[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 124 (Thursday, September 17, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7937-H7945]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4569, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT 
        FINANCING AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 542 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 542

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4569) making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing, and related programs for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for 
     failure to comply with clause 1(b) of rule X, clause 2(l)(6) 
     of rule XI, or clause 7 of rule XXI are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule for a period not to 
     exceed five hours. The bill shall be considered as read 
     through page 141, line 18. Points of order against provisions 
     in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule 
     XXI are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in order 
     except: (1) pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate; 
     (2) amendments printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII; 
     and (3) amendments printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each of the amendments 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, may be 
     offered only at the appropriate point in the reading of the 
     bill, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the 
     time specified in the report equally divided and controlled 
     by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
     amendment except as specified in the report, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 
     the amendments printed in the report are waived. The chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time 
     during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a 
     request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce 
     to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Solomon) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield half 
of our time to the gentleman from Dayton, Ohio (Mr. Hall), my good 
friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. 
Speaker, during consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say that House Resolution 542 is a modified 
open rule. It provides for the consideration of H.R. 4569, which is the 
Foreign Operations and Export Financing appropriation bill for fiscal 
year 1999.
  At the outset, I would note that the rule waives clause 2 of rule 
XXI, and that concerns the unauthorized and legislative provisions in 
an appropriation bill, and it also waives clause 6 of rule XXI 
concerning reappropriations.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided 
between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Appropriations. The bill will then be open for amendment under the 
5-minute rule for a period of 5 hours, and so this bill will be 
completed today.
  Amendments to be offered must have been printed in the portion of the 
Congressional Record which is designated for that purpose in clause 6 
of rule XXIII. Pro forma amendments for purposes of debate are also in 
order.
  The rule also makes in order five specific amendments, each one to be 
offered at the appropriate point in the reading of the bill, and 
subject to debate equally divided and controlled for a specified period 
of time. And those times are listed here if Members need to look at it.
  Each of these amendments shall be considered as read and must be 
offered by the Member designated in the report. There cannot be a 
designee or a substitute. All points of order against these five 
specific amendments are waived.
  The rule provides for votes to be stacked or clustered so as to 
expedite procedures here on the floor and to permit Members to plan 
their schedules with some degree of certainty during this long day 
coming. In each such cluster of votes, a 15-minute vote will precede 
the various 5-minute votes that follow, in order to give Members time 
to come to the floor.
  The rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  And, finally, Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 542 waives clause 1(b) of 
rule X, which relates to explanations in the report or rescissions on 
transfers of unexpended balances.
  The rule also waives clause 2(l)(6) of Rule XI, concerning 3-day 
availability of the report, and also clause 7 of rule XXI, concerning a 
3-day availability of printing requirements.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 542 will permit the expeditious 
consideration of this bill and is very much the same as the rules which 
have governed consideration of the foreign appropriation bills over the 
last 5 or 10 years. I call on Members to support the rule. It is a good 
rule.
  Turning now to the bill itself, I would offer just a few brief 
comments.
  This is a $12.5 billion bill, which represents only about eight-
tenths of 1 percent of the Federal budget. But what an important eight-
tenths of 1 percent that is; nothing less than the foreign policy of 
the United States.
  The Committee on Appropriations is always tasked with striking a 
difficult balance between scarce resources on the one hand and a great 
number of pressing and conflicting needs on the other hand. But by 
their very nature

[[Page H7938]]

and their importance, the kind of issues that are dealt with in this 
bill tend to be less forgiving of mistakes and miscalculations than 
those in most other bills.
  And, of course, this legislation has no built-in constituency for 
Members of Congress. It is a sobering realization that weighs heavily 
on the appropriators, and I believe the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan), his ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), and the whole subcommittee and their staff are to be thanked 
for the good job they have done on a very difficult, difficult bill.
  Certainly in this bill, as in all bills, there are things individual 
Members will find fault with. There are elements that I disagree with 
personally. But the appropriators have brought us a bill that deserves 
the very careful attention of every Member. And once the rule process 
is over today, we should allow the House to work its will and we will 
come up with a good piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this may be one of my last opportunities to address the 
House on the subject of foreign policy. I served on the Foreign Affairs 
Committee for 6 years prior to becoming chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, and the world has changed immensely since I came here as a 
freshman Member in 1978, 20 years ago. Unquestionably, the most world-
shaking event since then was the end of the Cold War and the 
simultaneous disintegration of the Soviet Union, all for the good of 
mankind. But the world remains a very dangerous place, and we should 
not forget that.

