[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 124 (Thursday, September 17, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7946-H8013]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 542 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill, H.R. 4569.

                              {time}  1323


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the 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, with Mr. Thornberry in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am pleased to open general debate today on H.R. 4569, the fiscal 
year 1999 Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs 
appropriations bill.
  This will be the last appropriation bill, Mr. Chairman, for two 
distinguished members of our subcommittee and the Committee on 
Appropriations. I am speaking of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Yates) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Torres), who are leaving 
after this session of Congress and going on to retirement.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but point out that these two Members have 
not only served with distinction on this subcommittee, but with the 
entire Congress throughout their careers.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), for example, has been a 
member of this subcommittee since its inception. He was here when they 
debated the Marshall Plan, and he has made a tremendous contribution to 
this committee and to the people of the United States and, indeed, the 
world, with the many contributions he has made. So I am sure that my 
colleagues join with me in expressing our best ever to these two 
gentlemen who are retiring and will congratulate them for their 
tremendous contributions.
  I want to begin, Mr. Chairman, with some basic figures. This bill is 
$3.5 million below the subcommittee's allocation of $12.4 billion in 
budget authority and within our outlay allocation. We also have brought 
a bill that is $315 million below last year's level and $1.1 billion 
below what the President has requested to run foreign operations for 
the fiscal year 1999.
  There are some who might rightfully argue this is not a sufficient 
amount of money for the President, and I regret that. However, I do not 
determine the amount of money that will be made available. This is done 
by other authorities, and they have allocated a designated amount. But 
it is a responsible bill with the amount of monies we had to work with, 
and I regret that we cannot fulfill the President's request for all the 
monies he wants for all of the programs he wants. But the President and 
the executive branch of government ought to be happy that this 
subcommittee has not tried to tie their hands, have not dictated to 
them how every penny will be spent.
  There is not one dime in this bill earmarked, and I think that is a 
compliment to the committee and to the full committee, and I think it 
is the right way to go in making certain we give the executive branch 
the constitutional authority they need by not telling them how every 
penny will be spent.
  For the first time in history, Mr. Chairman, we are reducing aid to 
Israel. Many would say, why are we doing that? We are doing that 
because Prime Minister Netanyahu informed us here in this body that the 
economy of Israel is such that it is time to look at responsible fiscal 
policy and recognize that the United States is not in an entitlement 
position for Israel. The government has cooperated, the government of 
Israel has cooperated in this first-time ever reduction in economic 
support to Israel. So it does include the first reduction to Israel, 
and I am happy to have received the cooperation of so many people, both 
in the Congress and the Israeli government, in making certain that we 
handle foreign operations in a very fiscally responsible manner.
  I might also point out, Mr. Chairman, that the appropriation is less 
than 1 percent of the total amount of money we will appropriate for 
1999. Many people in this country think maybe we spend 20 percent of 
our money on foreign aid, but that is not the case. Next year it will 
be somewhere below 1 percent. So we are not spending a lot of money for 
foreign aid, but we are doing it in a very, very responsible manner.
  Also Members will note that we have not included the President's 
request for the full $18 billion for the IMF. We have included the $3.5 
billion. We have also included some reform measures that we and the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services felt were necessary, a 
message being sent to the International Monetary Fund that business can 
no longer be transacted as it has been in the past.

                              {time}  1330

  And they are going to have to be more accountable. They are going to 
have to be more transparent. But we have denied the President's request 
for the additional $13.5 billion for the International Monetary Fund.
  Now, I do not have to remind Members that the United States is facing 
a series of profound policy changes at this time. The economies of Asia 
and Russia are in disarray and, as we have seen in the last couple of 
days, the economy in South America, with Brazil and Peru and others, is 
beginning to have some problems. And we are going to have to be a 
participant in the salvation of this economy, a participant that will 
allow them to keep their dollar afloat and to act in a responsible 
manner. But without giving them indication that there have to be some 
changes in their fiscal policies, they are not going to have a 
sufficient amount of money in which to do it.
  We do not dictate, as I said, to the Secretary of State what she 
should do. We did not tell the President exactly what he should do with 
every penny. We give him as much latitude as we possibly can. There are 
some areas we have taken extreme disagreement with. For instance, the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and I are firmly convinced 
that we ought to move beyond the current policy of the Korean Energy 
Development Corporation, KEDO.
  I have said from the beginning that KEDO is an irresponsible policy 
that we never should have entered into in the first place. But the 
administration chose to do it, and we have funded it for the last 4 or 
5 years, but it is time to take a serious look at KEDO, especially in 
light of the fact they are now shooting missiles over Japan and 
indications are that they have missiles that very possibly could reach 
Alaska.
  With respect to some of the problems taking place in the Caucasus, we 
want to help Armenia, we want to help Georgia, but we recognize there 
is a policy in effect, called the section 907 policy, that is causing 
tremendous problems to Azerbaijan and to people in America who are 
trying to do business in Azerbaijan. And I am happy that the chairman 
of our committee offered an amendment in full committee which passed 
with a pretty good vote which lifted the 907 restrictions.
  So we have a good bill. And I know that many Members had many 
amendments they wanted to offer today, but I am pleased that the 
Committee on Rules gave us a rule which I think is fair, to pass a bill 
that I think is fiscally responsible.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record documentary materials regarding 
this bill.

[[Page H7947]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE98.001



[[Page H7948]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE98.002



[[Page H7949]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE98.003



[[Page H7950]]

       Tables printed on page 98 of House Report 105-719, the 
     report to accompany the FY 1999 Foreign Operations, Export 
     Financing, and Related Program Appropriations Bill, were 
     printed with errors. The following are corrections to those 
     sections of the report:


                   comparison with budget resolution

       Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), requires 
     that the report accompanying a bill providing new budget 
     authority contain a statement detailing how the authority 
     compares with the reports submitted under section 302(b) of 
     the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution 
     on the budget for the fiscal year. This information follows:

                     FISCAL YEAR 1999 APPROPRIATIONS                    
                          [Dollars in millions]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Budget          
                                                      authority  Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 302(b):                                                            
    Discretionary...................................    12,475    12,525
    Mandatory.......................................        45        45
                                                     -------------------
        Total.......................................    12,520    12,570
This bill:                                                              
    Discretionary...................................    16,184    12,546
    Mandatory.......................................        45        45
                                                     -------------------
        Total.......................................    16,229    12,591
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    five-year projection of outlays

       In compliance with section 302(a)(1)(B) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344 as 
     amended), the following table contains five-year projections 
     associated with the budget authority provided in the 
     accompanying bill.


                    Fiscal year 1999 appropriations

                                                               Millions
Budget authority.................................................16,229
Outlays..........................................................12,591
Fiscal Year:
    1999..........................................................4,896
    2000..........................................................3,065
    2001..........................................................2,319
    2002............................................................914
    2003 and future years.........................................1,562
       Since the submission of House Report 105-719, the Chairman 
     of the Committee on the Budget has provided an increased 
     section 302(a) allocation consistent with funding provided in 
     H.R. 4569 for New Arrangements to Borrow and arrearages for 
     multilateral development banks. House Report 105-722, 
     submitted by the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, 
     subsequently increased the section 302(b) allocation for the 
     Foreign Operations Subcommittee. The following table shows 
     that the bill is within the revised allocation:

                     FISCAL YEAR 1999 APPROPRIATIONS                    
                          [Dollars in millions]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Budget          
                                                      authority  Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 302(b) (Revised):                                                  
    Discretionary...................................    16,188    12,546
    Mandatory.......................................        45        45
                                                     -------------------
        Total.......................................    16,233    12,591
This bill:                                                              
    Discretionary...................................    16,184    12,546
    Mandatory.......................................        45        45
                                                     -------------------
        Total.......................................    16,229    12,591
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill, and with the greatest 
respect for my chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). At 
the start, I want to commend him for the manner in which he put the 
bill together. Although we disagree on some of the provisions in the 
bill, he was very open and accommodating whenever it was possible for 
him to be on some of the initiatives from our side of the aisle.
  I also want to commend our chairman of the full committee, the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), for the manner in which he 
conducted the full committee on this legislation and his openness. But 
we have some very serious policy disagreements that I will discuss in a 
moment.
  First, in addition to praising my distinguished colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, I want to join the gentleman from Alabama in 
commending our two Members who have served so well and who will be 
leaving the Congress this year. This will be their last foreign ops 
bill.
  First of all, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates); Chairman 
Yates, Ranking Member Yates. In the full committee I mentioned that he 
has been hailed as a great mentor, legislator, leader, thinker, 
intellect. But I wanted to commend him as a great patriot because of 
his work as chair of the Interior Committee and then as ranking member 
on the subcommittee. He was a great patriot in protecting the natural 
resources of our great country, the cultural heritage of our country, 
and the freedom of expression of our constitution. For all of that, we 
are most grateful to him.
  And the gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) had a resume before he 
came to Congress that served him well here, and indeed served our 
entire country as a diplomat; an ambassador. He also brought the 
fighting spirit of the labor movement and the commitment of a strong 
Democrat. His diplomatic skills as an ambassador and as part of our 
delegation will be missed greatly. This Congress will miss his 
expertise in many areas, including his knowledge of this hemisphere and 
his leadership on issues of concern to our country.
  Mr. Chairman, the service of both of these gentlemen will be missed 
and I will certainly miss their votes on our committee.
  This bill, I think, should be what it has been in the past, an area 
where we come together in a bipartisan spirit to promote democratic 
values, to give expression to the compassion of the American people, 
and to make very hard-nosed decisions about what is in our national 
interest. I do not think that many of these issues are partisan issues. 
Indeed, the luxury of our committee is that very often we are the 
kaleidoscope. We are in different designs on different issues.
  Many of us for example on both sides of the aisle support 907 and 
many on both sides of the aisle oppose 907. I join with my Republican 
colleagues in opposing the initiative of the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Livingston).
  We also have strong human rights' advocates on the committee from 
both sides of the aisle.
  We have issues like IMF, where there are Democrats and Republicans on 
one side of the issue and on the other side of the issue as well. So we 
are used to working cooperatively in a bipartisan manner.
  Our chairman traditionally likes to give to the executive branch, to 
the President, the prerogative to have as much flexibility as possible. 
At least that is normally what the practice has been. Not so in this 
bill.
  First and foremost, I oppose the legislation because I do not think 
it rises, in terms of its vision and its resources, to the challenge 
that our country faces as the sole global leader of the world. I also 
think those resources which are, as the chairman mentioned, $315 
million below fiscal year 1998 and a full $1.1 billion below the 
President's request, greatly reduces the President's flexibility with 
the narrowing of those resources.
  I am concerned that just $3.5 billion instead of the full $18 billion 
for the IMF has been included in this legislation. And as I mentioned 
during the debate on the rule, I am very concerned about the lack of 
opportunity for us to debate the IMF. There were 12 amendments coming 
from both sides of the aisle on the IMF, and the Committee on Rules 
rejected every one of them.
  The whole world is wondering how we are going to deal with the 
economic crisis in Asia. Is the IMF the appropriate way to go? 
Regardless of what side we are on on that issue, this House should be 
debating that issue. And the idea we can put $14.5 billion into the 
bill in conference, I think is really unfair to the Members. And, 
really, it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people that 
this body cannot have a debate on a subject of grave concern, that is 
the economic stability of the world.
  As far as the allocation of funds, my concern about the number, the 
$315 million below last year's request, springs from some of the unrest 
that is out there in our fragile new democracies. As we all know, the 
economy of Russia is in a very depressed state. Russia happens to be 
the leading market for exports from some of the new independent states; 
for example, Georgia.
  The country of Georgia, with President Shevardnadze who is a leader 
in that region as well as the President of his own country, has worked 
hard to democratize Georgia, to implement the market reforms, to reform 
the economy, and he is losing his export market--Russia. Georgia is 
being flooded by cheap products from Russia now, undermining its 
economy. And we further exacerbate the situation by reducing the aid 
that we give to Georgia, giving a real lever to his opponents there who 
are not the democrats of Georgia, thereby undermining his leadership. 
He did what we asked him to do

[[Page H7951]]

and we lowered the assistance we are giving him. And that is just one 
example.
  I am also concerned, and I have an area of disagreement with some of 
my Republican colleagues, that the bill denies all funding for the 
Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization. The agreement between 
the U.S. and North Korea provides the only basis for U.S. access to 
troublesome sites in Korea. Ending the program eliminates any 
possibility of ending North Korea's nuclear ballistic missile programs 
and may, in fact, jeopardize the security of U.S. troops in the region.
  My request to at least debate the issue was denied by the Committee 
on Rules. And further into the debate today, I will suggest what my 
amendment would have been.
  We have discussed the fact that the bill has language restricting 
international family planning organizations from using their own funds 
for purposes that they deem worthy of their mission. And the bill 
shortchanges the global environmental facility of the World Bank to the 
point where it will literally run out of funds this year.
  I am disappointed that we could not get greater funding for the Peace 
Corps, but I salute the chairman for the figure he did put in, and his 
willingness, if we have any more money at the end of the day, to put 
more funds in for the Peace Corps.
  And I salute Chairman Callahan for his leadership on the child 
survival and disease account. He is truly a champion in the world. And 
his initiatives were met with some resistance along the way, so I 
commend him for his vision and for his perseverance and for his success 
on behalf of the children worldwide. I just wish the bill had a bigger 
allocation so child survival could be funded higher.
  And, again, I personally thank him for the HIV/AIDS prevention 
control money and the UNICEF funds.
  The funds for the Middle East have been reduced, largely under the 
leadership of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). And as we all 
know, the Middle East, regardless of the fate of this bill today, the 
Middle East funds will be there. They are the safest appropriation 
allocation in this bill.
  So I again thank the chairman for some of the initiatives that are 
there and for his leadership, but I regretfully must oppose the bill 
because it is inadequate to the task.
  Everyone in America is familiar with President Kennedy's statement in 
his inaugural address, ``My fellow Americans, Ask not what your country 
can do for you, but what you can do for your country.'' But the very 
next line of that great speech is, ``And to the citizens of the world, 
ask not what America can do for you, but what we can do, working 
together, for the freedom of man.'' I do not think that the allocation 
for this bill and the priorities and the opportunities that are missed 
in this bill are a match for those great words.
  I hope, at the end of the process, that they will be, and that we can 
all join in supporting this bill, making it the bipartisan package that 
it traditionally has been and hopefully will be.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to thank the gentlewoman from California for her kind words and for 
mentioning the child survival account.
  I am very proud of the child survival account. And, yes, we did have 
a rocky road in the beginning, but I am pleased to say that the 
administration has seen the light of day and included this in their 
budget request for the first time this year, and we are happy to grant 
the administration's request in this regard.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter), one of the most distinguished members of our subcommittee.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama 
for his tireless work in developing this bill. He and his outstanding 
staff have dedicated many hours to stretching our limited foreign aid 
dollars and to trying to accommodate and reflect the concerns of many 
Members, including this Member.
  As we review the events of the past fiscal year, the importance of 
our foreign assistance has never been clearer. We are living in a 
global community. Our economy, our health, our environment, are all 
interconnected with those of our immediate neighbors and with those 
half a world away.
  The United States' international activities at both the bilateral and 
multilateral level have an impact on every American citizen and every 
person in the world.

                              {time}  1345

  Because of the importance of our role in the world, I wish that our 
allocation could have been greater. However, recognizing the need for 
fiscal austerity to maintain a balanced budget, I support this 
legislation as it was reported by our subcommittee, with the exception 
of funding for arrearage payments to multilateral financial 
institutions. However, my support for the bill is tested by some 
changes made by the full committee.
  I supported the gentleman from Alabama's decision not to include any 
legislative language which would condition funding for international 
family planning. Authorizing language has already been included in the 
State Department reform bill that is awaiting the President's 
consideration. An authorizing bill is the proper vehicle for this 
language, and I am strongly against this addition which for the fourth 
year in a row will jeopardize the enactment of this bill into law.
  In addition, I supported the gentleman from Alabama's decision to 
maintain current law with regard to assistance to Azerbaijan in the 
subcommittee bill. Although there were some elements of the package 
that the subcommittee agreed to on the Caucasus that I did not 
necessarily agree with, the overall package for assistance to the 
Caucasus was a balanced approach that provided positive incentives to 
the parties in the region to resolve their disputes and begin working 
together. The action of the committee in repealing section 907 in my 
judgment destroyed that balance and serves to undermine the careful 
efforts of the subcommittee to encourage solutions to problems in the 
area. I will support the efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Radanovich) in attempting to repeal this misguided and improper 
authorizing provision.
  Again, on the whole, I want to support this bill and the excellent 
work of my colleague from Alabama. I hope that we can resolve these 
issues favorably and then work with the Senate to provide the highest 
possible funding level in the bill within necessary overall fiscal 
constraints.
  Let me close, Mr. Chairman, by paying tribute to two of our 
colleagues who will be leaving the subcommittee, retiring. One, of 
course, is my neighbor and friend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Yates). His district and mine abut. Today he actually represents the 
town in which I was born and grew up. We do not always by any means see 
things eye to eye on policy but I think you will never find a harder 
worker, someone who has been on top of the issues for 50 years of 
service to this Congress and to his country, questioning, raising 
issues, fighting for the things that he believes in. The gentleman from 
Illinois has provided a tremendous example of someone who is committed 
and serving in a way that does great credit to the United States 
Congress. We are also going to miss our colleague and friend the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Torres). We have worked together on many 
issues. I have a tremendous respect for his resolve in standing for the 
things that he believes in, and he has always been there serving in a 
way that has brought credit to himself, to his State and to our 
country, and I am very proud that I have had the opportunity to serve 
in Congress with the gentleman from California as well.
  I commend this bill to the Members. I would like to make some changes 
in it. I am hoping we can see those changes made. But overall it does 
the kind of work that we expect of our committee and I commend our 
chairman for his fine effort.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished Democratic whip of the House 
and a champion on international issues relating to the American worker.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for her kind remarks 
and for the job that she and the gentleman

[[Page H7952]]

from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and others have done on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to urge my colleagues to support an amendment 
later today that would restore section 907 prohibiting aid to the 
authoritarian regime of Azerbaijan. For nearly a decade, Azerbaijan has 
used tanks and soldiers to blockade its democratic neighbors, the 
Republic of Armenia. This illegal blockade has cut off the transport of 
fuel, of food and of medicine. This blockade is a roadblock to regional 
peace and it is a chokehold on democracy. That is why the United States 
has refused to spend our tax dollars to prop up the Azerbaijani 
government. It has always been our stated policy to reward those who 
work for peace and democracy and punish those who do not, until now. 
This bill undermines our commitment to democracy. It abandons support 
for the people of Nagorno-Karabagh who are struggling for self-
determination. And it completely undercuts regional peace talks that 
have just this week shown some promising signs and hints of progress.
  Why would we do this? Why are Members of this House being asked to 
overturn an effective, long-term commitment to peace and democracy? Why 
would we hand out a big sack of carrots to an anti-democratic regime? 
Sadly, the answer can be summed up in one word. Oil. Put crudely, the 
oil lobby has dollar signs in its eyes. The big corporations cannot 
wait to start pumping oil from beneath the Caspian Sea, even if that 
means selling out a democratic country, even if that means abandoning a 
landlocked Nation whose freedom depends upon open borders, and even if 
that means sacrificing our own principles of justice.
  America's interests in the Caucasus lie with the development of 
democracy and human rights, not just the development of oil fields. 
This bill guts our long-standing policy and it mocks our deepest 
values.
  I urge my colleagues to support democracy and to support the 
amendment that is going to be offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Radanovich) and supported by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter) on this side of the aisle and the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pallone) and others on our side of the aisle.
  Support the amendment to restore section 907.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) the chairman of the full 
committee.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am interested in some of the comments 
that have just transpired about this ominous lifting of section 907. It 
applied sanctions against one of what were two warring parties only a 
few short years ago, Azerbaijan versus Armenia.
  The fact of the matter is that these are both countries emerging from 
what was the Soviet Union, clearly they were at war with one another, 
and clearly in 1992 we levied sanctions on Azerbaijan, a Moslem 
country, while attempting to assist Armenia, an orthodox country, for 
legitimate reasons. Azerbaijan, by some reports, started the war, and 
there was a conflict that spread over a long period of time. People on 
both sides were killed; there was incredible devastation and misery 
reaped from that conflict, but Armenia won. Armenia moved over to help 
and Armenians took over Nagorno-Karabagh, expelling all of the Azeris. 
There are no Azeris in Nagorno-Karabagh. There are some 700,000 Azeri 
refugees in their own country, in Azerbaijan. Yet we still have the 
sanction imposed upon Azerbaijan by the United States which is supposed 
to be a neutral party.
  My friend who just preceded me said it is to help the oil companies. 
Is it to help the oil companies that we attempt to repeal section 907 
which is a strenuous sanction on one of the parties but not the other? 
No. It is so that the United States can simply take a balanced view 
towards a very important strategic part of the world. Kazakhstan has 
tremendous oil supplies. Turkmenistan has tremendous natural gas 
supplies. They are across the Caspian. If those supplies go west 
through Azerbaijan, possibly through Armenia, possibly through Georgia, 
into Turkey, then the fact is that the United States may benefit, but 
certainly the western industrialized world could benefit. If the oil 
supplies only go north to Russia, if the oil supplies only go east to 
China or south to Iran, the industrialized world does not benefit, and 
perhaps others who do not share the civilized goals that we in the 
United States espouse will benefit.
  The fact is that this is a conflict that must come to an end and it 
has not. Recently a proponent of maintaining section 907 said that we 
have not succeeded at all in bringing peace to this region, and, 
therefore, that is a reason to maintain section 907. He said it is a 
failed policy and since it has continued to fail, we should not lift 
907. I say exactly the opposite is true, and it is borne out by an 
article in the New York Times dated September 14, 1998 in which the 
lead says, ``Ethnic Conflict in Caucasus Shows Its First Glimmer of 
Hope.'' That is a few days after our full committee met and we lifted 
section 907 out of this bill. The first glimmer of hope evolved after 
we took the section out.
  We have been in the position of sanctioning one party to a conflict, 
continuing to beat them over the head, and then saying, ``By the way, 
we want your friendship to bring this oil west, why don't you help 
us?'' And they have not been entirely cooperative until we finally 
lifted this sanction. The time has come to lift it.
  Do not let the people tell you about the blockade. Azerbaijan 
represents 20 percent of the border with Armenia. Eighty percent is 
with other countries like Iran and Georgia. The fact is this blockade 
is a false issue. Most of the other issues referred to by the gentleman 
who preceded me are false issues.
  We should not side with the Armenians. We should not side with the 
Azeris. We should side with a balanced approach to two prospective 
friends. That means whether you are Armenian-American or whether you 
are Azeri-American, you should be in favor of the American point of 
view which is a balanced view and the lifting of 907. Let us get rid of 
this outrage which is totally slanted against one party.

               [From the New York Times, Sept. 14, 1998]

      Ethnic Conflict in Caucasus Shows Its First Glimmer of Hope

                          (By Stephen Kinzer)

       Yerevan, Armenia, Sept. 11--In a week that saw the first 
     high-level contact in years between Armenia and Azerbaijan, 
     leaders of both countries said they were eager to resolve an 
     ethnic conflict that threatens to ignite the Caucasus.
       The conflict is over the disputed enclave of Nagorno-
     Karabakh, which the world recognizes as part of Azerbaijan 
     but which has been held by its ethnic Armenian majority since 
     1994. Fighting that ended that year took more than 35,000 
     lives and forced hundreds of thousands from their homes.
       A resumption of fighting could be disastrous, because the 
     Caucasus today is delicately balanced between prosperity and 
     chaos. Huge amounts of oil have been discovered under and 
     around the Caspian Sea, but ethnic conflicts in places like 
     Nagorno-Karabakh could abort the expected boom and plunge the 
     region back into the anarchy of the early 1990's.
       There has been no substantial movement toward a settlement 
     of the conflict, and the sides remain so far apart that some 
     fear another war. But last Monday, the Prime Minister of 
     Armenia, Armen Darbinyan, flew to Azerbaijan to attend a 
     regional trade conference.
       Before meeting privately with his guest, President Heydar 
     Aliyev of Azerbaijan told reporters that he looked forward to 
     ``the restoration of friendship between Azerbaijan and 
     Armenia in the context of a peaceful resolution in Nagorno-
     Karabakh.'' It was the first time in memory he had made such 
     a statement.
       A team of diplomats from Russia, France and the United 
     States has been searching for a solution to the Nagorno-
     Karabakh dispute. They want the mountainous enclave returned 
     to Azerbaijan but given ``maximum possible autonomy.'' 
     Armenia has rejected that framework, vowing never to allow 
     Azerbaijan to rule there again.
       In an interview here after Mr. Aliyev's remarks, President 
     Robert Kocharian of Armenia said ``nonstandard approaches'' 
     could produce a ``unique solution'' in the enclave.
       He mentioned several possible models: Northern Ireland, 
     which has broad powers to run its affairs but remains under 
     British sovereignty; Bosnia and Herzegovina, where a joint 
     presidency represents the three principal ethnic groups; New 
     Caledonia, a self-governing ``overseas territory'' of France, 
     and Andorra, a principality that holds a seat in the United 
     Nations but whose nominal rulers are the President of France 
     and the bishop of Seo de Urgel, Spain.
       Mr. Kocharian said he could accept a token role for 
     Azerbaijan in the enclave to allow it

[[Page H7953]]

     a measure of ``face saving.'' But Azerbaijan, which is posted 
     to earn billions of dollars from oil exports, is seeking to 
     save much more than face. It wants Nagorno-Karabakh back, and 
     could use its coming wealth to build an army capable of 
     retaking it.
       Mr. Kocharian said he is not worried about such a 
     counterattack.
       ``Are you sure the rich man fights better?'' he asked. ``In 
     10 years, who will be ready to fight and die, and for what? 
     In 10 years, any attack on Nagorno-Karabakh would be viewed 
     by its residents as an aggression against their country. For 
     the Azerbaijani Army, Karabakh will be just a memory. Who 
     will be more willing to give their lives?''
       Mr. Kocharian rose to power on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. 
     He is a former leader of the enclave, and was elected 
     Armenia's President in March after the army forced his 
     precedessor, Levon Ter-Petrosian, to resign. Military chiefs 
     suspected that Mr. Ter-Petrosian was preparing a compromise 
     with Azerbaijan.
       ``We cannot accept anything less than Karabakh being de 
     facto Armenian,'' said Armen Aivazian, a historian and 
     foreign policy expert. ``It should be under unchallenged, 
     permanent Armenian military control. After that, Andorra 
     could be negotiated. All kinds of solutions are possible.''
       Mr. Aivazian acknowledged, however, that there seemed 
     little prospect of Azerbaijan's accepting such a formula.
       ``I personally don't see any solution in the time ahead,'' 
     he said. ``If the situation continues as it is, the chance of 
     war is not 100 percent, but certainly more than 50 or 60 
     percent.''
       Any peace accord would have to be accepted by leaders of 
     the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, and because Mr. Kocharian is 
     considered one of the enclave's heroes, he would presumably 
     be able to influence them.
       ``He has a lot of sway over Karabakh opinion,'' said a 
     European diplomat in Yerevan. ``He is an astute politician 
     and an astute string-puller, and as time goes on, he may have 
     a chance to be a statesman.''

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Torres) who was praised by many of the previous 
speakers.
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time. 
I believe that this policy of lifting section 907 is simply a question 
of rewarding Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan does not deserve to be rewarded. 
Their government has blockaded Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh for 9 
years. The blockade has cut off the supply of food, of fuel, of 
medicine and other vital goods and commodities. Azerbaijan's blockade 
has precipitated a humanitarian crisis requiring the U.S. to send 
emergency life-saving assistance to Armenia. Azerbaijan has blocked 
U.N. humanitarian aid to Nagorno-Karabagh. It has refused to allow the 
U.N. to operate in Nagorno-Karabagh and has even blocked the U.N. from 
conducting a humanitarian needs assessment.
  Mr. Chairman, at a time when Armenia is introducing market reforms 
and integrating its economy with the West, at a time when Armenia is in 
dire need, the blockade has virtually isolated Armenia from the rest of 
the world. Armenia is landlocked, and 85 percent of all Soviet-era 
goods destined to Armenia went through Azerbaijan.
  Mr. Chairman, this blockade has strengthened another nation, Turkey, 
in imposing its five-year blockade of Armenia on assistance from the 
West. We must resuscitate, we must put back into legislation section 
907 as will be proposed by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Radanovich).
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) who certainly is a member who is so 
interested in this committee and so knowledgeable on many of the areas 
of the world that are so important to the contents of our bill.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill, 
H.R. 4569, and I wanted to obviously thank the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Callahan) for yielding me this time. He has been, I think, an 
outstanding individual in terms of shepherding this particular 
appropriations bill through the process. That is not an easy task. He 
has done it with diligence, impartiality and I believe with absolute 
fairness. I commend the gentleman from Alabama. I want to thank the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for her work in coming 
together on a host of important issues, and the staff for all the work 
they have done to create this bill. Each member of this subcommittee 
has worked in a bipartisan fashion to craft a foreign aid bill that 
reflects our Nation's international priorities while maintaining a goal 
of fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget. The chairman spoke to 
that.
  This bill holds the line on foreign aid spending while maintaining 
funding for our most important foreign aid priorities. By supporting 
continued funding for Microenterprise and other development assistance 
programs, Congress reaffirms our country's crucial role as a leader in 
strengthening the ever-growing community of prosperous, democratic 
nations.
  The bill also maintains the U.S. commitment to the Middle East 
process and our long-standing ally Israel. It provides $70 million for 
the resettlement of former Soviet, East European and other refugees in 
Israel. And while U.S. support for peace in the Middle East is 
reaffirmed, the bill takes an historic first step toward eliminating 
the region's long-standing reliance on U.S. economic aid.

