, the American people. And they 
get very annoyed at the political participants who will not compromise.
  The right action to take is to reject this, to come forward with 
legislation the President will sign. After all, the constitutional 
responsibilities on us are such that we need to negotiate and come to a 
compromise and then, try as they might, force their particular family 
language on the rest of us.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York, 
the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for regular C-SPAN viewers they are going 
to think this Congress is topsy-turvy because, usually it is the 
gentleman in the well, the gentleman from Connecticut, that is standing 
up here arguing for this bill, and it is the Jerry Solomons of this 
Congress that are standing up here arguing against it, and yet the 
tables are turned here.
  Besides that issue, and the gentleman makes his point, and I do not 
question the gentleman's philosophy, but ordinarily he would be 
supporting this bill. What is the gentleman opposed to, other than 
that? The European Security Act is so terribly, terribly important. I 
know the gentleman shares my view on that and shares President 
Clinton's view as well.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The time of the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) has expired.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I think, first of all, for us to 
effectuate a policy, it is clear that we need to have a product that 
can either be signed by the President or have a congressional override. 
Since it is clear there will be no congressional override on this 
legislation, what we are essentially doing is playing chicken in the 
center of the road until there is some calamity.
  I might tell the gentleman from New York one story. One of our 
officers at the State Department during the great government shutdown, 
I do not know if this really caused it, was on his way to meet with the 
Kurds to try to broker a deal where the Kurds would all come together.
  Well, we had the government shutdown, and it turned out that his 
travel plans were deemed nonessential, and the meeting never happened, 
and that is where all the turmoil happened with some of the Kurds going 
over to the Iranians and others.
  I would say that it is too important for the United States to 
continue to tie this up in a process that has excluded the minority 
party completely in this final presentation and that deals with an 
issue that we know will not become law.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would let me use up the 
balance of my time that I yielded him, I just think, in fairness to 
those Members that are watching the debate or those people back home, 
that the gentleman really ought to elaborate on the good points in the 
bill like the U.N. restrictions that we are making, things that I know 
you support. But all we talk is about the one issue.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I agree.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I just wanted, sometime during debates, as Tony Hall 
did, perhaps the gentleman can say that we are not opposed to the main 
portion, of the bill, just that one portion. It would help, I think.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I think the honest answer is, however, that this 
activity we are involved in is not going to lead to a law. It is clear 
the President said he is going to veto it. It is clear that we do not 
have the votes to override it. So we are involved in an exercise, but 
it is not going to affect policy directly. We need to separate these 
two, both sides, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who 
believes very strongly as he does, has shown his commitment; the 
President has shown his commitment. The only thing we are doing is 
avoiding the responsibility to deal with those other issues.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is saying we should not pass the bill 
because the President is going to veto it. I could also say, if the 
bill comes back without the pro-life position in it, I am not going to 
vote to pay these U.N. arrearages; and, therefore, we are at a 
stalemate. We have to work to compromise.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. If the gentleman would yield, we have been in that 
fight, and that is why we need to separate the issues.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes again to the very 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of the 
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to make 
very clear, when we talk about legislative process, the Mexico City 
policy was offered on this floor, it mustered a clear majority vote 
when it was considered. The House even went on record and instructed 
conferees to retain the policy in conference. So it was a very real and 
legitimate part of the House/Senate conference that occurred.
  The flip side of it is that, on the issue of arrearages, that measure 
did not pass here but passed on the Senate, but we acceded to the 
Senate to move that ball forward.
  Let me also make a point, when Members suggest that my friends on the 
other side of the aisle were locked out of the price, let me just note 
that I chaired the subcommittee that wrote the major product that 
emerged as the State Department authorization bill. We had five 
hearings that preceded the markup of the bill that is now before us.
  My good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and the 
Democrats were absolutely free to ask any question, to be part of that 
process, as they so engaged themselves. We had a markup in 
subcommittee. Twenty one amendments were offered. That markup went very 
well and the bill passed onto the full committee.
  We went to the full committee. During several days of markup we 
considered 22 amendments to the State portion of the bill. The bill 
came over to the floor. We spent 4 days on the floor of the House of 
Representatives. Members who wanted to offer amendments on the other 
side of the aisle were free to do so provided they were germane. A 
total of 34 amendments were offered, fully debated, recorded votes 
occurred.
  We then went to conference. On issue after issue, our staffs, as well 
as Members, met, talked about language and sections of the bill. There 
were some things that we came to an impasse on. The major issue upon 
which deadlocked the conference was the Mexico City policy.
  This House instructed the conferees to stay with that the pro-life 
position. We did so on the State Department bill as well. So this is a 
clear manifestation of House sentiment. That is part of this bill.
  I would argue that this has been a give-and-take. We have provided a 
compromise Mexico City policy. We also provide the arrearages, which is 
an anathema to many Members of this side of the aisle, and many on that 
side of the aisle as well, but there are some reform provisions that 
make it very meaningful.
  So there is give-and-take in the legislative process. The President 
regrettably or some on the other side want it

[[Page H1586]]

to be all give from us and all take by them. That's unacceptable. Let 
me again say very clearly 77 amendments were offered to this 
legislation in subcommittee, full committee, and on the floor. The 
gentleman's side of the aisle had every effort to participate.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
rule. The bill cuts family planning funding and imposes the gag rule on 
family planning organizations. It eliminates funding for the Arms 
Control and Disarmament Agency. The President has said very clearly 
that he will veto this bill.
  Let us put this vote in perspective. This vote is the 82nd vote 
against choice in this body since 1995. This bill with this language in 
it is yet another attempt by extremists on the other side of the aisle 
to roll back a woman's reproductive choices, program by program, 
procedure by procedure. Now anti-choice extremists are trying to 
intimidate reproductive health workers restriction by restriction.
  This agreement is a clear attempt to restrict the delivery of family 
planning information. It is misguided and just plain wrong. In 
developing countries, death from pregnancy-related causes is the single 
largest cause of death among women in reproductive ages.
  Simply providing unhindered family planning information to all who 
need it could reduce maternal mortality by one-fifth. The proponents 
say they want to prevent abortions, but we all know that international 
family planning actually reduces the number of abortions around the 
world.
  Recently, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak with former 
Ambassador Wisner who represented our country in India. I asked him 
what was the single most important thing that we could do as a country 
in our foreign policy to aid the world's largest democracy? Quite 
frankly, I was surprised by his response.
  He said family planning money. He said that, in India, you could go 
out into various cities and see families that were lined up for miles 
just trying to get basic information on family planning.
  This language has absolutely no business being on the State 
Department authorization bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against it. 
I urge them to join the President in voting against it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the misguided Mexico City policy 
is not the only reason to oppose this bill. This bill will have a 
profoundly important impact on our nation's foreign policy.
   We have heard today that this bill streamlines our foreign policy 
agencies.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill streamlines our foreign policy agencies in the 
same way that last year's tax bill simplified the tax code. It is 
riddled with inconsistencies. For example, it claims to pay back dues 
to the United Nations, but actually increases them. It claims to 
streamline the State Department, but it establishes a new regulatory 
system to micromanage embassy staff. Never before have we tried to 
micromanage what the State Department can do with its individual 
embassies and their staffing policies.
  It claims to get tough on war criminals like Saddam Hussein, but, 
actually, it cuts U.S. involvement in the international criminal 
justice system.
  Furthermore, the reorganization plan has simply not been well thought 
out in my estimation.
  We need only look to the genocide that occurred in Bosnia and Rwanda 
because of the hatred that was fanned by an evil propaganda machine. 
How, then, can we abolish the United States Information Agency? In 
reality, that is what we do by incorporating it within the State 
Department. It needs its independence.
  Misinformation is best attacked at the grassroots level in an 
objective, credible fashion, not as part of a tightly controlled 
foreign policy agenda.

                              {time}  1445

  Our U.S. Information Agency should be able to provide the kind of 
information that relies upon local opinion leaders, not merely heads of 
state with all of their political agendas. I have great respect for the 
State Department, but USIA is independent for a reason. It guarantees 
that the focus will be on the unfettered, objective truth.
  This bill zeroes out the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency at a 
time when nonproliferation efforts have never been more critical.
  Mr. Speaker, I also am especially disappointed that we have not been 
able to include an agreeable compromise on the Mexico City policy. The 
conference agreement still includes the inhumane Mexico City language 
that denies some of the most destitute people in the world the ability 
to choose healthy and safe family planning practices while also denying 
them their health practitioners the fundamental right of free speech.
  This is another of those misguided attempts that some people in the 
majority have made to deny economically disadvantaged women, both here 
and abroad, access to quality, reproductive health care and the 
information they need to plan their families.
  The leadership knows that the Hyde amendment already ensures that no 
U.S. funding is being spent on abortions, and yet they would jeopardize 
final passage of this important legislation by including this 
regressive language under the guise of reducing the number of abortions 
performed with U.S. tax dollars. Studies have shown that family 
planning funds actually decrease the number of abortions performed. 
Private, non-governmental organization funds save lives and empower 
people. This bill does not let them accomplish this most critical 
mission and should be defeated.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), a very distinguished Member of this 
body, who is a member of the Committee on International Relations.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Solomon), the very fair chairman of the Committee on Rules, 
for coming forth with a rule that all of us can adopt; and I would like 
to especially thank the Chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), who held a very 
long series of hearings on this bill where everyone had the opportunity 
to present amendments and discuss the controversial issues in this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, there are some very good areas that we can all agree on, 
I think, in this conference report. I would like to especially thank 
our colleagues in the Committee on International Relations for allowing 
me to present and to have them approve, without problems, some 
amendments that I have dealing with the Castro dictatorship.
  There are two provisions that I think are very important in 
establishing a firm position of U.S. policy toward that dictatorship. 
The first one stresses the concern of the United States Congress about 
Fidel Castro's completion of the very dangerous nuclear power plant in 
Juragua near Cienfuegos, Cuba.
  Also, another amendment asked the Clinton administration to give us 
information about individuals and companies that are not complying with 
Helms-Burton, and this title IV gives us the opportunity to further 
protect U.S. property rights because these are people who are 
exploiting the Cuban worker and using illegally confiscated U.S. 
property that used to belong to U.S. citizens. We want to make sure 
that folks have the opportunity to take their cases to court, and that 
the U.S. Government will bar entry to anyone who is not complying with 
our laws.
  So I would like to thank the chairs of both committees, the Committee 
on Rules and the Committee on International Relations, for their very 
fair process; and I urge my colleagues to adopt both the rule and the 
conference report.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), 
a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding to me, 
and I rise in opposition to the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because this bill was 
put together without any involvement of the Democratic conferees. The 
Democrats