                              {time}  1200

  Saddam Hussein provides ample proof that a dictator need not be 
guided by a universalist ideology in order to pose a threat to our 
country and to our allies. Personal megalomania can be more than 
enough.
  Let us never be lulled into complacency or a false sense of security. 
The world will always be a dangerous place, at least for so long as 
some people and some nations are free and the others are not. And there 
are those that would like to take away our freedoms. America must 
always be willing to pay the price of leadership, and that includes 
moral leadership, both personally and as a Nation. We must always keep 
in mind Alexander Hamilton's solemn warning that a Nation which prefers 
disgrace to danger is prepared to lose its freedom, and they would 
deserve to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, having said that, I urge support for this rule. It is a 
fair rule. It does deal with the issue of abortion as many of my 
colleagues know. But we have been very careful to make sure that 
whether Members are of a philosophy of pro-choice or pro-life that 
there will be a fair debate on this issue and both sides can enter into 
that debate.
  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 the time, and I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  This is a modified open rule which will allow consideration of H.R. 
4569, which is the foreign operations appropriation bill for fiscal 
year 1999.
  As my colleague from New York described, this rule will provide one 
hour of general debate to be equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations. Though this is technically a modified open rule, I want 
to make sure my colleagues understand that it severely limits the 
opportunities for floor debate. The rule requires amendments to be 
preprinted in the Congressional Record. This is a significant 
limitation considering that the bill was reported two days ago and has 
been available for only a short period of time. The amendment process 
is limited to five hours. Again, this is a significant limitation. 
Under the rule, time spent on voting is counted toward the time cap. 
This is a controversial bill and many Members will want to offer 
amendments and participate in floor debate. Under the time cap, some 
Members may not have the chance to offer their amendments because time 
will run out.
  The rule permits five specific amendments that would otherwise be out 
of order. Only one of these is a Democratic amendment, even though many 
Democrats asked the Committee on Rules for waivers. The rule waives the 
requirement for the committee report to be available for three days 
prior to floor consideration. I realize the necessity for moving 
quickly on this bill, but waiving this rule makes it difficult for the 
public and even House Members to get timely information about the bill. 
I checked this morning and it is my understanding the committee report 
is not even available on the World Wide Web.
  The bill contains many good provisions. It increases UNICEF funding 
by $5 million over last year's level. It restores an administration cut 
of $47 million to the Child Survival and Disease Programs Fund, 
bringing spending back to last year's level. It also increases Peace 
Corps funding above last year's level. However, the overall spending 
levels in the bill are inadequate to handle our international 
commitments and our responsibility to assist the poor and needy of the 
world. The bill makes deep cuts in assistance to Russia and the World 
Bank's Global Environmental Facility, and it reduces aid to Israel and 
Egypt.
  Overall, the bill reduces spending by 2.4 percent below last year's 
level, and almost 9 percent below the Administration's request. The 
bill does not include the full Administration request for $18 billion 
for the International Monetary Fund.
  Regretfully, the rule denies a Democratic request to make in order an 
amendment adding $14.5 billion in credit for the International Monetary 
Fund. This would bring total IMF funding to the level requested by the 
Administration. Withholding funds is dangerous because the IMF is 
already spread thin as a result of the financial crises in Asia, Russia 
and Latin America. Unless checked, these international economic 
problems could seriously affect our own economy.
  One of the most disappointing provisions in the bill cuts 
international disaster assistance $55 million below the Administration 
request. The International Disaster Assistance program helps victims of 
natural and man-made disasters. Projects funded under this program 
include airlifting relief supplies to disaster-stricken people in 
remote locations, supporting supplementary feeding centers for severely 
undernourished children; immunizing dislocated populations against 
disease; and providing water purification to reduce deaths from cholera 
following floods. This is the type of foreign assistance Americans most 
strongly support and we should be increasing it, not cutting it.
  I personally have witnessed our humanitarian relief programs working 
in countries where wars, famines and disasters threaten the lives of 
thousands of innocent people. I have seen desperately malnourished 
babies brought back to life in emergency feeding centers. I have seen 
people whose farms were destroyed given seeds and tools to feed 
themselves and rebuild their lives. I have seen children lost to their 
families in the chaos of war reunited with their mothers and fathers. 
Everywhere I have seen the gratitude in the eyes of the people we have 
helped and the respect we have earned as humanitarian leaders.
  Later, when the House begins the amending process, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell) and I will offer a bipartisan amendment to 
restore $30 million to the International Disaster Assistance account. 
The money would come from funds freed up when the full Committee on 
Appropriations cut a program designed to halt North Korea's potential 
to produce nuclear weapons. I share the concerns that led to these 
cuts, but I hope that Congress will support the Senate version which 
gives the President the authority to keep our 1994 agreement with North 
Korea after certifying North Korea's compliance with it. That is in our 
national interest, and it is the route supported by our allies in South 
Korea who would bear the brunt of any attack by North Korea.
  Because of the cuts in this bill, the Administration has threatened a 
veto. Unfortunately there is not much we can do to improve this bill 
because of the severe funding constraints we are working under. Still I 
hope that we can offer some improvements during the amendment process.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H7939]]