                              {time}  1400

  Furthermore, the committee has ensured that whenever necessary, U.S. 
funds are focused on reinforcing our vital national security needs.
  First, the bill contains our strong commitment to the democratization 
of Russia that addresses my concerns about Russian exports of nuclear 
and ballistic missile technology. This grave situation is addressed by 
stipulating that aid to Russia is contingent upon stopping the 
development of any nuclear program or ballistic missile capability. We 
are sending a powerful signal to Russia that its interaction with 
dangerous rogue states like Iran is unacceptable.
  The bill also highlights congressional concern about the recent 
activities of another dangerous rogue state, North Korea. Given the 
very frightening revelations in recent weeks regarding North Korea's 
offensive capabilities, we must take action. The U.S. must send a 
signal of its strong disapproval by suspending aid to North Korea until 
we have real proof that it has ended its dangerous ballistic missile 
and nuclear weapons program.
  And finally I would like to add concerns with respect to one 
particular issue. The bill does contain language repealing Section 907, 
a provision of law passed by this body, signed into law by President 
Bush in 1992. Section 907 prohibits direct economic and military aid to 
the government of Azerbaijan while it continues to blockade its 
neighbors and has been the centerpiece of U.S. Policy toward the 
Caucasus for the last 6 years. I am concerned that its repeal may 
compromise the U.S. role as an unbiased mediator in negotiations to 
settle the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict. This issue will undoubtedly 
surface again during the bill's consideration. I look forward to a 
spirited debate, and I hope we will be able to convince some of my 
colleagues that this may be an inappropriate move at this time. Only 
through balanced support from the U.S. will we finally see this region 
free of bloodshed and conflict and rich with prosperity and 
opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, the subject of foreign aid often sparks heated debate 
on this floor. While we all have strong opinions about a number of 
programs, I ask my colleagues to not let heated discussions about 
details keep us from the business at hand. We need to unite behind this 
fair bill to maintain U.S. leadership and strengthen our influence 
across the globe.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for Members to support this bill, and I thank the 
gentleman again for yielding me time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the also reknowned 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) in this, the line up of champions. 
We heard from the gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) who was much 
acclaimed on the floor earlier, and now the much acclaimed gentleman 
from Illinois, Mr. Yates.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, may I express my very profound thank you to 
my good friend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) the chairman 
of the Committee, to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and 
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) for many nice things they 
said about me. I think perhaps my absence from the floor at that time 
may have helped. However I am grateful. They were very generous in 
their statements, but I want them to know that I am very thankful for 
the many nice things they said about me.
  Mr. Chairman, November 2, 1948, I was elected for the first time to 
the

[[Page H7954]]

Congress of the United States. I was away from my representation in 
this House for 2 years when I ran for the Senate unsuccessfully. I came 
back the next term. And in all that time I have been a member of the 
Committee on Appropriations, luckily I believe, because I think it is 
one of the great committees of the House, and in all that time I have 
been a member of the Foreign Aid Subcommittee. First, it was called the 
Marshall Plan Subcommittee, and gradually, as the years went on, it was 
called the Foreign Aid Subcommittee. The opportunities were presented 
many times to get off that subcommittee and move to another one, but I 
considered the foreign aid program so important that I never seriously 
attempted to leave that subcommittee. I believe it is extremely 
important that adequate funding be given to the Foreign Aid 
Subcommittee in order to carry out our purposes throughout the world.
  Mr. Chairman, in all that time I doubt that I voted against more than 
1 or 2 of the bills, and I hate to say it this time because I hold 
Chairman Sonny Montgomery in such high regard. I have been associated 
with many chairmen during that period; none was better than the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), I think he was the best of all 
of them. And of course it has been a honor and a privilege to serve 
with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and my good friend 
and neighbor to the north, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter).
  I find this bill, however, lacking in so many instances that I think 
I will have difficulty in supporting it. In fact, I think I probably 
will vote against it unless it is corrected in the course of the debate 
and in amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, during the almost 50 years that I have served on this 
subcommittee, foreign aid has seen a major transition in both the 
political situation in the world and how foreign assistance and export 
programs can best address these changes.
  Foreign aid, like defense spending, helps preserve our national 
security. But, unlike defense spending, where we continue to allocate 
one out of every five dollars of our Federal budget, foreign aid, which 
is currently less than one percent of the overall Federal budget, has 
continued to decrease.
  The ironic truth about foreign aid is, that it is much cheaper than 
most Americans think and it does things that most Americans may not 
realize. Yet, this bill continues to cut the most cost effective 
portion of our national security budget, foreign aid.
  The total amount in the bill is slightly below the amount provided 
last year. It is well below the request by the administration. More 
significantly it is below our committee's 302(b) allocation.
  As former Secretary of Defense, William Perry and the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili, said in their May 
23, 1995, article in USA Today: ``This is no time to be penny-wise and 
pound-foolish. Our foreign assistance program helps finance the 
building blocks of a new international structure that is more peaceful 
and more stable than the one we left behind.''
  In my tenure in this House, I have seen firsthand the effect foreign 
aid can have on bringing economic restoration to a war-torn or 
undeveloped country. I guess it is safe to say that I am a strong 
supporter of foreign aid. In fact, in all my years in the House, I do 
not think I have ever voted against a foreign aid appropriations bill, 
but there is always a first time.
  Mr. Chairman, if asked, I would not be able to characterize this as a 
good bill. I feel that in its present condition the President would be 
forced to veto the bill. I hope my friends on the other side of the 
aisle will agree that we do not want to see this bill and this Congress 
again caught up in a continuing resolution.
  There are many funding level and policy issues which still need to be 
addressed before this bill would be worthy of my support. I hope my 
colleagues will accept amendments in order to find tune this bill 
before we go to conference with the other body.
  I still believe we can get a good bill, one with wide bipartisan 
support and one the President will be happy to sign.
  The first area I feel we need to address is the development 
assistance account. Bilateral and multilateral development assistance 
accounts have been cut much more deeply than any other area of the 
foreign operations budget over the last four years--cut on average by 
more than 30 percent out of overall cuts of about 11 percent, these 
cuts have harmed a wide range of programs including family planning, 
micro enterprise, IDA, and UNDP, to name just a few.
  The foreign policy challenges and opportunities facing the United 
States on the eve of the twenty-first century require greater attention 
to and investment in developing countries than ever before.
  It is in developing countries where issues such as rapid population 
growth, environmental degradation, food insecurity, ethnic conflict and 
widespread poverty must be addressed if we are to realize the goal of 
peace, democracy, prosperity and new export markets.
  I ask my colleagues, wouldn't logic tell you that if you increase 
development assistance and thereby provide a better standard of living, 
such a commitment would address the root causes that plague developing 
communities. Yet, this bill continues to ignore and dismiss the role 
development assistance can play in accomplishing our foreign policy 
aims and achieving our overall national security objectives.
  Another major concern is that this House is not addressing the 
shortfall in the International Monetary Fund [IMF] and insisting on 
relying on the conference committee and convoluted procedures to 
achieve complete funding before we adjourn for the year.
  In the almost 50 years since I became a Member of this House I have 
never been a part of a Congress that ignored a world financial crisis, 
and I am deeply disappointed that in the last year of my last Congress 
this is just what we are doing. If this funding is not addressed before 
we adjourn, American suppliers, business and finally the American 
people will suffer from the short sightedness and convoluted 
restrictions of the leadership in this House.
  We are the leaders of the world, and that should include being the 
leader in foreign assistance. Foreign aid is critically important to 
our position in the world community and the United States cannot 
continue to lead without the institutions funded by this bill.
  The business community in the United States--who rely heavily on such 
foreign aid institutions to create an environment favorably to 
business--request we increase our foreign aid to approximately $18 
billion.
  They see first hand how adversely affected the economy is by the 
diminished role the United States plays in the developing world, and, 
you can be sure, their foreign competitors, armed with the support of 
their government's, are ready and waiting to step right in.
  If we do not increase our level of foreign aid, the long-term 
economic impact will be unfavorable to American business, the American 
people and our national security interests.
  Mr. Chairman, Let's work together to take this bad bill and craft a 
great bill.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) who is also a member of our subcommittee 
whom we have to lean upon from time to time for expertise primarily in 
the area of the finance of this world, the World Bank and the 
International Monetary Fund. He is a true expert and a value member of 
our subcommittee.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I understand that in the course of my 
meandering discourse I referred to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan) as Sonny Montgomery. I made a mistake. I want to correct that 
immediately.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I take no offense. Former Congressman 
Montgomery might.
  Mr. YATES. He was a good friend; I doubt that. I think he would 
consider it a compliment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is a pleasure 
to have yielded to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates). I was two 
years-old when he became a Member of Congress, and it is a pleasure to 
be in the Chamber with him.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, it 
was a pleasure to serve with the gentleman's father, may I say, of 
course when he was a Member, as well as with his son.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois, 
and, reclaiming my time, I rise in support of the foreign operations 
bill, and personally I would like to thank the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Callahan) for his leadership as well as the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) and our very excellent staff for all the good 
work they do.
  The challenges we face, Mr. Chairman, around the globe are 
increasingly complex: the struggle to find peace in the middle east and 
in the Balkans, the

[[Page H7955]]

challenge of supporting emerging democracies in Eastern Europe, in 
central Asia, increased threats of nuclear proliferation and terrorism 
around the world and economic deterioration in Asia and elsewhere; that 
has a big impact on American jobs and prosperity. With this bill we 
provide some of the essential tools to promote and protect America's 
leadership and interests, and we do so within the confines of our 
balanced budget agreement.
  Particular items worthy of note in this bill include the fact that 
with the full cooperation of Israel and Egypt this bill marks the 
beginning of a multiyear plan to reduce the level of assistance to Camp 
David countries, and, as our report reflects, our committee encourages 
other traditional aid recipients to follow the bold path undertaken by 
Israel.
  Under the chairman's leadership we have also restored critical 
funding for child survival programs and disease prevention and 
eradication. I am particularly appreciative of the chairman's 
supportive efforts to combat tuberculosis and other infectious diseases 
that have emerged as major threats around the world.
  We also continue America's longstanding support of development 
assistance for the poorest of the poor including international family 
planning programs. We also placed increased emphasis on important 
priorities in our own hemisphere, especially addressing the scourge of 
illegal narcotics traffic. Further, we maintain our efforts to protect 
export-related American jobs for providing resources through the 
Export-Import Bank, OPEC, TDA to help American companies enter and 
succeed in international markets, and when our American companies 
invest in developing economies, particularly in countries that receive 
U.S. taxpayer assistance in this bill, we make it clear that we expect 
these countries will provide no less than full legal protection for 
these investments.
  Finally, our subcommittee has spent a great deal of time and 
deliberation on the issue of resources for IMF. In this bill we do 
provide for the new arrangements to borrow, and the Senate has provided 
the full administration requests so that I anticipate that this issue 
will remain one for vigorous debate as our work is completed. We sought 
and continue to seek cooperation support of the administration for much 
needed reforms at the IMF in order that all Members can be confident 
that this is an investment worthy of our support. A lot more work needs 
to be done by all of us to educate the public and promote a greater 
confidence in all of our foreign aid activities as well as IMF.
  Finally, a note of personal thanks to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan) and our ranking member for including language in our report 
on behalf of the families and victims of Pan Am Flight 103 who have 
never received proper justice.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). It is a very distinct privilege to recognize the 
ranking member of the full committee and a person who served for many 
years at ranking member of this subcommittee. It is a intimidating feat 
to have to follow in his footsteps as ranking on this committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this 
time to me, and she has done a terrific job on this bill as she does on 
virtually everything else she deals with, and I also want to express my 
appreciation to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for his 
efforts this year and through the years to try to produce a decent 
bill.
  Having said that, I very much regret what I am about to say. I have 
supported this bill for years, but I do not believe that I can any 
longer do so.
  Since 1989 we have really had euphoria in this country. The Iron 
Curtain collapsed, democracy was restored in a good many countries in 
central Europe, South Africa is a far different country than it used to 
be, we have many more democracies in Latin and Central America than we 
had a decade ago, and I think we have almost come to expect that to be 
the norm. Unfortunately the real normalcy seems to be raising its ugly 
head in many parts of the globe, and I do not believe that this bill 
meets the task of dealing with those problems.
  It is first of all, Mr. Chairman, terribly inadequate in terms of the 
way it deals with our international economic situation. We have a 
crisis in terms of what is happening in the Asian economy, and that 
sooner or later is going to collapse in on us, ruin our ability to 
export, and take away American jobs. And yet the majority party has 
refused to even allow us to vote on the question of providing full 
funding for the IMF, and this issue has been hanging around for a year. 
We cannot afford to wait any longer.
  If my colleagues will take a look at the former Soviet Union, first 
of all this bill does not provide sufficient resources to meet the 
problems in dealing with those states and then, after it has cut 
substantially the funding for those states, it then has the functional 
equivalent of earmarks which tie the President's hands in responding to 
any change in circumstances in that part of the world. We should not be 
requiring the President to spend specific amounts of money in any area 
in the former Soviet Union unless the situation on the ground warrants 
it. And yet that is what this bill unfortunately does.
  As far as Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia, Azerbaijan are concerned, I am 
not at all convinced that the solution that this bill has produced is 
not more in the interests of American oil companies than it is in the 
interests of the American people.

                              {time}  1415

  I do not believe that this is a healthy outcome.
  I also have to simply say that I think more and more, this bill has 
become a bill that satisfies the needs and desires of virtually every 
country in the world and every special interest in our own country. The 
only thing that seems to be left out is our national interests. That I 
think is no reflection on anyone who has tried to work on this bill, 
but it is a reflection on the shortsightedness of many of the groups 
that make up this body and force the committee to produce a bill which 
is essentially a political accommodation rather than a package that 
meets our real, substantive needs.
  Then finally we come to the issue of Korea. In Korea we have the most 
reckless, irresponsible and dangerous regime in the world in North 
Korea. We have 5 different foreign policy goals that we are trying to 
reach in dealing with that outrageously out-of-line regime. We have 
only been able to achieve one of those goals: the shutting down of the 
Yongbyon reactor complex which is capable now today of producing 
weapons-grade fuel to produce several nuclear bombs a year. And yet, 
this committee has produced a product which blows apart the one success 
that we have had in the midst of a lot of failures in dealing with 
Korea. It is highly dangerous to the national interests of the United 
States, and I therefore urge a ``no'' vote on the entire bill.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am not a member of this committee, 
although I am a member of the full committee, and I came to seek time 
because there is an increasing problem, and I have heard the same 
problem from both sides of the aisle. With increasing trade agreements, 
we have more and more American investors investing abroad, and our 
American citizens are getting ripped off by the same countries that we 
are giving foreign aid to.
  A good example, in Bulgaria, one of my constituents invested $4 
million, and the bank acknowledges receipt of the money. But yet, one 
of their employees took off with the money and they do not want to take 
responsibility for it. It has to go into the courts. Three years later, 
nothing has happened.
  Dr. Raffee, known worldwide as a computer expert, was asked under 
Prime Minister Zia in Bangladesh to invest in a high-tech company in 
Bangladesh. Well, to give my colleagues an idea, Bangladesh was 
established by 2 men, 1 civilian, 1 military. The civilian was the 
first President, the military was the second President. The civilian is 
the father of the current prime minister, the military gentleman is the 
father of the previous Prime Minister Zia. Each feels that the other 
woman had their entire family murdered.

[[Page H7956]]

  So my colleagues can imagine the situation that exists there. It is a 
blood feud paralleled not even close to the Hatfield and McCoy blood 
feuds. And our businessmen are getting caught right in the middle of 
it, and that is wrong.
  What I would say is that when we have our trade agreements that there 
be a rule of law established and enforced that maybe the State 
Department could have an antiAmerican business alert, and even this 
committee, in extreme cases, review and take a look to make sure that 
our American interests are secured in these extreme cases, because 
there is an increasing problem. I have talked to many of my colleagues 
on the other side, and they have constituents with the same problems.
  I would appeal to the committee and the subcommittee to take a look 
into this area and withhold funds not only in human rights, but 
American rights, just as we have in the past.
  I thank the chairman for allowing me to have the time to express 
these concerns.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Sherman), who is an expert on international 
relations, and I am pleased that he will be speaking on this bill.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman, especially for 
overstating my qualifications.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to talk about the part of this bill that repeals 
Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. This is a critically important 
part of the appropriations bill. It has been addressed by half of the 
speakers that have come to speak about the bill in general. The 
Armenian National Committee and the Armenian Assembly, the 2 largest 
Armenian organizations, the predominant Armenian organizations, have 
put out a statement saying that for Armenian Americans, this is the 
most important vote of this Congress.
  As a member of the Committee on International Relations, I feel more 
than a little concerned that such a substantive provision has been 
stuck in an appropriations bill. A provision that deals with an area 
that our committee had hearings on, our committee decided not to try to 
change this year, and then the Committee on Appropriations tries to 
change it.
  If one believes that substantive changes should be made by 
authorizing committees, if one believes that American foreign policy 
should reflect American values, then I hope my colleagues will vote for 
the Radanovich-Pallone-Rogan-Sherman amendment to this bill and delete 
those provisions that try to play havoc with American foreign policy in 
the Caucasus.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has 2 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a nationally recognized leader on international 
relations.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) for this opportunity, and also our subcommittee 
chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). With all of the 
rumors and the swirling of media events here in Washington, I think it 
is important to say something about these 2 individuals who have worked 
so well together. They do not always agree, but they produced a bill; 
some may agree with it, some may not agree. But it is an example of 
Congress working at its best and we need to pat them on the back for 
that and thank them.
  I also wanted to rise today and pay tribute to one of our colleagues 
who just walked off the floor here for a few minutes and to extend my 
personal gratitude to him on behalf of this institution, myself and our 
country, and that is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), truly a 
high-minded gentleman, someone with extraordinary intelligence and the 
gentlemanly demeanor that is so welcome. He has an incisive knowledge 
of the rules, and demonstrates truly gracious behavior in every single 
instance in which we have had a chance to deal with him.
  I am sorry he is not here, and I know he would be very embarrassed by 
all of these laudatory remarks. But he has been such a valued colleague 
to serve with and a rare talent that has raised this institution's 
standing as representative of our people. In fact, the standard that 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) set raised America and our 
people always.
  I know that our country and this House, and certainly this Member, 
will sorely miss his presence in future meetings of this subcommittee. 
He has been an unforgettable Member with whom to serve. And if only in 
my own career, and I am sure other Members feel this way, we could 
model ourselves on him, America would be so much better for it.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for her remarks about our 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates).
  Mr. Chairman, in my opening remarks I referred to the concern that I 
had that the full funding for the International Monetary Fund was not 
included in this legislation, and that was one of the reasons that I 
was urging our colleagues to oppose the bill. I have serious concerns, 
as I mentioned, about a conference committee increasing the IMF by 
$14.5 billion without the benefit of debate on the floor. I completely 
associate myself with those who object to the manner in which the IMF 
has conducted its business. I think the issue of conditionality, 
transparency, moral hazard, the description of how some countries and 
companies take risks, knowing that they will have a bailout. Maybe they 
make decisions based on that, or maybe they do not, but there certainly 
is the appearance of that happening.
  I think all of these concerns are trumped by the contagion issue; by 
the idea that our economies are interrelated globally, and that we need 
to have a mechanism, we need to have an institution that can act to 
buoy up currencies or whatever so that our markets are not flooded by 
cheap labor and that the markets for our exports are not diminished.
  So it is with grave concern about the impact on our own economy, and 
certainly with concern about the impact on the economies in the world 
and the well-being of those countries and their people that I believe 
that we should give one more round of funding to the IMF, but not any 
more. We should take it down to the basics and build it up from there. 
Again, IMF is just one other reason why I am opposing this legislation.
  Another concern that I have in this legislation is that while my 
colleagues on the other side have traditionally given the President a 
great deal of flexibility in this bill, that is not the case in this 
bill. One area of concern that has not received much attention so far 
is the Global Environmental Facility, the GEF. We are $300 million in 
arrears with the GEF. That was the request of the administration. There 
is $45 million in the bill, and I had an amendment which was offered in 
committee and defeated that would have put $50 million more into the 
GEF. These are arrears, therefore I do not need an offset for the $50 
million.
  I think that if we care about our children and our grandchildren, we 
have to be concerned about the air that they breathe and the water that 
they drink and recognize that we are not isolated from the impact of 
pollution in other countries. The work of the GEF is very, very 
important work when it comes to improving the environmental 
technologies in these countries, and many of those technologies 
exported from the United States. That again is another reason why I am 
opposing the bill, because of the lack of funding, increased funding to 
pay the arrears at the GEF.
  Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has 2 minutes 
remaining; the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am ready to close, and I think I have 
the right to close on this debate.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, recognizing that our distinguished chairman 
wishes to close, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) so that he can speak before the close of the 
gentleman's remarks.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, again, I would like to rise in support of 
an

[[Page H7957]]

amendment that is being offered, hopefully soon by my colleague, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Radonovich) of California, cosponsored 
by myself, and it is very simple and straightforward. It would simply 
strike the section relating to the repeal of Section 907 of the Freedom 
Support Act.
  The Freedom Support Act, passed by Congress on a bipartisan basis and 
signed into law by President Bush, defined U.S. policy in the Newly 
Independent Countries of the former Soviet Union in the post-Cold War 
era. Section 907 prohibits direct U.S. Government aid to Azerbaijan 
until that country lifts its blockades of Armenia and Nagorna Karabagh.
  Mr. Chairman, Section 907 was good law when we passed it back in 
1992, and it is still good law. Azerbaijan has done nothing to comply 
with the basic requirement of Section 907 that it lift its blockades of 
Armenia and Nagorna Karabagh, blockades that have caused severe human 
hardship for the Armenian people.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. Chairman, Azerbaijan is an authoritarian regime run by a Soviet 
Arab bureaucrat named Heydar Aliyev. Armenia, on the other hand, is a 
democracy that has tried to extend the institutions of democracy to its 
citizens while making the transition to a market economy.
  Yet, Mr. Chairman, if we adopt the language in the foreign ops bill, 
we will essentially be rewarding the country that has not made the 
transition from Soviet era despotism and corruption and punishing the 
country, that is Armenia, that has moved towards democracy and a market 
economy and is trying to integrate with the West.
  I would just like to say again, let there be no doubt that the 
government of Azerbaijan has blockaded Armenia for 9 years. The 
blockade has cut off the transport of food, fuel, medicine, and other 
vital supplies creating a humanitarian crisis requiring the U.S. to 
send assistance to Armenia.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) and commend him for his 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman 
from California for her work on this issue and particularly my 
colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) who I look 
forward to supporting as he offers his amendment with the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Radanovich) to straighten out this report with 
respect to ending the sanctions on those countries that are blockading 
the democratic country of Armenia, which is a country that this country 
should be doing more to work closely with and support.
  Instead, our Nation's policy is that, as embodied in this report, to 
make friends with a regime that is totally antithetical to the 
principles that this country holds dear, those democratic principles 
that are so important to this country and are also important it our 
friends in Armenia.
  I look forward to supporting the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone) as he seeks to strike this language that would call for an end 
of sanctioning a country like Azerbaijan for what they should be 
sanctioned for. I agree with my colleague, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) that we need to continue the pressure on these 
regimes so that they end the blockade of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the final minute to close.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would just like to again commend the 
gentleman from Alabama, our chairman, for his leadership and his 
cooperation. I want to commend the staff, the majority staff, Mr. 
Charlie Flickner, John Shank, Bill Inglee, and also Mark Murray and 
Lori Maes on the minority side. I commend Nancy Tippins of Mr. 
Callahan's personal staff, and Carolyn Bartholomew of my personal staff 
as well.
  I see the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) on the floor, and it is 
always a pleasure to work with him on these international issues. I 
want to commend Ann Huiskes of his staff for her work. Earlier the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) was on the floor, and I want to 
commend Joseph Reese of his staff with whom we have worked. While the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is not on the subcommittee, we 
have worked on many of these international issues although we are not 
in complete agreement today.
  Mr. Chairman, again I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. 
I think it does not measure up to the vision that our country should 
have about our foreign policy, that it is a departure from our 
bipartisan tradition on international relations, and that we can do 
better. I hope that, in the course of the process, we will and that I 
will be able to support the bill. But as it stands now, I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) has expired.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, all of the points during this debate have been well 
taken and that is exactly what this body is all about. Basically, 
though, this is a good bill. It is a bill that has received majority 
support in both subcommittee and full committee.
  There are several issues of contention that we will debate this 
afternoon, one of them being Section 907 whereby I disagree with the 
other side and the gentlewoman from California about the merits of what 
we have done. We have done exactly the right thing.
  The other is the future funding of the International Monetary Fund. 
While we do not disagree on what we hope this world will be in the 
hands of those who control the monies of the International Monetary 
Fund, they are not doing it in a responsible manner now.
  That is what this body is all about, to debate the differences. But 
let us not lose sight of where we are. We are $3.5 million below the 
subcommittee's allocation of $12.4 billion, so we are below our 
request. We are within our outlay. We are $315 million below last year. 
We are $1.1 billion below what the President has requested for 1999.
  In addition to that, we have protected things such as child survival. 
If we talk to the American people, they are against foreign aid. Most 
of them do not understand how little we give to foreign aid. But if we 
mention to them we are taking most of this money and spending it on 
children who are starving on other continents, if we tell them we are 
trying to provide health care and trying to remove horrible diseases 
that are prevalent in some areas, such as the polio which we seek to 
eradicate, with foreign aid monies, the American people do not want to 
see starving children starved. They do not want to see unhealthy 
children not receive medical attention.
  They want to assist in education. They want to stop government-to-
government aid that have been an indication of past years. So we have a 
responsible bill with a few major controversies that will be discussed.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, Members should know that even as we 
consider funds in this bill for the International Monetary Fund (IMF), 
the Government of Korea is backing away from commitments it made to the 
IMF and to the world community to finally put an end to government 
directed lending, corporate subsidies, and interference with corporate 
governance. A new round of bidding was recently announced for Korea's 
huge bankrupt motor vehicle company, Kia Motors and its affiliate Asia 
Motors, after Kia's creditors announced that 30 percent of Kia and Asia 
Motors' $8.7 billion in bad debt would be ``forgiven'' so that these 
companies, which some estimate have been bankrupt since 1991, can be 
sold as viable entities.
  I might add, the only two non-Korean firms that have expressed an 
interest in buying Kia are U.S. companies, General Motors and Ford. 
General Motors and Ford have now withdrawn from the bidding, because 
they cannot justify the burdensome terms set by the creditors for the 
sale. As a result, Kia's creditors have now successfully forced all 
foreign firms out of the bidding, leaving only Korean companies, 
Samsung, Hyundai and Daewoo, as contenders for Kia.
  Who is setting these impossible conditions? Principally, it is none 
other than the Government of Korea once again attempting to financially 
prop up Kia and to control its fate, even though it told the IMF it 
would no longer engage in this kind of activity. Kia's creditors are 
represented by the Korea Development Bank, which is 100 percent owned 
and controlled by the Government of Korea. The Korean Government also 
directly holds a 30 percent equity interest in Kia.
  By blocking the sale of Kia's assets as a bankrupt, non-viable 
entity, the Government of

[[Page H7958]]

Korea may be protecting its own equity stake in the company, but it is 
perpetuating the very nonmarket-based government subsidization and 
interference that has produced the calamitous decline of Korea's 
economy.
  Is this the kind of ``reform'' that we thought the Government of 
Korea had committed to implement in return for the $60 billion loan 
package it received from the IMF? If not, we must demand that our 
government exercise strict and aggressive monitoring of how every penny 
of the IMF funding is used and what Korea is doing to implement its 
commitments to the IMF and to fulfill its trade obligations to the 
world community.
  We cannot allow U.S. tax dollars to be used to continue the operation 
of non-viable, bankrupt Korean auto, steel, and other firms that dump 
cheap imports in our market and undermine otherwise competitive 
products made by U.S. firms and U.S. workers.
  Without strict monitoring and reporting to Congress, we will never 
know what Korea is doing. It is simply not good enough for 
Administration officials to make vague statements about being 
``encouraged'' by the progress of Korea's economic reform. Korea has 
institutions and policies that enable the government to intervene in 
commercial lending and corporate governance. This Congress needs to 
know what Korea is doing to restructure those institutions and to 
change those policies, so that government intervention in the private 
economy is minimized and Korean markets are open to U.S. and other 
foreign competitors.
  Mr. Chairman, the legislation we are considering contains significant 
requirements applicable to Korea and other IMF recipients. It provides 
that IMF-recipient governments shall not give government support or tax 
privileges to individual firms. The government-owned Korea Development 
Bank's decision to ``forgive'' a large share of Kia's debt, so that it 
can be sold as a viable entity, is government support of the most 
fundamental kind and violates the prohibition in this legislation. But 
without strict monitoring and reporting to Congress, the Government of 
Korea is free to ignore these and other warnings. We must not let that 
happen.
  Together with my Colleagues, Mr. Murtha and Mr. Regula, I have 
written Secretary of the Treasury Rubin, Secretary of Commerce Daley, 
and U.S. Trade Representatives Barshefsky, asking a number of detailed 
questions about reforms in Korea, and in particular, about the sale of 
Korea's bankrupt auto, steel, and other firms. When I receive their 
response, I will make it available in an effort to keep Members 
informed on this important matter.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I will vote yes on the final passage of 
H.R. 4569 with serious reservations. I urge the Senate and the 
Conference Committee to address the issue of family planning and other 
serious flaws that exist in the bill. If significant improvements are 
not made in the bill before it returns to the House of Representatives, 
I do not intend to support the final passage of this legislation.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I will vote yes for H.R. 4569 with the 
expectation that Senate and Conference activity will remedy the serious 
flaws that exist in the bill. If these inadequacies are not addressed 
before it returns to the House, I will not support its ultimate 
passage.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I will support passage of H.R. 4569, the 
Foreign Operations Appropriation for fiscal year 1999. I do so in spite 
of serious concerns over a number of the bill's provisions.
  Unfortunately, the Majority has once again been unwilling to provide 
adequate funding for the International Monetary Fund. H.R. 4569 
provides only $3.4 billion in credits to the IMF, far less than is 
needed to deal with the spreading economic crisis in Asia, Russia and 
other countries, and far less than the $18 billion requested by the 
Administration. It is particularly unfortunate that the Majority would 
not even allow an amendment on IMF funding in order to let the House 
have an up-or-down vote on the matter.
  I also object to language contained in this bill to codify the so-
called ``Mexico City'' restrictions on U.S. funds for international 
family planning organizations. Finally, I believe the provisions 
related to North Korea and funding for the Newly Independent States of 
the former Soviet Union need to be improved.
  I hope that these deficiencies in the bill can be corrected in 
conference with the Senate. I will not support the conference report 
unless there are major changes.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of the fiscal 
year 1999 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, but I strongly 
support the bill's provision to provide $3 billion in aid to Israel.
  While I support final passage of this bill, I am very concerned about 
the inadequate response to the shortfall in funding for the 
International Monetary Fund. It has been nearly a year since the 
Administration requested $3.4 billion for the New Arrangements to 
Borrow (NAB) and $14.5 billion to address the Asian currency crisis. 
This bill provides only the $3.4 billing in credits for the 
International Monetary Fund. Unless the U.S. provides the full share 
requested, which has no budgetary impact, no other member countries 
will increase their participation, which all IMF member countries are 
being asked to make, and we would be unable to replenish the IMF's 
depleted reserves and fund loan packages to address worldwide currency 
devaluations.
  Without this investment, the IMF will have fewer resources to meet 
future needs to provide economic stability and in particular stability 
to markets for US exports. Given that the Senate has passed the full 
amount requested, I am hopeful that the full Administration funding 
level will be met when conference action takes place on this bill. If 
the House fails to adopt the Senate provision with respect to the IMF 
funding and the President vetoes the bill as he has said he would, I 
would have no choice but to support the veto.
  While I have serious concerns about funding levels for the IMF, I 
strongly support aid to Israel, and am very pleased with the $3 billion 
appropriated for economic and military assistance provided in this 
bill. I believe the United States must maintain its commitment to 
providing aid to Israel, which is in the United States' strategic and 
economic best interest. An important regional ally and the only true 
democracy in the Middle East, Israel is certainly deserving of this 
support.
  The American-Israeli partnership is vital because it exists beyond 
normal political and strategic bonds. Both nations share a common set 
of values--individual responsibility, freedom, hope, and opportunity. 
Israel is the most reliable ally of the United States in the Middle 
East and continued foreign aid funding will maintain its solid 
partnership with the United States. Because of the importance of the 
United States-Israel relationship and the strength of Israel's 
democracy, the United States has a strong, stable democratic ally. By 
its continued support of Israel, the United States honors a historic 
commitment to a fellow democracy with which we share unique 
security, economic, and cultural ties.

  I do not believe there is anything more important than to forge a 
just and lasting peace for the Middle East. I urge my colleagues to 
continue our support for Israel and to further our national interests 
by voting for this appropriation.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this rule which would 
block any amendments to provide funding for the International Monetary 
Fund (IMF). The IMF is an indispensable organization formed in 1945 to 
assist its members with monetary issues and financial cooperation. It 
is no surprise that the IMF has grown from 29 member countries to 182 
nations today.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule we have before us today would rob us of the 
opportunity to continue to assist nations heavily affected by the 
economic contagion which has spread from Asia to Russia to Latin 
America. The global economic structures demand that we consider a rule 
which would allow us to replenish the IMF's depleted reserves. The 
requisite $14.5 billion assists not only the economically troubled 
areas I have mentioned, but also the United States. Due to the nature 
of our interlinked world economies, it is not so difficult to 
comprehend that financial woes in South Korea and Russia will 
eventually reach our shores. For example, Asia purchases about 40% of 
American agricultural exports. American exports to Asia are expected to 
decrease by 3 to 6% this year alone due to reduction of demand in this 
region.
  The people of Guam, my constituents, have felt the effects of the 
Asian Financial Crisis since it commenced last year. With our tourist 
economy dependent on the investment of our Asian neighbors, we have 
witnessed dwindling tourism numbers effectively shutting down local 
businesses and leaving numerous individuals unemployed. Between July 
1997 and July 1998, Guam visitor arrival numbers plummeted by an 
astounding 23%.
  Critics of the IMF cite that this would be the appropriate time to 
force reforms on the IMF, such as increasing the transparency of its 
operations. This reasoning is myopic. The would continues to be in the 
throes of financial crises, and instead of assisting, the United States 
is stymieing efforts to assist troubled nations. Exacting conditions on 
the IMF at this point would be counterproductive to furthering American 
economic interests.
  In the interest of our economic well-being, I urge my colleagues to 
oppose H. Res. 542.
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives will pass 
H.R. 4569, the 1999 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. Contained 
within this act was an important provision I am proud to have 
cosponsored. The provision eliminated language that would have repealed 
section 907 of the Freedom of Support Act of 1992. I want to applaud 
and recognize the overwhelming bipartisan support this measure 
received.
  The passage of this Amendment sends the clear message that the United 
States does not

[[Page H7959]]

condone the government of Azerbaijan's cruel and inhumane blockade of 
Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh. This embargo is still in effect today. As 
a result of this economic choke-hold, a bipartisan group of legislators 
included a provision to the Freedom Support Act known as Section 907.
  The Radanovish-Pallone-Rogan-Sherman amendment retains current law 
(Section 907) by prohibiting U.S. tax dollars from going to the 
dictatorial government of Azerbaijan until its government takes steps 
to lift its blockade. Presently humanitarian aid may go to the people 
of Azerbaijan through private charities. Maintaining this section 
promotes the cause of democracy, while sending the message that human 
rights violations and actions that compromise the expansion of 
democracy will not be tolerated.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Foreign Operation Appropriations Bill for FY 99 reported out of the 
Appropriations Committee. Once again, the GOP leadership has all but 
ensured confrontation with the Republican led Senate and has set the 
Congress on a collision course with the White House. This bill has 
several serious flaws that fail to address the ongoing global economic 
crisis and is simply not adequate to meet our national security 
requirements or to meet our obligations and responsibilities as the 
world's only superpower. Specifically, this bill ignores the 
President's request of the total $18 billion for the International 
Monetary Fund (IMF) and is vital to serve and replenish the IMF funding 
base which has been severely depleted by the financial crisis in 
Mexico, Asia and Russia; again includes restrictive language on 
international family planning funding; fully funds the United States 
School of Americans (SOA) which has a long history of instructing human 
rights abusers; and underfunds important international programs that 
are crucial to an effective foreign policy.
  The changes that have occurred in the world in the last decade have 
provided the United States unprecedented opportunities to enhance our 
national and economic security by solidifying our global leadership and 
by bringing democracy to many countries. The Congress has debated the 
IMF replenishment for a full year. In that time, the economic crisis 
has spread from Asia to Russia, and is now threatening to strike in 
Latin America. It is not time for Congress to take a proactive role on 
this replenishment. The IMF is an imperfect solution, not the problem, 
and it is one of the only tools available to address the serious global 
economic turmoil. As a senior Member of the House Banking Committee, I 
visited southeast Asia last winter and met with political and financial 
leaders in China, Korea and Japan. Following the trip, I was convinced 
more than ever that the Asian economic contagion would not be isolated 
to Asia. Just yesterday, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan and 
Treasury Secretary Rubin stressed again the importance of increasing 
the funding for the IMF. Furthermore, the Republican led Senate 
included the full $18 Billion requested by the Administration in its 
passed Foreign Operations Bill. The fact remains that the replenishment 
of the IMF will ultimately benefit American workers, businesses and 
farmers by protecting our economic strength.
  This bill also contains language restricting foreign organizations 
who receive family planning assistance from using their own funds to 
seek to change laws in their own respective country. This provision 
punishes organizations for engaging in legal activities in their own 
countries that would be protected by the First Amendment, if carried 
out in the United States. Funding for preventive family planning leads 
to a decrease in unintended pregnancies, a decrease in maternal deaths, 
and a decrease in abortion. Funds under these programs are legally 
prohibited from supporting or encouraging abortion as a method of 
family planning. These restrictions are safeguarded by legally binding 
contracts with the organizations that receive U.S. funds, by close 
technical monitoring, and by regular audits by independent, nationally 
recognized accounting firms. None of these funds are utilized for 
abortion purposes.
  International family planning assistance is intended to help women 
make informed health care decisions, improve the quality of life for 
citizens of developing nations, and promote economic responsibility in 
allocating scarce resources. Ultimately, I believe it will be in the 
best interest of the United States to support programs that strive to 
help the poor and underprivileged, especially women in such need. Such 
funds prevent unwanted pregnancies and the abortions that may follow. 
In its current form, this provision would even muzzle organizations 
from speaking out against abortion in their own countries. Again, the 
GOP led Senate did not include this restrictive language in its 
version, thus setting up a difficult conference negotiation. 
Furthermore, the President has indicated clearly that this language is 
unacceptable and that he will veto any bill containing such language.