[[Page H1587]]

did not see a copy of the 350-page conference report until after it was 
filed. Because all Democrats refused to sign the conference report, a 
member had to be replaced on the conference in order to obtain enough 
signatures to sign the report.
  The process had started in a bipartisan manner. Unfortunately, it 
ended in a cynically political way. Sad to say that the Republican 
majority did not want to bring this bill to the floor in a bipartisan 
manner.
  Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to oppose this bill, and the many 
reasons why the Democrats refused to sign the bill will be spelled out 
by the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hamilton) when we take up the bill. But while we are on the rule, I 
oppose the process under which it was brought to the Committee on 
Rules, and therefore, oppose it on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons to object to this bill is that giving 
our negotiators at the U.N. the tools they need to achieve reform, to 
reduce our financial obligations, and to achieve consensus on issues 
such as Iraq is what we should do in this bill. What it does instead is 
to denigrate the U.S. in the eyes of the world because Congress has 
insisted on micromanaging the U.N. once again.
  Last fall, the Congress had the opportunity to get a good deal for 
the American taxpayer. With a reasonable amount of arrears in place and 
guaranteed by Congress, we had a good opportunity to achieve a lower 
assessment rate, concrete budget caps, and even negative growth in U.N. 
budgets. Congress made the mistake of not acting at that time, and now 
Congress is making another mistake with the provisions in this 
legislation.
  The real impact of the inaction last fall was to raise the amounts 
owed by the United States by at least $100 million. The bill is 
increasing every day. Our responsibility now is to give our negotiators 
at the U.N. the funds and flexibility they need to get the best deal 
they can for the U.S. taxpayer. What this bill does, unfortunately, is 
guarantee that any reduction in U.S. assessment rates will not occur.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report also makes good on the Republican 
majority's threat to link two totally unrelated issues, the U.N. 
arrears and the funding for international family planning. This 
legislation includes an altered version of the Mexico City restrictions 
on international family planning. Supporters of this language offered 
today will call it a ``compromise.'' We who support family planning 
call it totally unacceptable.
  What we compromise with this language are the lives of poor women and 
families throughout the world. The impact of this language will be 
equally devastating as previous restrictive amendments on international 
family planning. It will impose a global gag rule on family planning 
organizations, dictating what materials they may distribute and 
prohibiting them from participating in public debates; and this is 
important, Mr. Speaker, with their own private funds. We would 
certainly find a gag rule like this in violation of the First Amendment 
were it implemented in our own country.
  The use of U.S. funds to perform abortion has been prohibited by law 
since 1993. No U.S. funds are used for the performance of abortion or 
abortion-related activities. No U.S. funds are used to promote 
abortion. That is the law. So there is no need to have this restrictive 
gag rule put in place under the guise of supporting the language that I 
just mentioned. It is already the law.
  The cuts in funding set in motion by this language will limit the 
ability of family planning and reproductive health services to poor 
women and families. It will reduce access and quality of services. 
Programs will be terminated which will cause the number of abortions to 
rise and the number of deaths from unsafe abortions to increase, 
exactly the reverse effect it would have if we put out the funds, 
unrestricted, for international family planning, which would reduce 
abortion; and I think that is the goal that we all share.
  We have debated this issue many, many times over, at least six times 
in the first session of the 105th Congress last year. Each time, we 
stand here and agree that we want to reduce the number of abortions. 
Voluntary family planning programs do just that. They prevent 
unintended pregnancies, unsafe abortion and infant deaths. For these 
reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
conference report.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here listening patiently to speakers 
who oppose this rule and this legislation. The previous speaker, for 
whom I have the greatest respect has fought many battles, along with 
me, on human rights issues, and stated very clearly that, yes, it is 
the law of the land that U.S. tax dollars shall not be spent on 
abortions in America. And she is right. There are those of us that do 
not believe that U.S. tax dollars should be spent on abortions anywhere 
in the world; those are U.S. tax dollars. And yet we are hard-pressed 
to prevent that, and therein lies the argument.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, just to clarify the point, perhaps this is 
good news to the gentleman, there would be no Federal dollars spent 
internationally to perform abortions.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentlewoman believes that, but I 
have traveled throughout this world and what I have seen just does not 
concur with that.
  Nevertheless, we had another previous speaker from New York who said 
that someone had told her that there were lines 4 miles long, I believe 
she said, with people waiting to get information on family planning. I 
will tell my colleagues, as a member of the Committee on International 
Relations for many, many years, and someone who has been active for 
more than 20 years all around this world on these issues, I have never 
seen lines like that waiting for family planning information.
  I find them in refugee camps waiting for food, but never have I seen 
anybody waiting for anything other than food in lines 4 miles long.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just talk to the conservatives in this body about 
why they should come over here and vote for this bill. First of all, it 
does have the pro-life issue, and that is a compromise, and whether one 
is President of the United States or whether one is just a rank-and-
file Member of this Congress, one has to learn to compromise. Ronald 
Reagan taught me that. We cannot always have it our own way, we have to 
give a little bit; and that is the success of legislating.
  Secondly, this does reorganize the State Department somewhat. It is 
another step in the right direction to shrinking the size of the 
Federal Government and making it lean and workable, and that is what we 
are doing here. Jesse Helms and Madeleine Albright both agree with what 
we are doing. So that is another reason why conservatives should come 
over here.
  But more than that, what this bill does, this is a 2-year 
authorization bill, so listen up, conservatives. What this bill says is 
that it must be certified to include that the United States has no 
plans to tax U.S. citizens. There are people all around this world that 
belong to the U.N. These leaders that want to have a worldwide tax, 
they want to tax my people up in the Adirondacks and Catskill 
Mountains; and in the Hudson Valley, they want to levy, have a tax. 
Some One World government wants to levy a tax. This bill says we cannot 
do that or else we do not give them any money; it is as simple as that. 
It says that nothing in the U.N. will assume sovereignty over U.S. 
parks and lands. That is very important to me and the people I 
represent. It says that if there is any violation of the U.S. 
Constitution, we will not pay any more dues. Now, conservatives ought 
to come over here and vote for that.
  More importantly, in the 2-year authorization bill, in the first 
year, coming next year in 1999, this says there will be a reduction in 
the U.S. share of the peacekeeping budget, down to 25 percent. That 
means that we are going to get credit for all of this extra money that 
we are spending on U.S. troops in Bosnia and in all of these 
peacekeeping efforts.

[[Page H1588]]

                              {time}  1500

  In addition, this says we are going to reduce the United States' 
share of the regular U.N. budget down to 22 percent. That is in the 
first year of this 2-year authorization bill.
  In the second year of this 2-year authorization bill, it says we are 
going to reduce that regular budget cost to the American taxpayer down 
another 2 percent, down to 20 percent. Conservatives, what more do we 
want? That is what we have been fighting for, to get a fair share of 
the burden shared by other countries throughout this world.
  I can go on and on with the reasons that we ought to come over here 
and support the bill, but I think one of the best reasons of all is the 
fact that this bill caps U.S. contributions to all international 
organizations.
  Let us face it, America pays most of the costs for all of these 
international organizations, whether it is the IMF, the World Bank, or 
any of the rest. This caps our total contributions to all of these 
cumulative organizations to no more than $900 million, and we are 
paying way over $1 billion now. We are reversing that sieve of U.S. tax 
dollars going out of this country. We are turning it around. That is 
the reason Members ought to come over here and vote for this bill.
  I am going to talk to each of the conservative Members as they come 
through that door. I ask them to please come by and say hello to me, 
and I will further convince them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 172, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 75]

                               YEAS--234

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--172

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Bonilla
     Brown (FL)
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Conyers
     Crapo
     Edwards
     Ford
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Houghton
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Millender-McDonald
     Moakley
     Payne
     Rangel
     Royce
     Waters

                              {time}  1525

  Messrs. RUSH, MILLER of California, HEFNER and VENTO changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay''.
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 385, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1757) to consolidate 
international affairs agencies, to authorize appropriations for the 
Department of State and related agencies for fiscal years 1998 and 
1999, and to ensure that the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization (NATO) proceeds in a manner consistent with United States 
interests, to strengthen relations between the United States and 
Russia, to preserve the prerogatives of the Congress with respect to 
certain arms control agreements, and for other purposes, and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Pursuant to the rule, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Tuesday, March 10, 1998, at page H956).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) each will be recognized for 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, today our committee brings before the House 
a

[[Page H1589]]

conference report on the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act 
of 1998. This measure has three major components. It provides for the 
consolidation of international affairs agencies. It provides funding in 
other authorities to support the State Department and related agencies, 
and it provides a U.N. reform and arrearage package.
  Through this bill, support is provided for our government's 
activities abroad to include U.S. embassies, American citizens' 
services, passport and visa issuance, and international broadcasting 
programs, such as Radio Free Asia and broadcasting to Cuba.
  In addition, it funds U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada commissions that 
have been tasked with matters related to fisheries, sewage disposal, 
and other border issues. The bill authorizes $6.1 billion for fiscal 
year 1998 and $6.7 billion for fiscal year 1999. The authorized level 
for fiscal year 1999 is $125 million below the President's request.
  Funding for a strong U.S. presence abroad is in our vital national 
interest and provides a platform for a myriad of U.S. overseas 
interests. Specifically, we need to have a healthy diplomatic presence 
abroad to develop markets to maintain stability, to protect our friends 
in this still dangerous world, and to meet humanitarian needs.
  This bill incorporates the President's decision to consolidate the 
U.S. Information Agency and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency 
into the State Department. The consolidation is the first step toward 
reforming the international affairs apparatus to meet the changed post-
Cold War world.
  The third major component of this conference report is the United 
Nations Reform Act of 1998, which includes payment of our U.N. arrears 
for reductions in our U.N. assessments, freezing of our overall 
payments to all international organizations, and the implementation of 
major reforms throughout the United Nations.
  Mr. Speaker, according to a February GAO report on the U.N. financial 
status, our unpaid arrears have impeded progress in reducing our 
Nation's assessment rate and in encouraging other countries to pay 
their fair share of the costs of running this international 
organization. Many of our colleagues agree on the need for a plan to 
repay our debts to the U.N. which is linked to implementation of 
fundamental and thorough reform.
  This conference report is a comprehensive multitrack approach that 
advances our Nation's interest while also overhauling the entire UN 
bureaucracy. It reduces our annual assessment to the U.N. down to 22 
percent and ensures that our peacekeeping assessment rate would be 
capped at 25 percent. It also ensures that U.N. imposes no taxes or 
proposals for standing armies on member states. A further condition of 
the package is that the U.N. agrees that our arrears would be reduced 
to zero after implementation of the reform package.
  In addition, this bill would cut through the underbrush of programs, 
commissions, and other committees that have grown up over the past 50 
years, and it sunsets unneeded programs and strengthens the office of 
the U.N. Inspector General.
  We can state that the American taxpayer comes out ahead with the full 
implementation of this U.N. reform package. The implementation of these 
reform proposals will save more money than the total of arrearages we 
are proposing to pay off over a 3-year period.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge our Members to fully support this 
measure to ensure efficiencies in our foreign affairs agencies and to 
advance reforms with the United Nations.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to the conference report. This conference report 
is presented to us through a highly partisan process. I oppose it and I 
urge other Members to do the same.
  We began last summer with a bipartisan product on this conference 
report. The conference committee did its work in a bipartisan basis. We 
halted our work at the end of July, as we got hung up on the Mexico 
City provisions. Since that time, not a single meeting of the 
conference has taken place.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) met with Senate Republican 
conferees in recent weeks to craft a Republican conference report. They 
gave no notice to the minority that they were reconvening the 
conference. They did not consult us in any way. They simply were not 
interested in the minority view.
  In order to get this report to the floor, the Speaker of the House 
removed a very distinguished and senior member on the majority side 
from the conference committee. He appointed another member, and they 
were able to vote out the conference report because of the change in 
membership in the conference committee. With this kind of a process, 
Mr. Speaker, we are not deliberating, we are politicking; we are not 
making law, we are making political speeches; we are not working 
together, we are working separately.
  Let me call to my colleagues' attention some of the troublesome 
issues, first with respect to the United Nations. This conference 
report creates more U.S. arrears to the United Nations. We are not 
going forward, we are creating larger arrears. And it fails to provide 
sufficient funds even for our current dues. It does not pay what we 
acknowledge we owe to the United Nations. It ties the funds to 
conditions which are very desirable in this Chamber and all of us would 
agree with them. The only problem is, those conditions are not doable 
in the context of the United Nations. When we pay late and in part and 
with imposed conditions, it is not likely that the United Nations is 
going to cancel hundreds of millions of dollars in debt that we say we 
will not pay.
  The United States is already being called into question in the United 
Nations. We have already lost our position on the Committee on the 
Budget, perhaps the key committee of the United Nations. The Secretary 
General was here a week or 2 weeks ago, and he told us that we could 
lose our vote in the General Assembly.
  Secondly, this conference report micromanages the State Department. 
It requires a whole new bureaucracy to report every single time a U.S. 
government official from any agency travels to an international 
conference. It tells the State Department how to staff its embassies 
overseas. It even tells the State Department how to submit nominations 
to the Senate for confirmation. It imposes a whole slew of new report 
requirements on the executive branch on everything from a proposed 
alliance on drug trafficking to child abduction in Vietnam and Laos.
  It limits our ability to participate in the international criminal 
court. It mandates $38 million in various types of assistance for Iraq, 
but 20 million of that is for humanitarian assistance which Saddam 
Hussein is supposed to be providing to his own people out of oil-for-
food funds. So the effect of this bill is to relieve Saddam Hussein of 
some of his responsibilities.
  Third, this conference report contains a number of provisions 
designed to undermine the President's authority and undermine his 
ability to conduct foreign policy. It cuts funding for voluntary 
contributions to international organizations, including such key ones 
as the IAEA, a key agency in the fight against proliferation. If 
threatens the leadership position of the United States in helping 
parties to negotiate peace agreements in the Middle East and in 
Ireland. It requires the President to jump through all sorts of written 
and legal hoops before providing any assistance to the United Nations, 
even in an emergency, resulting in a holdup of a large number of funds 
even for peacekeeping. It zeros out funding for the Arms Control and 
Disarmament Agency.
  Mr. Speaker, this report is a political product. We must understand 
it is not going to become law; it is going to be vetoed. It is not 
designed to become public law. It is not a carefully crafted document 
that would assert the role of the Congress in determining foreign 
policy. I urge a no vote on the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith), distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on 
International Operations and Human Rights.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, 
the distinguished chairman of the full committee, and for his work on