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  At the outset I mentioned my good friend from Dayton, OH (Mr. Tony 
Hall). He is a good friend, but I think he protests too much when he 
complains that this rule would not give Members fair opportunity to 
debate the bill. He was complaining that some Democrat Members were not 
permitted to have their amendments made in order. The truth is we 
denied, I think, eight Democrat Members. Most of those Members had not 
only filed late, but also they were asking for waivers beyond the 
normal rules of the House. Not only did we deny those eight, we denied 
13 Republicans as well. We should be following the germaneness rules of 
the House. We have certainly tried to do that.
  Make no mistake about it, this rule is an open rule. This rule allows 
any Member of this House over the next seven hours to come to the floor 
and, under normal rules of the House, offer cutting amendments, they 
can offer offsetting amendments, they can offer limitation amendments, 
they can offer striking amendments. And that is what would happen if we 
brought this bill directly to the floor.
  Now, the question was made, ``Well, we won't have enough time to 
consider all of these amendments.'' I will just tell my colleagues, 
seven hours from now, we will not have used all the time. We will not 
use the full five hours. We will not use the full time on this debate 
on this rule, or even the one hour of general debate. There is hardly 
anybody here to speak on this matter today. It makes me concerned that 
people would say that this rule is somehow being very restrictive. It 
is a totally open rule. I hope everybody supports it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I would just simply say that we have 40 amendments that are 
printed in the Record and we have another five amendments with waivers 
and we have five hours to consider this. The report was not even out by 
this morning relative to many of the things that were done in this 
particular appropriation bill. Many of us are legislating and thinking 
about a bill of which we do not know a lot about. As a result of that, 
we feel we do not have the time really to evaluate it and have debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I 
want to share the view of the gentleman from New York. It is 
regrettable that we do not have more people here. This is a very 
important bill. As the gentleman observed, it is a small amount of 
money. But it is critically important as the world's leader tries to 
implement policy. And it is lamentable that we do not have more Members 
engaged.
  I rise today in opposition to this rule. I understand the Chairman's 
view. But the rule does not provide, in my opinion, for certain 
essential things. First and foremost from my perspective, the rule does 
not permit debate and action on funding of the IMF. That is because the 
rule does not protect an amendment restoring the IMF's funding as it 
would necessarily have to, in order to be sustained against a point of 
order.
  It is critical, Mr. Speaker, that we fully fund the International 
Monetary Fund this year. Congress failed to fund the IMF at sufficient 
levels in Fiscal Year 1998. Those of us who support funding the IMF 
agreed to wait until a supplemental appropriations bill came before the 
House. We were guaranteed that the remaining funding for the IMF would 
be included in a supplemental. It has not been, contrary to that 
guarantee. Now IMF opponents are trying, once again, to prevent us from 
providing the full $18 billion that is needed for the IMF.
  I also want to support an amendment that will be offered on section 
907 of the Freedom Support Act. Last week, the full Appropriations 
Committee passed an amendment which struck section 907. I opposed this 
amendment. We find ourselves in a situation where Azerbaijan has for 9 
years blockaded Nagorno-Karabagh and Armenia from fuel, food, medicine, 
and other vital goods. I believe it is critically important that we 
reinstate section 907, and therefore will support an amendment which 
will be offered to do so.
  I will be joined, I know, by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and others who have been 
there and know firsthand the situation.
  I appreciate what the Chairman of the Committee on Rules is saying in 
terms of some aspects of this rule being open, but I do not believe 
that the rule goes far enough to allow us to address critically 
important issues as we end this session. I would hope that the rule 
would be modified to give greater latitude for debate and amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
The previous speaker is one of the most astute members of this body. He 
is of the highest integrity. I like him very much. He is a good Member. 
He always does his due diligence.
  Therefore, I have to be a little critical of him on the IMF issue, 
because the gentleman knows that we cannot make an amendment in order; 
it would require a Budget Act waiver. We are not going to get ourselves 
back into that situation. If we want to consider that on a separate 
bill, that is fine, but it cannot be a part of this legislation.
  Second, the gentleman can be relieved to know that he would have that 
opportunity on section 907.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. It is my understanding that the chairman of the 
subcommittee the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has indicated 
that this matter of IMF funding will probably be addressed in the 
conference. What I am saying is I hope that that is the case. It is 
important that that be done. But if that is going to be done, 
presumably, therefore, there is the contemplation that this issue will 
in fact be voted on by this House. It may modify or affect, as the 
gentleman knows, the rules under which we do it and the points of order 
that may or may not be able to be raised.
  I understand what the gentleman is saying. I am pleased at that. All 
I am saying is this would be a more timely fashion to do it and send a 
better message, in my opinion, to all the world.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) 
for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the views of the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). Certainly, representing an 
agricultural area with a depressed farm economy, we are keenly 
interested in full funding of the International Monetary Fund. The 
signal that sends to the economies in other parts of the world that are 
such important destinations for American agricultural products cannot 
be under- or cannot be overestimated. We must move in that respect in a 
very speedy and deliberate fashion.
  I would like to raise a different issue, however, with respect to 
this legislation, this bill and other matters that we are considering 
today, this week and next week; and that is, where is the budget 
resolution? I am pleased that we are able to take up the appropriations 
bills, I am pleased that we have a continuing resolution so we do not 
face a shutdown of Federal agencies come October 1, but I am very 
disheartened by the fact that here we are, 13 days from the beginning 
of the next fiscal year, and we do not yet have a budget resolution 
that has been passed by this Congress.
  This is a disgrace. We have set up a budget procedure by law. We have 
told ourselves that we are supposed to follow this. We have told the 
American people that we will follow this. But tragically, we have gone 
for 5 months and 2 days past the deadline for having a budget 
resolution, and we have nothing to show for it. We have to coble 
together a rule in the Committee on Rules so that these appropriations 
bills can come to the floor without violating the Budget Act.
  The time has passed for us to do a budget resolution. When the budget 
came up initially in this body, the Blue Dog Coalition had a budget 
alternative that it wished to have made in order. We were denied the 
opportunity to present that budget. That budget is fairly close to what 
I understand is the

[[Page H7940]]