  Again, the GOP leadership insisted on providing full funding for 
expanding the International Military Education and Training (IMET) 
programs to countries with horrific histories of human rights abuses. 
Specifically, funding for the School of the Americas (S.O.A.). The 
S.O.A. was established in 1946 to train military officers from Latin 
American countries. To date, nearly 60,000 military personnel from 
various Latin American countries have attended the S.O.A. 
Unfortunately, upon returning to their home countries a number of 
graduates have participated in the overthrow of democratically elected 
governments and in broad abuses of human rights. The lessons taught by 
the U.S. at the S.O.A. were clearly not very effective in guiding 
democratic military conduct. I have serious apprehension to any 
congressional commitment to S.O.A. instruction that will bring about 
positive change in Latin America or in the Global theater. Only the 
closure of the S.O.A. could better serve this objective. That is the 
right thing to do symbolically and substantively.
  This bill appropriates only $43 million of the $300 million requested 
by the President for the Global Environment Facility (G.E.F) of the 
World Bank. This important facility funds environmental projects 
throughout the world. The G.E.F. was created in response to the vast 
needs in developing countries for multilateral resources devoted to 
mitigating environmental problems. Currently, the G.E.F. is funding 
programs to address a variety of environmental problems including the 
promotion of a biodiversity, creating energy efficiency and cleaning up 
polluted water. Without additional funding, G.E.F. will run out of 
money soon and this vital work will stop.
  Many funding levels for programs that the Committee has reported will 
severely undercut our ability to provide leadership throughout the 
global community. Specifically, the Peace Corps defining programs, the 
Export Import Bank, and the Protocols to implement the Comprehensive 
Test Ban Treaty.
  Overall, this bill fails to provide adequate resources to meet our 
national security requirements and reaffirm our obligation and 
responsibilities as the world's superpower. The Republican leaders has 
again illustrated its indifference to meeting the needs of the global 
financial crises, reaffirming its commitments to human rights, 
providing environmental leadership abroad, and assisting those who need 
our help the most in this age of poverty, civil discord and economic 
turmoil. I urge Members to vote no on this bill.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises to express his support 
for H.R. 4569, the Foreign Operations and Export Financing Act for 
1999. This Member would like to also express his strong support for 
provisions within this measure that support the U.S. Army School of the 
Americas.
  Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues are aware, there has been a 
concerted effort to close the U.S. Army School of the Americas by 
opponents of the school that have often used distorted or false 
information that serves one purpose--to mislead the American public. 
The U.S. Army School of the Americas is a U.S. Army military training 
institution that it is a key Latin American foreign policy tool for the 
United States and an integral part of the U.S. Southern Command's 
engagement strategy in Latin America.
  The primary mission of the School is to promote democracy, civilian 
control of the military, respect for human rights, and doctrinally 
sound, relevant military education and training to the nations of Latin 
America. With the change in the National Security Strategy from 
containment to engagement and enlargement the U.S. Army School of the 
Americas has shifted its curriculum to provide course instruction in 
areas such as civil-military operations, counterdrug operations, 
democratic sustainment, peacekeeping operations, and humanitarian 
demining.
  Opponents of the School have attempted to place the blame for many of 
the human rights abuses in Latin American countries on the U.S. Army 
School of the Americas. It should be noted that in the 50-year 
existence of the School and its almost 60,000 graduates that less than 
one percent of those students have ever been linked to human rights 
violations. The human rights training taught is more comprehensive than 
human rights training taught at any other U.S. military school.
  Also, of critical importance is the counterdrug operations course at 
the U.S. Army School of the Americas which teaches both military and 
civilian police forces the necessary skills to stop the cultivation, 
production and transportation of illegal drugs. Many of the School's 
graduates have lost their lives while combating the narco-guerrillas 
and drug lords in Bolivia, Colombia, and Ecuador--key countries in the 
United States war on drugs. These counterdrug operations are of vital 
interest to our national security as the efforts of these brave Latin 
American soldiers are aimed at reducing the flow of drugs across our 
borders.
  The U.S. Army School of the Americas has been endorsed by the 
Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Department of the 
Army, the Office of National Drug Control

[[Page H7960]]

Policy, and the Drug Enforcement Agency. The School does far more good 
in promoting democratic values and respect for human rights among Latin 
American countries.
  This Member supports the sustainment of the U.S. Army School of the 
Americas as provided in the Foreign Operations and Export Financing Act 
for 1999 and urges his colleagues to do so as well.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pelosi 
amendment to fully fund the International Monetary Fund.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress is once again prohibited from moving forward 
on the incredible important issue of IMF replenishment. Earlier this 
year, the House Banking Committee supported a bill to fully fund the 
IMF by a 40-9 vote. This bipartisan measure includes needed reforms of 
the program to make the Fund more transparent and accountable, improve 
labor standards in recipient countries, and increase the effectiveness 
of market-oriented reforms. Unfortunately, since the consideration of 
this measure in committee, IMF funding has been bogged down by 
extraneous issues. This must stop.
  The global economy has been going through a tumultuous time over the 
past year. First the Asian Tigers slipped, then Russia. Now we are 
receiving news that Brazil, one of the strongest and largest economies 
in Latin America, is experiencing economic retraction. We need to stand 
up and do what's right, not only to bolster the global economy, but to 
protect American economy, American jobs, and American values. Should 
our economy falter, the Federal budget surplus will be at risk.
  How can we, as stewards of our Nation's fiscal house, oppose IMF 
funding when failure to do so threatens to drag our strong domestic 
economy along with it? I urge my colleagues to oppose the point of 
order and support full IMF funding.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, it is disappointing to me that the House is 
moving to approve new funding for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) 
in this legislation and shutting out amendments on the IMF, because the 
IMF Board of Directors is working on a capital deregulation agenda very 
similar to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI).
  The amendment I intended to offer with my friend from Florida, Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen, would have required the Secretary of the Treasury to 
oppose an attempt by the IMF to expand its jurisdiction over 
international capital flows, before any new money is released for the 
IMF.
  We won't be able to offer that amendment because the rule for this 
bill puts time constraints on amendments and does not make IMF 
amendments in order. That is unfortunate.
  The MAI is a highly controversial international investment treaty 
which has existed in near obscurity for more than 2 years. The MAI was 
conceived in secrecy, negotiated mostly in secret, and, if the IMF has 
its way, it will implement provisions very similar to the MAI in 
secret. The future of the MAI is uncertain, but the IMF's plan to 
liberalize controls on capital is moving full speed ahead.
  The IMF is working on an amendment to its Articles of Agreement that 
would give the IMF the power to require member countries to commit to 
full capital account liberalization. The IMF could then dictate to 
countries the removal of all barriers to the international flow of 
capital. The IMF would become the ultimate enforcer of capital 
deregulation. This would increase the IMF's power over all member 
countries, including the United States U.S. investor protection laws 
could be endangered, and Congress would have nothing to say about it.
  The IMF's proposed capital liberalization strategy would also 
increase the likelihood and scope of future financial crises. Rapidly 
growing and extremely volatile international capital flows have 
rendered may emerging markets and developing countries extremely 
vulnerable to destabilizing speculative capital. The IMF's dismal 
record of predicting these crises increase the possibility that 
Congress will be called upon to bail out troubled economies in the 
future. If you add weakened capital regulation to that mix, the sky 
becomes the limit for these bailouts.
  Whatever you think of the MAI or the IMF, the kind of important 
decisions contemplated to require the United States to remove controls 
on the flow of capital should be made by Congress, not unelected 
international bureaucrats. Furthermore, we should not be throwing good 
money after bad in these troubled foreign economies by dumbing down 
their capital flow controls.
  We shouldn't give the IMF a blank check with this bill and we 
definitely should not allow the IMF to assume the ability to require 
the weakening of the regulation of the movement of capital either here 
in the United States or in other countries.
  The Klink/Ros-Lehtinen amendment would have ensured that Congress has 
the say in developing U.S. capital regulations and help prevent or 
reduce any future bailouts by the IMF. I'm disappointed that our 
amendment could not be debated today.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule for a period not to exceed 5 hours and shall be 
considered read through page 141, line 18.
  The text of H.R. 4569 through page 141, line 18 is as follows:
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, namely:

               TITLE I--EXPORT AND INVESTMENT ASSISTANCE


                export-import bank of the united states

       The Export-Import Bank of the United States is authorized 
     to make such expenditures within the limits of funds and 
     borrowing authority available to such corporation, and in 
     accordance with law, and to make such contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations, as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as may be necessary in carrying out the program for the 
     current fiscal year for such corporation: Provided, That none 
     of the funds available during the current fiscal year may be 
     used to make expenditures, contracts, or commitments for the 
     export of nuclear equipment, fuel, or technology to any 
     country other than a nuclear-weapon state as defined in 
     Article IX of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear 
     Weapons eligible to receive economic or military assistance 
     under this Act that has detonated a nuclear explosive after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.


                         subsidy appropriation

       For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, insurance, 
     and tied-aid grants as authorized by section 10 of the 
     Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended, $745,500,000 to 
     remain available until September 30, 2003: Provided, That 
     such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall 
     be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974: Provided further, That such sums shall remain 
     available until 2014 for the disbursement of direct loans, 
     loan guarantees, insurance and tied-aid grants obligated in 
     fiscal years 1999 and 2000: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds appropriated by this Act or any prior Act 
     appropriating funds for foreign operations, export financing, 
     or related programs for tied-aid credits or grants may be 
     used for any other purpose except through the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated by this paragraph 
     are made available notwithstanding section 2(b)(2) of the 
     Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, in connection with the 
     purchase or lease of any product by any East European 
     country, any Baltic State, or any agency or national thereof.


                        administrative expenses

       For administrative expenses to carry out the direct and 
     guaranteed loan and insurance programs (to be computed on an 
     accrual basis), including hire of passenger motor vehicles 
     and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to 
     exceed $20,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses for members of the Board of Directors, $50,277,000: 
     Provided, That necessary expenses (including special services 
     performed on a contract or fee basis, but not including other 
     personal services) in connection with the collection of 
     moneys owed the Export-Import Bank, repossession or sale of 
     pledged collateral or other assets acquired by the Export-
     Import Bank in satisfaction of moneys owed the Export-Import 
     Bank, or the investigation or appraisal of any property, or 
     the evaluation of the legal or technical aspects of any 
     transaction for which an application for a loan, guarantee or 
     insurance commitment has been made, shall be considered 
     nonadministrative expenses for the purposes of this heading.


                overseas private investment corporation

                           noncredit account

       The Overseas Private Investment Corporation is authorized 
     to make, without regard to fiscal year limitations, as 
     provided by 31 U.S.C. 9104, such expenditures and commitments 
     within the limits of funds available to it and in accordance 
     with law as may be necessary: Provided, That the amount 
     available for administrative expenses to carry out the credit 
     and insurance programs (including an amount for official 
     reception and representation expenses which shall not exceed 
     $35,000) shall not exceed $33,000,000: Provided further, That 
     project-specific transaction costs, including direct and 
     indirect costs incurred in claims settlements, and other 
     direct costs associated with services provided to specific 
     investors or potential investors pursuant to section 234 of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, shall not be considered 
     administrative expenses for the purposes of this heading.


                            program account

       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, $50,000,000, 
     as authorized by section 234 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 to be derived by transfer from the Overseas Private 
     Investment Corporation Noncredit Account: Provided, That such 
     costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be 
     as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974: Provided further, That such sums shall be available for 
     direct loan obligations and loan guaranty commitments 
     incurred or made during fiscal years 1999 and 2000: Provided 
     further, That such sums shall

[[Page H7961]]

     remain available through fiscal year 2007 for the 
     disbursement of direct and guaranteed loans obligated in 
     fiscal year 1999, and through fiscal year 2008 for the 
     disbursement of direct and guaranteed loans obligated in 
     fiscal year 2000: Provided further, That in addition, such 
     sums as may be necessary for administrative expenses to carry 
     out the credit program may be derived from amounts available 
     for administrative expenses to carry out the credit and 
     insurance programs in the Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation Noncredit Account and merged with said account.

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                      trade and development agency

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 661 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $41,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 2000: 
     Provided, That the Trade and Development Agency may receive 
     reimbursements from corporations and other entities for the 
     costs of grants for feasibility studies and other project 
     planning services, to be deposited as an offsetting 
     collection to this account and to be available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2000, for necessary expenses under this 
     paragraph: Provided further, That such reimbursements shall 
     not cover, or be allocated against, direct or indirect 
     administrative costs of the agency.

                TITLE II--BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President

       For expenses necessary to enable the President to carry out 
     the provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and for 
     other purposes, to remain available until September 30, 1999, 
     unless otherwise specified herein, as follows:


                  agency for international development

                child survival and disease programs fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     chapters 1 and 10 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, for child survival, basic education, assistance to 
     combat tropical and other diseases, and related activities, 
     in addition to funds otherwise available for such purposes, 
     $650,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That this amount shall be made available for such activities 
     as: (1) immunization programs; (2) oral rehydration programs; 
     (3) health and nutrition programs, and related education 
     programs, which address the needs of mothers and children; 
     (4) water and sanitation programs; (5) assistance for 
     displaced and orphaned children; (6) programs for the 
     prevention, treatment, and control of, and research on, 
     tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, polio, malaria and other diseases; 
     and (7) up to $98,000,000 for basic education programs for 
     children: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading may be made available for 
     nonproject assistance.


                         development assistance

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     sections 103 through 106 and chapter 10 of part I of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, $1,174,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2000: Provided, That none of 
     the funds made available in this Act nor any unobligated 
     balances from prior appropriations may be made available to 
     any organization or program which, as determined by the 
     President of the United States, supports or participates in 
     the management of a program of coercive abortion or 
     involuntary sterilization: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds made available under this heading may be used to pay 
     for the performance of abortion as a method of family 
     planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice 
     abortions; and that in order to reduce reliance on abortion 
     in developing nations, funds shall be available only to 
     voluntary family planning projects which offer, either 
     directly or through referral to, or information about access 
     to, a broad range of family planning methods and services: 
     Provided further, That in awarding grants for natural family 
     planning under section 104 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 no applicant shall be discriminated against because of 
     such applicant's religious or conscientious commitment to 
     offer only natural family planning; and, additionally, all 
     such applicants shall comply with the requirements of the 
     previous proviso: Provided further, That for purposes of this 
     or any other Act authorizing or appropriating funds for 
     foreign operations, export financing, and related programs, 
     the term ``motivate'', as it relates to family planning 
     assistance, shall not be construed to prohibit the provision, 
     consistent with local law, of information or counseling about 
     all pregnancy options: Provided further, That nothing in this 
     paragraph shall be construed to alter any existing statutory 
     prohibitions against abortion under section 104 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding section 109 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, of the funds appropriated under this heading in this 
     Act, and of the unobligated balances of funds previously 
     appropriated under this heading, not to exceed $2,500,000 may 
     be transferred to ``International Organizations and 
     Programs'' for a contribution to the International Fund for 
     Agricultural Development (IFAD), and that any such transfer 
     of funds shall be subject to the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading may be made available for any activity which is in 
     contravention to the Convention on International Trade in 
     Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES): Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading may be made available for assistance for the central 
     Government of the Republic of South Africa, until the 
     Secretary of State reports in writing to the appropriate 
     committees of the Congress on the steps being taken by the 
     United States Government to negotiate the repeal, suspension, 
     or termination of section 15(c) of South Africa's Medicines 
     and Related Substances Control Amendment Act No. 90 of 1997.


                  private and voluntary organizations

       None of the funds appropriated by this Act for development 
     assistance may be made available to any United States private 
     and voluntary organization, except any cooperative 
     development organization, which obtains less than 20 percent 
     of its total annual funding for international activities from 
     sources other than the United States Government: Provided, 
     That the requirements of the provisions of section 123(g) of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the provisions on 
     private and voluntary organizations in title II of the 
     Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 
     1985 (as enacted in Public Law 98-473) shall be superseded by 
     the provisions of this section, except that the authority 
     contained in the last sentence of section 123(g) may be 
     exercised by the Administrator with regard to the 
     requirements of this paragraph.
       Funds appropriated under title II of this Act should be 
     made available to private and voluntary organizations at a 
     level which is at least equivalent to the level provided in 
     fiscal year 1995. Such private and voluntary organizations 
     shall include those which operate on a not-for-profit basis, 
     receive contributions from private sources, receive voluntary 
     support from the public and are deemed to be among the most 
     cost-effective and successful providers of development 
     assistance.


                   international disaster assistance

       For necessary expenses for international disaster relief, 
     rehabilitation, and reconstruction assistance pursuant to 
     section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 
     amended, $150,000,000, to remain available until expended.


         micro and small enterprise development program account

       For the cost of direct loans and loan guarantees, 
     $1,500,000, as authorized by section 108 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, as amended: Provided, That such costs 
     shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That guarantees of 
     loans made under this heading in support of microenterprise 
     activities may guarantee up to 70 percent of the principal 
     amount of any such loans notwithstanding section 108 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. In addition, for 
     administrative expenses to carry out programs under this 
     heading, $500,000, all of which may be transferred to and 
     merged with the appropriation for Operating Expenses of the 
     Agency for International Development: Provided further, That 
     funds made available under this heading shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2000.


             urban and environmental credit program account

       For administrative expenses to carry out guaranteed loan 
     programs, $5,500,000, all of which may be transferred to and 
     merged with the appropriation for Operating Expenses of the 
     Agency for International Development.


     payment to the foreign service retirement and disability fund

       For payment to the ``Foreign Service Retirement and 
     Disability Fund'', as authorized by the Foreign Service Act 
     of 1980, $44,552,000.


     operating expenses of the agency for international development

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 667, $460,000,000: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act for programs administered by the 
     Agency for International Development may be used to finance 
     printing costs of any report or study (except feasibility, 
     design, or evaluation reports or studies) in excess of 
     $25,000 without the approval of the Administrator of the 
     Agency or the Administrator's designee.


 operating expenses of the agency for international development office 
                          of inspector general

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 667, $31,500,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2000, which sum shall be available for the Office of the 
     Inspector General of the Agency for International 
     Development.

                  Other Bilateral Economic Assistance


                         economic support fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     chapter 4 of part II, $2,326,000,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2000: Provided, That of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading, not to exceed $1,080,000,000 
     shall be available only for Israel, which sum shall be 
     available on a grant basis as a cash transfer and shall be 
     disbursed within 30 days of enactment of this Act or by 
     October 31, 1998, whichever is later: Provided further, That 
     not to exceed $775,000,000 shall be available only for Egypt, 
     which sum shall be provided on a grant basis, and of which 
     sum cash transfer assistance

[[Page H7962]]

     may be provided, with the understanding that Egypt will 
     undertake significant economic reforms which are additional 
     to those which were undertaken in previous fiscal years: 
     Provided further, That in exercising the authority to provide 
     cash transfer assistance for Israel, the President shall 
     ensure that the level of such assistance does not cause an 
     adverse impact on the total level of nonmilitary exports from 
     the United States to such country.


                     international fund for ireland

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $19,600,000, which shall be available for the United States 
     contribution to the International Fund for Ireland and shall 
     be made available in accordance with the provisions of the 
     Anglo-Irish Agreement Support Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-
     415): Provided, That such amount shall be expended at the 
     minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for projects 
     and activities: Provided further, That funds made available 
     under this heading shall remain available until September 30, 
     2000.


          assistance for eastern europe and the baltic states

       (a) For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Support for East 
     European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989, $450,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2000, which shall be 
     available, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     economic assistance and for related programs for Eastern 
     Europe and the Baltic States.
       (b) Funds appropriated under this heading shall be 
     considered to be economic assistance under the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 for purposes of making available the 
     administrative authorities contained in that Act for the use 
     of economic assistance.
       (c) None of the funds appropriated under this heading may 
     be made available for new housing construction or repair or 
     reconstruction of existing housing in Bosnia and Herzegovina 
     unless directly related to the efforts of United States 
     troops to promote peace in said country.
       (d) With regard to funds appropriated under this heading 
     for the economic revitalization program in Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina, and local currencies generated by such funds 
     (including the conversion of funds appropriated under this 
     heading into currency used by Bosnia and Herzegovina as local 
     currency and local currency returned or repaid under such 
     program)--
       (1) the Administrator of the Agency for International 
     Development shall provide written approval for grants and 
     loans prior to the obligation and expenditure of funds for 
     such purposes, and prior to the use of funds that have been 
     returned or repaid to any lending facility or grantee; and
       (2) the provisions of section 532 of this Act shall apply.
       (e) The President is authorized to withhold funds 
     appropriated under this heading made available for economic 
     revitalization programs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, if he 
     determines and certifies to the Committees on Appropriations 
     that the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina has not 
     complied with article III of annex 1-A of the General 
     Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina 
     concerning the withdrawal of foreign forces, and that 
     intelligence cooperation on training, investigations, and 
     related activities between Iranian officials and Bosnian 
     officials has not been terminated.
       (f) Not to exceed $225,000,000 of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading may be made available for Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina.
       (g) Funds appropriated under this heading or in prior 
     appropriations Acts that are or have been made available for 
     an Enterprise Fund may be deposited by such Fund in interest-
     bearing accounts prior to the Fund's disbursement of such 
     funds for program purposes. The Fund may retain for such 
     program purposes any interest earned on such deposits without 
     returning such interest to the Treasury of the United States 
     and without further appropriation by the Congress. Funds made 
     available for Enterprise Funds shall be expended at the 
     minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for projects 
     and activities.


  assistance for the new independent states of the former soviet union

       (a) For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     chapter 11 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     and the FREEDOM Support Act, for assistance for the new 
     independent states of the former Soviet Union and for related 
     programs, $590,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2000: Provided, That the provisions of such chapter shall 
     apply to funds appropriated by this paragraph.
       (b) Funds appropriated under title II of this Act, 
     including funds appropriated under this heading, should be 
     made available for assistance for Mongolia at a level which 
     is at least equivalent to the level provided in fiscal year 
     1998: Provided, That funds made available for assistance for 
     Mongolia may be made available in accordance with the 
     purposes and utilizing the authorities provided in chapter 11 
     of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
       (c)(1) Of the funds appropriated under this heading that 
     are allocated for assistance for the Government of Russia, 50 
     percent shall be withheld from obligation until the President 
     determines and certifies in writing to the Committees on 
     Appropriations that the Government of Russia has terminated 
     implementation of arrangements to provide Iran with technical 
     expertise, training, technology, or equipment necessary to 
     develop a nuclear reactor, related nuclear research 
     facilities or programs, or ballistic missile capability.
       (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) assistance may be 
     provided for the Government of Russia if the President 
     determines and certifies to the Committees on Appropriations 
     that making such funds available: (A) is vital to the 
     national security interest of the United States; and (B) that 
     the Government of Russia is taking meaningful steps to limit 
     major supply contracts and to curtail the transfer of 
     technology and technological expertise related to activities 
     referred to in paragraph (1).
       (d) Not more than 25 percent of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading may be made available for assistance for 
     any country in the region.
       (e) Of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less 
     than 33 percent shall be made available for assistance for 
     the Southern Caucasus region: Provided, That of the funds 
     made available for the Southern Caucasus region, 40 percent 
     should be used for reconstruction and other activities 
     relating to the peaceful resolution of conflicts within the 
     region, especially those in the vicinity of Abkhazia and 
     Nagorno-Karabakh: Provided further, That funds made available 
     to parties participating in the Minsk Process under the first 
     proviso of this subsection shall be provided only to those 
     parties which agree to participate in direct or proximity 
     negotiations without preconditions to resolve conflicts in 
     the region: Provided further, That if the Secretary of State 
     after May 30, 1999, determines and reports to the relevant 
     committees of Congress that the full amount of funds that may 
     be made available under the first proviso cannot be 
     effectively utilized, the amount provided under the previous 
     proviso may be used for other purposes under this heading.
       (f) Funds provided under the previous subsection shall be 
     made available for humanitarian assistance for refugees, 
     displaced persons, and needy civilians affected by the 
     conflicts in the Southern Caucasus region, including those in 
     Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this or any other Act.
       (g) Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act shall not apply 
     to--
       (1) activities to support democracy or assistance under 
     title V of the FREEDOM Support Act and section 1424 of Public 
     Law 104-201;
       (2) any assistance provided by the Trade and Development 
     Agency under section 661 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (22 U.S.C. 2421); and
       (3) any activity carried out by a member of the United 
     States and Foreign Commercial Service while acting within his 
     or her official capacity.
       (h) Funds appropriated under this heading or in prior 
     appropriations Acts that are or have been made available for 
     an Enterprise Fund may be deposited by such Fund in interest-
     bearing accounts prior to the Fund's disbursement of such 
     funds for program purposes. The Fund may retain for such 
     program purposes any interest earned on such deposits without 
     returning such interest to the Treasury of the United States 
     and without further appropriation by the Congress. Funds made 
     available for Enterprise Funds shall be expended at the 
     minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for projects 
     and activities.

                          Independent Agencies

                       Inter-American Foundation

       For expenses necessary to carry out the functions of the 
     Inter-American Foundation in accordance with the provisions 
     of section 401 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1969, and to 
     make commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations, 
     as provided by 31 U.S.C. 9104(b)(3), $20,680,000.

                     African Development Foundation

       For expenses necessary to carry out title V of the 
     International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 
     1980, Public Law 96-533, and to make commitments without 
     regard to fiscal year limitations (31 U.S.C. 9104(b)(3)), 
     $13,160,000: Provided, That funds made available to grantees 
     may be invested pending expenditure for project purposes when 
     authorized by the President of the Foundation: Provided 
     further, That interest earned shall be used only for the 
     purposes for which the grant was made: Provided further, That 
     this authority applies to interest earned both prior to and 
     following enactment of this provision: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 505(a)(2) of the African Development 
     Foundation Act, in exceptional circumstances the board of 
     directors of the Foundation may waive the $250,000 limitation 
     contained in that section with respect to a project: Provided 
     further, That the Foundation shall provide a report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations after each time such waiver 
     authority is exercised.


                              peace corps

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Peace Corps Act (75 Stat. 612), $230,000,000, including the 
     purchase of not to exceed five passenger motor vehicles for 
     administrative purposes for use outside of the United States: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading shall be used to pay for abortions: Provided further, 
     That funds appropriated under this heading shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2000.

[[Page H7963]]

                          Department of State


                    international narcotics control

       For necessary expenses to carry out section 481 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, $275,000,000: Provided, That 
     during fiscal year 1999, the Department of State may also use 
     the authority of section 608 of the Act, without regard to 
     its restrictions, to receive excess property from an agency 
     of the United States Government for the purpose of providing 
     it to a foreign country under chapter 8 of part I of that Act 
     subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.


                    migration and refugee assistance

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to 
     enable the Secretary of State to provide, as authorized by 
     law, a contribution to the International Committee of the Red 
     Cross, assistance to refugees, including contributions to the 
     International Organization for Migration and the United 
     Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and other activities 
     to meet refugee and migration needs; salaries and expenses of 
     personnel and dependents as authorized by the Foreign Service 
     Act of 1980; allowances as authorized by sections 5921 
     through 5925 of title 5, United States Code; purchase and 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; and services as authorized 
     by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, $640,000,000: 
     Provided, That not more than $12,000,000 shall be available 
     for administrative expenses.


     UNITED STATES EMERGENCY REFUGEE AND MIGRATION ASSISTANCE FUND

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 2(c) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 
     1962, as amended (22 U.S.C. 260(c)), $30,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the funds made 
     available under this heading are appropriated notwithstanding 
     the provisions contained in section 2(c)(2) of the Migration 
     and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 which would limit the 
     amount of funds which could be appropriated for this purpose.


    nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining and related programs

       For necessary expenses for nonproliferation, anti-terrorism 
     and related programs and activities, $152,000,000, to carry 
     out the provisions of chapter 8 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 for anti-terrorism assistance, section 
     504 of the FREEDOM Support Act for the Nonproliferation and 
     Disarmament Fund, section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act 
     or the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for demining, the 
     clearance of unexploded ordnance, and related activities, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, including 
     activities implemented through nongovernmental and 
     international organizations, section 301 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 for a voluntary contribution to the 
     International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and for a United 
     States contribution to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban 
     Treaty Preparatory Commission: Provided, That of this amount 
     not to exceed $15,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, may be made available for the Nonproliferation and 
     Disarmament Fund, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     to promote bilateral and multilateral activities relating to 
     nonproliferation and disarmament: Provided further, That such 
     funds may also be used for such countries other than the new 
     independent states of the former Soviet Union and 
     international organizations when it is in the national 
     security interest of the United States to do so: Provided 
     further, That such funds shall be subject to the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading 
     may be made available for the International Atomic Energy 
     Agency only if the Secretary of State determines (and so 
     reports to the Congress) that Israel is not being denied its 
     right to participate in the activities of that Agency: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of State shall submit to 
     the appropriate congressional committees an annual report (to 
     be submitted with the annual presentation for appropriations) 
     providing a full and detailed accounting of the fiscal year 
     request for the United States contribution to KEDO, the 
     expected operating budget of KEDO, to include unpaid debt, 
     proposed annual costs associated with heavy fuel oil 
     purchases, and the amount of funds pledged by other donor 
     nations and organizations to support KEDO activities on a per 
     country basis, and other related activities.

                       Department of the Treasury


                           debt restructuring

       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of modifying direct loans 
     and loan guarantees, as the President may determine, for 
     which funds have been appropriated or otherwise made 
     available for programs within the International Affairs 
     Budget Function 150, including the cost of selling, reducing, 
     or canceling amounts, through debt buybacks and swaps, owed 
     to the United States as a result of concessional loans made 
     to eligible Latin American and Caribbean countries, pursuant 
     to part IV of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; of 
     modifying concessional credit agreements with least developed 
     countries, as authorized under section 411 of the 
     Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as 
     amended, and concessional loans, guarantees and credit 
     agreements with any country in sub-Saharan Africa, as 
     authorized under section 572 of the Foreign Operations, 
     Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 
     1989 (Public Law 100-461); and of modifying any obligation, 
     or portion of such obligation for Latin American countries to 
     pay for purchases of United States agricultural commodities 
     guaranteed by the Commodity Credit Corporation under export 
     credit guarantee programs authorized pursuant to section 5(f 
     ) of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act of June 29, 
     1948, as amended, section 4(b) of the Food for Peace Act of 
     1966, as amended (Public Law 89-808), or section 202 of the 
     Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as amended (Public Law 95-
     501); $36,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $2,900,000 of such funds may be 
     used for implementation of improvements in the foreign credit 
     reporting system of the United States Government: Provided 
     further, That the authority provided by section 572 of Public 
     Law 100-461 may be exercised only with respect to countries 
     that are eligible to borrow from the International 
     Development Association, but not from the International Bank 
     for Reconstruction and Development, commonly referred to as 
     ``IDA-only'' countries.

                     TITLE III--MILITARY ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


             international military education and training

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 541 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $50,000,000 of which up to $1,000,000 may remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That the civilian personnel for 
     whom military education and training may be provided under 
     this heading may include civilians who are not members of a 
     government whose participation would contribute to improved 
     civil-military relations, civilian control of the military, 
     or respect for human rights: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated under this heading for grant financed military 
     education and training for Indonesia and Guatemala may only 
     be available for expanded international military education 
     and training and funds made available for Guatemala may only 
     be provided through the regular notification procedures of 
     the Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds appropriated under this heading may be made 
     available to support grant financed military education and 
     training at the School of the Americas unless the Secretary 
     of Defense certifies that the instruction and training 
     provided by the School of the Americas is fully consistent 
     with training and doctrine, particularly with respect to the 
     observance of human rights, provided by the Department of 
     Defense to United States military students at Department of 
     Defense institutions whose primary purpose is to train United 
     States military personnel: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations, no later than January 15, 1999, a report 
     detailing the training activities of the School of the 
     Americas and a general assessment regarding the performance 
     of its graduates during 1997.


                   foreign military financing program

       For expenses necessary for grants to enable the President 
     to carry out the provisions of section 23 of the Arms Export 
     Control Act, $3,335,910,000: Provided, That of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading, not to exceed $1,860,000,000 
     shall be available for grants only for Israel, and not to 
     exceed $1,300,000,000 shall be made available for grants only 
     for Egypt: Provided further, That the funds appropriated by 
     this paragraph for Israel shall be disbursed within 30 days 
     of enactment of this Act or by October 31, 1998, whichever is 
     later: Provided further, That to the extent that the 
     Government of Israel requests that funds be used for such 
     purposes, grants made available for Israel by this paragraph 
     shall, as agreed by Israel and the United States, be 
     available for advanced weapons systems, of which not less 
     than $490,000,000 shall be available for the procurement in 
     Israel of defense articles and defense services, including 
     research and development: Provided further, That during 
     fiscal year 1999 the President is authorized to, and shall, 
     direct drawdowns of defense articles from the stocks of the 
     Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of 
     Defense, and military education and training of an aggregate 
     value of not less than $25,000,000 under the authority of 
     this proviso for Jordan for the purposes of part II of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: Provided further, That 
     section 506(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall 
     apply, and section 632(d) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 shall not apply, to any such drawdown: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds made available under this heading 
     shall be available for any non-NATO country participating in 
     the Partnership for Peace Program except through the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated by this paragraph 
     shall be nonrepayable notwithstanding any requirement in 
     section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act: Provided further, 
     That funds made available under this heading shall be 
     obligated upon apportionment in accordance with paragraph 
     (5)(C) of title 31, United States Code, section 1501(a).
       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of direct loans authorized 
     by section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act as follows: cost 
     of direct loans, $20,000,000: Provided, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal 
     amount of direct loans of not to exceed $167,000,000.

[[Page H7964]]

       None of the funds made available under this heading shall 
     be available to finance the procurement of defense articles, 
     defense services, or design and construction services that 
     are not sold by the United States Government under the Arms 
     Export Control Act unless the foreign country proposing to 
     make such procurements has first signed an agreement with the 
     United States Government specifying the conditions under 
     which such procurements may be financed with such funds: 
     Provided, That all country and funding level increases in 
     allocations shall be submitted through the regular 
     notification procedures of section 515 of this Act: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading shall be available for Sudan and Liberia: Provided 
     further, That funds made available under this heading may be 
     used, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     demining, the clearance of unexploded ordnance, and related 
     activities and may include activities implemented through 
     nongovernmental and international organizations: Provided 
     further, That only those countries for which assistance was 
     justified for the ``Foreign Military Sales Financing 
     Program'' in the fiscal year 1989 congressional presentation 
     for security assistance programs may utilize funds made 
     available under this heading for procurement of defense 
     articles, defense services or design and construction 
     services that are not sold by the United States Government 
     under the Arms Export Control Act: Provided further, That, 
     subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations, funds made available under this 
     heading for the cost of direct loans may also be used to 
     supplement the funds available under this heading for grants, 
     and funds made available under this heading for grants may 
     also be used to supplement the funds available under this 
     heading for the cost of direct loans: Provided further, That 
     funds appropriated under this heading shall be expended at 
     the minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for defense 
     articles and services: Provided further, That not more than 
     $29,910,000 of the funds appropriated under this heading may 
     be obligated for necessary expenses, including the purchase 
     of passenger motor vehicles for replacement only for use 
     outside of the United States, for the general costs of 
     administering military assistance and sales: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds under this heading shall be 
     available for Guatemala: Provided further, That not more than 
     $340,000,000 of funds realized pursuant to section 
     21(e)(1)(A) of the Arms Export Control Act may be obligated 
     for expenses incurred by the Department of Defense during 
     fiscal year 1999 pursuant to section 43(b) of the Arms Export 
     Control Act, except that this limitation may be exceeded only 
     through the regular notification procedures of the Committees 
     on Appropriations.