[[Page H1590]]

this very important legislation before us.
  I just want to remind Members that during the course of the process 
of consideration of this bill we had 77 amendments that were offered in 
subcommittee, full committee, and on the floor from both sides of the 
aisle, 4 days on the floor for consideration and a number of very 
important and productive meetings of the conference committee. The 
issue that it all came down to, frankly and in all candor, was the 
Mexico City policy. It was the right-to-life issue.
  Let me just say a couple of things on that this afternoon. I think it 
is important to clear up some of this information about the compromise 
language in the conference report that would impose some restrictions 
on U.S. assistance to foreign organizations that perform and promote 
abortions overseas.
  During the last 3 years, the House has voted 10 separate times for 
the pro-life Mexico City policy, which prohibits U.S. population 
assistance to foreign organizations that perform abortions, violate the 
abortion laws of foreign countries, or engage in activities that change 
these laws. We have also voted to restrict aid to the United Nations 
Population Fund unless the UNPF ended its participation in the forced 
abortion program.
  The People's Republic of China and the Mexico City policy was 
enforced throughout the Reagan and Bush administrations. It did not 
reduce family planning money by one dime. Rather, it protected genuine 
family planning programs by erecting a wall of separation between 
family planning and abortion. President Clinton repealed that policy. 
We in the House, thankfully, again and again have gone on record saying 
that wall of separation needs to be reerected.
  Mr. Speaker, I and other pro-life Members were reluctant to agree to 
the compromise, and I want to say that very candidly and up front. We 
do give on this. Regrettably, we give but thus far there has been no 
give by the other side on this issue. We have done so because we 
believe this compromise is necessary to save some babies lives. We 
believe it will protect some unborn children by prohibiting a 
particularly ugly form of cultural imperialism in which U.S. taxpayers 
support entities that are actively engaged in bullying smaller nations 
into rejecting the traditions and moral values of their people.
  Many of my colleagues have received some talking points sent out by 
population control organizations. These talking points are misleading 
and in many cases flatly untrue. First, the population control groups 
tell us over and over again that they are using what they call their 
own money to perform and promote abortions. This is a red herring. It 
is designed to divert attention from the undeniable fact that millions 
of our foreign aid dollars can and did finance some of the biggest 
abortion providers in the world.
  Similarly, some of the biggest international population control 
grantees are actively engaged in efforts to overturn pro-life laws in 
countries around the world. This is because existing laws require only 
that the organization keep a set of books that shows that it did not 
use our money to pay for the actual abortions or for proabortion 
lobbying. This bookkeeping trick ignores the fact that money is 
fungible. When we subsidize an organization, we unavoidably enrich and 
empower all activities of that organization.
  The Mexico City policy recognizes that money is fungible. Every 
million U.S. tax dollars that go to an abortion provider frees up 
another million dollars to pay for abortions and more proabortion 
lobbying.

                              {time}  1545

  The Mexico City policy also recognizes that our family planning 
grantees are seen as representatives in the countries within which we 
operate as extensions, as surrogates for U.S. foreign policies. When 
organizations prominently associated with the United States family 
planning programs perform and promote abortions, people in these 
countries logically associate these activities with the United States.
  Opponents of the Mexico City policy also claim that if we require our 
family planning grantees to pledge not to perform or promote abortion, 
they will not participate in our programs. Yet when the Mexico City 
policy was in force, hundreds of population grantees agreed not to 
perform or promote abortions. Only two, let me repeat that, only two 
organizations decided not to agree to that and therefore were deprived 
of that money. More than 350 grantees took the money, and that wall of 
separation between destroying an unborn child and promoting violence 
against children and family planning was erected.
  Some of the talking points that my colleagues have seen in their 
office claim that the compromise language would punish grantees for 
merely attending conferences at which somebody else discusses abortion. 
This too is demonstrably false. The Clinton administration knows it is 
false and the population control groups know it is false as well. The 
bill prohibits assistance of foreign organizations that, and I quote, 
engage in any activity or effort to change the laws of foreign 
countries with respect to abortion.
  Every legislative provision has to be interpreted by the rule of 
reason. It is unreasonable to claim that activities that change laws 
includes merely attending a conference. As the conference report makes 
crystal clear, there is a world of difference between mere attendance 
and a situation in which an organization finances, sponsors and 
conducts a conference that is clearly designed to bring about the 
repeal of laws against abortion, as the International Planned 
Parenthood Federation recently did in the Francophone countries of West 
Africa and has done in other countries around the world.
  Such sponsorship, financing and organizing should fairly be construed 
as an activity to change the abortion laws. But nobody on our side of 
this issue has suggested that such activities include mere attendance 
at a conference.
  Finally, when pro-abortionists run out of arguments, they fall back 
on slogans that this is somehow a global gag rule because it says to 
organizations they have to choose, either be international abortion 
lobbyists or they can be representatives and surrogates of the United 
States in family planning programs.
  The administration says that the purpose of our family planning 
program is to prevent abortions. If we want to prevent alcoholism, 
would we hire the liquor industry to do it for us? If we wanted to stop 
gambling, would we do it by giving grants to casino owners? If we 
wanted to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on an international 
anti-drug campaign, would we give the money to organizations that use 
their own money to lobby for the legalization of drugs? Of course not. 
If Congress stands behind the position that there must be a wall of 
separation between abortion lobbying and U.S. family planning programs, 
we can save innocent lives. That is what this is all about. Nothing 
could be more important. I urge a yes vote on the conference report.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that this measure is before us as the 
President is in Africa with 17 of our colleagues, one of whom is the 
chairwoman of the Black Caucus that asked that we not proceed in this 
matter. The historic visit and the important foreign policy statements 
by the President and our colleagues are undermined by our taking action 
on this extremely untimely and partisan process. This report was never 
even shared with Democrats before it was filed and the final product 
was signed only by Republicans, but not even all the Republicans 
originally on the conference committee.
  Not surprisingly, the report that came out of the process is loaded 
with bad policy. Let me give my colleagues an example. The President 
announced last April that he would consolidate two foreign policy 
agencies into the Department of State. Those agencies are the United 
States Information Agency and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
  The Republicans purport to have done that in this conference report. 
They claim that they have done in this conference report only what the 
President announced last April. This is just

[[Page H1591]]

not the case. The statement of managers for this flawed bill asserts 
that the State Department will be responsible for designing foreign 
assistance programs. This assertion is totally inconsistent with the 
language of the underlying bill. The bill consolidates USIA and ACDA 
into the State Department, but leaves to USAID the role of designing 
foreign assistance programs under the overall foreign policy guidance 
of the Secretary of State. Is this a mistake? Is this our Republican 
colleagues saying one thing but really meaning something completely 
different? We do not know, Mr. Speaker, because the regular process was 
short-circuited and upended.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1757. This is a flawed conference 
report, the product of a flawed process, and it will result in flawed 
policy.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to my colleagues who 
are fighting to get U.N. reforms and those who are fighting to protect 
the rights of the unborn. I urge them to vote yes on H.R. 1757, the 
Foreign Relations Authorization Act.
  This bill has a version of the pro-life Mexico City policy supported 
by pro-life organizations, by pro-life leaders like the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith), which will end all U.S. subsidies to 
organizations that lobby for legalized abortion in developing 
countries. This bill denies funding for the United Nations Population 
Fund if they support China's forced abortion or population control 
programs.
  Further, the bill scales back U.N. arrearages from the 
administration's request and conditions the funding upon U.N. reforms. 
The bill has a number of U.N. reforms which are very important. In year 
number one in order to receive the $100 million appropriated in fiscal 
year 1998, the U.N. must not require the United States to violate the 
U.S. Constitution or any U.S. law, it must not attempt to exercise 
sovereignty over the United States or require the U.S. to cede 
authority, it must not make available to the U.N. on its call the armed 
forces of any U.N. member nation, must not exercise authority or 
control over any United States national park, wildlife preserve, 
monument or private property of a U.S. citizen without that citizen's 
permission, must not amend its financial regulations to permit external 
borrowing.
  In year two, in order to receive the second arrears payment, the U.N. 
must reduce the U.S. dues from 25 to 22 percent of the total budget, 
must reduce U.S. peacekeeping assessments from 31 to 25 percent.
  In year three, they must agree to reduce their staff by 1,000 
persons, agree to a no growth budget, must agree to hold no more global 
conferences, among other reforms.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a number of reforms in addition. Let us not lose 
this opportunity to reduce taxpayer forced abortions. Let us not use 
the chance to save babies overseas. This is a vote that is going to be 
scored by the National Right to Life Committee. That is important for 
the pro-life vote. I urge all the Members to vote yes on H.R. 1757 and 
save the lives of children overseas.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Torres).
  (Mr. TORRES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TORRES. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. 
Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report on the 
State Department authorization legislation. As we have already heard 
from the gentleman from Indiana, I object not only to its substance but 
to the process that was used here and how we came about it today. 
Democrats were not involved in the fashioning of this conference report 
and there were no Democratic signatures on this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is the best way to conduct foreign 
policy decisions. There is much in this conference report which I find 
objectionable. First, once again it contains the Mexico City 
restrictions on international family planning programs that are clearly 
unacceptable to the administration as well as to many Members of this 
body.
  Secondly, the conference report does not solve the arrearages 
problems of the United Nations. It makes it worse. Rather than 
providing the extra funds, the conference report actually cuts 
authorized funding for U.S. dues.
  Thirdly, I would note that the conference report contains provisions 
on Cuba which go really the wrong way. Certainly the Pope's visit, the 
unprecedented worldwide publicity and exposure about life in Cuba, the 
increase in religious freedom and practices and the recent release of 
Cuban prisoners are clear signals that the Cuban government is seeking 
a change in relationship to the United States. The conference report 
makes it appear that our foreign policy turns a blind eye to the 
signals for a change in Cuba or that we do not want a change, and we 
want to continue to punish the Cuban people because we disagree with 
their government. I urge my colleagues today here to reject this 
conference report and to make a more responsible approach to dealing 
with the crucial foreign policy questions of our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report on 
the State Department Authorization legislation. I object not only to 
its substance but to the process by which it has come to us today. 
Democrats were not included in the fashioning of this conference report 
and there are no Democratic signatures on this measure. Mr. Speaker, 
this is not the way to make important foreign policy decisions.
  There is much in this conference report which I find objectionable. 
First, once again, it contains the Mexico City restrictions on 
international family planning programs that are clearly unacceptable to 
the Administration as well as to many member of this body. The 
conference report prohibits U.S. funding from going to foreign NGO if 
the organization uses its own money to engage in advocacy. Ultimately, 
its impact limits the availability of family planning services to poor 
women and families around the world, and will, tragically, result in an 
increase in abortions.
  Second, the conference report doesn't solve the arrears crisis of the 
United Nations. It makes it worse. Rather than providing the extra 
funds, the conference report actually cuts authorized funding for U.S. 
assessed dues to the U.N. and other international organizations by over 
$40 million from the President's request. In essence, it creates even 
more arrears.
  Third, I would note that the conference report contains provisions on 
Cuba which go the wrong way. Certainly, the Pope's recent visit, the 
unprecedented worldwide media exposure about life in Cuba, the increase 
in religious freedoms and practices, and the recent release of Cuban 
prisoners are clear signals that the Cuban government is seeking a 
changed relationship with the U.S. This conference agreement makes it 
appear that our foreign policy turns a blind eye to the signals for 
change from Cuba, or that we do not want change, and want to continue 
to punish the Cuban people because we disagree with their government.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report and take a more 
responsible approach to dealing with crucial foreign policy questions.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. 
Speaker, we must reject this conference report and allow families in 
the developing world to plan their families just as we insist upon 
planning our own. How many times are we going to have to scrub this 
bill of abortion to allow impoverished women and families life-saving 
funds for family planning?
  Do we care about life? We have taken care of the life of the fetus in 
this bill because there is not one dime for abortion. It is time to 
move on to care about millions of children in Africa and in South 
America and in Asia.
  Do we care about life? Then care about family planning, the most 
important and effective tool against abortion.
  Do we care about life? Then care about the 20 children and the one 
pregnant woman who lose their lives per day in the developing countries 
for lack of family planning.
  Do we care about life? Then care about the 25 percent of women who 
lose their lives in childbirth because they have no family planning.
  Do we care about life? Then care about sparing the lives of millions 
of children who are twice as likely to lose their lives before their 
first birthday because they are spaced less than 2 years apart because 
of lack of family planning.