operating procedure that is being followed by the leadership.
  But the question is: How can the American people trust the United 
States Congress to fulfill its responsibility in balancing the budget 
and responsibly dealing with requests for additional funds for 
disasters, for Bosnia, the International Monetary Fund, for a number of 
other things, when we do not put together a budget, an elemental 
document that businesses, local governments, State governments operate 
with, not only in this country but around the world? It is hard for us 
to tell other countries how they should get their financial houses in 
order when we cannot even do a budget resolution in Congress.
  I think it is a humbling situation for us to be in, and I urge that 
the leadership of this body forthwith direct us towards a budget 
resolution.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder), a very dynamic second-term Member of this 
Congress. He comes to us from the district of a great old friend of 
mine, Dan Quayle, and he is from Fort Wayne.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to support this rule, even though two of my 
preprinted amendments are not going to be allowed. There are many of us 
who would have liked to have some cracks at the IMF. We understand that 
with the struggles in the agricultural community, that we really 
probably do not have any choice at this point but to fund an 
organization that has been highly secretive, that refuses to cooperate 
with Congress, that it is not clear it is not wasting money throughout 
the world. But they have us over a barrel. The question is, how much 
money are they going to extort out of us? And while we might be able to 
live with the amount in this bill, it needs to be a minimal amount 
until they start to cooperate.
  So it is not only my amendments, but other amendments on this side of 
the aisle that we wanted to have in order, and are disappointed that we 
are not able to do that.
  I particularly want to speak briefly on the amendments that I wanted 
to offer. I have a bill in, cosponsored by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), chairman of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, that would say as part of us giving 
money to the International Monetary Fund, if we are going to use 
American taxpayer dollars, that the countries that get the money from 
the International Monetary Fund should cooperate with American 
investigations in the campaign finance violations, much like American 
banks have to do.
  As I have discussed in special order speeches this week, it is 
critical for my colleagues and for the American public to understand 
that the investigation of illegal contributions from foreign nationals 
to American campaigns, with the likely intent to influence American 
foreign policy, have been stonewalled by the lack of cooperation of 
witnesses who have critical testimony and documentation. Many of these 
persons are foreign nationals associated with persons who have already 
been indicted or convicted by Federal authorities in connection with 
these illegal schemes. Seventy-nine witnesses have taken the fifth 
amendment, and more significantly to this particular bill, 18 have fled 
the country or are avoiding investigators by hiding in foreign 
countries.
  Mr. James Riady is the deputy chairman of Lippo Group in Indonesia, 
and investigators from the other body have suggested that he has a, 
quote, ``long-term relationship with the Chinese intelligence agency. 
Riady is also reported to have called DNC fund-raiser, John Huang, our 
man in the American government,'' end quote. He is now living in 
Indonesia and refuses to cooperate with investigators.
  Ng Lap Seng, a Chinese Communist Party official, wired more than 
$900,000 in money to Charlie Trie for conduit contributions. He lives 
in Macao and has refused to be interviewed.
  Ted Sioeng and his network of business associates gave $400,000 to 
the Democratic Party and 150,000 to Republicans.
  All these witnesses have refused to cooperate.
  My amendment would have expressed our intent that no country should 
receive American taxpayer assistance to the IMF unless it is 
cooperating fully with American investigations, both with Congress and 
the Justice Department, so we can find out whether our elections have 
been influenced by foreign governments; whether there has been a 
compromise in our government and in our leadership of our country of 
decisions, because of foreign money. And the best way to find out these 
things is often by tracking the money. And when we track the money in 
the New York banks and when we track the money through those 
international countries that are cooperating, and then run into 
stonewalling in other countries, why should our taxpayer dollars go to 
these countries to help bail out their economies if they are not going 
to cooperate with us when we are trying find out whether our government 
has been put up for sale? It is a slap in the face to the American 
taxpayer for these countries to demand our financial assistance and 
then slam the closed door on our investigations into critical matters 
affecting our own national security.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I say to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder), that yes, I do strongly support his amendment, 
and I would like to have made it in order, which I could have done. 
However, in doing that, we would have had to waive various rules. We 
would then have had to perhaps give the same consideration to other 
Republicans and other Democrats, and it just would not have been fair 
to do that. I think the gentleman understands.
  Let me just further state that when it comes to the IMF, a lot of us 
have very serious concerns about it; not against the IMF itself, but 
against their policies. One of their policies is to go around the 
world, suggesting and demanding that these countries which are going to 
receive prospective loans raise taxes.
  Well that goes against everything we believe in, and that is not 
going to get the free market economies going in these countries. They 
are going to have to cut taxes, they are going to have to shrink the 
government and go to a free market economy.
  The other thing is accountability. This arrogant IMF organization 
refuses to be accountable to even the United States of America, which 
pays about 20 percent or more of the annual contribution to IMF. And I 
just want to commend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the 
chairman of the committee, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) and others for the reforms that they have written into this 
legislation, because that goes a long way towards forcing the IMF to be 
accountable to the people and the taxpayers that put up the money. I 
want to commend the gentleman for his remarks.
  Mr. SOUDER. Reclaiming my time, I too want to congratulate the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for the progress that we have 
made and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) for his support of 
this legislation. I understand the difficulty here. I hope indeed, if 
in some kind of conference report or end-of-the-year deal there is a 
bump-up in IMF spending, that we also can look at some of these other 
amendments that Members were deeply concerned about and the other 
matters that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) raised.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House 
Resolution 642. My argument today is not with the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Rules. He is just doing his job. My 
argument today is with the leadership of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly a year since the request for more IMF 
contribution has come to the Congress, and in that time while the other 
body has acted, the House has continued to fail to act. And what has 
happened? We have seen more nations fall to contagion, the problems 
spread to Russia,

[[Page H7941]]

to Latin America. We have seen the U.S. stock market erase all the 
gains for the year. We have seen U.S. economic growth decline by at 
least 2 percent because of the Asian situation. We have seen the stock 
market today drop 200 points because of the spread to Latin America, 
not necessarily based on fundamentals but based on a lack of confidence 
in the markets, and particularly in emerging markets. And it comes 
right back here.
  Now just a couple of weeks ago, we saw the chairman of the Federal 
Reserve give this speech in Berkeley, California, where he said the 
U.S. economy would not be isolated from this, and now the problems of a 
potential world economic crisis are lapping, the waves of it are 
lapping on the shores of America.
  Now I want to point out to my Republican colleagues the 
irresponsibility in this area. Two years ago, when we came close to 
defaulting on the U.S. debt, my Republican colleagues held up a comment 
from the firm of George Soros and his lead analyst saying that 
technical default in U.S. treasuries would not be that big of a deal, 
and certainly it would. Unfortunately we did not do that. But Mr. Soros 
testified before the Committee on Banking and Financial Services the 
other day, and here is what he said:

       Congress bears an awesome responsibility for keeping the 
     IMF alive. I am convinced that the attitude of the Congress 
     is already an important element in the failure to deal with 
     Russia.

       Their own person saying this.
  Now we can go through the politics, and we can talk about the 
problems with the IMF, and we have tried to do that on the House 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, but it has been nearly a 
year. How long will we fiddle and allow the world to burn and not deal 
with the problem at hand, and how much will the American workers and 
the American investors, the men and women who all of us claim to 
represent, have to suffer because this House will not act?
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this gag rule.
  Mr. Speaker, the foreign operations appropriations bill is one of the 
most important pieces of legislation the House will consider this year. 
As a member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, I have sat 
through many hours of hearings, two markups, in the process of bringing 
this bill before the House today. But there are 420 Members of this 
House who are seeing the bill for the first time today, and they 
deserve a lot more respect for their input than this rule gives them.
  The rule before us imposes a ridiculous time limit of 5 hours for the 
complete consideration of this bill and stricter limitations on certain 
specific amendments. As a comparison, I would ask my colleagues to look 
at how much time this body took to debate and amend the foreign 
operations appropriations bill for FY 1998. Last year it took us 3 
days, 15\1/2\ hours, to finish the bill, over three times as long as we 
have been given today.
  The rule also denies the House an opportunity to debate the issue of 
additional funding for the International Monetary Fund. Whichever side 
of the issue my colleagues stand on, it deserves a full debate by this 
House. I, for one, strongly support the administration's request for 
IMF funding, and I believe that the leadership is playing a dangerous 
political game by not allowing a vote on this issue today.