                        peacekeeping operations

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 551 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $62,250,000: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading shall be obligated or expended except as 
     provided through the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.

               TITLE IV--MULTILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                  international financial institutions

     contribution to the international bank for reconstruction and 
                              development

       For payment to the International Bank for Reconstruction 
     and Development by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the 
     United States contribution to the Global Environment Facility 
     (GEF), $42,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2000, which shall be available for contributions previously 
     due.


       contribution to the international development association

       For payment to the International Development Association by 
     the Secretary of the Treasury, $800,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


          contribution to the inter-american development bank

       For payment to the Inter-American Development Bank by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, for the United States share of the 
     paid-in share portion of the increase in capital stock, 
     $25,610,667, and for the United States share of the increase 
     in the resources of the Fund for Special Operations, 
     $21,152,000, to remain available until expended, which shall 
     be available for contributions previously due.


              limitation on callable capital subscriptions

       The United States Governor of the Inter-American 
     Development Bank may subscribe without fiscal year limitation 
     to the callable capital portion of the United States share of 
     such capital stock in an amount not to exceed $1,503,718,910.


contribution to the enterprise for the americas multilateral investment 
                                  fund

       For payment to the Enterprise for the Americas Multilateral 
     Investment Fund by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the 
     United States contribution to the Fund to be administered by 
     the Inter-American Development Bank, $50,000,000 to remain 
     available until expended, which shall be available for 
     contributions previously due.


               contribution to the asian development bank

       For payment to the Asian Development Bank by the Secretary 
     of the Treasury for the United States share of the paid-in 
     portion of the increase in capital stock, $13,221,596, to 
     remain available until expended.


              limitation on callable capital subscriptions

       The United States Governor of the Asian Development Bank 
     may subscribe without fiscal year limitation to the callable 
     capital portion of the United States share of such capital 
     stock in an amount not to exceed $647,858,204.


               contribution to the asian development fund

       For the United States contribution by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to the increases in resources of the Asian 
     Development Fund, as authorized by the Asian Development Bank 
     Act, as amended (Public Law 89-369), $210,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $150,000,000 shall be 
     available for contributions previously due.


              contribution to the african development fund

       For the United States contribution by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to the increase in resources of the African 
     Development Fund, $128,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $88,300,000 shall be available for 
     contributions previously due.


  contribution to the european bank for reconstruction and development

       For payment to the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development by the Secretary of the Treasury, $35,778,717, 
     for the United States share of the paid-in portion of the 
     increase in capital stock, to remain available until 
     expended.


              limitation on callable capital subscriptions

       The United States Governor of the European Bank for 
     Reconstruction and Development may subscribe without fiscal 
     year limitation to the callable capital portion of the United 
     States share of such capital stock in an amount not to exceed 
     $123,237,803.


                international organizations and programs

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and of 
     section 2 of the United Nations Environment Program 
     Participation Act of 1973, $157,250,000: Provided, That none 
     of the funds appropriated under this heading may be made 
     available for the United Nations Fund for Science and 
     Technology: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading may be made available for the 
     United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA): Provided further, 
     That none of the funds appropriated under this heading may be 
     made available for the Korean Peninsula Energy Development 
     Organization (KEDO) or the International Atomic Energy Agency 
     (IAEA).

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS


             obligations during last month of availability

       Sec. 501. Except for the appropriations entitled 
     ``International Disaster Assistance'', and ``United States 
     Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund'', not more 
     than 15 percent of any appropriation item made available by 
     this Act shall be obligated during the last month of 
     availability.


     prohibition of bilateral funding for international financial 
                              institutions

       Sec. 502. Notwithstanding section 614 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, none of the funds 
     contained in title II of this Act may be used to carry out 
     the provisions of section 209(d) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961.


                    limitation on residence expenses

       Sec. 503. Of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act, not to exceed $126,500 shall be for 
     official residence expenses of the Agency for International 
     Development during the current fiscal year: Provided, That 
     appropriate steps shall be taken to assure that, to the 
     maximum extent possible, United States-owned foreign 
     currencies are utilized in lieu of dollars.


                         limitation on expenses

       Sec. 504. Of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act, not to exceed $5,000 shall be for 
     entertainment expenses of the Agency for International 
     Development during the current fiscal year.


               limitation on representational allowances

       Sec. 505. Of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act, not to exceed $95,000 shall be 
     available for representation allowances for the Agency for 
     International Development during the current fiscal year: 
     Provided, That appropriate steps shall be taken to assure 
     that, to the maximum extent possible, United States-owned 
     foreign currencies are utilized in lieu of dollars: Provided 
     further, That of the funds made available by this Act for 
     general costs of administering military assistance and sales 
     under the heading ``Foreign Military Financing Program'', not 
     to exceed $2,000 shall be available for entertainment 
     expenses and not to exceed $50,000 shall be available for 
     representation allowances: Provided further, That of the 
     funds made available by this Act under the heading 
     ``International Military Education and Training '', not to 
     exceed $50,000 shall be available for entertainment 
     allowances: Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available by this Act for the Inter-American Foundation, not 
     to exceed $2,000 shall be available for entertainment and 
     representation allowances: Provided further,

[[Page H7965]]

     That of the funds made available by this Act for the Peace 
     Corps, not to exceed a total of $4,000 shall be available for 
     entertainment expenses: Provided further, That of the funds 
     made available by this Act under the heading ``Trade and 
     Development Agency'', not to exceed $2,000 shall be available 
     for representation and entertainment allowances.


                 prohibition on financing nuclear goods

       Sec. 506. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     (other than funds for ``Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, 
     Demining and Related Programs'') pursuant to this Act, for 
     carrying out the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, may be used, 
     except for purposes of nuclear safety, to finance the export 
     of nuclear equipment, fuel, or technology.


        prohibition against direct funding for certain countries

       Sec. 507. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended 
     to finance directly any assistance or reparations to Cuba, 
     Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Sudan, or Syria: Provided, 
     That for purposes of this section, the prohibition on 
     obligations or expenditures shall include direct loans, 
     credits, insurance and guarantees of the Export-Import Bank 
     or its agents.


                             military coups

       Sec. 508. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended 
     to finance directly any assistance to any country whose duly 
     elected head of government is deposed by military coup or 
     decree: Provided, That assistance may be resumed to such 
     country if the President determines and reports to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that subsequent to the 
     termination of assistance a democratically elected government 
     has taken office.


                       transfers between accounts

       Sec. 509. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated under an appropriation account to which they 
     were not appropriated, except for transfers specifically 
     provided for in this Act, unless the President, prior to the 
     exercise of any authority contained in the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 to transfer funds, consults with and provides a 
     written policy justification to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate: Provided, That the exercise of such authority shall 
     be subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.


                  deobligation/reobligation authority

       Sec. 510. (a) Amounts certified pursuant to section 1311 of 
     the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1955, as having been 
     obligated against appropriations heretofore made under the 
     authority of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for the same 
     general purpose as any of the headings under title II of this 
     Act are, if deobligated, hereby continued available for the 
     same period as the respective appropriations under such 
     headings or until September 30, 1999, whichever is later, and 
     for the same general purpose, and for countries within the 
     same region as originally obligated: Provided, That the 
     Appropriations Committees of both Houses of the Congress are 
     notified 15 days in advance of the reobligation of such funds 
     in accordance with regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.
       (b) Obligated balances of funds appropriated to carry out 
     section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act as of the end of 
     the fiscal year immediately preceding the current fiscal year 
     are, if deobligated, hereby continued available during the 
     current fiscal year for the same purpose under any authority 
     applicable to such appropriations under this Act: Provided, 
     That the authority of this subsection may not be used in 
     fiscal year 1999.


                         availability of funds

       Sec. 511. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation after the 
     expiration of the current fiscal year unless expressly so 
     provided in this Act: Provided, That funds appropriated for 
     the purposes of chapters 1, 8, and 11 of part I, section 667, 
     and chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, as amended, and funds provided under the heading 
     ``Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States'', 
     shall remain available until expended if such funds are 
     initially obligated before the expiration of their respective 
     periods of availability contained in this Act: Provided 
     further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, any funds made available for the purposes of chapter 1 
     of part I and chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 which are allocated or obligated for cash 
     disbursements in order to address balance of payments or 
     economic policy reform objectives, shall remain available 
     until expended: Provided further, That the report required by 
     section 653(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall 
     designate for each country, to the extent known at the time 
     of submission of such report, those funds allocated for cash 
     disbursement for balance of payment and economic policy 
     reform purposes.


            limitation on assistance to countries in default

       Sec. 512. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used to furnish assistance to any country which 
     is in default during a period in excess of one calendar year 
     in payment to the United States of principal or interest on 
     any loan made to such country by the United States pursuant 
     to a program for which funds are appropriated under this Act: 
     Provided, That this section and section 620(q) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 shall not apply to funds made 
     available in this Act or during the current fiscal year for 
     Nicaragua, Brazil, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and 
     Liberia, and for any narcotics-related assistance for 
     Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru authorized by the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 or the Arms Export Control Act.


                           commerce and trade

       Sec. 513. (a) None of the funds appropriated or made 
     available pursuant to this Act for direct assistance and none 
     of the funds otherwise made available pursuant to this Act to 
     the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation shall be obligated or expended to finance any 
     loan, any assistance or any other financial commitments for 
     establishing or expanding production of any commodity for 
     export by any country other than the United States, if the 
     commodity is likely to be in surplus on world markets at the 
     time the resulting productive capacity is expected to become 
     operative and if the assistance will cause substantial injury 
     to United States producers of the same, similar, or competing 
     commodity: Provided, That such prohibition shall not apply to 
     the Export-Import Bank if in the judgment of its Board of 
     Directors the benefits to industry and employment in the 
     United States are likely to outweigh the injury to United 
     States producers of the same, similar, or competing 
     commodity, and the Chairman of the Board so notifies the 
     Committees on Appropriations.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated by this or any other Act 
     to carry out chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 shall be available for any testing or breeding 
     feasibility study, variety improvement or introduction, 
     consultancy, publication, conference, or training in 
     connection with the growth or production in a foreign country 
     of an agricultural commodity for export which would compete 
     with a similar commodity grown or produced in the United 
     States: Provided, That this subsection shall not prohibit--
       (1) activities designed to increase food security in 
     developing countries where such activities will not have a 
     significant impact in the export of agricultural commodities 
     of the United States; or
       (2) research activities intended primarily to benefit 
     American producers.


                          surplus commodities

       Sec. 514. The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the 
     United States Executive Directors of the International Bank 
     for Reconstruction and Development, the International 
     Development Association, the International Finance 
     Corporation, the Inter-American Development Bank, the 
     International Monetary Fund, the Asian Development Bank, the 
     Inter-American Investment Corporation, the North American 
     Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development, the African Development Bank, and the African 
     Development Fund to use the voice and vote of the United 
     States to oppose any assistance by these institutions, using 
     funds appropriated or made available pursuant to this Act, 
     for the production or extraction of any commodity or mineral 
     for export, if it is in surplus on world markets and if the 
     assistance will cause substantial injury to United States 
     producers of the same, similar, or competing commodity.


                       notification requirements

       Sec. 515. (a) For the purposes of providing the executive 
     branch with the necessary administrative flexibility, none of 
     the funds made available under this Act for ``Child Survival 
     and Disease Programs Fund'', ``Development assistance'', 
     ``International Organizations and Programs'', ``Trade and 
     Development Agency'', ``International narcotics control'', 
     ``Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States'', 
     ``Assistance for the New Independent States of the Former 
     Soviet Union'', ``Economic Support Fund'', ``Peacekeeping 
     operations'', ``Operating expenses of the Agency for 
     International Development'', ``Operating expenses of the 
     Agency for International Development Office of Inspector 
     General'', ``Nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining and 
     related programs'', ``Foreign Military Financing Program'', 
     ``International military education and training '', ``Peace 
     Corps'', ``Migration and refugee assistance'', shall be 
     available for obligation for activities, programs, projects, 
     type of materiel assistance, countries, or other operations 
     not justified or in excess of the amount justified to the 
     Appropriations Committees for obligation under any of these 
     specific headings unless the Appropriations Committees of 
     both Houses of Congress are previously notified 15 days in 
     advance: Provided, That the President shall not enter into 
     any commitment of funds appropriated for the purposes of 
     section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act for the provision 
     of major defense equipment, other than conventional 
     ammunition, or other major defense items defined to be 
     aircraft, ships, missiles, or combat vehicles, not previously 
     justified to Congress or 20 percent in excess of the 
     quantities justified to Congress unless the Committees on 
     Appropriations are notified 15 days in advance of such 
     commitment: Provided further, That this section shall not 
     apply to any reprogramming for an activity, program, or 
     project under chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 of less than 10 percent of the amount previously 
     justified to the Congress for obligation for

[[Page H7966]]

     such activity, program, or project for the current fiscal 
     year: Provided further, That the requirements of this section 
     or any similar provision of this Act or any other Act, 
     including any prior Act requiring notification in accordance 
     with the regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations, may be waived if failure to do so would pose 
     a substantial risk to human health or welfare: Provided 
     further, That in case of any such waiver, notification to the 
     Congress, or the appropriate congressional committees, shall 
     be provided as early as practicable, but in no event later 
     than three days after taking the action to which such 
     notification requirement was applicable, in the context of 
     the circumstances necessitating such waiver: Provided 
     further, That any notification provided pursuant to such a 
     waiver shall contain an explanation of the emergency 
     circumstances.
       (b) Drawdowns made pursuant to section 506(a)(2) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall be subject to the 
     regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.


limitation on availability of funds for international organizations and 
                                programs

       Sec. 516. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of 
     this Act, none of the funds provided for ``International 
     Organizations and Programs'' shall be available for the 
     United States proportionate share, in accordance with section 
     307(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, for any 
     programs identified in section 307, or for Libya, Iran, or, 
     at the discretion of the President, Communist countries 
     listed in section 620(f ) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, as amended: Provided, That, subject to the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations, 
     funds appropriated under this Act or any previously enacted 
     Act making appropriations for foreign operations, export 
     financing, and related programs, which are returned or not 
     made available for organizations and programs because of the 
     implementation of this section or any similar provision of 
     law, shall remain available for obligation through September 
     30, 2000.


           NEW INDEPENDENT STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION

       Sec. 517. (a) Economic Reforms.--None of the funds 
     appropriated under the heading ``Assistance for the New 
     Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' shall be made 
     available for assistance for the Government of Russia--
       (1) unless that Government is making progress in 
     implementing comprehensive economic reforms based on market 
     principles, private ownership, negotiating repayment of 
     commercial debt, respect for commercial contracts, and 
     equitable treatment of foreign private investment;
       (2) if that Government applies or transfers United States 
     assistance to any entity for the purpose of expropriating or 
     seizing ownership or control of assets, investments, or 
     venture.

     Assistance may be furnished without regard to this subsection 
     if the President determines that to do so is in the national 
     interest.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated under the heading 
     ``Assistance for the New Independent States of the Former 
     Soviet Union'' shall be made available to any government of 
     the new independent states of the former Soviet Union if that 
     government directs any action in violation of the territorial 
     integrity or national sovereignty of any other new 
     independent state, such as those violations included in the 
     Helsinki Final Act: Provided, That such funds may be made 
     available without regard to the restriction in this 
     subsection if the President determines that to do so is in 
     the national security interest of the United States: Provided 
     further, That the restriction of this subsection shall not 
     apply to the use of such funds for the provision of 
     assistance for purposes of humanitarian and refugee relief.
       (c) None of the funds appropriated under the heading 
     ``Assistance for the New Independent States of the Former 
     Soviet Union'' shall be made available for any state to 
     enhance its military capability: Provided, That this 
     restriction shall not apply to demilitarization, demining, or 
     nonproliferation programs.
       (d) Funds appropriated under the heading ``Assistance for 
     the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' shall 
     be subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.
       (e) Funds made available in this Act for assistance to the 
     new independent states of the former Soviet Union shall be 
     subject to the provisions of section 117 (relating to 
     environment and natural resources) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961.
       (f) In issuing new task orders, entering into contracts, or 
     making grants, with funds appropriated under the heading 
     ``Assistance for the New Independent States of the Former 
     Soviet Union'' in this Act or in prior appropriations Acts, 
     for projects or activities that have as one of their primary 
     purposes the fostering of private sector development, the 
     Coordinator for United States Assistance to the New 
     Independent States and the implementing agency shall 
     encourage the participation of and give significant weight to 
     contractors and grantees who propose investing a significant 
     amount of their own resources (including volunteer services 
     and in-kind contributions) in such projects and activities.


   prohibition on funding for abortions and involuntary sterilization

       Sec. 518. None of the funds made available to carry out 
     part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, may 
     be used to pay for the performance of abortions as a method 
     of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to 
     practice abortions. None of the funds made available to carry 
     out part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 
     may be used to pay for the performance of involuntary 
     sterilization as a method of family planning or to coerce or 
     provide any financial incentive to any person to undergo 
     sterilizations. None of the funds made available to carry out 
     part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, may 
     be used to pay for any biomedical research which relates in 
     whole or in part, to methods of, or the performance of, 
     abortions or involuntary sterilization as a means of family 
     planning. None of the funds made available to carry out part 
     I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, may be 
     obligated or expended for any country or organization if the 
     President certifies that the use of these funds by any such 
     country or organization would violate any of the above 
     provisions related to abortions and involuntary 
     sterilizations: Provided, That none of the funds made 
     available under this Act may be used to lobby for or against 
     abortion.


foreign organizations that perform or promote abortion overseas; forced 
               abortion in the people's republic of china

       Sec. 518A. (a) Section 104 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(h) Restrictions on Assistance to Foreign Organizations 
     That Perform or Actively Promote Abortions.--
       ``(1) Performance of abortions.--
       ``(A) Notwithstanding section 614 of this Act or any other 
     provision of law, no funds appropriated for population 
     planning activities or other population assistance may be 
     made available for any foreign private, nongovernmental, or 
     multilateral organization until the organization certifies 
     that it will not, during the period for which the funds are 
     made available, perform abortions in any foreign country, 
     except where the life of the mother would be endangered if 
     the pregnancy were carried to term or in cases of forcible 
     rape or incest.
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) may not be construed to apply to the 
     treatment of injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal 
     abortions or to assistance provided directly to the 
     government of a country.
       ``(2) Lobbying activities.--
       ``(A) Notwithstanding section 614 of this Act or any other 
     provision of law, no funds appropriated for population 
     planning activities or other population assistance may be 
     made available for any foreign private, nongovernmental, or 
     multilateral organization until the organization certifies 
     that it will not, during the period for which the funds are 
     made available, violate the laws of any foreign country 
     concerning the circumstances under which abortion is 
     permitted, regulated, or prohibited, or engage in any 
     activity or effort to alter the laws or governmental policies 
     of any foreign country concerning the circumstances under 
     which abortion is permitted, regulated, or prohibited.
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to activities in 
     opposition to coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
       ``(3) Application to foreign organizations.--The 
     prohibitions of this subsection apply to funds made available 
     to a foreign organization either directly or as a 
     subcontractor or subgrantee, and the certifications required 
     by paragraphs (1) and (2) apply to activities in which the 
     organization engages either directly or through a 
     subcontractor or subgrantee.
       ``(4) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     `activity or effort to alter the laws or governmental 
     policies of any foreign country concerning the circumstances 
     under which abortion is permitted, regulated, or prohibited' 
     includes not only overt lobbying for such changes, but also 
     such other activities as sponsoring, rather than merely 
     attending, conferences and workshops on the alleged defects 
     in the abortion laws, as well the drafting and distribution 
     of materials or public statements calling attention to such 
     alleged defects.''.
       (b) Section 301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Limitation Relating to Forced Abortions in the 
     People's Republic of China.--Notwithstanding section 614 of 
     this Act or any other provision of law, no funds may be made 
     available for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) in 
     any fiscal year unless the President certifies that--
       ``(1) UNFPA has terminated all activities in the People's 
     Republic of China, and the United States has received 
     assurances that UNFPA will conduct no such activities during 
     the fiscal year for which the funds are to be made available; 
     or
       ``(2) during the 12 months preceding such certification 
     there have been no abortions as the result of coercion 
     associated with the family planning policies of the national 
     government or other governmental entities within the People's 
     Republic of China. As used in this section, the term 
     `coercion' includes physical duress or abuse, destruction or 
     confiscation of property, loss of means of livelihood, or 
     severe psychological pressure.''.
       (c) The President may waive the provisions of section 
     104(h)(1) of the Foreign Assistance

[[Page H7967]]

     Act of 1961, as amended, pertaining to population assistance 
     to foreign organizations that perform abortions in foreign 
     countries, for any fiscal year: Provided, That if the 
     President exercises the waiver provided by this subsection 
     for any fiscal year, not to exceed $356,000,000 may be made 
     available for population planning activities or other 
     population assistance for such fiscal year: Provided further, 
     That the limitation in the previous proviso includes all 
     funds for programs and activities designed to control 
     fertility or to reduce or delay childbirths or pregnancies, 
     irrespective of the heading under which such funds are made 
     available.


         excess defense articles for central european countries

       Sec. 519. Section 105 of Public Law 104-164 (110 Stat 1427) 
     is amended by striking ``1996 and 1997'' and inserting ``1999 
     and 2000''.


                   special notification requirements

       Sec. 520. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be obligated or expended for Colombia, Honduras, Haiti, 
     Liberia, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Serbia, Sudan, or the 
     Democratic Republic of Congo except as provided through the 
     regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.


              definition of program, project, and activity

       Sec. 521. For the purpose of this Act, ``program, project, 
     and activity'' shall be defined at the appropriations Act 
     account level and shall include all appropriations and 
     authorizations Acts earmarks, ceilings, and limitations with 
     the exception that for the following accounts: Economic 
     Support Fund and Foreign Military Financing Program, 
     ``program, project, and activity'' shall also be considered 
     to include country, regional, and central program level 
     funding within each such account; for the development 
     assistance accounts of the Agency for International 
     Development ``program, project, and activity'' shall also be 
     considered to include central program level funding, either 
     as: (1) justified to the Congress; or (2) allocated by the 
     executive branch in accordance with a report, to be provided 
     to the Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of 
     enactment of this Act, as required by section 653(a) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.


               child survival, aids, and other activities

       Sec. 522. Up to $10,000,000 of the funds made available by 
     this Act for assistance for family planning, health, child 
     survival, basic education, and AIDS, may be used to reimburse 
     United States Government agencies, agencies of State 
     governments, institutions of higher learning, and private and 
     voluntary organizations for the full cost of individuals 
     (including for the personal services of such individuals) 
     detailed or assigned to, or contracted by, as the case may 
     be, the Agency for International Development for the purpose 
     of carrying out family planning activities, child survival, 
     and basic education activities, and activities relating to 
     research on, and the treatment and control of acquired immune 
     deficiency syndrome in developing countries: Provided, That 
     funds appropriated by this Act that are made available for 
     child survival and disease programs activities may be made 
     available notwithstanding any provision of law that restricts 
     assistance to foreign countries: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated under title II of this Act may be made available 
     pursuant to section 301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     if a primary purpose of the assistance is for child survival 
     and related programs: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated by this Act that are made available for family 
     planning activities may be made available notwithstanding 
     section 512 of this Act and section 620(q) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961.


       prohibition against indirect funding to certain countries

       Sec. 523. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated to finance 
     indirectly any assistance or reparations to Cuba, Iraq, 
     Libya, Iran, Syria, North Korea, or the People's Republic of 
     China, unless the President of the United States certifies 
     that the withholding of these funds is contrary to the 
     national interest of the United States.


                           reciprocal leasing

       Sec. 524. Section 61(a) of the Arms Export Control Act is 
     amended by striking out ``1998'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``1999''.


                notification on excess defense equipment

       Sec. 525. Prior to providing excess Department of Defense 
     articles in accordance with section 516(a) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, the Department of Defense shall 
     notify the Committees on Appropriations to the same extent 
     and under the same conditions as are other committees 
     pursuant to subsection (c) of that section: Provided, That 
     before issuing a letter of offer to sell excess defense 
     articles under the Arms Export Control Act, the Department of 
     Defense shall notify the Committees on Appropriations in 
     accordance with the regular notification procedures of such 
     Committees: Provided further, That such Committees shall also 
     be informed of the original acquisition cost of such defense 
     articles.


                       authorization requirement

       Sec. 526. Funds appropriated by this Act may be obligated 
     and expended notwithstanding section 10 of Public Law 91-672 
     and section 15 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act 
     of 1956.


                           democracy in china

       Sec. 527. Notwithstanding any other provision of law that 
     restricts assistance to foreign countries, funds appropriated 
     by this Act for ``Economic Support Fund'' may be made 
     available to provide general support for nongovernmental 
     organizations located outside the People's Republic of China 
     that have as their primary purpose fostering democracy in 
     that country, and for activities of nongovernmental 
     organizations located outside the People's Republic of China 
     to foster democracy in that country: Provided, That none of 
     the funds made available for activities to foster democracy 
     in the People's Republic of China may be made available for 
     assistance to the government of that country.


                 commercial leasing of defense articles

       Sec. 528. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
     subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations, the authority of section 23(a) 
     of the Arms Export Control Act may be used to provide 
     financing to Israel, Egypt and NATO and major non-NATO allies 
     for the procurement by leasing (including leasing with an 
     option to purchase) of defense articles from United States 
     commercial suppliers, not including Major Defense Equipment 
     (other than helicopters and other types of aircraft having 
     possible civilian application), if the President determines 
     that there are compelling foreign policy or national security 
     reasons for those defense articles being provided by 
     commercial lease rather than by government-to-government sale 
     under such Act.


                         competitive insurance

       Sec. 529. All Agency for International Development 
     contracts and solicitations, and subcontracts entered into 
     under such contracts, shall include a clause requiring that 
     United States insurance companies have a fair opportunity to 
     bid for insurance when such insurance is necessary or 
     appropriate.


                  stingers in the persian gulf region

       Sec. 530. Except as provided in section 581 of the Foreign 
     Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 1990, the United States may not sell or 
     otherwise make available any Stingers to any country 
     bordering the Persian Gulf under the Arms Export Control Act 
     or chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961.


                          debt-for-development

       Sec. 531. In order to enhance the continued participation 
     of nongovernmental organizations in economic assistance 
     activities under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     including endowments, debt-for-development and debt-for-
     nature exchanges, a nongovernmental organization which is a 
     grantee or contractor of the Agency for International 
     Development may place in interest bearing accounts funds made 
     available under this Act or prior Acts or local currencies 
     which accrue to that organization as a result of economic 
     assistance provided under title II of this Act and any 
     interest earned on such investment shall be used for the 
     purpose for which the assistance was provided to that 
     organization.


                           separate accounts

       Sec. 532. (a) Separate Accounts for Local Currencies.--(1) 
     If assistance is furnished to the government of a foreign 
     country under chapter 1 and 10 of part I or chapter 4 of part 
     II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 under agreements 
     which result in the generation of local currencies of that 
     country, the Administrator of the Agency for International 
     Development shall--
       (A) require that local currencies be deposited in a 
     separate account established by that government;
       (B) enter into an agreement with that government which sets 
     forth--
       (i) the amount of the local currencies to be generated; and
       (ii) the terms and conditions under which the currencies so 
     deposited may be utilized, consistent with this section; and
       (C) establish by agreement with that government the 
     responsibilities of the Agency for International Development 
     and that government to monitor and account for deposits into 
     and disbursements from the separate account.
       (2) Uses of Local Currencies.--As may be agreed upon with 
     the foreign government, local currencies deposited in a 
     separate account pursuant to subsection (a), or an equivalent 
     amount of local currencies, shall be used only--
       (A) to carry out chapter 1 or 10 of part I or chapter 4 of 
     part II (as the case may be), for such purposes as--
       (i) project and sector assistance activities; or
       (ii) debt and deficit financing; or
       (B) for the administrative requirements of the United 
     States Government.
       (3) Programming Accountability.--The Agency for 
     International Development shall take all necessary steps to 
     ensure that the equivalent of the local currencies disbursed 
     pursuant to subsection (a)(2)(A) from the separate account 
     established pursuant to subsection (a)(1) are used for the 
     purposes agreed upon pursuant to subsection (a)(2).
       (4) Termination of Assistance Programs.--Upon termination 
     of assistance to a country under chapter 1 or 10 of part I or 
     chapter 4 of part II (as the case may be), any unencumbered 
     balances of funds which remain in a separate account 
     established pursuant to subsection (a) shall be disposed of 
     for such purposes as may be agreed to by the government of 
     that country and the United States Government.
       (5) Conforming Amendments.--The provisions of this 
     subsection shall supersede the

[[Page H7968]]

     tenth and eleventh provisos contained under the heading 
     ``Sub-Saharan Africa, Development Assistance'' as included in 
     the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 1989 and sections 531(d) and 609 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
       (6) Reporting Requirement.--The Administrator of the Agency 
     for International Development shall report on an annual basis 
     as part of the justification documents submitted to the 
     Committees on Appropriations on the use of local currencies 
     for the administrative requirements of the United States 
     Government as authorized in subsection (a)(2)(B), and such 
     report shall include the amount of local currency (and United 
     States dollar equivalent) used and/or to be used for such 
     purpose in each applicable country.
       (b) Separate Accounts for Cash Transfers.--(1) If 
     assistance is made available to the government of a foreign 
     country, under chapter 1 or 10 of part I or chapter 4 of part 
     II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as cash transfer 
     assistance or as nonproject sector assistance, that country 
     shall be required to maintain such funds in a separate 
     account and not commingle them with any other funds.
       (2) Applicability of Other Provisions of Law.--Such funds 
     may be obligated and expended notwithstanding provisions of 
     law which are inconsistent with the nature of this assistance 
     including provisions which are referenced in the Joint 
     Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference 
     accompanying House Joint Resolution 648 (H. Report No. 98-
     1159).
       (3) Notification.--At least 15 days prior to obligating any 
     such cash transfer or nonproject sector assistance, the 
     President shall submit a notification through the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations, 
     which shall include a detailed description of how the funds 
     proposed to be made available will be used, with a discussion 
     of the United States interests that will be served by the 
     assistance (including, as appropriate, a description of the 
     economic policy reforms that will be promoted by such 
     assistance).
       (4) Exemption.--Nonproject sector assistance funds may be 
     exempt from the requirements of subsection (b)(1) only 
     through the notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.


  compensation for united states executive directors to international 
                         financial institutions

       Sec. 533. (a) No funds appropriated by this Act may be made 
     as payment to any international financial institution while 
     the United States Executive Director to such institution is 
     compensated by the institution at a rate which, together with 
     whatever compensation such Director receives from the United 
     States, is in excess of the rate provided for an individual 
     occupying a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule 
     under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, or while 
     any alternate United States Director to such institution is 
     compensated by the institution at a rate in excess of the 
     rate provided for an individual occupying a position at level 
     V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (b) For purposes of this section, ``international financial 
     institutions'' are: the International Bank for Reconstruction 
     and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the 
     Asian Development Bank, the Asian Development Fund, the 
     African Development Bank, the African Development Fund, the 
     International Monetary Fund, the North American Development 
     Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development.


         compliance with united nations sanctions against iraq

       Sec. 534. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available pursuant to this Act to carry out the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (including title IV of chapter 2 of 
     part I, relating to the Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation) or the Arms Export Control Act may be used to 
     provide assistance to any country that is not in compliance 
     with the United Nations Security Council sanctions against 
     Iraq unless the President determines and so certifies to the 
     Congress that--
       (1) such assistance is in the national interest of the 
     United States;
       (2) such assistance will directly benefit the needy people 
     in that country; or
       (3) the assistance to be provided will be humanitarian 
     assistance for foreign nationals who have fled Iraq and 
     Kuwait.


           competitive pricing for sales of defense articles

       Sec. 535. Direct costs associated with meeting a foreign 
     customer's additional or unique requirements will continue to 
     be allowable under contracts under section 22(d) of the Arms 
     Export Control Act. Loadings applicable to such direct costs 
     shall be permitted at the same rates applicable to 
     procurement of like items purchased by the Department of 
     Defense for its own use.


authorities for the peace corps, the inter-american foundation and the 
                     african development foundation

       Sec. 536. Unless expressly provided to the contrary, 
     provisions of this or any other Act, including provisions 
     contained in prior Acts authorizing or making appropriations 
     for foreign operations, export financing, and related 
     programs, shall not be construed to prohibit activities 
     authorized by or conducted under the Peace Corps Act, the 
     Inter-American Foundation Act, or the African Development 
     Foundation Act. The appropriate agency shall promptly report 
     to the Committees on Appropriations whenever it is conducting 
     activities or is proposing to conduct activities in a country 
     for which assistance is prohibited.


                  impact on jobs in the united states

       Sec. 537. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     obligated or expended to provide--
       (1) any financial incentive to a business enterprise 
     currently located in the United States for the purpose of 
     inducing such an enterprise to relocate outside the United 
     States if such incentive or inducement is likely to reduce 
     the number of employees of such business enterprise in the 
     United States because United States production is being 
     replaced by such enterprise outside the United States;
       (2) assistance for the purpose of establishing or 
     developing in a foreign country any export processing zone or 
     designated area in which the tax, tariff, labor, environment, 
     and safety laws of that country do not apply, in part or in 
     whole, to activities carried out within that zone or area, 
     unless the President determines and certifies that such 
     assistance is not likely to cause a loss of jobs within the 
     United States; or
       (3) assistance for any project or activity that contributes 
     to the violation of internationally recognized workers 
     rights, as defined in section 502(a)(4) of the Trade Act of 
     1974, of workers in the recipient country, including any 
     designated zone or area in that country: Provided, That in 
     recognition that the application of this subsection should be 
     commensurate with the level of development of the recipient 
     country and sector, the provisions of this subsection shall 
     not preclude assistance for the informal sector in such 
     country, micro and small-scale enterprise, and smallholder 
     agriculture.