[[Page H1592]]

  First care about life, millions of these lives, and then care about 
the freedom to speak and to petition your government. We do nothing in 
this Chamber but talk and listen to our constituents talk. How can 
Americans, flag bearers of the First Amendment, condition funds on 
silencing people on any subject when we censor other nations for doing 
just that?
  You might oppose abortion, my friends, you might oppose family 
planning, but not one of you would limit the right of any American to 
advocate abortion or family planning. Who are we to tell Africans and 
South Americans what they must say? We are Americans. We promote 
speech. We do not pay people to silence them.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the conference 
report and commend my colleagues on the Committee on International 
Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), and the Senate 
Foreign Affairs Committee, for their hard work on this bill and 
appreciate their perseverance in ensuring it is brought to the floor 
for a vote.
  Historically, it seems appropriate we are discussing the world today 
because it was on this very day in 1979 that Egypt and Israel reached 
an agreement for peace at Camp David that many thought was impossible, 
was resisted by those on both sides within those countries, but 
everyone understood that while the accord was not perfect, it was a 
giant step in the right direction on a very significant issue. This 
bill is as well not perfect, but a very good step in the right 
direction on very important issues to this world. I believe the most 
important provisions of the conference report will curb finally United 
States support for overseas abortion programs.
  Specifically, it contains compromise language on the Mexico City 
policy that will deny funding to foreign organizations that perform or 
promote abortions. In return, our leadership fulfills its promise to 
provide authorization for arrearage payments to the United Nations, 
provided long awaited and much needed reforms occur. Such reforms 
include lowering our share of the United Nations budget from 25 to 22 
percent, decreasing our portion of peacekeeping dues from 31 to 25 
percent, and other reforms to streamline that huge U.N. bureaucracy.
  The final version also ensures that no U.S. funds will go to the 
United Nations Population Fund unless that agency ceases to assist the 
People's Republic of China in implementing China's strict birth quota 
plan. Mr. Speaker, as a pro-life Member of Congress, I am pleased to 
support these provisions which will genuinely move us forward toward 
the goal of protecting unborn children.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Speaker, these very important provisions authorize assistance to 
the democratic opposition in Iraq building toward the eventual end of 
the Saddam Hussein regime.
  I am also pleased that the bill reaffirms the position taken by 
Congress in 1995 when it overwhelmingly passed the Jerusalem Embassy 
Act which requires that official government documents list Jerusalem as 
the capital of Israel and that the U.S. move its embassy from Tel Aviv 
to Jerusalem by May 31 of next year.
  Finally, this bill also accomplishes our long term objectives of 
consolidating international affairs agencies within the State 
Department.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the President to sign this bill into 
law.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues have noted, there is 
little to like in this conference report, but the worst of it is the 
restrictions on international family planning.
  Let us be clear. We are not talking here about eliminating funding 
for abortions overseas. We have already done that. What we are talking 
about is eliminating U.S. funding for international family planning. 
Well, if my colleagues want to increase abortions and jeopardize the 
health of millions of women and children around the world, they should 
vote for this conference report to limit international family planning.
  If my colleagues promised their constituents they would work to deny 
women across the globe desperately needed reproductive health services 
and vital pre- and postnatal care, they should vote for this conference 
report. If my colleagues want to drive women and families in developing 
countries further into poverty and despair, then they should vote for 
this conference report. And if my colleagues want to put a global gag 
on people around the world talking about these issues, then they should 
vote for this legislation. But if my colleagues care about saving lives 
and improving the quality of lives, then they should vote no on this 
conference committee report.
  If enacted, this legislation will gut one of the jewels of the U.S. 
foreign policy. Voluntary family planning services work. They work in 
this country, they work around the world, and they work to reduce 
unwanted pregnancies and improve the quality of life for millions of 
families around the world.
  I urge a no vote on this conference committee report.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, 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 in their reproductive 
years. That is why, Mr. Speaker, support for reproductive health 
services becomes more important every day. Voluntary family planning 
services give mothers and their families new choices and new hope. 
These services increase child survival, they promote safe motherhood. 
Without support for international family planning, women in developing 
nations face more unwanted pregnancies, more poverty and more despair.
  Mr. Speaker, 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, programs that reduce 
the need for abortion. Without access to safe and affordable family 
planning services, there will be more abortions, not fewer. The 
abortions will be less safe and put more women's lives in danger.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish that we were here today to support legislation 
that would pay for a full range of reproductive health services. But at 
the very, very least, we should keep the doors open for more family 
planning clinics. And we must do this so that we can provide these 
individuals and these families with the information and the services 
they need.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that family 
planning has promoted the health and survival of women and children in 
undeveloped nations. For over 30 years, the United States has been a 
leader and a healer with family planning aid throughout the world. We 
have led an international crusade to promote child survival in the 
world, decrease maternal and infant deaths, and end the spread of 
disease. We have saved the lives of young girls by encouraging them to 
postpone childbearing. Because of our aid, our help, the size of the 
average family in poor countries has dropped from six to three. This 
reduction in family size has helped millions escape poverty. It has 
increased the prospects of an education and a richer, healthier life 
for women and children. It has given thousands of families a way up and 
a way out and helped them survive and thrive.
  Despite all of our success, despite the distance we have traveled, 
there are some who do not understand the importance of our work. This 
legislation effectively cuts funding for family planning. It has a 
chilling effect on our family planning efforts abroad. This legislation 
is a step backward, it is a step in the wrong direction.
  Let me be clear. Not one penny of U.S. family planning aid has ever 
been

[[Page H1593]]

used to fund an abortion abroad. Our laws prevent it. We are not trying 
to change that. We are simply trying to continue a successful program 
that saves human lives. It is cruel and barbaric to stand in the way of 
poor families getting basic information about their health in this 
country or some distant land.
  I urge my colleagues to support healthy families worldwide and vote 
down this destructive and mean legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate this legislation is coming to 
us today when 16 Members of our body, black Members, are in African 
countries, and I wish it could have been postponed and come up some 
time later.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
conference report. At this critical time, we should not hold U.N. and 
IMF funding hostage to the hardliners who oppose family planning 
funding. Business' economic and financial experts have told us that 
this IMF funding is needed to contain the Asian financial crisis and to 
protect American jobs. Our economy is too important to play Russian 
roulette with. But that is what this conference report does when it 
adds Mexico City language.
  I remind my colleagues, under current law not one dollar of U.S. 
family planning funds can be used to perform or even counsel women to 
obtain abortions anywhere in the world. Women and children around the 
world depend on U.S. family planning funds to improve their health and 
to give them a real chance at a healthy life. If my colleagues vote for 
the Mexico City policy, they are voting to abandon these women and 
children. The President has said he will veto this legislation if this 
language is included.
  Do not waste any more time. Vote against this bill. Remove this 
language from the conference report. Let us protect American jobs and 
let us get on with the people's business.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
conference report. Once again the lives and well-being of women around 
the world are being held hostage. We are faced with a bill that forces 
the Mexico City global gag rule upon us. This bill, like so many 
defeated before it, prohibits organizations from receiving any U.S. 
funding if they use their own funds to provide abortion services or 
advocate on the abortion issue. The need for family planning services 
to prevent unintended pregnancies in developing countries is urgent, 
and the aid we provide is critical. When women are unable to control 
the number and timing of births, they have more dangerous and 
complicated pregnancies, and too many will turn to abortion, often 
illegal, unsafe and life threatening.
  Passage of this conference report will mean more abortions, not 
fewer. It will mean women dying and children dying. It will mean an 
increase in unintended pregnancies, and it will mean women taking 
desperate, dangerous measures to end those pregnancies. And that is the 
fact, that is the reality.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also opposed to the provisions in this bill 
regarding the United Nations. The funding level provided is too low, 
and the requirements attached to that funding micromanage the President 
as he attempts to push the U.N. to reform itself further. Our debt to 
the U.N. leaves the United States with no leverage to reduce our annual 
assessments and weakens our leadership in the organizations. This bill 
will not solve the critical problem.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately this bill was pushed through to the floor 
with no bipartisan support and with a veto promise from the White 
House. I urge my colleagues to defeat H.R. 1757.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith), the distinguished subcommittee chairman of our 
committee.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I just want to advise Members 
that one provision in this legislation deals with the United Nations 
Population Fund, and it says very clearly and unambiguously that unless 
the UNFPA gets out of China, they lose the $25 million that they are 
slated to get.
  I want to remind colleagues that in China, it is illegal to have more 
than one child. Brothers and sisters are illegal. The Government is 
aggressively antibaby. Wei Jing Sheng, the great human rights activist 
who appeared before my subcommittee just a few weeks ago, said he could 
not believe, he said he was outraged that the U.N. Population Fund and 
U.N. personnel were working side by side with those family planning 
cadres, those oppressors of women, who enforce the one-child-per-couple 
policy in China with forced abortion.
  Forced abortion was construed to be a crime against humanity at the 
Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal. It is no less a crime against humanity 
today. Our conference report says that we are serious in dealing with 
those crimes against humanity and any organization like the U.N. 
Population Fund will lose its funding unless they get out of China.
  Earlier the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) said that for 30 years 
we have been the leaders in family planning. That was no less true 
during the Reagan and Bush years when the Mexico City policy was in 
effect. We provided 40 percent--40 percent of all the population 
control aid during the Reagan and Bush years. That is a fact, that is 
not an opinion, with the Mexico City policy in full effect.
  It is a red herring when Members on the other side stand up and say 
that we are holding hostage family planning. Monies flowed; people were 
given the opportunity to take that money and give out condoms and do 
all kinds of family planning, but a wall was erected between performing 
child abuse, killing unborn children, the promotion of violence against 
children and preventive means.
  One hundred countries around the world protect their unborn children 
from the violence of abortion on demand. The main engine trying to 
topple those laws are these so-called family planning organizations. 
Some see it as their mission to nullify pro-life laws in other lands. 
Planned Parenthood, in their ``Vision 2000'' statement adopted in 1992, 
lays out an action plan to vanquish legal protection for unborn 
children in other nations.

                             {time}   1615

  Here is what it says in part. It declares that family planning 
organizations around the world, and I quote this, must bring ``pressure 
on governments and campaign for policy and legislative change to remove 
restrictions against abortion.''
  We provide the money to these organizations that ``campaign'' and 
``pressure'' governments to topple their pro-life laws. That is what 
this is all about. That is why my good friends and colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle would not sign the conference report. The pro-
life safeguards in a compromise version were in there.
  I think we have a moral obligation to say, if we are going to pour 
hundreds of millions into groups that advertise as family planners, let 
us have a truth in advertising. Let us separate abortion out of it, 
because abortion takes a life, a life of a child--it is not family 
planning.
  Finally, just let me say, Mr. Speaker, this conference report and the 
work that went into it was a bipartisan process, 77 amendments in 
subcommittee, full committee, and on the floor of the House, and many, 
many conference meetings
  We went through a give and take. We had Democratic staff and 
Republican staff studying and working on the provisions of this 
conference report.
  It is another red herring to say that they were not part of it. Yes, 
maybe in the end, when it came to signing it, but that is because the 
pro-life Mexico City policy was in there.
  Again I say, if we are going to send out roughly $400 million to 
abortion providers or family planning providers, and they wear the same 
hat as abortion providers, those of us who do not want to see any more 
babies die or any more women exploited or any more forced abortion in 
China must stand up and say, well, on this bill or any other bill that 
comes down the pike, we will be offering this language. It is 
absolutely not going to go away. We have compromised as far as we can 
go. We have half of Mexico City in here. It is a significant half, but 
it is only half.