                              {time}  1230

  The ongoing economic turmoil in Asia and Russia is having a serious 
impact on Wall Street and other markets around the world, and we must 
provide the IMF with the resources it needs to respond to the economic 
insecurity in Russia and Asia as it promotes badly needed reforms in 
these countries.
  Finally, the rule violates an agreement that we had with the 
Republican leadership on the international family planning issue. By 
allowing a second degree amendment to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi)'s amendment, the Committee on Rules turned its back on an 
agreement it made just 1 week ago. On this matter alone, we should 
reject the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for their right to have 
a full debate on this important legislation, and I urge a vote against 
this terrible rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would say to the gentlewoman that I really am taken aback by her 
remarks. I harken back to only last year when we were having the 
arguments on both sides of the aisle about the issue of pro-life or 
pro-choice. The gentlewoman knows that she and others came to me, and I 
stood up for them, even though I am on the other side of the issue 
philosophically.
  We are doing the same thing this year, only in reverse, from what we 
did last year.
  When I hear criticism like this, it really hurts, because when one is 
sincere about trying to help and bring these issues together so that we 
can debate it, it does not sit well to hear that kind of criticism.
  Let me go back to talk about this rule. The Democrats controlled this 
Chamber for 40 years. In the last 2 years that they controlled it, 
during the 103d Congress, they brought this same bill to the floor, and 
guess what?
  The gentlewoman says that this is a gag rule. But the Demoncrats 
brought it to this floor with a completely closed rule; they required 
the amendments to be filed with the Committee on Rules, and they 
selectively picked just a few and then brought that to the floor. 
Nobody could work their will.
  This rule is just the opposite. This rule makes all of the regular 
amendments in order. One can offer striking amendments, cutting 
amendments, offsetting amendments, limitation amendments under the 
regular rule. Nobody is held back. It is an open rule. All we did was 
make in order several others to go with it. So nobody is shut out; 
everybody is allowed. We ought to know that. We ought to be fair about 
this debate on the floor that we will have on the issue of pro-life and 
pro-choice. No one is going to change their mind.
  I have been here for 20 years; I have never seen one Member of this 
Congress, on either side of that issue, change their mind on a vote on 
this floor. We all know how we are going to vote, so let us have the 
open debate on it and let us let the chips fall where they may. I just 
had to say that to my very, very good friend from Westchester, New 
York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my good friend from 
New York, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, we have 
always had a collegial relationship, and I just want the gentleman to 
know that everything I have said is meant to be fair and not to 
personally attribute anything to our good chairman.
  However, I would just like to say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon) that it was my understanding, as we had a meeting in the 
committee, that there would be an opportunity to offer an amendment, 
because on the committee we did not have full debate on the pro-life/
pro-choice issue, because as the gentleman said, people know where they 
stand on this issue, and we thought we would defer the debate to the 
floor.
  It was my understanding that we would have the opportunity to offer a 
substitute and we would have a full debate on that, and then the 
Members would use it as an opportunity to vote, either for or against.
  So I am sorry if there is a difference of opinion, but I do believe 
that was the agreement that we thought was made, and so we did not have 
a debate in the full committee. We thought the debate would be here and 
that there would not be a second degree.
  So I certainly respect the gentleman's views, but I just wanted to 
present to the gentleman my understanding. It was certainly the spirit 
of the agreement that, in my judgment, was violated by allowing the 
second degree.
  I thank the gentleman very much. I wish the gentleman well, and I 
know we will continue to work well together.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, that is a much better explanation.