                          special authorities

       Sec. 538. (a) Funds appropriated in titles I and II of this 
     Act that are made available for Afghanistan, Lebanon, 
     Montenegro, and for victims of war, displaced children, 
     displaced Burmese, humanitarian assistance for Romania, and 
     humanitarian assistance for the peoples of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina, Croatia, and Kosova, may be made available 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law.
       (b) Funds appropriated by this Act to carry out the 
     provisions of sections 103 through 106 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 may be used, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, for the purpose of supporting biodiversity 
     conservation activities: Provided, That such assistance shall 
     be subject to sections 116, 502B, and 620A of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961.
       (c) The Agency for International Development may employ 
     personal services contractors, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, for the purpose of administering programs 
     for the West Bank and Gaza.
       (d)(1) Waiver.--The President may waive the provisions of 
     section 1003 of Public Law 100-204 if the President 
     determines and certifies in writing to the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the 
     Senate that it is important to the national security 
     interests of the United States.
       (2) Period of Application of Waiver.--Any waiver pursuant 
     to paragraph (1) shall be effective for no more than a period 
     of six months at a time and shall not apply beyond twelve 
     months after enactment of this Act.


        policy on terminating the arab league boycott of israel

       Sec. 539. It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the Arab League countries should immediately and 
     publicly renounce the primary boycott of Israel and the 
     secondary and tertiary boycott of American firms that have 
     commercial ties with Israel;
       (2) the decision by the Arab League in 1997 to reinstate 
     the boycott against Israel was deeply troubling and 
     disappointing;
       (3) the Arab League should immediately rescind its decision 
     on the boycott and its members should develop normal 
     relations with their neighbor Israel; and
       (4) the President should--
       (A) take more concrete steps to encourage vigorously Arab 
     League countries to renounce publicly the primary boycotts of 
     Israel and the secondary and tertiary boycotts of American 
     firms that have commercial relations with Israel as a 
     confidence-building measure;
       (B) take into consideration the participation of any 
     recipient country in the primary boycott of Israel and the 
     secondary and tertiary boycotts of American firms that have 
     commercial relations with Israel when determining whether to 
     sell weapons to said country;
       (C) report to Congress on the specific steps being taken by 
     the President to bring about a public renunciation of the 
     Arab primary boycott of Israel and the secondary and tertiary 
     boycotts of American firms that have commercial relations 
     with Israel and to expand the process of normalizing ties 
     between Arab League countries and Israel; and
       (D) encourage the allies and trading partners of the United 
     States to enact laws prohibiting businesses from complying 
     with the boycott and penalizing businesses that do comply.


                       anti-narcotics activities

       Sec. 540. (a) Of the funds appropriated by this Act for 
     ``Economic Support Fund'', assistance may be provided to 
     strengthen the administration of justice in countries in

[[Page H7969]]

     Latin America and the Caribbean and in other regions 
     consistent with the provisions of section 534(b) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, except that programs to 
     enhance protection of participants in judicial cases may be 
     conducted notwithstanding section 660 of that Act.
       (b) Funds made available pursuant to this section may be 
     made available notwithstanding section 534(c) and the second 
     and third sentences of section 534(e) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961.


                       eligibility for assistance

       Sec. 541. (a) Assistance Through Nongovernmental 
     Organizations.--Restrictions contained in this or any other 
     Act with respect to assistance for a country shall not be 
     construed to restrict assistance in support of programs of 
     nongovernmental organizations from funds appropriated by this 
     Act to carry out the provisions of chapters 1, 10, and 11 of 
     part I, and chapter 4 of part II, of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961: Provided, That the President shall take into 
     consideration, in any case in which a restriction on 
     assistance would be applicable but for this subsection, 
     whether assistance in support of programs of nongovernmental 
     organizations is in the national interest of the United 
     States: Provided further, That before using the authority of 
     this subsection to furnish assistance in support of programs 
     of nongovernmental organizations, the President shall notify 
     the Committees on Appropriations under the regular 
     notification procedures of those committees, including a 
     description of the program to be assisted, the assistance to 
     be provided, and the reasons for furnishing such assistance: 
     Provided further, That nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed to alter any existing statutory prohibitions 
     against abortion or involuntary sterilizations contained in 
     this or any other Act.
       (b) Public Law 480.--During fiscal year 1999, restrictions 
     contained in this or any other Act with respect to assistance 
     for a country shall not be construed to restrict assistance 
     under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act 
     of 1954: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated to 
     carry out title I of such Act and made available pursuant to 
     this subsection may be obligated or expended except as 
     provided through the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.
       (c) Exception.--This section shall not apply--
       (1) with respect to section 620A of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act or any comparable provision of law prohibiting assistance 
     to countries that support international terrorism; or
       (2) with respect to section 116 of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 or any comparable provision of law prohibiting 
     assistance to countries that violate internationally 
     recognized human rights.


                                earmarks

       Sec. 542. (a) Funds appropriated by this Act which are 
     earmarked may be reprogrammed for other programs within the 
     same account notwithstanding the earmark if compliance with 
     the earmark is made impossible by operation of any provision 
     of this or any other Act or, with respect to a country with 
     which the United States has an agreement providing the United 
     States with base rights or base access in that country, if 
     the President determines that the recipient for which funds 
     are earmarked has significantly reduced its military or 
     economic cooperation with the United States since enactment 
     of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 1991; however, before exercising 
     the authority of this subsection with regard to a base rights 
     or base access country which has significantly reduced its 
     military or economic cooperation with the United States, the 
     President shall consult with, and shall provide a written 
     policy justification to the Committees on Appropriations: 
     Provided, That any such reprogramming shall be subject to the 
     regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations: Provided further, That assistance that is 
     reprogrammed pursuant to this subsection shall be made 
     available under the same terms and conditions as originally 
     provided.
       (b) In addition to the authority contained in subsection 
     (a), the original period of availability of funds 
     appropriated by this Act and administered by the Agency for 
     International Development that are earmarked for particular 
     programs or activities by this or any other Act shall be 
     extended for an additional fiscal year if the Administrator 
     of such agency determines and reports promptly to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that the termination of 
     assistance to a country or a significant change in 
     circumstances makes it unlikely that such earmarked funds can 
     be obligated during the original period of availability: 
     Provided, That such earmarked funds that are continued 
     available for an additional fiscal year shall be obligated 
     only for the purpose of such earmark.


                         ceilings and earmarks

       Sec. 543. Ceilings and earmarks contained in this Act shall 
     not be applicable to funds or authorities appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by any subsequent Act unless such 
     Act specifically so directs.


                 prohibition on publicity or propaganda

       Sec. 544. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within 
     the United States not authorized before the date of enactment 
     of this Act by the Congress: Provided, That not to exceed 
     $950,000 may be made available to carry out the provisions of 
     section 316 of Public Law 96-533.


            purchase of american-made equipment and products

       Sec. 545. (a) To the maximum extent possible, assistance 
     provided under this Act should make full use of American 
     resources, including commodities, products, and services.
       (b) It is the Sense of the Congress that, to the greatest 
     extent practicable, all equipment and products purchased with 
     funds made available in this Act should be American-made.
       (c) In providing financial assistance to, or entering into 
     any contract with, any entity using funds made available in 
     this Act, the head of each Federal agency, to the greatest 
     extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice 
     describing the statement made in subsection (b) by the 
     Congress.


           prohibition of payments to united nations members

       Sec. 546. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act for carrying out the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961, may be used to pay in whole or in part any 
     assessments, arrearages, or dues of any member of the United 
     Nations.


                          consulting services

       Sec. 547. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures 
     are a matter of public record and available for public 
     inspection, except where otherwise provided under existing 
     law, or under existing Executive order pursuant to existing 
     law.


             private voluntary organizations-documentation

       Sec. 548. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act shall be available to a private 
     voluntary organization which fails to provide upon timely 
     request any document, file, or record necessary to the 
     auditing requirements of the Agency for International 
     Development.


  Prohibition on Assistance to Foreign Governments that Export Lethal 
   Military Equipment to Countries Supporting International Terrorism

       Sec. 549. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be available to any foreign 
     government which provides lethal military equipment to a 
     country the government of which the Secretary of State has 
     determined is a terrorist government for purposes of section 
     40(d) of the Arms Export Control Act or any other comparable 
     provision of law. The prohibition under this section with 
     respect to a foreign government shall terminate 12 months 
     after that government ceases to provide such military 
     equipment. This section applies with respect to lethal 
     military equipment provided under a contract entered into 
     after October 1, 1997.
       (b) Assistance restricted by subsection (a) or any other 
     similar provision of law, may be furnished if the President 
     determines that furnishing such assistance is important to 
     the national interests of the United States.
       (c) Whenever the waiver of subsection (b) is exercised, the 
     President shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report with respect to the furnishing of such 
     assistance. Any such report shall include a detailed 
     explanation of the assistance estimated to be provided, 
     including the estimated dollar amount of such assistance, and 
     an explanation of how the assistance furthers United States 
     national interests.


 withholding of assistance for parking fines owed by foreign countries

       Sec. 550. (a) In General.--Of the funds made available for 
     a foreign country under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961, an amount equivalent to 110 percent of the total 
     unpaid fully adjudicated parking fines and penalties owed to 
     the District of Columbia by such country as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act shall be withheld from obligation for 
     such country until the Secretary of State certifies and 
     reports in writing to the appropriate congressional 
     committees that such fines and penalties are fully paid to 
     the government of the District of Columbia.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee 
     on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the Committee on International Relations and 
     the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives.


    limitation on assistance for the plo for the west bank and gaza

       Sec. 551. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     obligated for assistance for the Palestine Liberation 
     Organization for the West Bank and Gaza unless the President 
     has exercised the authority under section 604(a) of the 
     Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1995 (title VI of 
     Public Law 104-107) or any other legislation to suspend or 
     make inapplicable section 307 of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 and that suspension is still in effect: Provided, 
     That if the President fails to make the certification under 
     section 604(b)(2) of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act 
     of 1995 or to suspend the prohibition under other 
     legislation, funds appropriated by this Act may not be 
     obligated for assistance for the Palestine Liberation 
     Organization for the West Bank and Gaza.

[[Page H7970]]

                     war crimes tribunals drawdown

       Sec. 552. If the President determines that doing so will 
     contribute to a just resolution of charges regarding genocide 
     or other violations of international humanitarian law, the 
     President may direct a drawdown pursuant to section 552(c) of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, of up to 
     $25,000,000 of commodities and services for the United 
     Nations War Crimes Tribunal established with regard to the 
     former Yugoslavia by the United Nations Security Council or 
     such other tribunals or commissions as the Council may 
     establish to deal with such violations, without regard to the 
     ceiling limitation contained in paragraph (2) thereof: 
     Provided, That the determination required under this section 
     shall be in lieu of any determinations otherwise required 
     under section 552(c): Provided further, That 60 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, and every 180 days 
     thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to 
     the Committees on Appropriations describing the steps the 
     United States Government is taking to collect information 
     regarding allegations of genocide or other violations of 
     international law in the former Yugoslavia and to furnish 
     that information to the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal 
     for the former Yugoslavia.


                               landmines

       Sec. 553. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     demining equipment available to the Agency for International 
     Development and the Department of State and used in support 
     of the clearance of landmines and unexploded ordnance for 
     humanitarian purposes may be disposed of on a grant basis in 
     foreign countries, subject to such terms and conditions as 
     the President may prescribe.


           restrictions concerning the palestinian authority

       Sec. 554. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     obligated or expended to create in any part of Jerusalem a 
     new office of any department or agency of the United States 
     Government for the purpose of conducting official United 
     States Government business with the Palestinian Authority 
     over Gaza and Jericho or any successor Palestinian governing 
     entity provided for in the Israel-PLO Declaration of 
     Principles: Provided, That this restriction shall not apply 
     to the acquisition of additional space for the existing 
     Consulate General in Jerusalem: Provided further, That 
     meetings between officers and employees of the United States 
     and officials of the Palestinian Authority, or any successor 
     Palestinian governing entity provided for in the Israel-PLO 
     Declaration of Principles, for the purpose of conducting 
     official United States Government business with such 
     authority should continue to take place in locations other 
     than Jerusalem. As has been true in the past, officers and 
     employees of the United States Government may continue to 
     meet in Jerusalem on other subjects with Palestinians 
     (including those who now occupy positions in the Palestinian 
     Authority), have social contacts, and have incidental 
     discussions.


               prohibition of payment of certain expenses

       Sec. 555. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act under the heading ``International 
     Military Education and Training '' or ``Foreign Military 
     Financing Program'' for Informational Program activities may 
     be obligated or expended to pay for--
       (1) alcoholic beverages;
       (2) food (other than food provided at a military 
     installation) not provided in conjunction with Informational 
     Program trips where students do not stay at a military 
     installation; or
       (3) entertainment expenses for activities that are 
     substantially of a recreational character, including entrance 
     fees at sporting events and amusement parks.


                     equitable allocation of funds

       Sec. 556. Not more than 18 percent of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act to carry out the provisions of 
     sections 103 through 106 and chapter 4 of part II of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, that are made available for 
     Latin America and the Caribbean region may be made available, 
     through bilateral and Latin America and the Caribbean 
     regional programs, to provide assistance for any country in 
     such region.


                  special debt relief for the poorest

       Sec. 557. (a) Authority To Reduce Debt.--The President may 
     reduce amounts owed to the United States (or any agency of 
     the United States) by an eligible country as a result of--
       (1) guarantees issued under sections 221 and 222 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961;
       (2) credits extended or guarantees issued under the Arms 
     Export Control Act; or
       (3) any obligation or portion of such obligation for a 
     Latin American country, to pay for purchases of United States 
     agricultural commodities guaranteed by the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation under export credit guarantee programs authorized 
     pursuant to section 5(f ) of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     Charter Act of June 29, 1948, as amended, section 4(b) of the 
     Food for Peace Act of 1966, as amended (Public Law 89-808), 
     or section 202 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as 
     amended (Public Law 95-501).
       (b) Limitations.--
       (1) The authority provided by subsection (a) may be 
     exercised only to implement multilateral official debt relief 
     ad referendum agreements, commonly referred to as ``Paris 
     Club Agreed Minutes''.
       (2) The authority provided by subsection (a) may be 
     exercised only in such amounts or to such extent as is 
     provided in advance by appropriations Acts.
       (3) The authority provided by subsection (a) may be 
     exercised only with respect to countries with heavy debt 
     burdens that are eligible to borrow from the International 
     Development Association, but not from the International Bank 
     for Reconstruction and Development, commonly referred to as 
     ``IDA-only'' countries.
       (c) Conditions.--The authority provided by subsection (a) 
     may be exercised only with respect to a country whose 
     government--
       (1) does not have an excessive level of military 
     expenditures;
       (2) has not repeatedly provided support for acts of 
     international terrorism;
       (3) is not failing to cooperate on international narcotics 
     control matters;
       (4) (including its military or other security forces) does 
     not engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of 
     internationally recognized human rights; and
       (5) is not ineligible for assistance because of the 
     application of section 527 of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995.
       (d) Availability of Funds.--The authority provided by 
     subsection (a) may be used only with regard to funds 
     appropriated by this Act under the heading ``Debt 
     restructuring ''.
       (e) Certain Prohibitions Inapplicable.--A reduction of debt 
     pursuant to subsection (a) shall not be considered assistance 
     for purposes of any provision of law limiting assistance to a 
     country. The authority provided by subsection (a) may be 
     exercised notwithstanding section 620(r) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961.


             authority to engage in debt buybacks or sales

       Sec. 558. (a) Loans Eligible for Sale, Reduction, or 
     Cancellation.--
       (1) Authority to sell, reduce, or cancel certain loans.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President 
     may, in accordance with this section, sell to any eligible 
     purchaser any concessional loan or portion thereof made 
     before January 1, 1995, pursuant to the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961, to the government of any eligible country as 
     defined in section 702(6) of that Act or on receipt of 
     payment from an eligible purchaser, reduce or cancel such 
     loan or portion thereof, only for the purpose of 
     facilitating--
       (A) debt-for-equity swaps, debt-for-development swaps, or 
     debt-for-nature swaps; or
       (B) a debt buyback by an eligible country of its own 
     qualified debt, only if the eligible country uses an 
     additional amount of the local currency of the eligible 
     country, equal to not less than 40 percent of the price paid 
     for such debt by such eligible country, or the difference 
     between the price paid for such debt and the face value of 
     such debt, to support activities that link conservation and 
     sustainable use of natural resources with local community 
     development, and child survival and other child development, 
     in a manner consistent with sections 707 through 710 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, if the sale, reduction, or 
     cancellation would not contravene any term or condition of 
     any prior agreement relating to such loan.
       (2) Terms and conditions.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the President shall, in accordance with 
     this section, establish the terms and conditions under which 
     loans may be sold, reduced, or canceled pursuant to this 
     section.
       (3) Administration.--The Facility, as defined in section 
     702(8) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, shall notify 
     the administrator of the agency primarily responsible for 
     administering part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 of 
     purchasers that the President has determined to be eligible, 
     and shall direct such agency to carry out the sale, 
     reduction, or cancellation of a loan pursuant to this 
     section. Such agency shall make an adjustment in its accounts 
     to reflect the sale, reduction, or cancellation.
       (4) Limitation.--The authorities of this subsection shall 
     be available only to the extent that appropriations for the 
     cost of the modification, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, are made in advance.
       (b) Deposit of Proceeds.--The proceeds from the sale, 
     reduction, or cancellation of any loan sold, reduced, or 
     canceled pursuant to this section shall be deposited in the 
     United States Government account or accounts established for 
     the repayment of such loan.
       (c) Eligible Purchasers.--A loan may be sold pursuant to 
     subsection (a)(1)(A) only to a purchaser who presents plans 
     satisfactory to the President for using the loan for the 
     purpose of engaging in debt-for-equity swaps, debt-for-
     development swaps, or debt-for-nature swaps.
       (d) Debtor Consultations.--Before the sale to any eligible 
     purchaser, or any reduction or cancellation pursuant to this 
     section, of any loan made to an eligible country, the 
     President should consult with the country concerning the 
     amount of loans to be sold, reduced, or canceled and their 
     uses for debt-for-equity swaps, debt-for-development swaps, 
     or debt-for-nature swaps.
       (e) Availability of Funds.--The authority provided by 
     subsection (a) may be used only with regard to funds 
     appropriated by this Act under the heading ``Debt 
     restructuring ''.

[[Page H7971]]

          sanctions against countries harboring war criminals

       Sec. 559. (a) Bilateral Assistance.--The President is 
     authorized to withhold funds appropriated by this Act under 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or the Arms Export Control 
     Act for any country described in subsection (c).
       (b) Multilateral Assistance.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     should instruct the United States executive directors of the 
     international financial institutions to work in opposition 
     to, and vote against, any extension by such institutions of 
     financing or financial or technical assistance to any country 
     described in subsection (c).
       (c) Sanctioned Countries.--A country described in this 
     subsection is a country the government of which knowingly 
     grants sanctuary to persons in its territory for the purpose 
     of evading prosecution, where such persons--
       (1) have been indicted by the International Criminal 
     Tribunal for Rwanda, or any other international tribunal with 
     similar standing under international law; or
       (2) have been indicted for war crimes or crimes against 
     humanity committed during the period beginning March 23, 1933 
     and ending on May 8, 1945 under the direction of, or in 
     association with--
       (A) the Nazi government of Germany;
       (B) any government in any area occupied by the military 
     forces of the Nazi government of Germany;
       (C) any government which was established with the 
     assistance or cooperation of the Nazi government; or
       (D) any government which was an ally of the Nazi government 
     of Germany.


                   limitation on assistance for haiti

       Sec. 560. (a) Limitation.--Funds appropriated by this Act 
     may be made available for assistance for the Government of 
     Haiti only if the President reports to the Committee on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on International Relations 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate that the Government of Haiti--
       (1) has completed privatization of (or placed under long-
     term private management or concession) three major public 
     entities including the completion of all required 
     incorporating documents, the transfer of assets, and the 
     eviction of unauthorized occupants of the land or facility;
       (2) is cooperating with the United States in halting 
     illegal emigration from Haiti;
       (3) is conducting thorough investigations of extrajudicial 
     and political killings and has made substantial progress in 
     bringing to justice a person or persons responsible for one 
     or more extrajudicial or political killings in Haiti, and is 
     cooperating with United States authorities and with United 
     States-funded technical advisors to the Haitian National 
     Police in such investigations;
       (4) has taken action to remove from the Haitian National 
     Police, national palace and residential guard, ministerial 
     guard, and any other public security entity or unit of Haiti 
     those individuals who are credibly alleged to have engaged in 
     or conspired to conceal gross violations of internationally 
     recognized human rights or credibly alleged to have engaged 
     in or conspired to engage in narcotics trafficking; and
       (5) is implementing the maritime counter-narcotics 
     agreements signed in October 1997.
       (b) Availability of Electoral Assistance.--Funds 
     appropriated by this Act may be made available to support 
     elections in Haiti only if the President reports to the 
     Congress that the Government of Haiti:
       (1) has achieved a transparent settlement of the contested 
     April 1997 elections; and
       (2) has made concrete progress on the constitution of a 
     credible and competent provisional electoral council with the 
     agreement of a broad spectrum of diverse political parties.
       (c) Exceptions.--The limitations in subsections (a) and (b) 
     shall not apply to the provision of--
       (1) counter-narcotics assistance, support for the Haitian 
     National Police's Special Investigations Unit and anti-
     corruption programs, the International Criminal Investigative 
     Assistance Program, and assistance in support of Haitian 
     customs and maritime officials;
       (2) food assistance management and support;
       (3) assistance for urgent humanitarian needs, such as 
     medical and other supplies and services in support of 
     community health services, schools, and orphanages; and
       (4) not more than $3,000,000 for the development and 
     support of political parties.
       (d) Waiver.--At any time after 150 days from the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State may waive the 
     requirements contained in subsection (a)(1) if she reports to 
     the Committees specified in subsection (a) that the 
     Government of Haiti has satisfied the requirements of 
     subsection (a)(1) with regard to one major public entity.
       (e) Reports.--The Secretary of State shall provide to the 
     Committees specified in subsection (a) on a quarterly basis--
       (1) in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the 
     Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, a 
     report on the status and number of United States personnel 
     deployed in and around Haiti on Department of Defense, Drug 
     Enforcement Administration, and United Nations missions, 
     including displays by functional or operational assignment 
     for such personnel and the cost to the United States of these 
     operations; and
       (2) the monthly reports, prepared during the previous 
     quarter, of the Organization of American States/United 
     Nations International Civilian Mission to Haiti (MICIVIH).


  requirement for disclosure of foreign aid in report of secretary of 
                                 state

       Sec. 561. (a) Foreign Aid Reporting Requirement.--In 
     addition to the voting practices of a foreign country, the 
     report required to be submitted to Congress under section 
     406(a) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, fiscal 
     years 1990 and 1991 (22 U.S.C. 2414a), shall include a side-
     by-side comparison of individual countries' overall support 
     for the United States at the United Nations and the amount of 
     United States assistance provided to such country in fiscal 
     year 1998.
       (b) United States Assistance.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term ``United States assistance'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 481(e)(4) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291(e)(4)).


   restrictions on voluntary contributions to united nations agencies

       Sec. 562. (a) Prohibition on Voluntary Contributions for 
     the United Nations.--None of the funds appropriated by this 
     Act may be made available to pay any voluntary contribution 
     of the United States to the United Nations (including the 
     United Nations Development Program) if the United Nations 
     implements or imposes any taxation on any United States 
     persons.
       (b) Certification Required for Disbursement of Funds.--None 
     of the funds appropriated by this Act may be made available 
     to pay any voluntary contribution of the United States to the 
     United Nations (including the United Nations Development 
     Program) unless the President certifies to the Congress 15 
     days in advance of such payment that the United Nations is 
     not engaged in any effort to implement or impose any taxation 
     on United States persons in order to raise revenue for the 
     United Nations or any of its specialized agencies.
       (c) Definitions.--As used in this section the term ``United 
     States person'' refers to--
       (1) a natural person who is a citizen or national of the 
     United States; or
       (2) a corporation, partnership, or other legal entity 
     organized under the United States or any State, territory, 
     possession, or district of the United States.


         limitation on assistance to the palestinian authority

       Sec. 563. (a) Prohibition of Funds.--None of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act to carry out the provisions of 
     chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     may be obligated or expended with respect to providing funds 
     to the Palestinian Authority.
       (b) Waiver.--The prohibition included in subsection (a) 
     shall not apply if the President certifies in writing to the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro 
     tempore of the Senate that waiving such prohibition is 
     important to the national security interests of the United 
     States.
       (c) Period of Application of Waiver.--Any waiver pursuant 
     to subsection (b) shall be effective for no more than a 
     period of six months at a time and shall not apply beyond 
     twelve months after enactment of this Act.


         limitation on assistance to the government of croatia

       Sec. 564. None of the funds appropriated by title II of 
     this Act may be made available to the Government of Croatia 
     to relocate the remains of Croatian Ustashe soldiers, at the 
     site of the World War II concentration camp at Jasenovac, 
     Croatia.


              limitation on assistance to security forces

       Sec. 565. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be provided to any unit of the security forces of a foreign 
     country if the Secretary of State has credible evidence that 
     such unit has committed gross violations of human rights, 
     unless the Secretary determines and reports to the Committees 
     on Appropriations that the government of such country is 
     taking effective measures to bring the responsible members of 
     the security forces unit to justice: Provided, That nothing 
     in this section shall be construed to withhold funds made 
     available by this Act from any unit of the security forces of 
     a foreign country not credibly alleged to be involved in 
     gross violations of human rights: Provided further, That in 
     the event that funds are withheld from any unit pursuant to 
     this section, the Secretary of State shall promptly inform 
     the foreign government of the basis for such action and 
     shall, to the maximum extent practicable, assist the foreign 
     government in taking effective measures to bring the 
     responsible members of the security forces to justice.


      limitations on transfer of military equipment to east timor

       Sec. 566. In any agreement for the sale, transfer, or 
     licensing of any lethal equipment or helicopter for Indonesia 
     entered into by the United States pursuant to the authority 
     of this Act or any other Act, the agreement shall state that 
     the United States expects that the items will not be used in 
     East Timor: Provided, That nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to limit Indonesia's inherent right to legitimate 
     national self-defense as recognized under the United Nations 
     Charter and international law.


restrictions on assistance to countries providing sanctuary to indicted 
                             war criminals

       Sec. 567. (a) Bilateral Assistance.--None of the funds made 
     available by this or any

[[Page H7972]]

     prior Act making appropriations for foreign operations, 
     export financing and related programs, may be provided for 
     any country, entity or canton described in subsection (d).
       (b) Multilateral Assistance.--
       (1) Prohibition.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     instruct the United States executive directors of the 
     international financial institutions to work in opposition 
     to, and vote against, any extension by such institutions of 
     any financial or technical assistance or grants of any kind 
     to any country or entity described in subsection (d).
       (2) Notification.--Not less than 15 days before any vote in 
     an international financial institution regarding the 
     extension of financial or technical assistance or grants to 
     any country or entity described in subsection (d), the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary 
     of State, shall provide to the Committee on Appropriations 
     and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Banking and 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives a written 
     justification for the proposed assistance, including an 
     explanation of the United States position regarding any such 
     vote, as well as a description of the location of the 
     proposed assistance by municipality, its purpose, and its 
     intended beneficiaries.
       (3) Definition.--The term ``international financial 
     institution'' includes the International Monetary Fund, the 
     International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the 
     International Development Association, the International 
     Finance Corporation, the Multilateral Investment Guaranty 
     Agency, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development.
       (c) Exceptions.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall not apply to the provision of--
       (A) humanitarian assistance;
       (B) democratization assistance;
       (C) assistance for cross border physical infrastructure 
     projects involving activities in both a sanctioned country, 
     entity, or canton and a nonsanctioned contiguous country, 
     entity, or canton, if the project is primarily located in and 
     primarily benefits the nonsanctioned country, entity, or 
     canton and if the portion of the project located in the 
     sanctioned country, entity, or canton is necessary only to 
     complete the project;
       (D) small-scale assistance projects or activities requested 
     by United States Armed Forces that promote good relations 
     between such forces and the officials and citizens of the 
     areas in the United States SFOR sector of Bosnia;
       (E) implementation of the Brcko Arbitral Decision;
       (F) lending by the international financial institutions to 
     a country or entity to support common monetary and fiscal 
     policies at the national level as contemplated by the Dayton 
     Agreement; or
       (G) direct lending to a non-sanctioned entity, or lending 
     passed on by the national government to a non-sanctioned 
     entity.
       (2) Further limitations.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1)--
       (A) no assistance may be made available by this Act, or any 
     prior Act making appropriations for foreign operations, 
     export financing and related programs, in any country, 
     entity, or canton described in subsection (d), for a program, 
     project, or activity in which a publicly indicted war 
     criminal is known to have any financial or material interest; 
     and
       (B) no assistance (other than emergency foods or medical 
     assistance or demining assistance) may be made available by 
     this Act, or any prior Act making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing and related programs for any 
     program, project, or activity in a community within any 
     country, entity or canton described in subsection (d) if 
     competent authorities within that community are not complying 
     with the provisions of Article IX and Annex 4, Article II, 
     paragraph 8 of the Dayton Agreement relating to war crimes 
     and the Tribunal.
       (d) Sanctioned Country, Entity, or Canton.--A sanctioned 
     country, entity, or canton described in this section is one 
     whose competent authorities have failed, as determined by the 
     Secretary of State, to take necessary and significant steps 
     to apprehend and transfer to the Tribunal all persons who 
     have been publicly indicted by the Tribunal.
       (e) Waiver.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of State may waive the 
     application of subsection (a) or subsection (b) with respect 
     to specified bilateral programs or international financial 
     institution projects or programs in a sanctioned country, 
     entity, or canton upon providing a written determination to 
     the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Appropriations 
     and the Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives that such assistance directly supports the 
     implementation of the Dayton Agreement and its Annexes, which 
     include the obligation to apprehend and transfer indicted war 
     criminals to the Tribunal.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 15 days after the date of any 
     written determination under paragraph (e)(1), the Secretary 
     of State shall submit a report to the Committee on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee 
     on International Relations of the House of Representatives 
     regarding the status of efforts to secure the voluntary 
     surrender or apprehension and transfer of persons indicted by 
     the Tribunal, in accordance with the Dayton Agreement, and 
     outlining obstacles to achieving this goal.
       (3) Assistance programs and projects affected.--Any waiver 
     made pursuant to this subsection shall be effective only with 
     respect to a specified bilateral program or multilateral 
     assistance project or program identified in the determination 
     of the Secretary of State to Congress.
       (f ) Termination of Sanctions.--The sanctions imposed 
     pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) with respect to a country 
     or entity shall cease to apply only if the Secretary of State 
     determines and certifies to Congress that the authorities of 
     that country, entity, or canton have apprehended and 
     transferred to the Tribunal all persons who have been 
     publicly indicted by the Tribunal.
       (g) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       (1) Country.--The term ``country'' means Bosnia-
     Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro.
       (2) Entity.--The term ``entity'' refers to the Federation 
     of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska.
       (3) Canton.--The term ``canton'' means the administrative 
     units in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
       (4) Dayton agreement.--The term ``Dayton Agreement'' means 
     the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina, together with annexes relating thereto, done at 
     Dayton, November 10 through 16, 1995.
       (5) Tribunal.--The term ``Tribunal'' means the 
     International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
       (h) Role of Human Rights Organizations and Government 
     Agencies.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary of 
     State, the Administrator of the Agency for International 
     Development, and the executive directors of the international 
     financial institutions shall consult with representatives of 
     human rights organizations and all government agencies with 
     relevant information to help prevent publicly indicted war 
     criminals from benefitting from any financial or technical 
     assistance or grants provided to any country or entity 
     described in subsection (d).


additional requirements relating to stockpiling of defense articles for 
                           foreign countries

       Sec. 568. (a) Value of Additions to Stockpiles.--Section 
     514(b)(2)(A) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2321h(b)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``and $340,000,000 for fiscal year 
     1999''.
       (b) Requirements Relating to the Republic of Korea and 
     Thailand.--Section 514(b)(2)(B) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2321h(b)(2)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``Of the amount specified in subparagraph (A) for 
     fiscal year 1999, not more than $320,000,000 may be made 
     available for stockpiles in the Republic of Korea and not 
     more than $20,000,000 may be made available for stockpiles in 
     Thailand.''.


Requirements for the Reporting to Congress of the Costs to the Federal 
Government Associated with the Proposed Agreement to Reduce Greenhouse 
                             Gas Emissions

       Sec. 569. The President shall provide to the Congress a 
     detailed account of all Federal agency obligations and 
     expenditures for climate change programs and activities, 
     domestic and international, for fiscal year 1998, planned 
     obligations for such activities in fiscal year 1999, and any 
     plan for programs thereafter in the context of negotiations 
     to amend the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) to 
     be provided to the appropriate congressional committees no 
     later than November 15, 1998.


withholding assistance to countries violating united nations sanctions 
                             against libya

       Sec. 570. (a) Withholding of Assistance.--Except as 
     provided in subsection (b), whenever the President determines 
     and certifies to Congress that the government of any country 
     is violating any sanction against Libya imposed pursuant to 
     United Nations Security Council Resolution 731, 748, or 883, 
     then not less than 5 percent of the funds allocated for the 
     country under section 653(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 out of appropriations in this Act shall be withheld from 
     obligation and expenditure for that country.
       (b) Exception.--The requirement to withhold funds under 
     subsection (a) shall not apply to funds appropriated in this 
     Act for allocation under section 653(a) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 for development assistance or for 
     humanitarian assistance.
       (c) Waiver.--Funds may be provided for a country without 
     regard to subsection (a) if the President determines that to 
     do so is in the national security interest of the United 
     States.


       aid to the government of the democratic republic of congo

       Sec. 571. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     provided for assistance for the central Government of the 
     Democratic Republic of Congo until such time as the President 
     reports in writing to the Congress that the central 
     Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo is cooperating 
     fully with investigators from the United Nations in 
     accounting for human rights violations committed in the 
     Democratic Republic of Congo or adjacent countries.


                     assistance for the middle east

       Sec. 572. Of the funds appropriated by this Act under the 
     headings ``Economic Support

[[Page H7973]]

     Fund'', ``Foreign Military Financing '', ``International 
     Military Education and Training '', ``Peacekeeping 
     Operations'', for refugees resettling in Israel under the 
     heading ``Migration and Refugee Assistance'', and for 
     assistance for Israel to carry out provisions of chapter 8 of 
     part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 under the 
     heading ``Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining, and 
     Related Programs'', not more than a total of $5,402,850,000 
     may be made available for Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, the 
     West Bank and Gaza, the Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group, the 
     Multinational Force and Observers, the Middle East Regional 
     Democracy Fund, Middle East Regional Cooperation, and Middle 
     East Multilateral Working Groups: Provided, That any funds 
     that were appropriated under such headings in prior fiscal 
     years and that were at the time of enactment of this Act 
     obligated or allocated for other recipients may not during 
     fiscal year 1999 be made available for activities that, if 
     funded under this Act, would be required to count against 
     this ceiling: Provided further, That funds may be made 
     available notwithstanding the requirements of this section if 
     the President determines and certifies to the Committees on 
     Appropriations that it is important to the national security 
     interest of the United States to do so and any such 
     additional funds shall only be provided through the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.


                      enterprise fund restrictions

       Sec. 573. Prior to the distribution of any assets resulting 
     from any liquidation, dissolution, or winding up of an 
     Enterprise Fund, in whole or in part, the President shall 
     submit to the Committees on Appropriations, in accordance 
     with the regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations, a plan for the distribution of the assets of 
     the Enterprise Fund.