[[Page H1594]]

  It is about time the President and those on the abortion rights side 
met us halfway, and then those other issues could go forward 
unencumbered. Fail to meet us halfway--and we will fight and 
unceasingly raise this issue on every vehicle imaginable.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly).
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this 
conference report, and I do it with some pain, because I have always 
supported fully the men and women who work for the State Department and 
who represent us so well around the world.
  But no matter how emotionally one speaks or how strongly one feels 
about both sides of this question, the fact of the matter remains that 
we do not have to codify the Mexico City language. It is unnecessary, 
because we know for a fact and we know from statute that U.S. funds 
cannot be used for abortion.
  Second, if the President waives the Mexico City restrictions, there 
is the effect also that the bill would reduce the amount of money 
available for family planning. This is unacceptable because we all 
understand that family planning, and we agree, that family planning 
saves the lives of both mothers and children in developing countries. 
We do not think this should be the vehicle for reducing those funds.
  But I think the thing that bothers me most, and I think worst, about 
this conference report is it is such a sharp limit on debate and 
discussion of the issue before us that is in contention: Choice.
  Here we are today on the floor of this House, saying exactly how we 
feel, saying it as strongly as we might want to. Some of us are feeling 
very, really emotional about this issue, but understanding that we all 
can have those strong feelings and express them on this floor and then 
walk out and everything will be fine because we are in the United 
States of America. But the limits we put in this conference report 
would be unconstitutional in this country; and, yet, we ask other 
countries to abide what we are saying in this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, as the United States seeks to lead the world into a new 
century of democracy, I find it deeply disappointing that some seek to 
deny people in other nations the opportunity that we are carrying out 
and exercising at this very moment on this floor.
  So as I say, with pain, I oppose this report. I do wish, as the 
gentleman before me said, that we could get together and face it and in 
the correct way.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, my friend from New Jersey says 
that the antiabortion compromise with this bill leaves us with half a 
loaf. In reality, it leaves us with a thin slice.
  The President can waive the antiabortion provision and use hundreds 
of millions of dollars to promote and perform abortions. And even the 
thin slice we are left with will be vetoed by the President.
  The fact that this report is scored both ways by family values groups 
indicates how weak this language is. But let me tell you what this 
report will do. It will send $100 million on its way that was 
appropriated last year. It is unfenced by this authorization. It goes 
to supposed U.N. dues. It also authorizes the rest of nearly a billion 
dollars and starts it on its way.
  But in this report, there is no recognition of a GAO report that says 
from 1992 to 1995, we spent $6.6 billion on legitimate U.N. 
peacekeeping activities, $1.8 billion that was credited to us for dues 
that recognizes the legitimacy of these expenditures.
  CRS, more recently, reported that between 1992 and May of last year, 
we spent $11.1 billion. The Pentagon said that last year alone, we 
spent $3 billion. Shortly, we are going to vote $1.3 billion, a 
supplemental emergency supplemental for Iraq.
  We spent, since 1992, about $14 billion. We have been credited with 
$1.8 only. This is a fatal flaw in this bill. We need to send the 
message that we cannot pass this bill until there is a recognition of 
all the money that we have spent.
  The Senate voted 90 to 10 yesterday, no dues without a tally of the 
peacekeeping. Please vote no on this, send it back to the conference so 
they can bring a bill to us that we can pass, recognizing the 
legitimacy of our U.N. peacekeeping activities, and trade those off 
against any dues we might owe them.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hamilton) for yielding, and would ask this question: Why would we want 
poor children growing up in nations that are getting only poorer? Why 
would we oppose family planning money which prevents pregnancies and, 
in some cases, abortions?
  It just does not seem logical to me that many on my side of the aisle 
would oppose family planning money which actually prevents abortions. 
Family planning money is not used for abortions or even to promote 
abortions. It is used to help women have the number of children they 
want and can afford.
  When my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, talks about a 
compromise, I think the compromise was struck a long time ago. That 
compromise was the pro-life movement won. Federal dollars could not be 
spent worldwide for abortions. But under this compromise, it seems 
logical to me that family planning funds can be used to prevent 
abortions.
  I think in the pro-choice movement, there is an extreme group that 
opposes the ban on partial birth abortions. The pro-choice movement 
opposes the ban on partial birth abortions and uses it as a litmus 
test. If you vote for the ban, you are not pro-choice. But I think 
there is also an extreme in the pro-life movement that opposes family 
planning. I just hope that this Congress can get to the point where we 
can have the extremes fall by the wayside and we can have a sensible 
policy.
  I strongly support family planning money being used for family 
planning, and I believe that nations throughout the world need the help 
that we can provide them. As a country like Egypt sees its economy 
grow, it sees its population outpacing this economic growth, and it 
becomes a poorer and poorer nation. Why would we want children to 
continue to grow up in such a poor environment? They are basically the 
seed for the terrorists that ultimately may destroy this world.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the conference report, I think it is a 
mistake, and I am sad that my party has moved forward on this issue.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Hamilton) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Indiana, the ranking 
member of the committee, for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the bill. Undoubtedly, there are some 
good things in the bill, and I really wish that I could vote for the 
bill. But this bill is mixing apples with oranges. The Mexico City 
language, the whole controversy over abortion, does not belong in this 
bill. It sullies the bill and takes away from the bill. As far as I am 
concerned, it is really improperly in the bill.
  It is an embarrassment that our country is the biggest deadbeat in 
the world of the United Nations. For the United Nations to function, we 
say that we are the leaders of the world, and we are the leaders of the 
world. We want to have influence on the world. We want to have 
influence.
  We encourage countries to turn to free market economies. We encourage 
countries to turn to democracy. Then what do we do? We do not pay our 
U.N. dues. So we owe a billion dollars. Then when we want to try to 
attempt to pay our dues, we attach it to abortion language and Mexico 
City language and other language to placate the lobby, the pro-life 
lobby. But, in reality, it does not make any sense to put it in this 
bill.
  If we want to build an international coalition against Saddam 
Hussein, if

[[Page H1595]]

we want to build a coalition to march forward into democracy, then we 
really should not act irresponsibly. I believe this bill is acting 
irresponsibly by mixing apples with oranges and putting this abortion 
language in the bill.
  We all know the President is going to veto this bill in its present 
form. So we know, in essence, this is a game and a charade. I do not 
know why we have to play again. We played this game last year, it was 
an embarrassment to the world, and we are playing it again this year.
  I think the language pertaining to abortion ought to be struck out, 
and we ought to pass a bill that can go, pass a bill that will make us 
proud, pass a bill and act like the leaders of the world which we are. 
I cannot for the life of me understand why we continue to play these 
games. I do not doubt the sincerity of anybody on the other side, or of 
anybody else, but I think we ought not mix apples with oranges. This 
bill should be defeated.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I do so for the purpose of reading a letter from the White House, 
addressed:

       Dear Representative Hamilton, I am writing to advise you 
     that if H.R. 1757, the Conference Report on State Department 
     Authorization, were presented to the President, he would veto 
     the bill.
       Sincerely, Larry Stein, Assistant to the President and 
     Director of Legislative Affairs.

  Mr. Speaker, I include the following letter for the Record.


                                              The White House,

                                       Washington, March 26, 1998.
     Hon. Lee H. Hamilton,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Hamilton: I am writing to advise you 
     that if HR 1757, the Conference Report on State Department 
     Authorization, were presented to the President, he would veto 
     the bill.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Larry Stein,

                                    Assistant to the President and
                                 Director for Legislative Affairs.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of our 
time to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), senior 
member of our Committee on International Relations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized 
for 8\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana, ranking 
member of our Committee on International Relations.
  This has been an interesting debate, and not too complicated, because 
there are a couple of ideas that are pretty crystal-clear that separate 
us. First of all, we have a lot of conservatives who do not like 
foreign aid. And anything that reeks of the U.N. is tainted and that 
involves us overseas, and we ought not to get into those sort of 
entanglements.
  So we have a mountain to climb on our side to get enough people to 
support this. After all, this pays our U.N. arrearages, not perhaps in 
the manner in which the Democrats would like it paid, but it is $819 
million plus $107 million in debt forgiveness over 3 years. That 
certainly beats where we are now, with zero. So if you think our 
membership in the U.N. is useful, I would think this is the best 
opportunity to get caught up on the arrearages.
  I have always had a couple of fantasies about the U.N. One is I would 
like to move it from New York to Beijing. I think that would be a 
wonderful headquarters. We have had the glory of the U.N. being in New 
York and avoiding and evading our parking tickets. Let us give the rest 
of the world a chance at it. But I do not decry the U.N. I think it is 
useful. I think we should belong to it. I think we are a world leader, 
and we should lead in the U.N.

                              {time}  1630

  And so if we belong to it, we should pay our dues, and this is a 
medium by which we pay our dues. So I think we should do this.
  Now, a couple of other things about the U.N. that bother me. We pay 
too much in peacekeeping cost, 31 percent. I would like to get that 
down to 25 percent. And our dues, it seems to me, ought to be reduced 
from 25 to 20 percent. We can do that with this bill. So that gives me 
an added incentive for voting for it.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who has been heroic in 
defending the defenseless unborn, talks about Mexico City, and I was 
trying to communicate with him that he should explain Mexico City. 
People think that is a page out of National Geographic.
  What it is is a policy that we followed under Presidents Reagan and 
Bush that said we will give you millions of dollars for family 
planning, but not to organizations that advocate or perform abortions. 
In other words, American money should not go to pay for killing unborn 
children, even if they are Third World unborn children, especially if 
they are Third World unborn children.
  So that is the Mexico City policy, and that sticks in the craw of the 
left. That is the one thing, that common theme, why, my God, we are 
going to stop the torrent of abortions with this bill, and therefore, 
this is a bad bill. Why American taxpayers' money should be used to 
subsidize abortions overseas I cannot figure out.
  Well, we hear that the money of the organizations spent for abortions 
is their own money. They are not mixing our money in with theirs. I 
wish my colleagues would stop insulting our intelligence. My colleagues 
know and I know that if we give them a few million dollars, we free up 
their own money for their own purposes. It is a bookkeeping 
transaction. We are subsidizing, effectively, abortions.
  Some of us think there is a moral issue here, that this cultural 
imperialism of ours, telling a country, you have too many people, is 
across the line. It goes too far.
  Now, this bill has so many good things in it that may not come this 
way again. One of them is the moving of our embassy to Jerusalem and 
another is requiring the McBride fair employment practices in Northern 
Ireland; there is full funding for Radio Marti to Cuba, Radio Free 
Iran, Radio Free Asia to Communist China. This bill authorizes a new 
assistance package to assist the democratic opponents of Saddam Hussein 
and Iraq. This bill begins that process of rolling back Saddam 
Hussein's tyranny in Iraq.
  So there are so many reasons why this is a good idea, but most of 
all, I would like to please make clear family planning is distinct from 
abortion. Family planning is either getting one pregnant or keeping one 
from getting pregnant, it is not killing an unborn child once one is 
pregnant. Family planning, properly understood, does not include 
abortion, so why should we subsidize organizations that lobby countries 
to repeal their pro-life laws and that perform abortions?
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), compromised as far as he 
could. Go ahead and perform abortions with a presidential waiver, but 
do not advocate, lobby countries to repeal their pro-life laws. That 
little speck of respectability you are unwilling to give us. You are 
not compromising; there is no compromise here, and that is tragic.
  There is much that is good in this bill; there is much that 
strengthens our position in the international forum. It helps us get 
back in good graces with the U.N., it starts to roll back the arrogance 
of Saddam Hussein. There are so many good things.
  It consolidates agencies that ought to be consolidated like the Arms 
Control and Disarmament Agency, the United States Information Agency, 
by putting them in the State Department. And so I just hope that my 
friends, the conservatives who cannot move their hand to vote for 
something that has foreign aid in it, would understand that this is 
important. There are many things in this bill that we ought to take 
advantage of, and most importantly, that little part of the Mexico City 
policy that is salvaged in this bill.
  My friends over here, I know the President is the premier pro-
abortion rights human being in the galaxy, but we have our own 
independent responsibilities, and we should make a statement that child 
survival, as I heard the gentleman from Georgia say, is important. One 
cannot have child survival when one aborts that child. Please support 
this legislation.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today the House considered H.R. 
1757, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act conference 
report and passed it by a stealth vote; with no warning, while most of 
us were working in committees. This bill may contain some