[[Page H7942]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I think the membership should 
know very clearly that an agreement was made to allow the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi) to offer an amendment. Nothing whatsoever 
was stated as to whether or not a second degree amendment to that would 
be permitted or not permitted; it just was not on the table.
  Moreover, the agreement was to prevent what might have been an hour 
or so of debate in the committee. If it were up to me I'd debate it all 
day. Let me say also that in the committee, because we had whipped on 
this, we believed that we would have won by more than just a few votes 
in committee, and that any substitute that would have been offered 
would have been defeated. I do do reasonably good vote counts when I do 
work an issue. So not getting a roll call vote in committee was just to 
expedite the bill. I think that should be made very clear. Nobody has 
violated an agreement.
  Let me just say for the record, because this I find very 
disconcerting, many of my friends on the other side of this issue time 
and again have demanded and received the ability to second-degree pro-
life amendments that this Member and other Members have offered on the 
floor. Every time we have done it, the second degree amendment comes 
in, we live with it, that is the way the process goes. The shoe is just 
on the other foot.
  I get, for the first time in my 18 years as a Member of Congress, an 
ability to second-degree an amendment that is being offered on the 
other side of the issue I see absolutely no unfairness in this 
whatsoever.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I say to my good 
friend, we are just running out of time. If the gentlewoman would 
please get her time, and I will try to yield. But I just have to say to 
all of my colleagues, we are talking about an agreement that was made 
here and an agreement that was made there. I am Chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, and if I am not included in those agreements, there 
is no agreement.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, now the gentleman is speaking the truth. 
Nobody was intending to honor the agreement in the first place, I 
guess, but the agreement was not honored.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would advise all 
Members that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) has 14 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) has 
approximately 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise to speak against this rule, and also against the funding for 
the IMF. However, it is critical that this body be able to speak to and 
debate this measure, wherever one stands on the International Monetary 
Fund.
  The Committee on Banking and Financial Services, on which I sit, held 
several days of hearings on the Russian economic crisis and expanding 
economic turmoil internationally. The witness's testimony in our 
committee discussions were consistent with much of the news in our 
daily media. Major parts of Asia are in severe recession and going into 
a depression. Indonesia, in spite of or because of the IMF, is in 
extreme difficulty. Russia, in spite of or because of the IMF, is in 
severe crisis, and these two areas are affecting Latin America and the 
United States.
  We know that it has been harmful to people who are not part of the 
political and economic oligarchy, particularly women and children. The 
$6 billion disbursed in Indonesia has been estimated to match the 
corrupt appropriation of this money by Suharto and his extended family.
  In Russia, IMF bailout has gone into the maze of corruption, the 
Mafia, and oligarchs.
  In Africa, in Haiti, in Mexico, in developing countries that have 
arranged for IMF loan programs, the developing economies have had to 
shift their priorities from food crop production to cash crops, thereby 
creating local food shortages and making the poor even more dependent 
on cash that they do not have. IMF loan repayment policies mandate that 
priorities shift from the most minimum education and health care 
programs to paying interest on the loan.
  Mr. Speaker, these issues, believe me, these issues deserve a full 
and fair debate on this floor. I urge a ``no'' vote against the rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and in 
opposition to the underlying bill, particularly the provision that 
would repeal section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. An amendment will 
be offered today which I have cosponsored that would strike this repeal 
provision.
  Mr. Speaker, Azerbaijan has done nothing to comply with the basic 
requirement of section 907 that it lift its blockade of Armenia and 
Nagorno Karabagh, blockades that have caused severe hardship for the 
Armenian people. The Government of Azerbaijan has blockaded Armenia and 
Nagorno Karabagh for 9 years. The blockade has cut off the 
transportation of food, fuel, medicine and other vital supplies, 
creating a humanitarian crisis requiring the United States to send 
emergency life-saving assistance to Armenia.
  Next, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in opposition to an 
amendment expected to be offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton). This amendment cuts humanitarian foreign assistance to India. 
As a result of the underground nuclear tests that India conducted in 
May, the President was required to invoke severe sanctions pursuant to 
the Glenn amendment of the Arms Export Control Act. These sanctions 
terminated much of the development aid that the U.S. provides to India; 
however, it protects humanitarian programs from the sanctions.
  Passage of the Burton amendment would only serve to hurt India's poor 
and not have any impact on the government.
  The United States and India have conducted several rounds of 
bilateral talks that have been labeled as ``positive'' and ``successful 
quiet diplomacy.'' This positive direction would be substantially 
disrupted by passage of the Burton amendment.
  In light of the progress in the ongoing U.S.-India talks, now would 
be the worst time to enact the Burton amendment.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, this rule should be opposed and the underlying 
bill should be opposed, in part because so much effort is put into 
legislation, if you will, on appropriation bills.
  I share the opinion that was expressed yesterday by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman), when he addressed the Committee on Rules 
and said that to the extent that this legislation actually includes 
authorizing language that has not been reviewed by the full Congress, 
it should be defeated.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule. I will not vote for 
the bill. The day I vote for a foreign aid bill in this House, I guess 
the House will cave in. But I am not going to offer any amendments to 
cut it.
  I want to compliment the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), and I 
think he has brought another good bill, if there can be a good foreign 
aid bill, to the House. But I will have an amendment that says when we 
give money to a country and that country is going to buy a product and 
they do not build the product, they do not make the product, they 
should buy the product from us unless they can buy it from some other 
developing country at less than 10 percent our cost. It is a 
limitation.
  I want the amendment in the bill. It makes the bill friendly to 
American workers who are busting their buns to give money overseas 
while we have people dying in the streets in America.
  The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has done a good job. I will 
not offer to cut it, and that is rare for me, because I think he has 
made some responsible moves. I want to credit our Democrat ranking 
minority member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), as well.

[[Page H7943]]

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking minority member of the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Appropriations.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding 
and for his presentation of this rule, which I rise with great 
reluctance to oppose. My reluctance springs not from the substance of 
the rule, that is easy, but reluctance springing from my respect and 
regard for the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
  The chairman is my friend, and this is probably the last rule which 
we will be contending with each other over. I want to take the 
opportunity to say what a pleasure it has been to serve in Congress 
with the gentleman. The gentleman knows of the respect that I have for 
him, and that is why it is very difficult for me to oppose the 
gentleman on this rule. But the gentleman made it easy, because I think 
this rule is a contortion and, in my view, violates the agreement that 
we had with our committee.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, we are in a situation, and it seems like an 
annual event, where we get an agreement with the Republican leadership 
of this House that we will have free and fair debate and vote on the 
international family planning issue. No matter where one stands on that 
issue, Members understand the unfairness that is contained in this 
bill.