                                cambodia

       Sec. 574. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     may be made available for assistance for the Government of 
     Cambodia: Provided, That the restrictions under this heading 
     shall not apply to humanitarian, demining or election-related 
     programs or activities: Provided further, That the provision 
     of such assistance shall be made available subject to the 
     regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       (b) The Secretary of the Treasury should instruct the 
     United States executive directors of the international 
     financial institutions to use the voice and vote of the 
     United States to oppose loans to the Government of Cambodia, 
     except loans to support basic human needs.


                 export financing transfer authorities

       Sec. 575. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation 
     other than for administrative expenses made available for 
     fiscal year 1999 for programs under title I of this Act may 
     be transferred between such appropriations for use for any of 
     the purposes, programs and activities for which the funds in 
     such receiving account may be used, but no such 
     appropriation, except as otherwise specifically provided, 
     shall be increased by more than 25 percent by any such 
     transfer: Provided, That the exercise of such authority shall 
     be subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.


                 authorization for population planning

       Sec. 576. Not to exceed $385,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated in title II of this Act may be available for 
     population planning activities or other population 
     assistance.


                  REPORT ON FOREIGN MILITARY TRAINING

       Sec. 577. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
     State shall jointly provide to the Congress by January 31, 
     1999, a report on all overseas military training provided to 
     foreign military personnel under programs administered by the 
     Department of Defense and the Department of State during 
     fiscal years 1998 and 1999, including those proposed for 
     fiscal year 1999. This report shall include, for each such 
     military training activity, the foreign policy justification 
     and purpose for the training activity, the cost of the 
     training activity, the number of foreign students trained and 
     their units of operation, and the location of the training. 
     In addition, this report shall also include, with respect to 
     United States personnel, the operational benefits to United 
     States forces derived from each such training activity and 
     the United States military units involved in each such 
     training activity. This report may include a classified annex 
     if deemed necessary and appropriate.


            korean peninsula energy development organization

       Sec. 578. Notwithstanding sections 614 and 451 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, or any other 
     provision of law, none of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     may be used for a voluntary contribution to, or assistance 
     for, the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization.


                  repeal of restrictions on assistance

       Sec. 579. Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act is hereby 
     repealed.

                                TITLE VI

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                    International Monetary Programs

                loans to the international monetary fund

       For loans to the International Monetary Fund under section 
     17 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act pursuant to the New 
     Arrangements to Borrow, the dollar equivalent of 
     2,462,000,000 Special Drawing Rights, to remain available 
     until expended. In addition, the amounts appropriated by 
     title III of the Foreign Aid and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1963 (Public Law 87-872) and section 
     1101(b) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1984 (Public 
     Law 98-181) may also be used under section 17 of the Bretton 
     Woods Agreements Act pursuant to the New Arrangements to 
     Borrow.

                     General Provisions--This Title


              conditions for the use of appropriated funds

       Sec. 601. (a) Condition for the Use of Appropriated Funds 
     for Quota Increase.--None of the funds appropriated after 
     July 15, 1998, under the heading ``United States Quota in the 
     International Monetary Fund'' may be obligated or made 
     available to the International Monetary Fund until 15 days 
     after the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the 
     Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System jointly 
     provide written notification to the appropriate committees 
     that the major shareholders of the International Monetary 
     Fund have publicly agreed to, and will act to implement in 
     the Fund policies providing that for conditions in standby 
     agreements or other arrangements regarding the use of Fund 
     resources include requirements that the recipient country--
       (1) liberalize restrictions on trade in goods and services 
     and on investment, at a minimum consistent with the terms of 
     all international trade agreements of which the borrowing 
     country is a signatory;
       (2) eliminate the pervasive practice or policy of 
     government directed lending on non-commercial terms or 
     provision of market distorting subsidies to favored 
     industries, enterprises, parties, or institutions; and
       (3) guarantee nondiscriminatory treatment in insolvency 
     proceedings between domestic and foreign creditors, and for 
     debtors and other concerned persons.
       (b) Condition for the Use of Appropriated Funds for Loans 
     to the IMF.--
       (1) In general.--None of the funds appropriated in this 
     title under the heading ``Loans to the International Monetary 
     Fund'' may be obligated or made available to the 
     International Monetary Fund unless--
       (A) there is in effect a written certification, made by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, to the appropriate committees that 
     the International Monetary Fund has met the requirements of 
     paragraph (2); and
       (B) the Congress has enacted legislation approving the 
     certification.
       (2) Requirements.--The requirements of this paragraph are 
     that the International Monetary Fund has in effect policies 
     that are designed to ensure the following:
       (A) Within 3 months after any meeting of the Executive 
     Board of the International Monetary Fund at which a Letter of 
     Intent, a Policy Framework Paper, an Article IV economic 
     review consultation with a member country, or a change in a 
     general policy of the International Monetary Fund is 
     discussed, a full written summary of the meeting shall be 
     made available for public inspection, with the following 
     information redacted:
       (i) Information which, if released, would adversely affect 
     the national security of a country, and which is of the type 
     that would be classified by United States Government.
       (ii) Market-sensitive information.
       (iii) Proprietary information.
       (B) Within 3 months after the Executive Board of the 
     International Monetary Fund at which a Letter of Intent or a 
     Policy Framework Paper is discussed, a copy of the Letter of 
     Intent or Policy Framework Paper shall be made available for 
     public inspection with the following information redacted:
       (i) Information which, if released, would adversely affect 
     the national security of a country, and which is of the type 
     that would be classified by United States Government.
       (ii) Market-sensitive information.
       (iii) Proprietary information.
       (C) Interest charges on loans to member countries shall be 
     based on the International Monetary Fund's market-determined 
     cost of financing, adjusted weekly, and loans from any 
     facility established to address circumstances of exceptional 
     balance of payments difficulties and impaired access to 
     capital due to a sudden loss of market confidence should 
     carry a substantial surcharge that serves to provide an 
     incentive for early repayment and encourage private market 
     refinancing, and that reflects risk.


 reports on financial stabilization programs led by the international 
     monetary fund in connection with financing from the exchange 
                           stabilization fund

       Sec. 602. (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall submit to the appropriate committees 2 reports on the 
     implementation of financial stabilization programs led by the 
     International Monetary Fund in any country in connection with 
     which the United States has made a commitment to provide or 
     has provided financing from the stabilization fund 
     established under section 5302 of title 31, United States 
     Code. A report shall include the following with respect to 
     each such country:
       (1) The extent that the country has made progress in making 
     conglomerate business practices more transparent through the 
     application of internationally accepted accounting practices, 
     independent external audits, full disclosure, and provision 
     of consolidated statements.
       (2) The success of measures undertaken by the United States 
     Government and the International Monetary Fund to ensure that 
     the country will not provide Government-subsidized support or 
     tax privileges to bail out

[[Page H7974]]

     individual corporations, particularly in the semiconductor, 
     steel, plywood, paper, and glassware industries.
       (3) Whether International Monetary Fund involvement in 
     labor market flexibility measures has had a negative effect 
     on worker rights in the country, and the nature of any such 
     negative effects.
       (b) Timing of Reports.--The first report required by 
     subsection (a) shall be due by December 1, 1998, and the 
     second such report shall be due by May 1, 1999.
       (c) Notification of Impending Disbursements.--Not later 
     than 36 hours before the disbursement to a country with 
     respect to which a report is required by subsection (a) of 
     any resources from the stabilization fund referred to in 
     subsection (a) in connection with the implementation of a 
     financial stabilization program described in subsection (a), 
     the Secretary of the Treasury shall notify the appropriate 
     committees of the impending disbursement.


                          advisory commission

       Sec. 603. (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall establish an International Financial Institution 
     Advisory Commission (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Commission'').
       (b) Membership.--The Commission shall include--
       (1) 6 individuals appointed by the Congress, including at 
     least 2 former Secretaries of the Treasury, 1 of whom shall 
     serve as the chairman of the Commission; and
       (2) not to exceed 2 members as designated by the Secretary.
       (c) Recommendations.--Within 180 days after the appointment 
     of Commission members, the Commission shall submit to the 
     appropriate committees a report that contains the 
     recommendations of the Commission regarding the future role 
     and responsibilities of the International Monetary Fund and 
     the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 
     including changes to the policy goals set forth for the 
     International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for 
     Reconstruction and Development in the Bretton Woods 
     Agreements Act and the International Financial Institutions 
     Act.
       (d) International Advisory Committee.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall instruct the United States Executive Director 
     at the International Monetary Fund to use the voice and vote 
     of the United States to seek the establishment of a permanent 
     advisory committee to the Interim Committee of the Board of 
     Governors of the International Monetary Fund, that is to 
     consist of elected members of the national legislatures of 
     the member countries directly represented by appointed 
     members of the Executive Board of the International Monetary 
     Fund.


                              definitions

       Sec. 604. For purposes of sections 601 through 603 of this 
     chapter, the term ``appropriate committees'' means the 
     Committees on Appropriations, Foreign Relations, and Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committees 
     on Appropriations and Banking and Financial Services of the 
     House of Representatives.


                    participation in quota increase

       Sec. 605. (a) In General.--The Bretton Woods Agreements Act 
     (22 U.S.C. 286-286mm) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 61. QUOTA INCREASE.

       ``(a) In General.--The United States Governor of the Fund 
     may consent to an increase in the quota of the United States 
     in the Fund equivalent to 10,622,500,000 Special Drawing 
     Rights.
       ``(b) Subject to Appropriations.--The authority provided by 
     subsection (a) shall be effective only to such extent or in 
     such amounts as are provided in advance in appropriations 
     Acts.''.
       (b) Effectiveness Subject to Certification.--The amendment 
     made by subsection (a) shall not take effect until the 
     Secretary of the Treasury certifies to the Committee on 
     Banking and Financial Services of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate that the investors and banks have made a significant 
     contribution in conjunction with a financing package that, in 
     the context of an international financial crisis, might 
     include taxpayer supported official financing.


                       new arrangements to borrow

       Sec. 606. Section 17 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act 
     (22 U.S.C. 286e-2 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``and February 24, 1983'' and inserting 
     ``February 24, 1983, and January 27, 1997''; and
       (B) by striking ``4,250,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``6,712,000,000'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``4,250,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``6,712,000,000''; and
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by inserting ``or the Decision of January 27, 1997,'' 
     after ``February 24, 1983,''; and
       (B) by inserting ``or the New Arrangements to Borrow, as 
     applicable'' before the period at the end.


   advocacy of policies to enhance the general effectiveness of the 
                      international monetary fund

       Sec. 607. (a) In General.--Title XV of the International 
     Financial Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262o-262o-1) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1503. ADVOCACY OF POLICIES TO ENHANCE THE GENERAL 
                   EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY 
                   FUND.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     instruct the United States Executive Director of the 
     International Monetary Fund to use aggressively the voice and 
     vote of the Executive Director to do the following:
       ``(1) Vigorously promote policies to increase the 
     effectiveness of the International Monetary Fund in 
     structuring programs and assistance so as to promote policies 
     and actions that will contribute to exchange rate stability 
     and avoid competitive devaluations that will further 
     destabilize the international financial and trading systems.
       ``(2) Vigorously promote policies to increase the 
     effectiveness of the International Monetary Fund in promoting 
     market-oriented reform, trade liberalization, economic 
     growth, democratic governance, and social stability through--
       ``(A) appropriate liberalization of pricing, trade, 
     investment, and exchange rate regimes of countries to open 
     countries to the competitive forces of the global economy;
       ``(B) opening domestic markets to fair and open internal 
     competition among domestic enterprises by eliminating 
     inappropriate favoritism for small or large businesses, 
     eliminating elite monopolies, creating and effectively 
     implementing anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws to protect 
     free competition, and establishing fair and accessible legal 
     procedures for dispute settlement among domestic enterprises;
       ``(C) privatizing industry in a fair and equitable manner 
     that provides economic opportunities to a broad spectrum of 
     the population, eliminating government and elite monopolies, 
     closing loss-making enterprises, and reducing government 
     control over the factors of production;
       ``(D) economic deregulation by eliminating inefficient and 
     overly burdensome regulations and strengthening the legal 
     framework supporting private contract and intellectual 
     property rights;
       ``(E) establishing or strengthening key elements of a 
     social safety net to cushion the effects on workers of 
     unemployment and dislocation; and
       ``(F) encouraging the opening of markets for agricultural 
     commodities and products by requiring recipient countries to 
     make efforts to reduce trade barriers.
       ``(3) Vigorously promote policies to increase the 
     effectiveness of the International Monetary Fund, in concert 
     with appropriate international authorities and other 
     international financial institutions (as defined in section 
     1701(c)(2)), in strengthening financial systems in developing 
     countries, and encouraging the adoption of sound banking 
     principles and practices, including the development of laws 
     and regulations that will help to ensure that domestic 
     financial institutions meet strong standards regarding 
     capital reserves, regulatory oversight, and transparency.
       ``(4) Vigorously promote policies to increase the 
     effectiveness of the International Monetary Fund, in concert 
     with appropriate international authorities and other 
     international financial institutions (as defined in section 
     1701(c)(2)), in facilitating the development and 
     implementation of internationally acceptable domestic 
     bankruptcy laws and regulations in developing countries, 
     including the provision of technical assistance as 
     appropriate.
       ``(5) Vigorously promote policies that aim at appropriate 
     burden-sharing by the private sector so that investors and 
     creditors bear more fully the consequences of their 
     decisions, and accordingly advocate policies which include--
       ``(A) strengthening crisis prevention and early warning 
     signals through improved and more effective surveillance of 
     the national economic policies and financial market 
     development of countries (including monitoring of the 
     structure and volume of capital flows to identify problematic 
     imbalances in the inflow of short and medium term investment 
     capital, potentially destabilizing inflows of offshore 
     lending and foreign investment, or problems with the maturity 
     profiles of capital to provide warnings of imminent economic 
     instability), and fuller disclosure of such information to 
     market participants;
       ``(B) accelerating work on strengthening financial systems 
     in emerging market economies so as to reduce the risk of 
     financial crises;
       ``(C) consideration of provisions in debt contracts that 
     would foster dialogue and consultation between a sovereign 
     debtor and its private creditors, and among those creditors;
       ``(D) consideration of extending the scope of the 
     International Monetary Fund's policy on lending to members in 
     arrears and of other policies so as to foster the dialogue 
     and consultation referred to in subparagraph (C);
       ``(E) intensified consideration of mechanisms to facilitate 
     orderly workout mechanisms for countries experiencing debt or 
     liquidity crises;
       ``(F) consideration of establishing ad hoc or formal 
     linkages between the provision of official financing to 
     countries experiencing a financial crisis and the willingness 
     of market participants to meaningfully participate in any 
     stabilization effort led by the International Monetary Fund;
       ``(G) using the International Monetary Fund to facilitate 
     discussions between debtors and private creditors to help 
     ensure that

[[Page H7975]]

     financial difficulties are resolved without inappropriate 
     resort to public resources; and
       ``(H) the International Monetary Fund accompanying the 
     provision of funding to countries experiencing a financial 
     crisis resulting from imprudent borrowing with efforts to 
     achieve a significant contribution by the private creditors, 
     investors, and banks which had extended such credits.
       ``(6) Vigorously promote policies that would make the 
     International Monetary Fund a more effective mechanism, in 
     concert with appropriate international authorities and other 
     international financial institutions (as defined in section 
     1701(c)(2)), for promoting good governance principles within 
     recipient countries by fostering structural reforms, 
     including procurement reform, that reduce opportunities for 
     corruption and bribery, and drug-related money laundering.
       ``(7) Vigorously promote the design of International 
     Monetary Fund programs and assistance so that governments 
     that draw on the International Monetary Fund channel public 
     funds away from unproductive purposes, including large `show 
     case' projects and excessive military spending, and toward 
     investment in human and physical capital as well as social 
     programs to protect the neediest and promote social equity.
       ``(8) Work with the International Monetary Fund to foster 
     economic prescriptions that are appropriate to the individual 
     economic circumstances of each recipient country, recognizing 
     that inappropriate stabilization programs may only serve to 
     further destabilize the economy and create unnecessary 
     economic, social, and political dislocation.
       ``(9) Structure International Monetary Fund programs and 
     assistance so that the maintenance and improvement of core 
     labor standards are routinely incorporated as an integral 
     goal in the policy dialogue with recipient countries, so 
     that--
       ``(A) recipient governments commit to affording workers the 
     right to exercise internationally recognized core worker 
     rights, including the right of free association and 
     collective bargaining through unions of their own choosing;
       ``(B) measures designed to facilitate labor market 
     flexibility are consistent with such core worker rights; and
       ``(C) the staff of the International Monetary Fund surveys 
     the labor market policies and practices of recipient 
     countries and recommends policy initiatives that will help to 
     ensure the maintenance or improvement of core labor 
     standards.
       ``(10) Vigorously promote International Monetary Fund 
     programs and assistance that are structured to the maximum 
     extent feasible to discourage practices which may promote 
     ethnic or social strife in a recipient country.
       ``(11) Vigorously promote recognition by the International 
     Monetary Fund that macroeconomic developments and policies 
     can affect and be affected by environmental conditions and 
     policies, and urge the International Monetary Fund to 
     encourage member countries to pursue macroeconomic stability 
     while promoting environmental protection.
       ``(12) Facilitate greater International Monetary Fund 
     transparency, including by enhancing accessibility of the 
     International Monetary Fund and its staff, fostering a more 
     open release policy toward working papers, past evaluations, 
     and other International Monetary Fund documents, seeking to 
     publish all Letters of Intent to the International Monetary 
     Fund and Policy Framework Papers, and establishing a more 
     open release policy regarding Article IV consultations.
       ``(13) Facilitate greater International Monetary Fund 
     accountability and enhance International Monetary Fund self-
     evaluation by vigorously promoting review of the 
     effectiveness of the Office of Internal Audit and Inspection 
     and the Executive Board's external evaluation pilot program 
     and, if necessary, the establishment of an operations 
     evaluation department modeled on the experience of the 
     International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, guided 
     by such key principles as usefulness, credibility, 
     transparency, and independence.
       ``(14) Vigorously promote coordination with the 
     International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and 
     other international financial institutions (as defined in 
     section 1701(c)(2)) in promoting structural reforms which 
     facilitate the provision of credit to small businesses, 
     including microenterprise lending, especially in the world's 
     poorest, heavily indebted countries.
       ``(b) Coordination With Other Executive Departments.--To 
     the extent that it would assist in achieving the goals 
     described in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall pursue the goals in coordination with the Secretary of 
     State, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Commerce, the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
     Administrator of the Agency for International Development, 
     and the United States Trade Representative.''.
       (b) Advisory Committee on IMF Policy.--Section 1701 of such 
     Act (22 U.S.C. 262p-5) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(e) Advisory Committee on IMF Policy.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     establish an International Monetary Fund Advisory Committee 
     (in this subsection referred to as the `Advisory Committee').
       ``(2) Membership.--The Advisory Committee shall consist of 
     9 members appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury, after 
     appropriate consultations with the relevant organizations, as 
     follows:
       ``(A) 1 member shall be a former Secretary or Deputy 
     Secretary of the Treasury, who shall serve as the chairman of 
     the Advisory Committee.
       ``(B) 2 members shall be representatives from organized 
     labor.
       ``(C) 2 members shall be representatives from banking and 
     financial services.
       ``(D) 2 members shall be representatives from industry and 
     agriculture.
       ``(E) 2 members shall be representatives from 
     nongovernmental environmental and human rights organizations.
       ``(3) Duties.--Not less frequently than every 6 months, the 
     Advisory Committee shall meet with the Secretary of the 
     Treasury or the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury to review, 
     and provide advice on, the extent to which individual country 
     International Monetary Fund programs meet the policy goals 
     set forth in this Act regarding the International Monetary 
     Fund.
       ``(4) Inapplicability of termination provision of the 
     federal advisory committee act.--Section 14(a)(2) of the 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act shall not apply to the 
     Advisory Committee.''.


 sense of the congress on the role of japan in restoring regional and 
                         global economic growth

       Sec. 608. It is the sense of the Congress that Japan should 
     assume a greater regional leadership role, which would 
     coincide with Japan's goal of promoting strong domestic 
     demand-led growth and avoiding a significant increase in its 
     external surplus with the United States and the countries of 
     the Asia-Pacific region.


   semiannual reports on financial stabilization programs led by the 
   international monetary fund in connection with financing from the 
                      exchange stabilization fund

       Sec. 609. Title XVII of the International Financial 
     Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262r-262r-2) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1704. REPORTS ON FINANCIAL STABILIZATION PROGRAMS LED 
                   BY THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND IN 
                   CONNECTION WITH FINANCING FROM THE EXCHANGE 
                   STABILIZATION FUND.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Commerce and other 
     appropriate Federal agencies, shall prepare reports on the 
     implementation of financial stabilization programs (and any 
     material terms and conditions thereof) led by the 
     International Monetary Fund in countries in connection with 
     which the United States has made a commitment to provide, or 
     has provided financing from the stabilization fund 
     established under section 5302 of title 31, United States 
     Code. The reports shall include the following:
       ``(1) A description of the condition of the economies of 
     countries requiring the financial stabilization programs, 
     including the monetary, fiscal, and exchange rate policies of 
     the countries.
       ``(2) A description of the degree to which the countries 
     requiring the financial stabilization programs have fully 
     implemented financial sector restructuring and reform 
     measures required by the International Monetary Fund, 
     including--
       ``(A) ensuring full respect for the commercial orientation 
     of commercial bank lending;
       ``(B) ensuring that governments will not intervene in bank 
     management and lending decisions (except in regard to 
     prudential supervision);
       ``(C) the enactment and implementation of appropriate 
     financial reform legislation;
       ``(D) strengthening the domestic financial system and 
     improving transparency and supervision; and
       ``(E) the opening of domestic capital markets.
       ``(3) A description of the degree to which the countries 
     requiring the financial stabilization programs have fully 
     implemented reforms required by the International Monetary 
     Fund that are directed at corporate governance and corporate 
     structure, including--
       ``(A) making nontransparent conglomerate practices more 
     transparent through the application of internationally 
     accepted accounting practices, independent external audits, 
     full disclosure, and provision of consolidated statements; 
     and
       ``(B) ensuring that no government subsidized support or tax 
     privileges will be provided to bail out individual 
     corporations, particularly in the semiconductor, steel, and 
     paper industries.
       ``(4) A description of the implementation of reform 
     measures required by the International Monetary Fund to 
     deregulate and privatize economic activity by ending domestic 
     monopolies, undertaking trade liberalization, and opening up 
     restricted areas of the economy to foreign investment and 
     competition.
       ``(5) A detailed description of the trade policies of the 
     countries, including any unfair trade practices or adverse 
     effects of the trade policies on the United States.
       ``(6) A description of the extent to which the financial 
     stabilization programs have resulted in appropriate burden-
     sharing among

[[Page H7976]]

     private sector creditors, including rescheduling of 
     outstanding loans by lengthening maturities, agreements on 
     debt reduction, and the extension of new credit.
       ``(7) A description of the extent to which the economic 
     adjustment policies of the International Monetary Fund and 
     the policies of the government of the country adequately 
     balance the need for financial stabilization, economic 
     growth, environmental protection, social stability, and 
     equity for all elements of the society.
       ``(8) Whether International Monetary Fund involvement in 
     labor market flexibility measures has had a negative effect 
     on core worker rights, particularly the rights of free 
     association and collective bargaining.
       ``(9) A description of any pattern of abuses of core worker 
     rights in recipient countries.
       ``(10) The amount, rate of interest, and disbursement and 
     repayment schedules of any funds disbursed from the 
     stabilization fund established under section 5302 of title 
     31, United States Code, in the form of loans, credits, 
     guarantees, or swaps, in support of the financial 
     stabilization programs.
       ``(11) The amount, rate of interest, and disbursement and 
     repayment schedules of any funds disbursed by the 
     International Monetary Fund to the countries in support of 
     the financial stabilization programs.
       ``(b) Timing.--Not later than October 1, 1998, and 
     semiannually thereafter, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     submit to the Committees on Banking and Financial Services 
     and International Relations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committees on Foreign Relations, and Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report on the 
     matters described in subsection (a).''.


 reports on reforming the architecture of the international financial 
                                 system

       Sec. 610. (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that, in order 
     to ensure that the International Monetary Fund does not 
     become the global lender of last resort to private sector 
     corporations and financial institutions, and in order to help 
     prevent future threats to the international financial system, 
     the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Board 
     of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, working with 
     their counterparts in other countries and with international 
     organizations as appropriate, should--
       (1) seek to establish a broad set of international 
     transparency principles on accounting and disclosure policies 
     and practices covering, in particular, private sector 
     financial organizations;
       (2) promote improvements in the provision by both borrowers 
     and lenders of timely and comprehensive aggregate information 
     on cross-border financial stocks and flows;
       (3) seek an international accord establishing uniform 
     minimum standards with respect to robust banking and 
     supervisory systems, which individual countries should be 
     required to meet as a condition for the establishment of 
     subsidiaries, branches, or other offices of banking 
     institutions from their countries in the jurisdictions of the 
     countries participating in the accord;
       (4) immediately initiate with appropriate representatives 
     of the countries that are members of the International 
     Monetary Fund discussions aimed at securing national 
     treatment for United States investors in such countries; and
       (5) seek to establish internationally acceptable bankruptcy 
     standards and should work particularly to have International 
     Monetary Fund recipient countries adopt such standards.
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     prepare 3 reports on progress made toward achieving the 
     objectives outlined in subsection (a), which shall describe 
     the steps taken by the United States, other members of the 
     world community, and the international financial institutions 
     to strengthen safeguards in the global financial system, 
     including measures to promote more efficient functioning of 
     global markets, by--
       (A) helping to develop effective legal and regulatory 
     frameworks, including appropriate bankruptcy and foreclosure 
     mechanisms;
       (B) increasing transparency and disclosure by both the 
     private and public sectors;
       (C) strengthening prudential standards, both globally and 
     in individual economies;
       (D) improving domestic policy management;
       (E) strengthening the role of the international financial 
     institutions in financial crisis prevention and management; 
     and
       (F) ensuring appropriate burden-sharing by the private 
     sector, particularly commercial banks and financial 
     institutions, in the resolution of crises.
       (2) Timing.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to 
     the Committees on Banking and Financial Services and 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committees on Foreign Relations and Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs of the Senate 2 interim reports on the matters 
     described in paragraph (1), the first of which is due by 
     October 1, 1998, and the second of which is due on April 1, 
     1999, and a final report on such matters, which is due on 
     October 1, 1999.


annual report and testimony on the state of the international financial 
         system, imf reform, and compliance with imf agreements

       Sec. 611. Title XVII of the International Financial 
     Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262r-262r-2) is further amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1705. ANNUAL REPORT AND TESTIMONY ON THE STATE OF THE 
                   INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SYSTEM, IMF REFORM, AND 
                   COMPLIANCE WITH IMF AGREEMENTS.

       ``(a) Reports.--Not later than October 1 of each year, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to the Committee on 
     Banking and Financial Services of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate a written report on the progress (if any) made by the 
     United States Executive Director at the International 
     Monetary Fund in influencing the International Monetary Fund 
     to adopt the policies and reform its internal procedures in 
     the manner described in section 1503.
       ``(b) Testimony.--After submitting the report required by 
     subsection (a) but not later than October 31 of each year, 
     the Secretary of the Treasury shall appear before the 
     Committee on Banking and Financial Services of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate and present testimony on--
       ``(1) any progress made in reforming the International 
     Monetary Fund;
       ``(2) the status of efforts to reform the international 
     financial system; and
       ``(3) the compliance of countries which have received 
     assistance from the International Monetary Fund with 
     agreements made as a condition of receiving the 
     assistance.''.


               audits of the international monetary fund

       Sec. 612. Title XVII of the International Financial 
     Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262r-262r-2) is further amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1706. AUDITS OF THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND.

       ``(a) Access to Materials.--Not later than 30 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary of 
     the Treasury shall certify to the Committee on Banking and 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate that the 
     Secretary has instructed the United States Executive Director 
     at the International Monetary Fund to facilitate timely 
     access by the General Accounting Office to information and 
     documents of the International Monetary Fund needed by the 
     Office to perform financial reviews of the International 
     Monetary Fund that will facilitate the conduct of United 
     States policy with respect to the Fund.
       ``(b) Reports.--Not later than June 30, 1999, and annually 
     thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall prepare and submit to the committees specified in 
     subsection (a) a report on the financial operations of the 
     Fund during the preceding year, which shall include--
       ``(1) the current financial condition of the International 
     Monetary Fund;
       ``(2) the amount, rate of interest, disbursement schedule, 
     and repayment schedule for any loans that were initiated or 
     outstanding during the preceding calendar year, and with 
     respect to disbursement schedules, the report shall identify 
     and discuss in detail any conditions required to be fulfilled 
     by a borrower country before a disbursement is made;
       ``(3) a detailed description of whether the trade policies 
     of borrower countries permit free and open trade by the 
     United States and other foreign countries in the borrower 
     countries;
       ``(4) a detailed description of the export policies of 
     borrower countries and whether the policies may result in 
     increased export of their products, goods, or services to the 
     United States which may have significant adverse effects on, 
     or result in unfair trade practices against or affecting 
     United States companies, farmers, or communities;
       ``(5) a detailed description of any conditions of 
     International Monetary Fund loans which have not been met by 
     borrower countries, including a discussion of the reasons why 
     such conditions were not met, and the actions taken by the 
     International Monetary Fund due to the borrower country's 
     noncompliance;
       ``(6) an identification of any borrower country and loan on 
     which any loan terms or conditions were renegotiated in the 
     preceding calendar year, including a discussion of the 
     reasons for the renegotiation and any new loan terms and 
     conditions; and
       ``(7) a specification of the total number of loans made by 
     the International Monetary Fund from its inception through 
     the end of the period covered by the report, the number and 
     percentage (by number) of such loans that are in default or 
     arrears, and the identity of the countries in default or 
     arrears, and the number of such loans that are outstanding as 
     of the end of period covered by the report and the aggregate 
     amount of the outstanding loans and the average yield 
     (weighted by loan principal) of the historical and 
     outstanding loan portfolios of the International Monetary 
     Fund.''.