[[Page H1596]]

good provisions, such as those that deny funding to foreign 
organizations that perform or promote abortions, but Mr. Speaker, this 
bill contains far more provisions that are harmful. Most notably, this 
bill contains language that authorizes $100 million in FY 1998, $475 
million in FY 1999, and $244 million in FY 2000 for payments to the 
United Nations. This is a grand total of $819 million that is to be 
paid to the United Nations for so-called ``arrearages.'' It was the 
U.N., I remind you, that went to Iraq and let Saddam Hussein off the 
hook.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure what I object to more, the U.N. funding or 
the way this bill was passed. For you see Mr. Speaker, although the 
voters of the 7th District sent me here to represent their views, on 
this and other important legislation, I wasn't allowed to vote on this 
important bill. I don't mind losing a vote; I understand the process. 
But I do mind being denied the opportunity to do what my constituents 
sent me here to do. It is a shame that this important bill was 
steathily passed by an unannounced voice vote when it certainly should 
have come up for an up-front, honest, recorded vote. This is not way to 
run a railroad, Mr. Speaker, It may be good for the U.N. but it's not 
good for America.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong 
support for Title XVI of H.R. 1757, ``The European Security Act,'' 
particularly those sections relating to NATO enlargement. The language 
contained in this section is designed first and foremost to preserve 
the effectiveness and flexibility of NATO as a defensive alliance. For 
nearly five decades, the North Atlantic Alliance has served and 
advanced the interests of the United States in Europe by preserving 
peace, promoting economic prosperity, and advancing our shared 
principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law. As a 
long-standing advocate of NATO enlargement, and Co-Chairman of the 
Helsinki Commission, I have consistently emphasized the importance of 
Helsinki principles, including human rights, in the expansion process.
  Today's consideration of the European Security Act language comes at 
a critical time, Mr. Speaker, as the United States Senate will soon 
vote on ratification of the necessary instruments for the admission of 
Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic as full members of NATO. 
Despite the fact that the NATO leaders committed themselves to a robust 
`open door' policy concerning further accession, some seem determined 
to slam the door shut to other candidates. Instead of spurning those 
countries aspiring to future NATO membership, we should embrace those 
states that have demonstrated--in word and in deed--their commitment to 
the shared values enshrined in the North Atlantic Treaty.
  The language designates Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and 
Bulgaria as eligible to receive assistance under the NATO Participation 
Act of 1994. Each of these countries has made important strides in 
political and economic reforms. With respect to the Baltic States, it 
is worth noting the Charter of Partnership, signed in Washington on 
January 16, 1998, acknowledges the fact that the United States has a 
``real, profound and enduring interest in the independence, 
sovereignty, and territorial integrity, and security of Estonia, 
Latvia, and Lithuania.'' In this historic document, the U.S. welcomes 
the aspirations and supports efforts of the Baltic States to join NATO, 
reiterating that enlargement of NATO is an on-going process. Mr. 
Speaker, European Security Act provisions will advance U.S. interests 
by supporting the efforts of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to provide 
for their legitimate defense needs, including the development of 
appropriate and interoperable military forces.
  It would be an injustice of historic proportions, Mr. Speaker, if we 
did not take advantage of the unique opportunity we have today to 
embrace those countries of Central and Eastern Europe demonstrably 
committed to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Having 
persevered for 50 years and overcome the odds by regaining their 
independence, the Baltic countries deserve to be fully integrated into 
the West, including NATO, without further delay.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Chairman Gilman's willingness to 
incorporate several of my suggestions into the text of Title XVI. The 
first concern stems from the fact that Russia has not agreed to the 
demarcation of its international borders with several neighboring 
countries, including Estonia and Latvia. In addition, while a Framework 
Treaty has been concluded between Russia and Ukraine and signed by 
Presidents Kuchma and Yeltsin, the Russia's State Duma has yet to 
ratify this key accord which would among other things demarcate the 
Ukrainian-Russian border, including in the Sea of Azov. Moscow has 
purposefully dragged its feet on this important issue with the aim of 
intimidating a number of the countries concerned and erecting a 
potential obstacle to those aspiring to NATO membership.
  The second issue concerns the deployment of Russian forces on the 
territory of other states. The language I introduced calls for the 
immediate and complete withdrawal of any armed forces and military 
equipment under the control of Russia that are deployed on the 
territories of the independent states of the former Soviet Union 
without the full and complete agreement of those states.
  Today, there are thousands of Russian troops deployed in and around 
the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol. Meanwhile, an estimated 3,010 Russian 
troops continue to be stationed in Moldova along with a considerable 
supply of military equipment and munitions which could prove 
particularly destabilizing in the Trans-Dniester region.
  Finally, the Title XVI calls for a commitment by the Russians to take 
steps to reduce nuclear and conventional forces in Kaliningrad, where 
Moscow has amassed a considerable arsenal that poses a potential threat 
to the Baltic States and Poland.
  Mr. Speaker, progress in resolving these outstanding security 
concerns would go a long way to advance peace and stability throughout 
Europe, a region of critical importance to the security, economic, and 
political interests of the United States. I am pleased that the 
language of the European Security Act is included in the bill. We have 
an obligation to maintain the effectiveness and flexibility of NATO as 
a defensive alliance open to the inclusion of new members committed to 
the shared principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of 
law, and able and willing to assume the responsibilities and 
obligations of membership.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to register my strong opposition to 
the conference report for the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring 
Act.
  I urge my colleagues not be fooled by some of the bill's features 
such as payments to the United Nations because it also contains some 
incorrigible features. For example, it eliminates the Arms Control and 
Disarmament Agency, thereby denying our foreign policy makers the 
benefit of an independent voice on arms control matters. H.R. 1757 also 
resurrects the so-called ``Mexico City'' language that restricts 
funding for abortions overseas--even if they are paid for with private 
funds. But the offensive provisions in particular that I want to bring 
to your attention today deal with Haiti.
  On September 25, 1997, Congresswoman Waters and I wrote a letter to 
the chairman and the ranking member of the International Relations 
Committee, expressing our concern with provisions reflected in this 
bill in Section 1228. We were joined by Charlie Rangel, Ed Towns, Jim 
Clyburn, Ronald Dellums, Bill Jefferson, Earl Hilliard, John Lewis, 
Bobby Rush, and Julian Dixon. I am enclosing this information for the 
Record. Despite our efforts and those of the gentleman from Indiana, 
the ranking member, this problematic language stands.
  Section 1228 creates vague new authority by which the Secretary of 
State can prevent certain Haitians from entering the Untied States. The 
fact of the matter is that the Secretary of State already has the 
authority to deny entry to persons who are suspected of human rights 
violations or terrorism under Title 8 USC Section 1182(a)(3). This bill 
has a new, ambiguous standard under which the Secretary of State can 
deny entry to someone who has been ``credibly alleged to have ordered, 
carried out, or materially assisted'' in specific killings listed in 
the conference report.
  This new language in H.R. 1757 will be inconsistent with the existing 
law and create a new untested standard that will be open to 
manipulation by anyone who simply makes an allegation. Rather than 
promoting justice for all victims of violence, this will be used to 
politicize the murders of some Haitians, rather than serving as a tool 
to advance justice for all Haitians.
  Furthermore, by singling out specific violators the bill fails to 
send a broad message about human rights violators in general. Perhaps 
worst of all is that the most egregious enemies of human rights, such 
as Toto Constant, the head of the paramilitary group FRAPH, are already 
in the United States. Constant slipped into the U.S. (and is 
comfortably living in New York) not because the Attorney General or the 
Secretary of State lacks the power to keep him out, but because like 
other opponents of democracy from Haiti, he is an old CIA asset. We've 
got to start dealing with these facts if we really want justice for 
Haiti.
  I oppose H.R. 1757 for all these reasons and I thank the gentleman.


                                Congress of the United States,

                               Washington, DC, September 25, 1997.
     Hon. Ben Gilman,
     Chairman, House International Relations Committee, Rayburn 
         2170, Washington, DC.
       We are writing in reference to amendment 383 of S. 903, the 
     Senate Foreign Affairs Reform Act, offered by Senator DeWine. 
     This provision would seek to deny entry into the United 
     States to those whom the Secretary of State ``has reason to 
     believe is a person who has been credibly alleged to have 
     ordered, carried out, or materially assisted in extrajudicial 
     and political murders'' in Haiti.

[[Page H1597]]