                              {time}  1245

  The record of our Committee on Appropriations was clear. When our 
distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), 
spelled out very clearly how our rights were protected on this issue on 
the floor or in any other arena that it would be taken up.
  My complaint is not with our distinguished chairman, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), nor is it with my colleague and the 
distinguished chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Callahan). It is a joy to serve with both of them, and I respect 
them highly.
  My complaint is with this Republican leadership of this House which, 
after agreements are made in our committee, has to go and run and check 
with the far right to see if it was okay.
  We specifically conveyed to the Republican leadership that a second-
degree amendment was not part of the agreement. They knew that. The 
reason my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) says, 
well you usually get the second degree, why are you complaining if I 
do. The point is that, in the interest of comity and cooperation, we 
said, okay, proceed and put the gentleman's language in the bill if we 
get a chance to amend it on the floor.
  So, indeed, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has a 
privileged position. His language is part of the legislation. Why 
should he have two bites at the apple, especially when that is in 
violation of our agreement.
  So one of the casualties of this will be, of course, the trust that 
we can have working together in the Committee on Appropriations, 
because, clearly, we should be talking to the far right wing if we want 
to be sure about what the arrangement will be when we come to the 
floor.
  It takes the rug out from under our own committee leadership and any 
commitments they make to us in committee. When that commitment was 
made, it specifically mentioned that the leadership, the Republican 
leadership of the House was a part of the agreement. So here we go 
again. That is just one point, the point of unfairness, which of course 
seems to be the banner of the day around here.
  But this rule, even if that unfairness were not an issue, and let us 
for a moment put it aside, I call this rule a rule suitable for 
ostriches. Let us put our heads in the sand on all of the troubled 
spots in the world.
  For example, Korea, North Korea, the rules committee would not allow 
an amendment on Korea. International environmental issues, we cannot 
have an amendment on that issue. The list goes on and on. Africa, we 
cannot have an amendment on what is going on in Africa.
  Even with those amendments that were made in order or those which 
under the rule can be submitted because they were printed in the 
Record, there is a very, very narrow amount of time with which those 
issues are to be debated.
  If we subtract the time for the amendments that the gentleman 
provided time for in the amendment, there are 2 hours, only 2 hours to 
discuss disasters of the whole rest of the world, Ireland, Africa, 
disaster assistance, the list goes on and on. The International 
Monetary Fund. That takes me to that point.
  Members in this group, in this body are divided on the issue of the 
International Monetary Fund. Wherever we are on that issue, I think it 
is fair to say that this House should be debating that issue.
  Some of my Republican colleagues said to me, do not worry about the 
IMF. If you support the IMF, we are going to put the $14.5 billion in 
in conference. Oh, really. Do my colleagues think that is appropriate, 
a $14 billion appropriation in conference without this body having the 
opportunity to debate it pro and con?
  I think that that is not right. It is hard to imagine how such a 
distinguished group of people who are interested in the economy of our 
country could say that the International Monetary Fund should not be 
debated on this floor.
  So it is for reasons of substance, reasons of fairness, and reasons 
of timing that I oppose this rule. I just want to make the further 
point in terms of timing that, not only is the timing of restricting 
all the debate on the amendments to 5 hours unfair, but it is also 
about the timing, of the jamming, of the railroading this bill onto the 
floor before Members are even versed as to what the issues are that are 
contained in it.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair advises Members that 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) has 8 minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to clear up a couple of things. The gentlewoman 
mentioned that amendments were going to be restricted to 5 minutes. 
That is not true. We are under the 5-minute rule. We can go for 30 
minutes on any amendment.
  Secondly, the gentlewoman is saying that Members are not going to 
have a chance to work their will. I have examined all of the amendments 
that were printed in the Record. There were a vast number of 
amendments. Only about 10 or 11 of them are allowable, that are germane 
to the issue. We are going to allow all of those. If the gentlewoman 
tells me that is going to take 5 hours to debate 10 amendments, there 
is something wrong around here.
  Secondly, the gentlewoman has been critical of the Republican 
leadership and that this message was conveyed to them. I want to know 
who in the leadership it was conveyed to. I am a part of the Republican 
leadership and I am chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, If the gentleman will yield, it was the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, just a minute and I am going to get to him. 
No one approached me. However, I approached the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay) who is our whip and is a Member of the Republican 
leadership and serves on the Committee on Appropriations.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said, ``Yes, I said I would go 
to you and try to get you to make in order a Pelosi or her designee's 
amendment.'' The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) did that. He 
mentioned nothing to me. I called the gentleman, and he knows nothing 
about any second-degree amendment. There was no discussion whatsoever.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman 
from Robbinsville, New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, first let me say, and I think 
it is unfortunate and unhelpful when my good friend, the gentlewoman 
from California refers to prolifers as the far right--in this case me.
  Let me just say that I am conservative and very proud of it, but I 
take a back seat to no one on human rights. I

[[Page H7944]]