                              short title

       Sec. 613. Sections 605 through 613 of this title may be 
     cited as the ``International Monetary Fund Reform and 
     Authorization Act of 1998''.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except pro 
forma amendments for the purpose of debate, amendments printed in the

[[Page H7977]]

Congressional Record, and amendments printed in House Report 105-725.
  The amendments printed in the report may be offered only by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered 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.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered By Mr. Wolf

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

       Amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 105-725 offered by 
     Mr. Wolf:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following:
                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS


                    national commission on terrorism

       Sec. 701. (a) Establishment of National Commission on 
     Terrorism.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established a national 
     commission on terrorism to review counter-terrorism policies 
     regarding the prevention and punishment of international acts 
     of terrorism directed at the United States. The commission 
     shall be known as ``The National Commission on Terrorism''.
       (2) Composition.--The commission shall be composed of 15 
     members appointed as follows:
       (A) Five members shall be appointed by the President from 
     among officers or employees of the executive branch, private 
     citizens of the United States, or both. Not more than 3 
     members selected by the President shall be members of the 
     same political party.
       (B) Five members shall be appointed by the Majority Leader 
     of the Senate, in consultation with the Minority Leader of 
     the Senate, from among members of the Senate, private 
     citizens of the United States, or both. Not more than 3 of 
     the members selected by the Majority Leader shall be members 
     of the same political party and 3 members shall be members of 
     the Senate.
       (C) Five members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives, in consultation with the Minority 
     Leader of the House of Representatives, from among members of 
     the House of Representatives, private citizens of the United 
     States, or both. Not more than 3 of the members selected by 
     the Speaker shall be members of the same political party and 
     3 members shall be members of the House of Representatives.
       (D) The appointments of the members of the commission 
     should be made no later than 3 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (3) Qualifications.--The members should have a knowledge 
     and expertise in matters to be studied by the commission.
       (4) Chairman.--The chairman of the commission shall be 
     elected by the members of the commission.
       (b) Duties.--
       (1) In general.--The commission shall consider issues 
     relating to international terrorism directed at the United 
     States as follows:
       (A) Review the laws, regulations, policies, directives, and 
     practices relating to counterterrorism in the prevention and 
     punishment of international terrorism directed towards the 
     United States.
       (B) Assess the extent to which laws, regulations, policies, 
     directives, and practices relating to counterterrorism have 
     been effective in preventing or punishing international 
     terrorism directed towards the United States. At a minimum, 
     the assessment should include a review of the following:
       (i) Evidence that terrorist organizations have established 
     an infrastructure in the western hemisphere for the support 
     and conduct of terrorist activities.
       (ii) Executive branch efforts to coordinate 
     counterterrorism activities among Federal, State, and local 
     agencies and with other nations to determine the 
     effectiveness of such coordination efforts.
       (iii) Executive branch efforts to prevent the use of 
     nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons by terrorists.
       (C) Recommend changes to counterterrorism policy in 
     preventing and punishing international terrorism directed 
     toward the United States.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date on 
     which the Commission first meets, the Commission shall submit 
     to the President and the Congress a final report of the 
     findings and conclusions of the commission, together with any 
     recommendations.
       (c) Administrative Matters.--
       (1) Meetings.--
       (A) The commission shall hold its first meeting on a date 
     designated by the Speaker of the House which is not later 
     than 30 days after the date on which all members have been 
     appointed.
       (B) After the first meeting, the commission shall meet upon 
     the call of the chairman.
       (C) A majority of the members of the commission shall 
     constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold meetings.
       (2) Authority of individuals to act for commission.--Any 
     member or agent of the commission may, if authorized by the 
     commission, take any action which the commission is 
     authorized to take under this section.
       (3) Powers.--
       (A) The commission may hold such hearings, sit and act at 
     such times and places, take such testimony, and receive such 
     evidence as the commission considers advisable to carry out 
     its duties.
       (B) The commission may secure directly from any agency of 
     the Federal Government such information as the commission 
     considers necessary to carry out its duties. Upon the request 
     of the chairman of the commission, the head of a department 
     or agency shall furnish the requested information 
     expeditiously to the commission.
       (C) The commission may use the United States mails in the 
     same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
       (4) Pay and expenses of commission members.--
       (A) Subject to appropriations, each member of the 
     commission who is not an employee of the government shall be 
     paid at a rate not to exceed the daily equivalent of the 
     annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day (including travel time) during 
     which such member is engaged in performing the duties of the 
     commission.
       (B) Members and personnel for the commission may travel on 
     aircraft, vehicles, or other conveyances of the Armed Forces 
     of the United States when travel is necessary in the 
     performance of a duty of the commission except when the cost 
     of commercial transportation is less expensive.
       (C) The members of the commission may be allowed travel 
     expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates 
     authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of 
     chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from 
     their homes or regular places of business in the performance 
     of services for the commission.
       (D)(i) A member of the commission who is an annuitant 
     otherwise covered by section 8344 of 8468 of title 5, United 
     States Code, by reason of membership on the commission shall 
     not be subject to the provisions of such section with respect 
     to membership on the commission.
       (ii) A member of the commission who is a member or former 
     member of a uniformed service shall not be subject to the 
     provisions of subsections (b) and (c) of section 5532 of such 
     title with respect to membership on the commission.
       (5) Staff and administrative support.--
       (A) The chairman of the commission may, without regard to 
     civil service laws and regulations, appoint and terminate an 
     executive director and up to 3 additional staff members as 
     necessary to enable the commission to perform its duties. The 
     chairman of the commission may fix the compensation of the 
     executive director and other personnel without regard to the 
     provisions of chapter 51, and subchapter III of chapter 53, 
     of title 5, United States Code, relating to classification of 
     positions and General Schedule pay rates, except that the 
     rate of pay may not exceed the maximum rate of pay for GS-15 
     under the General Schedule.
       (B) Upon the request of the chairman of the commission, the 
     head of any department or agency of the Federal Government 
     may detail, without reimbursement, any personnel of the 
     department or agency to the commission to assist in carrying 
     out its duties. The detail of an employee shall be without 
     interruption or loss of civil service status or privilege.
       (d) Termination of Commission.--The commission shall 
     terminate 30 days after the date on which the commission 
     submits a final report.
       (e) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this 
     section.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I will not use that time. I want to thank 
first of all the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), chairman, and 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman, for their help and 
support. Also, I want to thank the staff for their help and support in 
shaping this amendment.
  It would set up a national commission of 15 members on tourism to 
take a close look at the national counterterrorism policies and 
recommend if anything more should be done to deal with this issue, 
particularly nuclear, chemical, and biological.
  This would be a bipartisan effort with the efforts that have taken 
place

[[Page H7978]]

in the bombings that have taken place both in Tanzania and Kenya, going 
all the way back to the Beirut Embassy in 1983 and the marine barracks 
of that year.
  I think this would be a very healthy positive thing to do. It would 
take 6 months. By the time Congress was back early next year, hopefully 
this commission will have finished its work.
  So I will not take any more time, but I know there are many other 
amendments that people want to offer and would just ask for support of 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) rise 
to claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment?
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in favor of the 
amendment and I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi) for 10 minutes.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the gentleman's resolution. I thank 
him for his leadership on this and am pleased to support the 
gentleman's legislation.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
of the gentleman from Virginia to create this bipartisan commission on 
terrorism.
  The idea is right on target and I am prepared to accept his 
amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 28 Offered by Ms. Pelosi

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 28 offered by Ms. Pelosi:
       On page 110, after line 15, insert:


         united states quota in the international monetary fund

       For an increase in the United States quota in the 
     International Monetary Fund, the dollar equivalent of 
     10,622,500,000 Special Drawing Rights, to remain available 
     until expended.

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) reserves a 
point of order.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, as I have said before, I believe that it is 
important for this body to have an opportunity to discuss the funding 
for the International Monetary Fund. I believe that the timing on it is 
appropriate.
  It was one year ago that we stood here to talk about the IMF. The 
matter was tied to the international family planning issue, and, 
therefore, the funding did not occur but we were assured that this 
would probably take place in February. Then it was going to be in the 
spring and here we are one full year later.
  Secretary Rubin wrote in July to Congress indicating that the IMF has 
only $7 billion to $12 billion in usable quota resources and its 
available credit lines have been reduced to $14.2 billion.
  Recent GAO reports on this confirm the validity of the secretary's 
statement, and since Mr. Rubin's July letter, the matters have gotten 
worse.
  I would remind Members again that we have needed this replenishment 
for one year. Since that time, the condition of the world markets has 
deteriorated drastically and we have recently seen the effects that are 
now being felt in our own financial markets.
  That is my view. I also know that many of my colleagues have a 
different view about the IMF and I believe that as the world is being 
impacted by the Asian economic crisis, that it is appropriate for our 
House of Representatives to have a debate on this issue.
  Replenishment of the IMF, in my view, has been critical to protecting 
our own economy. The fundamentals of our economy remain strong but I 
would point out to Members that U.S. exports to Asia have already 
declined by 20 percent, which amounts to a $22 billion loss to our 
economy on an annualized basis. Farmers have been especially hard hit.
  The trade deficit is expected to skyrocket to the $250 billion to 
$300 billion range this year. We must not leave town without giving the 
administration the tools it needs to protect American workers, 
businesses and farmers.
  The debate on IMF is focused primarily on the reforms necessary 
within the institution, the mistakes made in certain countries and 
blaming the institution for not anticipating the global crisis we are 
now in. I believe, as I said earlier, that we must subject the IMF 
practices to the harshest scrutiny: Moral hazard, conditionality, need 
for more transparency.
  But as I said also before, the issue of contagion to our economy 
trumps all other concerns. We have a responsibility to the American 
worker.
  With respect to individual countries, I would say that certainly in 
the case of Thailand and Korea, progress has been made and reforms 
continue to take place in their economies. Russia, of course, is a 
special case and we know that Indonesia is still suffering and trying 
to democratize. Whether each of these countries is included in the IMF 
replenishment funding, again should be a subject for debate for this 
floor.
  Essentially, the IMF was taking a risk on the government and its 
reformist agenda in Russia and that subject is probably the most 
important issue we could be discussing here, with the possible 
exception of the legislation regarding North Korea that is in this 
bill.
  In conclusion, I would say that I hope that the chairman will not 
sustain the point of order if indeed it is offered, because the effects 
to the American crisis have been felt, as I said before, by the 
American farmer and that should demonstrate to all of us that this is 
not a foreign give-away.
  I remind my colleagues that this is not scored, this is not money 
that is an opportunity cost for us in the budget. This is money for 
which we receive a credit and a reserve when we put forth our funding.
  It is a loan. This is not a grant in aid. It is not an opportunity 
cost. It is an opportunity for us. In any event, I am not speaking to 
persuade anyone one way or the other on the IMF. My point is that this 
issue should appropriately be debated on this floor, and I would hope 
that the point of order, if offered, would not be sustained.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) insist 
on his point of order?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I still reserve my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman continues to reserve his point of order.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time to speak and explain the 
situation we are in today.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. Chairman, the comments that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) made certainly make a lot of sense. The complexity of the 
International Monetary Fund and the complexity of international 
finance, quite frankly, is far above the pay grade of the average 
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Yes, we try to learn as 
much as we possibly can about international finance. We have to rely 
upon the administrative branch of government to give us information to 
justify whether or not we will give the experts on foreign policy and 
the experts on the international monetary system the necessary monies.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman from California, very 
likely they are correct. It is far above my pay grade, because my 
intellect level compared with the average Member of Congress is below 
average.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I will first of all say that it is a very complex.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand the gentleman's words be taken down.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should not forget, he is my 
leader. He should not say those things about himself.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, very seriously, there are people on both

[[Page H7979]]

sides of this issue that I greatly respect. I respect George Shultz. I 
respect the gentlewoman from California. I respect a lot of people. But 
George Shultz says do not give them anything. I respect Bob Rubin and 
he says give them the entire 18 billion. And I respect Alan Greenspan. 
He says give them the 18 billion.
  But I also respect the views of the people I represent and the 
Members of the U.S. House of Representatives who are questioning this. 
They are questioning whether or not we are doing the right thing under 
the circumstances in past history.
  IMF has a good historical record with respect to monies being paid 
back. But we are reaching a stage of no return, a different type of 
global economy that is causing concerns to our constituents and they 
want to know why there is not more transparency. They want to know why 
we do not have more control over the activities of the International 
Monetary Fund, since we are putting in nearly 18 percent of their 
revenues. And they have requested that we instruct the International 
Monetary Fund to change directions of the past.
  We are not sufficiently prepared today to address these very serious 
concerns. Maybe sometime during this process we will be, but there is 
not going to be any money appropriated by this House in addition to the 
$3.5 billion we have already given until such time as serious reforms 
are attached or serious assurances of reforms have indeed passed this 
body and through the conference.
  I am willing to work with the gentlewoman from California. I know the 
importance of it. I do not want to do anything to disrupt our economy. 
I know that it does create some peril. I know that Russia is not a good 
example of what we do with International Monetary Fund financing. I 
know that Brazil might be in need in the next few weeks, whereby it 
will be justifiable. But at this time, I am not prepared to accept it 
and I am going to insist in a few minutes on my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) continues to 
reserve his point of order.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am truly sorry that Members were not allowed to offer 
amendments dealing with the IMF. I think the points made both by the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), chairman of the subcommittee, 
and by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking 
member, are absolutely the reasons why we should have had an 
opportunity to debate the funding level for the IMF.
  Mr. Chairman, I also find myself in a lot of agreement with what the 
gentleman from Alabama has said. I also wanted to offer an amendment to 
deal with the questions of the IMF funding policies with respect to 
their negative impacts that they have had on environmental resources 
and protection. My amendment would have required the International 
Monetary Fund to review proposed loans for their environmental impact.
  In 1989 and 1992, Congress passed laws telling the IMF to consider 
the environmental impacts of its policy. Unfortunately, IMF has not 
done so and the results have been disastrous in Indonesia and many 
other countries.
  In many cases with the IMF, one of the solutions that they pose to 
these countries is to export their way out of their difficulties. Not 
only does this provide severe competition to American jobs and 
manufacturing, but in many instances it enhances the environmental 
degradation that takes place in many of these countries, because much 
of what they have to export are resources that are extractive in 
nature.
  We have seen the disasters of the fires in Indonesia. We have seen 
the disasters in Guyana and other countries where they have rushed to 
export these materials without regard to the environmental impacts, and 
the same countries have later suffered environmental disasters as a 
result of those policies.
  Specifically, my amendment would have required the IMF to establish 
an environmental review process on all proposed loans before 
implementation; require the IMF to take into account the cost of 
unsustainable natural resource use; require that IMF loan agreements do 
not reduce or undermine the country's environmental standards; and, 
require that environmental reviews be made available to the public.
  This is consistent what this committee has done with respect to other 
international lending institutions. The gentlewoman from San Francisco 
(Ms. Pelosi) has been a very strong proponent of making sure that 
environmental impacts are part of the policies of the World Bank and 
other multilateral lending institutions, and the same ought to be true 
of the IMF.
  There are many, many other reforms that the gentleman from Alabama 
has referred to that have caused our constituents a great deal of 
concern, and that is why I wish the Committee on Rules had made in 
order some 12 or 14 amendments that were being offered by individuals 
on both sides of this debate. Our constituents are watching this 
debate. They are concerned about the use of these resources, and they 
are concerned about the international economy as it affects the United 
States. We should be debating that on the floor of the House.
  Unfortunately, we will not have that opportunity. I want to thank the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the subcommittee chairman, for 
withholding on insisting upon his point of order, and I thank him for 
the opportunity to raise this issue to our colleagues.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) wish to 
make his point of order at this time?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I was prepared to offer an 
amendment, but because I have sought the cooperation of the 
distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) of the 
subcommittee, as well as the chairman of the full committee on this 
issue, I am pleased to stand today in the hopes of engaging in a 
colloquy regarding IMF funding to Russia.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of IMF funding replenishment for 
Russia. And I know that is not a popular decision to make. I do so with 
the same concerns that members of the Russian Duma, their Parliament, 
have in also at this time opposing IMF funding. Their concerns are that 
much of the dollars going into Russia through the World Bank and IMF, 
and in some cases U.S. funding, have gone into the black hole of some 
of the oligarchs in Moscow who have not used the money properly. In 
fact, the people in Russia are very concerned about having to pay back 
many of these loans.
  But just 2 weeks ago, in fact the day the President left Moscow, I 
arrived. And as the chairman of the Inter-Parliamentary Commission on 
our side, along with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), I 
negotiated with the factions in the Russian Duma and came away with a 
set of eight principles. These eight principles, I think, are historic.
  What they say that the Duma will pass, according to Speaker 
Seleznyov, are reforms that say reforms must come first. Besides 
reforms coming first, the regions that have made significant progress 
in terms of private property issues and stabilization of tax bases 
should be given consideration for international funding.
  All programs should be aimed at developing a middle class. There 
should be a bilateral commission formed between the Congress and the 
Parliament to monitor every dollar of money going into Russia. The IMF 
should establish a blue ribbon international task force that should 
make recommendations to the IMF about reforming itself.
  There should be a program designed by the Congress and the Duma to 
bring American corporate leaders to Russia to assist and advise Russian 
companies that are currently on the brink of bankruptcy.
  Finally, that within 3 years we establish an initiative to bring up 
the 15,000 Russian students to American business schools to learn the 
ways of free market systems.
  The Duma, in fact, will pass this. I am asking my colleagues on the 
conference to agree with this.
  And I would like to at this time yield to the distinguished gentleman 
from

[[Page H7980]]

Alabama (Mr. Callahan) the chairman of the subcommittee, to ask if he 
in fact would work with me in the conference process.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
I do agree that the direction that he has taken is correct. I have 
reviewed the eight platforms of his suggested reform and certainly 
think this is the exact correct direction to move in. I certainly will 
do everything I can to instruct the committee, or to request the 
committee when we reach that stage, to implement many of the decisions.
  I must forewarn the gentleman that the corrections and reforms that 
the gentleman has only deal with Russia, and there are serious concerns 
in this Congress and on the part of this Member about reforms for the 
entire International Monetary Fund program.
  But, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is moving in the right direction. I 
think this is exactly the right thing to do, and I am going to suggest 
that we review the eight platforms of his agreement with the Russian 
Duma and that we try to implement or to urge the International Monetary 
Fund, or at least urge the Secretary of the Treasury to insist that the 
International Monetary Fund recognize how important it is to include 
these two bodies.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank 
my friend and colleague and I also thank the distinguished gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), chairman of the full Committee on 
Appropriations for the past advice and counsel he has given me in this 
area. And I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for her 
cooperation and I look forward to working with her as well.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I thank him 
and look forward to working with him.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) continues to 
reserve his point of order.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for 
indulging another 5 minutes to give a little different perspective to 
this discussion today.
  Before the Fourth of July recess, I stood behind the Speaker of the 
House and many other of my colleagues, including the chairman of the 
Committee on Agriculture, when we endorsed what we called a Square Deal 
for Agriculture, recognizing that one of the promises of the Freedom to 
Farm Act was to provide that we would do everything within our power in 
the House of Representatives to make sure that foreign markets would, 
in fact, be open.
  We were promised that we would have a vote on the Square Deal and we 
have had two of those. The sanctions vote, and the normal trade 
relations with China have passed. We lack IMF and fast track.
  Part of the deal was that we were going to vote on the floor of the 
House on both of these very controversial issues. Both of them; not one 
of them. It is my considered judgment today that this action on the 
part of the leadership of the House to deny a free up-or-down vote on 
the IMF is the death knell to the fast track vote next week. The fault 
will lie right squarely here in the House, because we once again have 
refused to have an open and honest debate on issues on which we have 
some disagreement.
  The last colloquy made good, eminent sense to me. I think that is the 
kind of reasoned approach to many of these issues that we should be 
following, but it should not be misinterpreted to say that we can pick 
and choose these discussions in debate and pick and choose what we 
shall have debated openly and honestly, and still have the other 
decision that is so vital to agriculture, and that is fast track.
  That is very controversial on my side of the aisle. There are just a 
few of us on this side that do support it, but there are enough of us 
that do support it. In fact, I have said with my one vote alone is 
enough to pass fast track next week if we bring it up.
  But let me say this: By delaying IMF funding, we are playing with 
fire. We know this. Specifically speaking to agriculture, 40 percent of 
our agricultural exports now go to emerging markets. What is happening 
in those emerging markets is seriously affecting agriculture in the 
United States.
  We have the worst economic conditions in rural America since the 
Depression. I ask every one of my colleagues here, if they take their 
average wage and that of their constituents for the last 5 years and 
reduce it by 30 percent this year, what would the economic conditions 
be in their family? That is what we are, in fact, facing.
  IMF is critical for so many agricultural programs. Sure, there are 
warts, and I really appreciate and I sincerely accept what the 
gentleman from Alabama has said, as well as the chairman of the full 
committee, regarding this question. But when the House is burning, it 
is not the time to debate what color the fire truck shall be.
  The financial crisis could spread. We have been eminently warned by 
no less than Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve; by the 
Treasurer of the United States, Mr. Rubin, who I believe has great 
confidence on both sides of the aisle. And yet, once again, we are 
playing politics with two extremely important issues.

                              {time}  1500

  IMF is critical to USDA export credit programs, liberalization of 
agricultural markets. There are a lot of successes. There have been 
some problems with IMF. I readily agree to that. But there have also 
been some successes.
  IMF has helped U.S. farmers and ranchers by using the IMF rescue 
packages to reach agreements requiring the countries receiving aid to 
liberalize trade to the benefit of US agriculture.
  Korea has streamlined import certification and just last week 
announced further reductions in trade barriers on 32 imported products, 
including wheat and fertilizer. Indonesia is reforming its State 
Trading Enterprise. Thailand is adopting harmonized import licensing 
procedures and establishing more transparent customs valuation 
procedures.
  Yes, there are problems but, yes, there are also good things 
happening. What I am worried about now is we have once again reneged, 
that is the word we use back home in Texas, we reneged on an agreement. 
That is troubling because that is not what the House Committee on 
Agriculture, both sides of the aisle, understood. We understood that we 
were, in fact, going to have an open and honest debate on IMF and let 
the will of the House speak and then have an open and honest debate on 
fast track and let the will of the House speak. And by this action 
today of denying an opportunity for this free and open debate, we have, 
in my opinion, served a giant nail in the coffin of not only IMF but 
also fast track next week.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) continues to 
reserve his point of order.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I heard the somewhat vitriolic outcry from my friend 
from Texas about the failure of including the entire amount of IMF in 
this bill, but the fact is, I do not think he quite understands what is 
in this bill. There is funding of $3.4 billion for IMF in this bill. 
There are conditions to make the IMF more responsive in this bill. 
There is authorization for the full $18 billion in this bill. The 
Senate, the other body, has included the entire funding.
  Before this process is over, either all of IMF could be in, part of 
IMF could be in, or some of IMF could be in. The process is not over.
  I am curious about the gentleman's statement that the failure to 
include the entire amount of IMF in this bill means that fast track is 
dead. It occurs to me that fast track was on this floor one year ago 
and the minority party voted overwhelmingly against fast track.
  If the gentleman would like me to yield to him, I would be happy to 
yield to him, I would like him to tell me why the minority, if it is so 
important that we pass IMF in order to get to fast track, why most of 
the minority Members voted against fast track last time and, when we 
bring it up next week, is likely to vote against it again?
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. If memory serves me correctly, Mr. Chairman, we did not

[[Page H7981]]

vote last year. I have expressed publicly and I will say again to the 
gentleman in all sincerity, had the leadership of the House chosen to 
bring it to a vote, we would have passed it with the required number of 
votes on both sides of the aisle to get 218 votes, but, once again, for 
some reason, we chose not to allow the will of the people's elective 
body to express themselves. We did not vote, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is 
correct, we did not vote for fear that there were not sufficient votes 
and it was deemed to be an embarrassment to the President for his own 
party to vote against it. So he is right.
  If we bring up fast track next week, and it is my sincere hope that 
we will, I hope that the gentleman will work with Members of his party 
so that we will have sufficient votes to vote for fast track and that 
that will cease to be an issue.
  With respect to IMF, I am sure that the gentleman will have an 
opportunity to vote on IMF beyond what that which is already in this 
bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the remarks of our distinguished committee 
chairman have really revealed what the situation is here today, because 
he has granted that these funds are authorized. And I would simply say 
that the only thing that is holding this up, in my view, is that the 
majority party continues to try to exercise political leverage on the 
White House to obtain certain things they want, running the risk that 
our position in the world economy is going to become a whole lot 
shakier than it is today.
  We have heard many criticisms about the IMF and certainly many 
Members on this side of the aisle have made many criticisms, including 
myself. I recognize that the IMF is not sufficient today to deal with 
our international economic challenges. The IMF was created in a world 
of fixed exchange rates. Today we do not have fixed exchange rates. The 
IMF was created at a time when we had much smaller private capital 
flows than we have today. Today private capital flows when somebody 
punches a computer button that can overwhelm the IMF in many, many 
parts of the world.
  But we have seen the world when we did not have the IMF. We did not 
have the IMF in the 1930s. And in the 1930s, when we had first an 
Austrian banking collapse, followed in turn by a collapse of the 
currency in Germany. And when the markets were then in turn destroyed 
in Britain, and that chaos came across the water and engulfed the 
United States, we had the greatest depression in modern history.
  All that happened because of that is that Adolf Hitler came to power, 
over 50 million people died in the world, and that is why the ``Wise 
Men,'' as they were known after the end of World War II, created 
institutions such as the international financial institutions and the 
IMF so that we would have some ability to stabilize economic 
relationships between countries, so we would not have the conditions 
repeat themselves that led to the political instability that led to the 
military actions that led to the human devastation that we saw in that 
period in our history.
  At this point, imperfect though the IMF is, it is the only instrument 
we have to try to recognize the fact that currencies have collapsed in 
Asia, that our export markets for agriculture and other products have 
collapsed. That has, in turn, helped create greater instability in the 
Soviet Union. We have seen great uncertainty in Latin American markets. 
How long do Members of this House think we can survive as an island of 
economic success in a world of economic chaos? The answer is, not very 
long.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend yielding to me. 
I want to tell him that I concede most of the points that he has made. 
I agree with him and for many of the same reasons. I may ultimately 
support the IMF. But the question is, which comes first, the chicken or 
the egg?
  The fact is world instability was not created because this last 
tranche of U.S. participation in the IMF has been withheld this last 
year. And as the gentleman well knows, the day we reported this bill in 
full committee, the Los Angeles Times had a front page article about 
Anatoly Chubais, former economic guru of Russia, who said, we conned 
the IMF and the United States out of $20 billion. He used the words, we 
conned, we managed to scam them to give us the money so that we could 
sustain our failing system.
  It is not the IMF's fault that Russia system is failing. I think we, 
as stewards of the American taxpayers' money, owe it to them not to 
allow anybody to con us and throw our money down a rat hole.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the article to which I 
referred:

                   [From the Los Angeles Times, 1998]

       Russia Lied to Obtain Loans, a Chief Aide to Yeltsin Says

                        (By Richard C. Paddock)

       MOSCOW--A key architect of Russia's economic transformation 
     said in a published interview Tuesday that Russia ``conned'' 
     the international community out of nearly $20 billion in 
     loans by lying about the severity of the country's fiscal 
     problems.
       Anatoly B. Chubais, who in July negotiated a $4.8-billion 
     loan from the International Monetary Fund, said in an 
     interview in Kommersant Daily that it was necessary and 
     appropriate for Russia to lie in order to obtain infusions of 
     cash.
       If the government had told the truth, the longtime advisor 
     to President Boris N. Yeltsin said in the interview, Russia's 
     economy would have collapsed last spring and global lenders 
     ``would have stopped dealing with us forever.''
       Asked if the Russian government has the right to lie about 
     the country's fiscal instability, Chubais replied: ``In such 
     situations, the authorities have to do it. We ought to. The 
     financial institutions understand, despite the fact that we 
     conned them out of $20 billion, that we had no other way 
     out.''
       Chubais' comments came as Russia is searching for a 
     solution to the economic crisis that has paralyzed commerce, 
     pushed banks to the verge of bankruptcy and sent the 
     currency, the ruble, plunging in value almost daily to record 
     lows.
       Triggered by the devaluation of the ruble on Aug. 17, the 
     economic collapse has sparked a political crisis that has 
     left the country without a functioning government for more 
     than two weeks. Yeltsin, twice unable to win parliamentary 
     confirmation of his nominee for prime minister, Viktor S. 
     Chernomyrdin, met with advisors Tuesday but did not name a 
     candidate for the post.
       Some Russian officials say that obtaining more foreign aid 
     would be the best way to halt the economic slide. The IMF is 
     scheduled to release another $4.3-billion loan next week, but 
     the payment is in doubt because of Russia's inability to 
     enact austerity measures and its decision to devalue the 
     ruble and freeze payments on short-term government debt.
       Chubais' statements to the respected business newspaper 
     were especially startling because he has been widely viewed 
     as one of Russia's ``young reformers,'' who could be trusted 
     by the West because he favored establishing a market economy.
       He has served Yeltsin in numerous capacities, including 
     privatization chief, presidential chief of staff, deputy 
     prime minister, campaign manager and, most recently, special 
     envoy to Western lending institutions.
       During the years Chubias and his fellow free-market 
     advocates have been in power, privatization has resulted in a 
     handful of tycoons seizing control of the country's major 
     industries while millions of workers and pensioners go for 
     months at a time without being paid.
       Chubais is chief executive of the state-owned electricity 
     monopoly Unified Energy Systems.
       This summer, as Russia's economic woes mounted, Chubais 
     played a crucial role in winning a pledge of $22.6-billion in 
     loans from the IMF, the World Bank and Japan.
       The lenders insisted that Russia make serious changes in 
     the management of its government and the economy, including 
     improving tax collection and slashing spending.
       But Russia's desperate need for cash led the IMF in July to 
     release the $4.8-billion loan negotiated by Chubais, although 
     Russia had not met the loan conditions. Earlier, the IMF had 
     loaned Russia $14.3 billion.
       In Washington, spokesmen for the IMF and the World Bank 
     declined Tuesday to discuss Chubais' statements because they 
     had not read the interview, ``I haven't seen the article, so 
     it would be irresponsible for me to comment.'' World Bank 
     spokesman Klas Bergman said.
       Andrei V. Trapeznikov, a spokesman for Chubais, tried to 
     put the best spin on the Kommersant interview but did not 
     contest any of the quotations. In fact, he said, Chubais was 
     given a copy of the text before it was published and did not 
     question they way in which he was quoted.
       ``I think this passage should not be interpreted as 
     malicious intent,'' Trapeznikov said. ``There was no ill 
     intent on the part of Russia to cheat the IMF out of its 
     money.''
       In the interview, Chubais used the Russian slang word 
     kinuli, which means ``we cheated,'' Trapeznikov said it was a 
     harsher word than what Chubais really meant.
       ``What works for a Russian audience sounds very rough in 
     English,'' he said. ``I think that Antoly Borisovich 
     [Chubais] used

[[Page H7982]]

     a wrong word in this context and did not express himself very 
     clearly.''
       At another point in the Kommersant interview, Chubais 
     defended Yeltsin's statement just days before the government 
     devalued the ruble that it would never do so.
       ``One can keep lashing out at the president to one's 
     heart's content for having said there would be no 
     devaluation, but this was the very thing that should have 
     been said,'' Chubais told the newspaper. ``Any politician in 
     sound mind will tell you this is the only way, unfortunately, 
     that authorities should behave in such extreme situations.''

  Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, I would simply make one observation. 
Obviously, I agree with the gentleman's concern about that. I am 
extremely unhappy about that. But I ask the gentleman to remember the 
advice that we have had from Alan Greenspan and from virtually every 
other person with major responsibilities in running our economy. They 
have all urged us to pass this.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I will make one additional point. In Russia, 
within a period of three months, people have lost 85 percent of the 
value of their investments, 85 percent of the value of the stock 
market. If that had happened in this country today, we would be in the 
midst of a revolution. It is a minor miracle that they are not. They 
have a few thousand nuclear weapons which can very easily be pointed at 
us. I would suggest to everyone who cares about the subject that the 
very fact that we have such chaos in Russia is an argument for 
strengthening, not denying, resources to the only instrument we have 
left to prevent that kind of chaos.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
I think that he has made the points extremely well. I would just add 
that it is becoming increasingly clear, in spite of all the work that 
has gone into this bill, and we appreciate the difficulty in balancing 
all of the things that have to be done, the bill remains an inadequate 
instrument to deal with the economic problems confronting us in the 
global community.
  If we fail to recognize that, we do so at our peril. We are already 
beginning to see the impacts of the economic crisis in East Asia in the 
deflation that is sweeping across that part of the world. Just a week 
ago, representatives from the steel industry were here in the Capitol 
pleading with this government and the White House to do something about 
the fact that steel was being dumped on our marketplace from East Asia 
at prices below production cost.
  We heard just a few moments ago about the tragedy that is beginning 
to unfold in the agricultural community of this country. All across the 
farm belt agriculturalists lists are in dire circumstances. Why? For a 
number of reasons, principal among them is the fact that their markets 
are beginning to dry up. Not that we have that many markets in the Far 
East, but the Australians do and the Australian market for grain has 
dried up in the Far East. And they are now moving into our markets, as 
are the Canadians.
  And the result of that is that prices are dropping all around the 
world for agricultural commodities and our farmers are suffering. They 
are going to continue to suffer. If we fail to fund the IMF at the 
appropriate level so that that agency is able to step in and begin to 
stabilize the currencies and economies of these countries, the 
repercussions are going to redound on this North American continent 
next year. We will reap the whirlwind for our failure to act.
  We need to get this bill out on the floor. We need a full and 
comprehensive debate on the International Monetary Fund. Yes, we 
recognize it is an inadequate instrument itself, but it is the only one 
we have, as the minority leader of the Committee on Appropriations said 
so many times.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Hinchey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his forbearance in allowing 
this discussion to take place. I this he does so because he recognizes 
the importance of it. He may not be yet convinced of the arguments that 
are being presented on this side of the aisle, but to his credit and to 
the credit of the chairman of the committee, they recognize that there 
is validity to these arguments.
  We are in now a very perilous period in our history. So I just beg my 
colleagues, please give reconsideration to this decision to prevent an 
adequate discussion of this. Please give reconsideration to the 
decision not to fund the IMF. It is desperately essential that we do 
so.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to say that we just heard 
the committee chairman say, ``Look, I may vote with you at some 
point.'' In fact, I have heard them say, ``We probably will vote with 
you at some point.''
  The problem is, that is what we have been hearing for a year. Every 
time we bring this up, we are in essence told, well, you may be right, 
but this is not the right time.
  It is long since past the right time. We need to end the leverage or 
the efforts at seeking political leverage. We need to end the debate. 
We need to end the delay. We need to get about the business of doing 
the best we can to stabilize the world's economic system before it 
costs our constituents jobs.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Callahan, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was 
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. CALLAHAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I just 
want to say that we can debate this all afternoon, and I have been as 
tolerant as I possibly can be, but we have a lot of other important 
issues that we need to talk about today. Ultimately, I am very 
optimistic that the Chair is going to rule favorably upon my point of 
order.
  What the gentleman is saying is not taken lightly. The gentleman does 
have validity to his argument, as we have validity to ours. To just 
give them the keys to the car at this time, without some instruction, 
is a very serious mistake.
  We are entering a different global economy. Global economy is 
something relatively new. It is relatively poorly understood. But when 
we look at the future and see the problems that are going to be taking 
place in Brazil, and in our own hemisphere that could more directly 
impact our economy, and when we look at the new Eurodollar and we try 
to look into the future to see what happens if the Eurodollar fails and 
then the IMF has to bail out the entire European Community, we are 
talking about $50 billion possibly in new needs.
  So, yes, the gentleman's arguments are right. I think that we should 
possibly look at it. I do not think we ought to look at it at this 
time. And, as a result, I have not been pressured by leadership to do 
anything. This is my bill. It was a bill written by myself and my 
staff, confirmed by the gentleman and his staff, confirmed by the 
entire full committee, and, as a result, it is the best we are going to 
do today.
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman would let me reclaim my time to make one 
observation, I would point out today that the stock market is down 
again by a huge amount. We are in the midst of incredible political and 
economic uncertainty around the world. This Congress should not do 
anything that adds to that uncertainty, creates additional shakiness in 
the markets and creates more opportunity for people to lose their hard-
earned investments because we have lagged in meeting our 
responsibilities. That is what has happened.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, we can use all 
types of comparisons, but while we were debating this in committee, the 
stock market was down, tremendously