       We strongly support the bill's basic premise that persons 
     involved in political murders be denied entry to the United 
     States. But, we believe this language raises a number of 
     problematic legal issues, may weaken the ability of the U.S. 
     to deal with extrajudicial killers, and may even make it 
     easier to evade prosecution. We also wish to note that the 
     substance of these provisions appear to be covered by 
     existing law. As a result, we urge you to strike this 
     contentious language and avoid the confusion and litigation 
     guaranteed to result if it becomes law.
       U.S. Code currently grants the Secretary of State the legal 
     authority to deny a visa from individuals that the Secretary 
     believes have engaged in extrajudicial killings. The 
     Secretary of State can deny a visa application based either 
     on anti-terrorist or foreign policy grounds.\1\ A decision to 
     deny a visa based on these grounds is not reviewable by any 
     court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Sec. 212(a)(3) [8 U.S.C. Sect. 1182(a)(3)] re: terrorism 
     and Sec. 212(a)(3)(C) re: foreign policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       In fact, the Secretary of State in the consular offices in 
     the field already maintains a list of people who fall into 
     one of these two exclusionary categories. This list, commonly 
     known as the ``lookout book'' is kept by every American 
     consulate. If your name is in the lookout book, the consular 
     officer will deny your visa application.
       The DeWine Amendment lists specific individuals, specific 
     dates, and specific factual allegations. Although this may 
     seem to focus the legislation and get tough on the alleged 
     killers, in fact this language limits the ability of a 
     prosecutor to bring these killers to justice. Any skilled 
     attorney would recognize how any one of these named 
     individuals could escape justice if the fact or dates cited 
     turned out to be incorrect. By writing the legislation so 
     narrowly Mr. DeWine and his cosponsors risk giving human 
     rights abusers a legal escape hatch.
       Beyond the legal problems with this proposed legislation, 
     we also believe the DeWine amendment fails on moral grounds. 
     In limiting the focus to Haiti this legislation fails to 
     convey a universal condemnation against extrajudicial and 
     political murders. We believe it is imperative to communicate 
     our country's worldwide aversion to political assassinations. 
     It is a matter of principled policy making to deny entry to 
     all persons involved in political assassinations, whether 
     they be from Bosnia, Russia, Guatemala, Haiti or anywhere 
     else in the world.
       We hope you agree with our analysis of this bill. We urge 
     you to strike this amendment from the proposed legislation. 
     We look forward to working with you on this important issue.
           Sincerely,
         John Conyers; C.B. Rangel; James E. Clyburn; William J. 
           Jefferson; Julian C. Dixon; Bobby Rush; Maxine Waters; 
           Edolphus Towns; Ronald V. Dellums; Earl F. Hilliard; 
           John Lewis.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                               Washington, DC, September 25, 1997.
     Hon. Lee Hamilton,
     Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee, 
         Washington, DC
       We are writing in reference to amendment 383 of S. 903, the 
     Senate Foreign Affairs Reform Act, offered by Senator DeWine. 
     This provision would seek to deny entry into the United 
     States to those whom the Secretary of the State ``has reason 
     to believe is a person who has been credibly alleged to have 
     ordered, carried out, or materially assisted in extra 
     judicial and political murders'' in Haiti.
       We strongly support the bill's basic premise that persons 
     involved in political murders be denied entry to the United 
     States. But, we believe this language raises a number of 
     problematic legal issues, may weaken the ability of the U.S. 
     to deal with extra judicial killers, and may even make it 
     easier to evade prosecution. We also wish to note that the 
     substance of these provisions appear to be covered by 
     existing law. As a result, we urge you to strike this 
     contentious language and avoid the confusion and litigation 
     guaranteed to result if it becomes law.
       U.S. Code currently grants the Secretary of State the legal 
     authority to deny a visa from individuals that the Secretary 
     believes have engaged in extrajudicial killings. The 
     Secretary of State can deny a visa application based either 
     on anti-terrorist or foreign policy groups.\1\ A decision to 
     deny a visa based on these grounds is not reviewable by any 
     court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Sec. 212(a)(3) [8 U.S.C. Sect. 1182(a)(3)] re: terrorism 
     and Sec. 212(a)(3)(C) re: foreign policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       In fact, the Secretary of State in the consular offices in 
     the field already maintains a list of people who fall into 
     one of these two exclusionary categories. This list, commonly 
     known as the ``lookout book'' is kept by every American 
     consulate. If your name is in the lookout book, the consular 
     officer will deny your visa application.
       The DeWine Amendment lists specific individuals, specific 
     dates, and specific factual allegations. Altough this may 
     seem to focus the legislation and get tough on the alleged 
     killers, in fact this language limits the ability of a 
     prosecutor to bring these killers to justice. Any skilled 
     attorney would recognize how any one of these named 
     individuals could escape justice if the fact or dates cited 
     turned out to be incorrect. By writing the legislation so 
     narrowly Mr. DeWine and his cosponsors risk giving human 
     rights abusers a legal escape hatch.
       Beyond the legal problems with this proposed legislation, 
     we also believe the DeWine amendment fails on moral grounds. 
     In limiting the focus to Haiti this legislation fails to 
     convey a universal condemnation against extra judicial and 
     political murders. We believe it is imperative to communicate 
     our country's worldwide aversion to political assassinations. 
     It is a matter of principled policy making to deny entry to 
     all persons involved in political assassinations, whether 
     they be from Bosnia, Russia, Guatemala, Haiti or anywhere 
     else in the world.
       We hope you agree with our analysis of this bill. We urge 
     you to strike this amendment by the proposed legislation. We 
     look forward to working with you on this important issue.
         John Conyers; C.B. Rangel; James E. Clyburn; William J. 
           Jefferson; Julian C. Dixon; Bobby Rush; Maxine Waters; 
           Edolphus Towns; Ronald V. Dellums; Earl F. Hilliard; 
           John Lewis.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last year's attempts by some in Congress to 
tie the Mexico City Policy to the issues of funding for the United 
Nations (UN) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) this week come 
back to haunt those of us who believe in the sanctity of human life, 
the inviolability of US Sovereignty, and the rights of the U.S. 
taxpayers to keep the fruits of their own labor. This week, we see, the 
``grand deal'' struck which will see liberals back down from their 
opposition to Mexico City Language in exchange for conservative members 
voting to support funding of the United Nations, affirmative action, 
peacekeeping activities, and the National Endowment for Democracy.


                      mexico city policy detailed

  The Mexico City Policy was drafted in the Reagan years as an attempt 
to put some limitations on US foreign aide being used for certain 
abortions overseas. While I believe that those who put this policy 
forward were well-motivated, I believe that time has shown this policy 
to have little real effect. I have continued to vote for this policy 
when it came up as a stand alone issue in this Congress because, by 
itself, its effect tends to be positive rather than negative, as I say, 
I consider it largely ineffective.
  I believe that the only real answer to the concerns of sovereignty, 
property rights, constitutionality and pro-life philosophy is for the 
United States to totally de-fund any foreign aid for international 
``family planning'' purposes. I introduced a resolution to that effect 
in 1997 and we received 154 votes in support of cutting off this 
unconstitutional funding program.
  In fact, the deficiencies of the Mexico City Policy are such that the 
pro-family conservative group Concerned Women for America has withdrawn 
its support for the Mexico City Policy all together. This, in part, due 
to the fact that while the policy requires more creative accounting, it 
does not, by any stretch of the imagination, prohibit funding of many 
abortions.


                             united nations

  The United Nations is an organization which frequently acts in a 
manner contrary to the sovereign interests of the United States. As 
such, I have sponsored legislation to get the United States out of this 
organization.
  Currently, the most pressing battle is to stop the US from paying 
phony ``back dues'' which we supposedly ``owe'' this organization. 
Congressman Roscoe Bartlett put forward a bill to stop any payment of 
this phony UN debt and I proudly cosponsored Mr. Bartlett's 
legislation.


                        linking these two issues

  We were able to put the breaks to the funding of the false UN debt 
and the IMF at the end of the last session of Congress by linking these 
items with the Mexico City Policy language. For political reasons 
President Clinton has steadfastly refused to sign any legislation which 
contains any anti-abortion language at all.
  This linkage presented us with a short term tactical victory but its 
long term costs are now becoming quite apparent. In linking these two 
issues together an opportunity for a ``deal'' has become apparent, a 
deal which will compromise principles on several fronts.


                       the so-called ``bargain''

  The so-called bargain here is maintaining the flawed Mexico City 
language in exchange for paying the alleged back-dues to the United 
Nations. But this, from a true conservative standpoint, is a double 
negative. In a world of so-called give-and-take, this is a double-take. 
This is no bargain at all. Obviously, the Mexico City policy is riddled 
with fungibility holes in the first place. Moreover, it is morally 
repugnant to undermine our nation's integrity by trading votes in this 
fashion. Worse still, it is now apparent how willing ``some'' members 
have become to water the Mexico City Policy down still further in order 
to get President Clinton to sign legislation which shouldn't exist in 
the first place. Even the abortion restrictive language has been 
diluted to state that ``the President could waive the restriction on 
funding groups that perform or promote abortion, but such a waiver 
would automatically reduce total U.S. funding for family planning 
activities

[[Page H1598]]

to $356 million, 11% less then current appropriations. In other words, 
Abortion is A-O-K if done with 11% fewer taxpayer dollars. Now that's 
not worth compromising principle.


                            ``peacekeeping''

  This compromise authorizes $430 million for U.S. contributions to our 
``police the world'' program carried out through various arms of the 
United Nations. International peacekeeping operations are currently 
ongoing in the Middle East, Angola, Cambodia, Western Sahara, and the 
former Yugoslavia. Additionally, the measure authorizes $146 million to 
international operation in the Sinai and Cypress.


                              addtionally

  This ``agreement'' authorizes $1.8 Billion for multilateral 
assistance in excess of the previously mentioned contribution to the 
United Nations; $60 million dollars for the National Endowment for 
Democracy; $20 million for the Asia Foundation; $22 million for the 
East-West Center for the study of Asian and Pacific Affairs; $1.3 
billion for international migration and refugee assistance and an 
additional $160 million to transport refugees from the republics of the 
former Soviet Union to Israel. Also, $100 million is authorized to fund 
radio broadcasts to Cuba, Asia and a study on the feasibility of doing 
so in Iran.
  Lastly, foreign policy provisions in this report suggest an ever-
increasing role for the United States in our current police-the-world 
mentality. Strong language to encourage all emerging democracies in 
Central and Eastern Europe to join NATO area amongst these provisions 
in the conference report. It also authorizes $20 million for the 
International Fund for Ireland to support reconciliation, job creation, 
investment therein. For Iraq, the bill authorizes $10 million to train 
political opposition forces and $20 million for relief efforts in areas 
of Iraq not under the control of Hussein.
  Apparently contrary to the first amendment, the conference report 
contains language that the U.S. should recognize the Ecumenical 
Patriarchate in Istanbul, Turkey, as the spiritual center of the 
world's 300 million Orthodox Christians and calls upon the Turkish 
government to reopen the Halki Patriarchal School of Theology formerly 
closed in 1971. ``Congress shall make no law respecting an 
establishment of religion * * * (Except abroad?)


                               conclusion

  Fortunately, many genuinely conservative pro-life and pro-sovereignty 
groups are making it known that they do not support this so-called 
``compromise.'' I, for one, refuse to participate in any such illusion 
and oppose any effort to pay even one penny of U.S. taxpayer dollars to 
the United Nations, subsidize family planning around the world, and 
intervene at U.S. taxpayer expense in every corner of the globe.
  Ms. DANNER. Mr. Speaker, I regret the fact that H.R. 1757, The State 
Department Authorization Conference Report, was passed today on the 
floor of the House of Representatives by a voice vote, thereby 
authorizing payments to the United Nations by the United States of $819 
million over fiscal years 1998 through 2000.
  This legislation also includes language that would forgive up to $107 
million in U.N. payments to the United States for U.S. military 
contributions in peacekeeping efforts. I do not believe that this 
widely-disputed amount takes into account all of the costs and expense 
incurred by the taxpayers of the United States in various peacekeeping 
missions.
  I am very disappointed that I did not have an opportunity to cast a 
recorded vote on this measure. Had I been given the opportunity to cast 
a vote on this legislation in a rollcall vote, I would have voted 
against H.R. 1757.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues I am not 
completely happy with the final version of this bill. However, I have 
been around here long enough to know that some times you have to take 
what you can get.
  While I am no fan of the United Nations, and I have serious 
reservations about paying any of the so-called debt to the U.N., we 
have an opportunity to make some very substantive changes to our 
nation's foreign policy regarding abortions. We need to seize this 
opportunity.
  By ensuring that the Mexico City Policy is written into law we will 
send an important message of how much we cared and understood the needs 
of the unborn. For far too long, we have allowed the President to 
provide foreign aid to organizations that promote the use of abortion, 
even in countries that have laws on the books prohibiting the 
procedure. This is wrong, and by passing H.R. 1757, we can hopefully 
put a stop to it.
  I understand that voting ``Yes'' on this bill is a tough pill to 
swallow. But, if we don't take action today, millions of abortions will 
occur around the world with the assistance of U.S. taxpayer dollars. 
This is unconscionable and it is time Congress stopped it. Vote ``yes'' 
on H.R. 1757.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
the Conference Report on H.R. 1757, the Foreign Affairs Reform and 
Restructuring Act. All I can think of as I stand before you this 
afternoon is ``here we go again.'' It is disheartening to see certain 
Members of this body once again hold funding to meet our nation's 
commitment and investment in foreign affairs hostage to provisions 
placing stringent and unacceptable restrictions on funding for 
international family planning. And once again, those Members are 
inaccurately attempting to characterize this as a vote about abortion.
  Proponents of the Conference Report on H.R. 1757, the Foreign Affairs 
Reform and Restructuring Act 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. Proponents of this legislation 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 
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, U.S. funding to Hungary has coincided with a 60% reduction 
in abortions in that country. In Russia, increased use of 
contraceptives has led to a 30% reduction in abortions.
  My colleagues, this is not a vote on abortion. A vote against this 
Conference Report is a vote to provide more options and opportunities 
for the people of developing nations around the world. Once again we 
are here debating language that will codify a global gag rule--language 
that is clearly unacceptable to pro-family planning Members of this 
Congress and to the Administration and that the Administration has 
indicated that it will veto. 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 Conference Report on H.R. 1757, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the 
Foreign Affairs Reform Act. In this time of competitive interests and 
thoughts, the United States presence is more important to world peace 
and progress then ever before. As our world becomes more interdependent 
than ever before the United States must improve its relations. Most 
Americans know this. We must not ignore the benefits of cooperation nor 
must we ignore our own interdependence and responsibility as a leading 
nation to share the blessings of the entire world.
  Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly reject the dangerous Mexico City 
Policy. It is my determination that any delay will cause serious, 
irreversible and avoidable harm. We must remember that in the balance 
are the lives and well-being of many thousands of women and children 
and American credibility as the leader in family planning programs 
around the world.
  For half a decade anti-family planning lawmakers have attempted 
relentlessly to impose the Mexico City Policy on organizations that 
receive U.S. international family planning money, and make this debate 
a referendum on abortion. International family planning is not about 
abortion. No U.S. dollars are used to provide abortion services and in 
fact, access to international family planning services is one of the 
most effective means of reducing abortion.
  I oppose the provision which allows the U.S. to renounce its full 
debt to the United Nations. The United States is $321 million behind in 
its payment. There is a great international game is being played out 
here today. Why must we continue to barter for the health and well 
being of millions of people around the world? I think it is the wrong 
time to do this and we will reap disastrous results.
  We must remember and act as though this is an interdependent world. 
It cannot be overstated that building the Global Village and a better 
world for the 21st century requires a United Nations that is supported, 
fully funded,