have been in this body for 18 years. I have been all over the world, 
very often with my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and other committed leaders in 
human rights.
  I have chaired more hearings in my subcommittee--international 
operations and human rights that have ever been held ever on human 
rights. I have been to Asia, Africa, Eastern and Central Europe, the 
Middle East, Central and South America--all on behalf of human rights. 
Gulag labor abuse and exploitation of child workers. We have worked on 
religious freedom. When it comes to child survival, going back to the 
early 1980s, I led the effort and offered amendment after amendment on 
this floor and in committee to beef up the child survival account.
  As a matter of fact when Reagan's Administration wanted to zero out 
the $25 million child survival account, I put $50 million and 
reauthorized that account to continue immunization, oral rehydration, 
breast feeding, and growth monitoring. I take a back seat to no one on 
humanitarianism and on human rights. If that is ``far right,'' I accept 
the label, but I think the gentlelady's use of the term is to engender 
ridicule and disgust. Moreover, name calling undermines the caliber of 
debate and does grave injury to the comity of the House when people 
make such reference.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield so I can agree with 
him?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I agree with everything that the gentleman 
has said, and I salute him for everything that he has done. The 
gentleman is so right. He takes a back seat to no one on all of the 
issues he said. I want him to know that I was not referring to him. I 
was referring to elements outside of this body.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, there were no elements. I was 
the one who was in conference with our leadership on this.
  Let me just say that mention has been made that somehow this rule is 
unfair on pro-life issues. Nothing can be further from the truth. Let 
me state to Members that, in the full Committee on Appropriations, my 
good friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), offered to 
compromised Mexico City policy, which allows the President to waive one 
of the two mainstays of that pro-life Mexico City policy. It is a clear 
concession by the pro-life side. It is a compromise.
  The Committee on Appropriations accepted the Wicker amendment. In 
order to expedite consideration of that bill, they decided that there 
would be a voice vote. We would have gladly had the vote and the debate 
in the committee.
  There was no mention that a perfecting amendment would be offered or 
not be offered. But let me remind Members of the history. Every time I 
have offered this amendment, the Mexico City amendment, it has been 
second degreed. I accept that. On May 24th, 1995, the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella) offered the second degree. June 28th, 1995, in 
the foreign ops bill, Jan Meyers offered the second degree. I accepted 
that. That is the process. We all live under the same rules. June 11th, 
1997 the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) second degreed the underlying 
amendment that I had offered.
  Last year, September 4, after the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) offered an 
amendment, it was a second degree, and that was the second second 
degree. The first one that had been proffered by the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), was deemed that it was not 
good enough. That is what held up that process and we acceded again and 
allowed a second degree amendment to the Smith amendment to be offered.
  Now the shoe is on the other foot and some folks are crying foul. 
Really that does not pass the straight face test. It strains credulity 
to make that argument on the floor here. Every time the gentlewoman has 
offered her second degree, I have accepted it. Now I get to offer the 
second degree and to say foul does not cut it.
  I hope Members will vote for this rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that we have some problems with some 
of our Members here relative to the rule. It is controversial. The bill 
itself is controversial. I want to say from the start that the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) on some of the things that he has 
committed himself to on child survival activities, the Peace Corps, 
UNICEF, basic education, he has been a real champion. He has kept that 
money very strong for it. In some cases, he has increased the money.
  What I would like to say, though, about foreign operations both here 
and in the Senate is that it continues to get cut in many different 
categories. In 1985, the development assistance account was cut by 40 
percent. Over the past couple of years, a number of the categories have 
been cut. So many people in our own country believe that foreign 
appropriations, as part of our total budget, is so out of whack that 
when we have debates with people, I remember the debate I had last time 
I ran for reelection and one of my opponents was asked a question, all 
of us were asked a question, you know we spend too much money on 
foreign aid and what do you think we should do?
  One of my opponents said, ``Well, I think we should cut it back. We 
spend way too much money.''
  I said, ``Really?'' I said, ``Well, what percentage do you think we 
spend of our total budget on foreign aid?''
  She said, It ``has to be somewhere between 25 and 27 percent.''
  I said, ``Really?'' I said, ``Would you believe it is really eight-
tenths of 1 percent of our total budget?''
  ``It cannot be.''
  I said, ``I am telling you that is the truth.''
  What we are talking about today, the part that I like best, the 
humanitarian aid, is even less than that. This is good aid. It helps 
people that are sick. It helps people that are facing floods now in 
Bangladesh. It helps people that reunite children that have become 
temporary orphans as a result of civil war. It helps children be 
immunized.
  At one time, we had 40,000 people die every day in this world and 
over the past few years that has gone down to about 35,000. 35,000 
people will die today, 35,000 people died yesterday and 35,000 will die 
tomorrow because of civil war, because of lack of food, because of 
drought, because of famine, because of a lot of things, and our aid 
goes to help those people.
  We are not making a mark here in the past couple of years because our 
aid for foreign aid continues to go down. I even understand in the 
Senate that what is happening over there, they are going to lower the 
status of the foreign aid committee over there. It does not have the 
status it once used to. In almost every country of the world, to be on 
the foreign affairs committee is a great distinction. It is the number 
one committee in most parliaments.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Hall) has expired.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if we compare ourselves with the 17 
major nations of the world, we rank seventeenth in our appropriation to 
foreign aid.
  We need to do better. We need to quit running from this issue. We 
need to stand up and support it. There are a lot of changes that need 
to be in this bill as it comes before the House today. I hope we can 
make the changes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as I close, I heap accolades on the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Hall). I know of no Member, and I have served with him since the 
very beginning, who has done more for human rights and to alleviate 
hunger throughout this world than the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) 
has. We all should salute him.
  Let me just speak a little further on what he was speaking about, 
because the American people sometimes do not

[[Page H7945]]

understand that the foreign aid budget is not much. It is only eight-
tenths of 1 percent of the Federal budget. The truth of the matter is, 
they are incensed when they see monies that we give to foreign nations 
and have these foreign nations then turn around and vote against us 
consistently in the U.N., vote against American foreign policy, whether 
it is a Democratic President or a Republican President. The American 
people resent that. They resent greatly, when they see IMF funding and 
other international organizations giving American taxpayer dollars to 
Russia. They see it going in the front door and going out the back door 
even faster. The American people resent that.
  Of course, that is why I have to again commend the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the other Members for the reforms they are 
writing in to this legislation. It goes a long way in holding the IMF 
accountable not only for our policy but also so that we can see where 
our tax dollars go.

                              {time}  1300

  Finally, let me just say about the rule itself, every Member should 
come over and they should vote for this rule. This rule is not 
restrictive in any way. There were 40 amendments filed and I have a 
list of them right here. Only 10 of these amendments are germane to the 
issues and are allowed under the rules of the House.
  Any Member that has done his due diligence will have his amendment 
time on the floor. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) can 
negotiate with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and they 
can determine how much time might be allowed on a particular amendment. 
With only 10 amendments that are made in order over a five-hour period, 
every Member should have the opportunity to work their will.
  Mr. Speaker, let me commend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and their 
staffs for an excellent piece of legislation. Let us come over here and 
pass the rule and get on with it, because we have very important 
legislation to deal with in the next 13 days.
  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. LaHood). 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 229, 
nays 188, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 446]

                               YEAS--229

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     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
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--188

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     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
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Becerra
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Capps
     Cunningham
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Gutierrez
     Hilliard
     Mink
     Paul
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Riggs
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1321

  Mr. HOYER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. MASCARA, GREENWOOD, LAZIO of New York, and STUPAK, Mrs. 
JOHNSON of Connecticut, and Messrs. UPTON, HORN, and BOEHLERT changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.

                          ____________________