[[Page H1599]]

and respected. Achieving this momentous task must begin in the country 
where the U.N. was born.
  Lastly, I have grave concerns with the Haitian language of the bill. 
I believe this is a step to decrease U.S. presence in a country which 
so desperately needs intervention. The secretary of state already has 
the authority to deny entry to persons who are suspected of human 
rights violations. This language is inconsistent with the existing law, 
which is working well, and I am worried this new untested standard will 
be open to manipulation by anyone who makes an allegation.
  I urge members to vote against this bill and vote for preserving 
world peace, better conditions for the worlds families, caring for 
refugees and sharing the blessings of progress around the world.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to register my strong 
opposition to H.R. 3246, the misnamed ``Fairness for Small Business and 
Employees Act.'' This legislation is an outright attack on the rights 
of working men and women in this country and would erode many of the 
fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act. I 
certainly hope that my colleagues will recognize this mean-spirited 
attempt to discriminate against organized labor and vote against the 
bill.
  The right of workers to organized is a precious freedom, which I have 
fought for many years to strengthen and protect. Employers currently 
have at their disposal an arsenal of weapons with which to fight 
unionization, and tens of thousands of American workers lose their jobs 
illegally each year simply as a result of their support for union 
organizing campaigns. I fail to understand how my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle can, with a straight face, claim that this bill 
is a necessary tool for employers. This bill is anything but necessary. 
Rather, it adds more injustice to an already uneven balance of power 
between workers and employers and effectively allows working men and 
women to be denied employment for exercising their federally-protected 
rights to organize to protect their interests.
  Mr. Speaker, I serve as a member of the Small Business Committee, and 
I am proud of my strong efforts on behalf of the small business owners 
of this country. I recognize their contributions and am committed to 
working on behalf of their interests. But H.R. 3246 is not about 
fairness for small businesses, and it most certainly is not about 
fairness for their employees. Instead, it is nothing more than another 
attack on the hard-fought and fundamental rights of America's working 
men and women and a vicious attempt to further erode the already 
precarious ability of workers to organize. I will oppose this bill, and 
I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of our foreign 
policy initiatives, including payment of our arrears to the United 
Nations but I cannot support passage of this bill. I have actively 
supported the creation of Radio Broadcasting for Iran and Iraq and 
strongly approve of the new money for Radio Free Asia. My concerns lie 
with the reforms proposed in this bill for the UN and the restrictions 
placed on the funds of international organizations that provide family 
planning assistance.
  The creation of the UN was prompted by United States leadership after 
World War II. The UN provides a multilateral forum for peace to be 
negotiated so that international tensions will never again escalate to 
another world war. H.R. 1757 does help to pay off the arrears that we 
have accumulated so that we can hopefully regain our leadership 
position in this organization. However, this bill also conditions this 
money on unilateral reforms that run in direct opposition to the spirit 
under which the UN was created. This lack of U.S. support for and 
leadership in the UN is an embarrassment which has also greatly 
encumbered the performance of our foreign policy.
  In addition to the conditions on funding for the UN, this legislation 
also attaches extremely controversial and damaging restrictions on 
private organizations that provide family planning assistance. There 
has always been a prohibition on these organizations using U.S. funds 
to perform abortions, However, many feel that this is not a great 
enough safeguard and have chosen to also place an effective gag rule on 
what these organizations can do with their own funds. This restriction 
is in violation of our own Constitution yet many approve of requiring 
it abroad. To me, this is the greatest form of hypocrisy to which I am 
strongly opposed.
  While I believe that nothing is more important to our foreign policy 
at this moment than paying our UN dues and regaining our credibility 
and leadership abroad, I cannot support this legislation because I 
believe it may do more harm than good for the long term. Placing 
unilateral conditions on UN funding and enacting unconstitutional 
requirements for family planning organizations into permanent law will 
only prolong the problems that have impeded our foreign policy. As we 
continue to experience international crises, whether they are military, 
economic or social, the UN and our foreign policy only become more 
important. We need to fully support the UN now and free our foreign 
assistance programs from restrictions that do nothing more than waste 
money and damage the effectiveness of our international development 
assistance programs.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
report to H.R. 1757, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act. 
This conference report accomplishes three important international goals 
by authorizing assistance to the democratic opposition in Iraq; 
reforming and consolidating the State Department; and most importantly, 
denying funding to foreign organizations that perform or promote 
abortions.
  There is no justification for using our federal money to perform or 
promote abortions overseas, or here at home for that matter. This bill 
also takes an important step in consolidating two out of three 
international affairs agencies back into the State Department. And, it 
is important for the U.S. to support the democratic opposition in Iraq. 
The problems in the Middle East have continued for too long. It is time 
to put an end to Saddam Hussein's reign of terror.
  I do not like the provision authorizing U.S. arrearages to the United 
Nations. I am no fan of the United Nations, and do not trust that 
institution to respect American sovereignty. It is our job as 
constitutionally elected representatives of the American people to 
protect our sovereignty. I am disappointed that this provision was 
included in such important legislation.
  Again, I strongly support three out of the four key provisions of 
this bill, particularly regarding no U.S. funds being used to perform 
or promote foreign abortions. American foreign policy should not 
include promoting abortions, and no federal funding should be 
authorized abroad or domestically to pay for abortions. I urge 
President Clinton to do the right thing and sign this important 
legislation.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, the conference report before us today is 
badly needed, but it is seriously flawed in its present form, and so, 
I'm sad to say, it should be defeated. The bill authorizes funds for 
the State Department and related agencies, and for money this country 
owes the United Nations. But the addition of the international gag rule 
on foreign nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) relating to 
international family planning funds is unacceptable. It attempts to do 
overseas something that would be unconstitutional if done here at home.
  The ``lobby'' ban means that the United States would be using the 
threat of withholding U.S. money to blackmail foreign NGOs to promise 
not to use their own money not to lobby their own governments. The 
definition of ``lobbying'' is so broad that it includes making public 
statements that may call attention to ``alleged defects'' in abortion 
laws.
  One of this country's most cherished foreign policy goals is to bring 
democracy and the values of civil society to other countries. This 
provision would stifle the kind of debate on a critical issue that we 
are free to conduct in this country.
  As Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said: ``This is basically a 
gag rule that would punish organizations for engaging in the democratic 
process in foreign countries and for engaging in legal activities that 
would be protected by the First Amendment if carried out in the United 
States.''
  The practical effects of the lobby ban would be ridiculous. For 
example, the ``lobby'' ban would mean that a foreign NGO could lose its 
U.S. family planning support if, with non-U.S. funds it writes a paper 
or makes a public statement that cites the incidence of maternal death 
due to illegal abortion, thus showing a ``defect'' in abortion laws. 
Or, in a country where abortion is legal, an NGO could lose U.S. 
support if it offered its own government advice on how to make abortion 
safer.
  The gag rule approach contradicts deeply-held American values of free 
speech and participation in the political process. In the 104th 
Congress, we rejected a similar attempt to use the leverage of federal 
funds to prevent domestic NGOs from engaging in advocacy with their own 
money. We should not impose on foreign NGOs an anti-democratic gag rule 
that would be unconstitutional to impose on domestic organizations.
  It is most unfortunate that this issue has delayed payment of U.S. 
arrearages to the United Nations. This country uses the United Nations 
to seek international support for many important foreign policy goals, 
most recently to enforce compliance by Iraq with its commitment to 
destroy its weapons of mass destruction. We risk influence in the 
international community on critical foreign policy goals by being seen 
as international deadbeats when it comes to paying our bills.
  The same controversy over family planning funds last fall kept us 
from paying our arrearages to the UN. As a result, we lost negotiating 
leverage at the United Nations to lower the

[[Page H1600]]

percentage assessment that determines our annual UN dues. That mistake 
is likely to cost us hundreds of millions of dollars in lower dues 
payments. Assessments were renegotiated last fall, and we have had to 
ask to reopen those negotiations. And now it is very unlikely that we 
can succeed in lowering our assessment from 25 to 20 percent, as called 
for in this conference report.
  By the year 2000, Japan's assessment will be 20 percent. Surely the 
United States, which has a larger economy than Japan's will be expected 
to pay more than Japan. Other Asian countries, which had expected to 
take on larger assessments, are no longer able to because of the Asian 
financial crisis. At best, we're likely to get our assessment lowered 
to 22 percent, still saving taxpayers millions of dollars every year, 
but only if we pay our arrearages.
  The simply truth is that we will continue to suffer a loss of 
influence and credibility in the United Nations if we continue to fail 
to pay these arrearages. I see no reason why this critical 
international responsibility should be held hostage to an extension of 
our domestic abortion debate. I urge my colleagues to defeat the 
conference report.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the State Department Authorization bill 
would place an international gag rule on organizations that use their 
own non-U.S. funds to provide abortion services. It also threatens to 
cut off $29 million from our international family planning efforts if 
the President attempts to defer the ban on funding to organizations 
that use their own private funds for abortion services. This policy is 
clearly unacceptable, and is not supported 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. International family planning 
efforts have been remarkably successful and have saved women's lives. I 
am shocked that proponents of these so-called ``Mexico City'' 
restrictions claim that our family planning programs actually increase 
the number of abortions, when, in fact, the exact opposite is true. 
Studies show that our efforts, as part of an international strategy, 
have prevented more than 500 million unintended pregnancies.
  International family planning improves women's health, helps reduce 
poverty, and protects our global environment. Our family planning 
programs save lives, and they should be continued without unnecessary 
restrictions.
  There is no need to impose this type of gag rule on organizations 
that use their own money to further their objectives and to make 
women's lives safer. The ``Mexico City'' restrictions are pernicious, 
unnecessary, and harmful. If this bill were to be enacted, it would 
severely limit family planning efforts and simply result in more 
unwanted pregnancies, more fatalities among women, and more abortions. 
I strongly oppose these provisions of the State Department 
Authorization bill.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address several aspects of this 
legislation which authorize appropriations for activities under the 
jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, which I chair.
  First, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from New York for 
his hard work on this conference report. He has produced a product that 
deserves our full support.
  Sections 1104 and 1231 of the conference report authorize funds for 
International Organizations and Programs and for Migration and Refugee 
Affairs. There are several subauthorizations within these sections. 
However, the level appropriated for the accounts in 1989 is such that 
these subauthorizations will not result in the earmarking of funds for 
the purposes specified. For fiscal year 1999, I do not feel bound by 
the limitations imposed by the authorizations for specific activities 
within these accounts. The programs mentioned may all be meritorious, 
but they must receive funding on the basis of a balance among all the 
programs within the appropriations accounts.
  Section 1815 of the conference report would earmark not less than 
$2,000,000 in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for activities in Cuba. 
Despite the fact that the State Department has indicated that it will 
be obligating at least this level of funds in fiscal year 1998, this 
earmark does not conform with the proper roles of each committee in the 
allocation of appropriated funds. It is the role of the International 
Relations Committee to establish policy and to place a ceiling on the 
amount of funds that should be made available for appropriations 
accounts and activities. However, the allocation of funds within those 
authorization levels is reserved for the Appropriations Committee.
  I must respectfully inform the House, and the authorization 
committee, that I will not be bound by such earmarks or limitations 
when I make my recommendations for fiscal year 1999 for the Foreign 
Operations appropriations act.
  Once again, I congratulate the gentleman from New York for his work 
on this legislation. Aside from these minor matters, it is a conference 
report that deserves our full support.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde) for his remarks, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). All time has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference 
report.
  There was no objection.
  The conference report was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________