[[Page H7983]]

down, and during the period of time we debated it in committee, the 
stock market actually came up about 70 points.
  Mr. OBEY. It still dropped a huge amount that day. And I would simply 
say this Congress has a responsibility to take any action necessary to 
try to stabilize the situation rather than continuing to contribute to 
its destabilization.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I agree.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve my point of order. I insist on my point of 
order which I have made against the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama continues to reserve his 
point order or insists on his point of order?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I will continue to reserve for a few more minutes.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  This is a bit ironic. This issue is of such import that we could 
debate it for about an hour, but under the reservation of a right to 
object rather than debate it for an hour via an amendment that would 
actually appropriate the monies. We should have been proceeding in that 
fashion, with an amendment, so that this body could have taken a vote 
on the issue.
  I am in my 12th term in Congress, and in my entire adult lifetime I 
do not recall an occasion when the world economy has been more fragile. 
It seems to be falling apart in Asia. That should have been a signal, 
as it was to the administration, as it was to our central bank, for the 
United States to step in with the other nations of the world and 
authorize and appropriate our fair share of the IMF contribution. But 
the House of Representatives' leadership opted to play Russian roulette 
with the situation and see what would happen.
  Well, I do not know that we could say that, because of that fact 
alone, we saw the difficulties in Russia, but we certainly saw the 
Asian contagion spread to Russia, and it has now spread to Latin 
America. We have had considerable difficulties in Brazilia. And we do 
not know where it is going to end, or if it is going to end.
  We do not know what would happen if the Chinese were to devalue their 
currency and the repercussions that that would create, not just in Asia 
but globally.
  We do know this: that Alan Greenspan has said the United States 
cannot long stand as an oasis of prosperity; that this fragile global 
economic situation can have, in the very near future, a profound impact 
on the United States.
  We also know this: that this body, this Congress, is scheduled to 
recess October 9. It would be unthinkable if we were to recess on 
October 9 and not have in place the only international architecture, 
the only international financial mechanism that exists in the world to 
deal with this situation, without adequate resources and with the 
United States having defaulted on its leadership.
  The executive branch has stepped up to the plate. The United States 
Senate, our other body, has stepped up to the plate and they have 
passed authorization and appropriations legislation twice in an 
overwhelming bipartisan fashion. The House Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services has stepped up to the plate. In a bipartisan manner, 
we began consideration of this in January and in a matter of weeks 
reported out a bill, with every Democrat supporting the authorization 
and a considerable majority of the Republicans. So we reported it out 
by a vote of 40 to 9. Forty to 9.
  How shameful, therefore, that the present House leadership has not 
even permitted us the opportunity to bring this issue to the floor so 
that we can appropriate the full amount that the United States has 
committed itself to.
  The United States defaulted by not joining the League of Nations. I 
think that was a huge mistake. If the United States did not participate 
in the United Nations, that would be a huge mistake, particularly 
because of the military requirements of the United Nations. We now have 
not a military situation but an economic difficulty, and it would be 
calamitous if the United States withdrew, in effect, in fact, from the 
only international mechanism that exists today to deal with this global 
economic crisis.
  I implore this House leadership to let us consider and vote on full 
authorization and full appropriations before we recess.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of order. I 
will allow some rebuttal, with one speaker on our side, before I insist 
on my point of order.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I would just rise in support of what the chairman has been 
saying here.
  I think what he is talking about in his point of order is something 
that ultimately watches out for the American taxpayer. And lest we 
forget, this body is designed and built for ultimately watching out for 
the taxpayer of the United States of America. I think that is exactly 
what his point of order does.
  I would just make this one point, and that is, I have here a rate 
sheet from Goldman Sachs, which is the place where Robert Rubin, our 
Secretary of the Treasury, used to work and used to head, and this 
could be found not just at Goldman Sachs, it could be found at Merrill 
Lynch or any of the investment banks, looking at the rates which the 
private markets are charging for government debt in Russia.
  I have here rates looking at 2001 paper yielding 32.31 percent. I 
would look at 2005 paper yielding 52.63 percent. I would look at 2015 
paper yielding 65.43 percent.
  And what those high rates are basically saying is that the 
marketplace out there asks for a risk premium, in this case a very 
substantial risk premium, because the private markets think that they 
ultimately might not get paid back.
  So what this point of order is simply doing is saying since we might 
not get paid back, we ought to watch out for the taxpayer rather than 
just handing out the IMF money.
  The July piece of debt that was issued by the IMF was at 4.5 percent. 
Can my colleagues imagine how giant that spread is, between 30, 40 or 
50 percent interest rate, and where the IMF was? If we want to help 
shore up Russia and say we ought to just issue grants, issue aid to 
Russia, that is one thing. But do not call a loan a loan when, in 
essence, it is not a loan, because that is exactly what we are talking 
about. And that is what that point of order is all about.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I hate to do this. I have tried to be 
extremely fair to all Members on all issues, but we have a limited 
amount of time to debate this entire bill and, unless the gentlewoman, 
the ranking member of our subcommittee, is requesting time before my 
insisting on the point of order, I am going to now insist.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of parliamentary inquiry.
  It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that if the chairman insists on 
his point of order, then I will, as the maker of the amendment, have 
the opportunity to address the point of order, as will my colleagues?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has discretion to hear discussion and 
argument on the point of order and intends to limit debate on the point 
of order.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) be granted 10 minutes of time, 
which she can allocate to any person she deems fit.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman continues to reserve his point of order, 
and the gentleman is asking unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) shall be allowed to speak for 10 additional 
minutes.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is 
recognized for 10 additional minutes.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for his courtesy, 
which seems to be boundless.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time, and I look forward to the

[[Page H7984]]

day when I grow up and can speak for 5 minutes in the full House.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the position of the gentleman from Alabama 
on this. I do not think, quite frankly, his party has a position or our 
party has a position. I think there are several positions floating 
around, which is one of the reasons this should be debated. There are 
Members on the gentleman's side who realize recapitalizing the IMF is 
the right thing, and there are Members on our side who are totally 
against it.
  The fact is, the same arguments that apply to the IMF apply to fast 
track. And the reason is that we live in a world economy and we cannot 
isolate ourselves. For those of us, like myself, who believe in fast 
track and who believe in free trade, we also believe we need to deal 
with the economic crisis.
  Now, like my colleague from South Carolina who spoke before, who 
worked on Wall Street at one point in time, as I did, I think we both 
understand that markets operate based on both fundamentals and 
confidence. And the problem that exists today, and has grown more 
prevalent, is that confidence in the world markets has been lost, and 
that is what we are seeing. That is why we are seeing the contagion 
spread.
  If we do not step in and address this problem with the IMF, and, yes, 
it is not perfect, there is no perfect world body to deal with this, 
but it is the only one we have at the time. We cannot allow the 
situation to get out of control.
  I think it is important that Members understand that what we are 
talking about here are loans, because this is the lender of last 
resort, not grants.

                              {time}  1530

  I think it is also important that we understand what is going on. In 
our own area of the world, we are seeing an oil crisis occur because of 
the lack of demand for oil in the Asian market, and that is spreading 
throughout Latin America.
  Finally, I would just say this. We have had a year to look at this 
since this debate first started, and the leadership on the other side 
who I know is split on this question said, ``We're going to look at 
this. We're going to come up with a better way to do it.'' The time is 
up. It is time to deal with this problem. We have lost all the gains in 
the stock exchange for the year. We are starting to see a decline in 
the American economy as a result and in the growth rate of the U.S. 
economy and an increase of imports over the last year because we have 
not done our work. We have not done a whole lot in this Congress this 
year and now we are running out of time and we are going to let 
everything go away because of it. That is a mistake.
  I think we ought to bring this issue to the floor for the debate. It 
will be a bipartisan group for it and a bipartisan group against it, 
but in my opinion, just like fast track, it is the right thing to do. 
Members should be ashamed of themselves for not allowing this to come 
to the floor. I appreciate the gentlewoman from California for having 
the courage to bring this up.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for his leadership and for his fine 
statement.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Eshoo) who has been a leader on this issue in the Congress.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague, the 
ranking member of the committee, for her leadership on this issue. I 
rise today in the hope that the gentleman, the distinguished 
subcommittee chairman, will not insist on his point of order and also, 
of course, in support of the Pelosi amendment to add the $14.5 billion 
to the foreign ops appropriations bill and fully fund the IMF.
  I think that together we can inoculate the global economic system 
with the infusion of the $14.5 billion in this bill. I say that 
because, number one, America's economic interests are tied to this. 
When we talk about the American taxpayer, we are also talking about the 
American investor. The American investor through its 401(k)s and many 
other vehicles invests in foreign economies. We see not only an Asia 
flu but something that is becoming contagious in many places around the 
world. We speak with pride about a global economy, but when it comes to 
the crisis, we are not willing to fill the needle and give the 
inoculation that is needed.
  I plead with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
this, because this is not only in America's interest, in the taxpayers' 
interests, in the investors' interests, but in the interest of 
stabilizing a global economy which America the great has a huge 
investment and interest in.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney) who again represents a great financial center 
of commerce in our country and understands this issue full well.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Pelosi amendment and funding for the International Monetary Fund. With 
the world situation the way it is, this is no time for the United 
States to abandon and pull out of international organizations. I fully 
support Chairman Greenspan, Secretary Rubin and the Administration, all 
of whom support funding for the International Monetary Fund because it 
is in the economic interest of the United States. We live in a world 
economy. It would be a terrible signal to the world if we suddenly 
decided we wanted to destroy this international organization by 
withholding funding. The signal we should be sending from the United 
States is that we support this international organization and that we 
do not want to abandon ship during a time of crisis that is important 
not only to the world economic situation but to the economy of the 
United States. We should debate it and vote on it.
  I support the Pelosi amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Jackson) a person who has been a leader for us on these issues and has 
a balanced view.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding time, and I want to thank the chairman of the full committee 
for his indulgence. I rise in strong support of the Pelosi amendment. I 
would encourage this Congress to move as quickly as it possibly can to 
fully replenish the International Monetary Fund.
  I was here when the chairman of the full committee the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) indicated that indeed the Russians had 
suggested, or a Russian had suggested that they conned the 
International Monetary Fund out of $20 billion. But we now know that 
when Mr. Greenspan came before the full Banking Committee yesterday and 
asked for this Congress to replenish the International Monetary Fund to 
the tune of $18 billion that the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board 
was not conning us yesterday. He recognizes that there are indeed 
turbulent roads in our economy on the horizon and it is very important 
that this Congress react with due haste and due speed to make indeed 
the necessary appropriations. Let us not just measure what is taking 
place in financial terms. Let us also measure what is taking place in 
human terms.
  Indonesia was on the brink of Civil War because, in part, of this 
Congress' inability to act. We need to save our own economy but the 
world as well.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran) who is a true internationalist and understands the 
interrelationship of our economies.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to the very 
distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations 
of the Committee on Appropriations as I am to the generosity of the 
chair of that committee. I rise in support of the Pelosi amendment.
  Our economy is doing well right now, but as Alan Greenspan said, we 
cannot forever be an oasis of prosperity. A full 30 percent of our 
economy is tied to international trade. For better or worse, we are the 
leader of the world economy. Much of that economy, particularly Russia, 
Asia and now Latin America is in trouble. If the IMF lacks the funds to 
stabilize foreign currencies and markets, there will be no market for 
that one-third of our products and services, we sell overseas and they 
will be in such a desperate position they are going to be dumping their 
products on our market, causing serious economic disruption. Our 
inventories will build, grain elevators will

[[Page H7985]]

fill and factories will go idle as workers are furloughed or laid off. 
These economic and strategic concerns are of paramount importance for 
the Congress to debate. And so it is wrong for the leadership to refuse 
to permit the full House to consider the IMF bill that passed the House 
Banking Committee by a vote of 40-9.
  The IMF is not some part of a rogue international conspiracy. It is 
an institution born of the ashes of World War II, born by the United 
States and the people who formed this strong economy throughout the 
civilized world. The reason why the international economy is as strong 
today is because we started things like the International Monetary Fund 
after World War II to make sure we did not go through another Great 
Depression that formed the basis of World War II. We can never repeat 
these mistakes. We have to learn from these mistakes.
  The IMF is critically important. Sure there are reforms that need to 
be made, but that does not mean that the IMF is not essential to the 
productivity and to the economic stability, to the jobs and to the 
well-being of all American citizens.
  We ought to be debating it. We ought to pass it. We ought to restore 
funding immediately to the International Monetary Fund.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey) a member of the Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations of the Committee on Appropriations and a person who 
understands this issue full well. She, too, represents a center of 
commerce and understands the IMF.
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of funding for the 
International Monetary Fund. This is one of the most important issues 
facing this body. The ongoing economic turmoil in Asia and Russia is 
having a very serious impact on Wall Street and other markets around 
the world. We must provide the IMF with the resources it needs to 
respond to the economic insecurity in Asia and Russia as it promotes 
badly needed reforms in those economies.
  The leadership in my judgment is playing a very dangerous political 
game by not allowing a vote on this issue today. The global economic 
crisis demands immediate leadership, not political gamesmanship.
  The IMF's resources are at a dangerously low level, jeopardizing its 
ability to perform its basic mission and respond effectively if the 
economic crisis deepens or spreads to even more markets.
  The $18 billion requested for U.S. commitments can leverage about $75 
billion in usable global commitments from the IMF's 181 members. This 
degree of burdensharing would provide the IMF with sufficient resources 
to sustain its operations well into the next decade and would reduce 
the possibility that the United States will be forced to bear a 
disproportionate share of the financing in any future financial crisis.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this issue 
and for her fine statement.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I urge the 
gentleman not to insist on his point of order. I call this action of 
not allowing us to have a full debate on the IMF and a vote on the IMF 
the stop-the-world-I-want-to-get-off approach. We have to understand 
the interrelationship of our economies. We have to debate pro and con 
the approaches we would take. This House should take responsibility for 
the $14.5 billion we wanted added.
  The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) has stated that IMF is 
authorized in this bill so the point of order on the basis of 
authorization is not legitimate. The reforms that the gentleman from 
Alabama suggested, were a part of an amendment that I offered in 
committee which failed and which the Committee on Rules rejected last 
night.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized 
program and therefore violates clause 2(a) of rule XXI.
  Clause 2(a) of rule XXI states in pertinent part:
  ``No appropriation shall be reported in any general appropriation 
bill, or be in order as an amendment thereto, for any expenditure not 
previously authorized by law.''
  Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed 
into law. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2(a) of rule XXI.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from California wish to be heard 
on the point of order?
  Ms. PELOSI. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do, and because of the generosity of 
the chairman's time earlier, in the interest of time, I will be brief.
  Mr. Chairman, I reject the notion that was put forth by our 
distinguished chairman that the point of order should be insisted upon 
and agreed to because this $18 billion is not authorized. The gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) the chairman of the full committee, 
said on this floor earlier that the authorization is contained in this 
bill and, indeed, $3.5 billion for the new arrangements to borrow for 
the International Monetary Fund is included in this bill. If the $14.5 
billion is not authorized, then neither is the $3.5 billion. So I think 
there is a real inconsistency here and I think that we have to be 
consistent. It would follow, I think, that if the point of order is 
agreed to, then we must strip the $3.5 billion for the new arrangements 
to borrow from this legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair is advised 
that there is no current authorization in law for the appropriation 
proposed in the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California. 
The amendment is not merely perfecting to what has been permitted to 
remain in the bill by a waiver of points of order.
  The Chair therefore sustains the point of order under clause 2(a) of 
rule XXI.


                 Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Porter

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer, with the permission of the 
gentlewoman from California, the Radanovich amendment No. 32 as printed 
in the Record.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 32 offered by Mr. Porter:
       In title V, strike the section relating to the repeal of 
     section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act.

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield my entire 
time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  Without objection, the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. I thank the generous gentleman from the State of 
Illinois for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of a bipartisan amendment to 
maintain section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, a provision which, 
since its adoption by Congress in 1992, has placed reasonable 
conditions on direct U.S. foreign aid to the government of Azerbaijan.
  Before voting today on this important matter, I think it is useful to 
review why this restriction was originally enacted and to consider 
carefully whether Azerbaijan has taken any steps at all over the past 
six years to meet the terms set forth in this law. Finally, we should 
examine the negative impact on American interests which will result 
from its repeal.

                              {time}  1545

  First of all, as my colleagues know, section 907 was enacted as a 
stand by Congress against Azerbaijan's illegal economic blockades. It 
represents both an effective check against renewed Azerbaijani 
aggression and a principal expression of American support for peace in 
the strategically important Caspian region.
  Azerbaijan, however, has steadfastly refused to comply with the terms 
set forth in section 907, maintaining its blockades of Armenia and 
Nagorno Karabagh. As recently as 2 weeks ago, during the first ever 
visit of America's Prime Minister to the Azerbaijani capital of Baku, 
the Azerbaijani Government again refused to lift its blockades, flatly 
rejecting Armenia's offers of economic cooperation.
  Yet, despite the fact that Azerbaijan continues to violate section 
907, the

[[Page H7986]]

Azerbaijani Government, through its allies in the oil industry and 
elsewhere, continues to press for its repeal. Rather than comply with 
its terms by respecting international laws against blockades, 
Azerbaijan has undertaken an extensive media and lobbying campaign to 
change U.S. law. Section 907's repeal under this pressure would 
represent a victory of shortsighted thinking at the expense of our 
Nation's long-term interests.
  On the eve of the upcoming Azerbaijani elections, such a move would 
be viewed as an American endorsement of the policies and candidacy of 
former KGB General Geidar Aliyev. Section 907's repeal would represent 
both an unsound foreign policy decision and an irresponsible misuse of 
taxpayers' funds.
  Please also keep in mind when considering this matter, that the U.S. 
restrictions placed on Azerbaijan do not allow for humanitarian aid 
through NGOs. Since 1992 Azerbaijan has received over $130 million from 
the United States in humanitarian aid. I understand, however, that 
large amounts of this aid have been siphoned off and ended up in the 
hands of the political elite of Azerbaijan. I can only estimate the 
amount of aid that will be claimed by corrupt political leaders if we 
send aid directly to this undemocratic government.
  Human Rights Watch has reported in its annual report that the 
international community largely glossed over Azerbaijan's poor human 
rights record in order to protect oil interests. The State Department, 
in its human rights survey of Azerbaijan, concluded that the 
Azerbaijani Government's human rights record continued to be poor and 
the government continued to commit serious abuses. The government 
restricts citizens' ability to change the government peacefully. The 
government restricted freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, 
religion and privacy when it deemed it in its interest to do so.
  At this time, the Nagorno Karabagh/Azeri peace process is at a 
pivotal situation. The U.S., by reaffirming its opposition to 
Azerbaijan's illegal blockades, can play a critical role in pressing 
upon the Azeris that they should come to the table and actively seek a 
peaceful resolution to the conflict.
  Rewarding Azerbaijan with American tax dollars would harm the peace 
process leading to increased instability and a less secure environment 
for American investors. Section 907's repeal would only encourage 
Azerbaijan's leadership to keep its blockades in place and to continue 
refusing direct peace talks with Karabagh, both to the detriment of 
America's interests.
  We should not underestimate the significance of our actions today. 
Repealing 907 would fundamentally harm the peace process, dramatically 
affecting the stability of the region, and so undermine rather than 
advance U.S. interests.
  So, in conclusion, I respectfully ask that my colleagues vote for 
peace, stability and American interests by voting for the Radanovich-
Pallone-Rogan-Sherman amendment, and I again thank the gentleman from 
Illinois.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Radanovich-Pallone 
amendment to strike the language in this bill that eliminates Section 
907, the sanctions for the blockade that Azerbaijan has placed around 
the democratic country of Armenia and the area of Nagorno Karabagh 
which is the area that has been subject to so much warfare over the 
years.
  Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I had the opportunity to visit, with 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), Armenia about 2 months ago 
and I had a chance to see firsthand the devastating impact of this 
blockade that we are talking about repealing, in essence, because of 
the fact that we are not going to allow this country to say 
unequivocally that we are going to condemn any country that puts such a 
blockade against a neighboring country like Armenia, forcing it to 
contend with the ravages of natural disasters, as Armenia has over the 
last decade, forcing it to contend with the fact that it is 
interdependent in the Caucasus on its neighbors, but is yet to be able 
to get the kind of trade that is necessary for that struggling 
democracy to survive because of the intransigence of countries like 
Azerbaijan in their inability to deal with their neighbor of Armenia.
  The fact of the matter is Armenia is the closest country to the 
American values of any single country in the Caucasus. Armenia shares 
the values of the United States like no other country in the former 
Soviet Union. Like no other country.
  And any Member of this House who would have an opportunity to go to 
Armenia and meet, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and I 
have had an opportunity to do, to meet with President Kocharian, to 
meet with that fantastic new President of Armenia, to see how dedicated 
he is to the principles that we hold dear in this country, they would 
not have a single doubt in their mind why it should be United States 
policy to continue to support section 907, which condemns Armenia and 
Turkey for their creating this blockade around the democratic country 
of Armenia.
  We know that Armenians in Armenia share our values, and the fact is 
this United States Congress should stand in solidarity with our friends 
in Armenia and say enough is enough for Azerbaijan to continue that 
brutal, brutal blockade on that island locked country.
  Keep in mind that Armenia is locked in the Caspian area in the 
Caucasus region. It does not have anything but a land route for its 
trade. And when every country around it blocks its ability to have free 
trade, it is held hostage to these regimes.
  Now, let us think about what these regimes are. Azerbaijan is a 
dictatorship. They are a regime that has been cited by the Department 
of State for human rights' abuses. And let us understand what we are 
saying if we support this bill without passing the Radanovich-Pallone 
amendment. We are, in essence, saying that we are going to stand by a 
dictatorship, we are going to stand by a dictatorship in their effort 
to put their thumb on the democratically elected regime of Armenia. We 
are going to side with the dictatorship over a democratically elected 
government of Armenia. To me, that does not sound like the kind of 
country and principles that we should support as American citizens.
  That is why I call on my colleagues to support the Pallone-Radanovich 
amendment, because that is the amendment that is going to strike out 
the effort to repeal section 907, which calls on sanctioning those 
countries which blockade our democratically-elected friends like 
Armenia.
  Let us understand what we are talking about here. Armenia and Nagorno 
Karabagh are ravaged economically. They are ravaged economically 
because of the natural disasters like earthquakes, the wars that have 
gone on in that area, and on top of it they have their neighboring 
countries put this blockade through. And what is happening is a tragedy 
of human dimensions that none of us should be proud to support if we 
vote against this Radanovich-Pallone amendment because, in essence, 
that is what we will be doing. We will be continuing to perpetuate an 
intolerable situation for the Armenians in that area.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues in this House need to support our friends 
and democratically-elected Government of Armenia. If Azerbaijan wants 
to end this blockade and wants to end the sanctions against it, they 
can just end the blockade; that is what they should do. They should end 
the blockade if they want us to end the sanctions against them because 
of the blockade.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I visited Nagorno Karabagh in August of 1994. 
It was one of the grimmest places that I had ever, ever been. The 
Russian ground missiles have been thrown in there daily for year after 
year after year. Many people were living down in the basement, people 
that had lost arms and legs and everything else.
  This is a difficult issue, and I heard the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Livingston) in the committee. I agreed. And just let me say to my 
colleague, I agree with all of his rationale up until getting away with 
907.

[[Page H7987]]

  I also want to say that I want the western oil companies to have this 
opportunity. But to remove 907 now would send the wrong message and 
take the pressure off the Azeri Government to come to the peace table.
  Now, we can lift the blockade and get 907 to go away today by doing 
one thing: Let the Azeris lift the blockade, and 907 goes.
  The poor people in Nagorno Karabagh have suffered too much, and the 
message that this would send would be, I believe, to keep this issue 
going on longer and longer.
  Secondly, the administration has failed that had a low level person 
dealing with this issue. It goes through the Minsk treaty agreement, 
and we have Russia, and Russia does not want to end this.
  So what should we do? We should call the Azeris together, call the 
Armenians together, and have a representative on Nagorno Karabagh come, 
bring them to Washington, go over to the Eastern Shore, sit down, break 
bread together. Reconciliation. And I tell my colleagues this problem 
can be solved.
  But I also believe from the bottom of my heart that if we lift 907 
today, the problem will not be resolved.
  Now, neither side is perfect. The head of the Azeri Government is the 
former head of the KGB. Clearly there are problems in Armenia because 
there are Russian troops in Armenia. Neither side is absolutely 
perfect. But for the people of Nagorno Karabagh to bring in a spirit of 
reconciliation, the Azeris together and the Armenians together with 
Nagorno Karabagh there, do not lift 907, because by lifting 907 I think 
we will say there is no pressure on the Azeris, there is no pressure on 
anybody.
  So I strongly support, at least for another year, maybe, I say to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), next year or maybe something 
like that, but hopefully we will support the Radanovich amendment, and 
then Secretary Albright will pick up the phone, get the Azeris in, get 
the Armenians in, bring the Nagorno Karabaghs together, and I believe 
that both parties stand so much to gain, and then everything the 
chairman wants, which I agree with, will take place, whereby the oil 
will flow in the appropriate place.
  So I, just for this time and for the interests of the pain and the 
suffering of those in Nagorno Karabagh, I strongly urge my colleagues 
to support the Radanovich amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I join my friend from Virginia, the last speaker who 
has spoken on behalf of the Radanovich-Pallone amendment.
  We should not have done, in my opinion, in subcommittee and full 
committee what was done. We ought to restore this amendment. We ought 
to restore America's position on behalf not of Armenia, not of Nagorno 
Karabagh, but on behalf of justice, on behalf of humanitarian concerns, 
on behalf of the principles for which this Nation stands around the 
world.
  I am deeply saddened by the fact, Mr. Chairman, that since the 
termination of hostilities in 1994, no demonstrable progress has been 
made in the negotiations regarding the status of Nagorno Karabagh.
  The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) mentioned earlier today 
in debate that there had been some progress. I did not see that story, 
I am pleased to hear it, but I do not believe it yet. I hope that the 
parties will continue to negotiate to achieve a lasting solution which 
will benefit all the peoples of the region. In fact, talks are ongoing 
at this time.
  However I do not believe, and I hope this House does not believe that 
weakening or eliminating section 907 will further this process. In 
fact, my colleagues, I am of the opinion it will move us in exactly the 
opposite direction because it will send the message to the Azeris that 
they are winning. And why are they winning? On principle? No. Because 
of economic concerns and profits. That is why they are winning. That is 
where we are.

                              {time}  1600

  Now, I want to see the oil in that region benefit all the peoples of 
that region, and I am not against the economic development of 
Azerbaijan or Armenia or Nagorno Karabagh, but I am for proceeding in a 
principled way.
  Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act prohibits direct U.S. aid to 
Azerbaijan in an effort to pressure Baku to lift its blockade of 
Armenia and Karabagh. However, section 907 does allow, very importantly 
and correctly, the delivery of humanitarian and democracy building 
assistance through nongovernmental organizations, as well as activities 
by the Overseas Private Investment Council, OPIC, the Trade and 
Development Administration, and Eximbank. In fact, the United States 
has provided, even with 907 in being, $130 million-plus in humanitarian 
exchange assistance to the people of Azerbaijan.
  The United States is not closing its eyes to the pain that may exist 
in Azerbaijan. We are sensitive. This is not against the people, this 
is against a government policy in Baku that undermines the welfare of 
citizens in Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh.
  The Government of Azerbaijan has enforced a blockade against Armenia 
and Nagorno Karabagh for 9 years. The blockade has cut off the 
transport of food, fuel, medicine and other vital goods and 
commodities.
  Because of the blockade, Mr. Chairman, Armenia has experienced a 
humanitarian crisis during which the United States sent emergency 
lifesaving assistance, as we should have. The blockade has virtually 
isolated Armenia from the rest of the world.
  As the gentleman from Massachusetts said, and I am sure others have 
before I spoke, Armenia is landlocked, isolated, in need of the 
attention of the rest of the world for humanitarian reasons as well as 
democracy-building reasons.
  Mr. Chairman, in contrast to what the Azeris have done, Armenia has 
repeatedly offered to allow transshipment, repeatedly offered to allow 
transshipment of humanitarian assistance to Azerbaijan, only to be 
repeatedly rebuffed.
  Mr. Speaker, Azerbaijan has the power, as the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Wolf), said, Azerbaijan has the power this minute, this very hour, 
to end the consequences of section 907. All it has to do is end the 
blockade. That is all it has to do, a simple act.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Radanovich-Pallone 
amendment.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Radanovich-Pallone 
amendment that would restore section 907.
  Section 907 was originally included in the Freedom Support Act to 
deny assistance to Azerbaijan until it takes, quote, ``demonstrable 
steps to cease all blockades and other offensive uses of forces against 
Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh.'' Azerbaijan has blockaded Armenia and 
Nagorno Karabagh for 9 years. Azerbaijan has made no demonstrable steps 
to end the blockade. Shipments of food, fuel, medicine and other vital 
supplies have been held up. And the Azeri policy has fomented Armenia's 
humanitarian crises in Armenia. Together with Turkey's blockade, 
Armenia's efforts to develop markets and to strengthen its economy have 
been damaged.
  The timing of striking 907 is also a concern. Azerbaijan is on the 
verge of presidential elections which are being boycotted by the major 
opposition parties because of Baku's authoritarian policies. The 
government is plagued with corruption, human rights violations, and 
crooked elections.
  Striking 907 will send the wrong message, and it sends it at the 
wrong time.
  Maintaining section 907 will have no effect on humanitarian 
assistance to Azerbaijan or aid for promoting and strengthening 
Democratic institutions, but it will send a message to Baku that it 
must move to address the blockade, and it will reassert our solidarity 
with democratic Armenia.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this amendment. I urge my colleagues 
to so vote.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise today in support of the Radanovich-Pallone amendment to the 
foreign operations bill.
  Section 907, as so many of my colleagues have stated already, of the 
Freedom Support Act, places restrictions on the aid that the United 
States gives to the Government of Azerbaijan until that country ends 
its aggression

[[Page H7988]]

and lifts its illegal blockades against Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh.
  The government of Azerbaijan has blockaded Armenia and Nagorno 
Karabagh for 9 years. Day by day, 9 years. That is a very, very long 
time. Cutting off the transport of food, fuel, medicine and other vital 
supplies, creating a humanitarian crisis requiring the United States to 
send emergency assistance to Armenia.
  Now, for those Members who may not be joining in on this effort, who 
may be willing to reconsider their positions in prior years, just think 
of the irony of what it is costing the United States taxpayer in this 
situation. Because of the blockade that many Members allow to keep on 
the books, we then spend even more money to send emergency assistance 
to Armenia.
  Strictly on a fiscal basis, if one does not want to deal with this on 
a humanitarian basis, on the issues relative to a democracy, consider 
that at a time when Armenia is introducing market reforms and 
integrating its economy with the West, the blockade has virtually 
isolated Armenia from the rest of the world.
  Azerbaijan controls the majority of the access to Armenia, a country 
that is landlocked. We should not repeal section 907, because 
Azerbaijan has taken no demonstrable steps to lift these illegal 
blockades.
  Direct assistance should not be provided to a government with 
fundamental human rights and corruption flaws.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that I am the only member of the entire 
Congress of Armenian descent, of both Azerian and Armenian descent. The 
Armenian people fled and suffered and came to this land, as so many 
others did, not to take anything from this country, but to contribute, 
to enlarge on its democracy, to contribute to its economic growth, and 
to uphold the principles that they found so attractive that they would 
travel around the world and come to this beacon of light and hope.
  Armenia represents and upholds democratic principles. That is why we 
should join with her and we should support her today. And when we do, 
we will harken back to all of the peoples that have come from around 
the world to this land, the United States of America, and its 
democracy. That is really what this vote is about.
  How proud I am to join with my colleagues that are offering this 
amendment. And, for anyone that even has a twinge of rethinking this, 
please join us. It is the right place to be, for all of the right 
reasons.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. GEJDENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I come and join my friends from 
California to ask my colleagues to join the debt of history here. This 
is a people, the Armenians, who have suffered through history. Their 
lands had been taken; they had faced the first modern genocide. They 
were oppressed by the Soviet Union. And now, as we see the hope for 
opportunity and democracy, their neighbor, besides that economic 
strangulation, is the solution for their own internal problems.
  In the post-Soviet era, we all have to develop systems for resolving 
disputes which do not heighten tensions with our neighbors but, indeed, 
those that reduce the tensions with our neighbors.
  The facts are clear here. The Congress has spoken repeatedly, 
recognizing history, recognizing the failure of nations of this planet 
to speak out, when Armenian men, women and children face genocide, that 
we cannot allow ourselves today to have the Armenian Government 
strangled by a blockade because we treasure oil more than human beings.
  The battle lines are fairly clear here. The economic interests of 
powerful oil companies would have us abandon the people of Armenia once 
again. I do not know what responsibility we have here as Members of 
Congress to all of the world and its causes, but I know as people who 
believe in human rights, people who believe in history and the 
responsibility of a great Nation, that this Congress dare not turn its 
back on the Armenians once more.
  Mr. Chairman, we have to use our voices here to make sure that these 
small and evolving democracies have the time to develop real Democratic 
institutions, and we had better be careful, putting aside those 
fundamental values of America in favor of short-term economic 
advantages in the oil fields.
  Additionally, it would be very simple for us to end this conflict. 
All they have to do is stop the embargo, stop the blockade; take away 
their provocative actions which have led to their isolation. It is not 
the Armenians that continue, frankly, the very low level of 
restrictions on their opposition in this conflict. The Armenians simply 
are the victims.
  And the question for those of us in this Chamber today is, will we 
stand for the victims, or will we stand with those who attempt to 
victimize them? Will we determine that access to oil and oil leases is 
more important than the principles this Nation was founded on?
  Mr. Chairman, this is the right thing to do. Support the Armenians, 
support freedom, and we will build democracy in the former Soviet Union 
nations.
  If, on the other hand, we abandon the Armenians, we will send a 
signal that wealth is more important than righteousness in our actions.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I was upstairs in the Committee on Rules, trying to get 
our work out for the rest of the week, and began to listen to this 
debate. The previous speaker mentioned oil leases and oil. Are they 
more important than human rights? And the answer would be no to that. 
Are oil leases and situations like that, are they more important than 
American lives, American military lives?
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think many people in this Chamber understand 
the strategic importance of the Caspian Sea area, whether we are 
talking about the Caucasus, whether we are talking about central Asia. 
But the truth of the matter is, sometimes I am confused because I hear 
the same people that are arguing for lifting sanctions on Cuba standing 
here saying now, we cannot repeal section 907. Those two things just do 
not go together. But the situation is such that that is a very, very 
important part of the world, and if we are ever, ever, ever going to 
become less dependent or nondependent on the Mideast area for oil, the 
only way we are going to do it is to open up these oil fields which are 
only second to the Mideast in the entire world. It is terribly, 
terribly important.
  Now, what is going on in Armenia? I have to say that some of my 
closest friends are Armenians, one of my closest friends is. So it is 
not a question of sticking up for a special interest group in America, 
it is a question of doing what is right. What are the Russians doing in 
Armenia?

                              {time}  1615

  Do my colleagues know that the Russians, who are no friends of ours, 
are getting IMF money? It is going in the front door and out the back 
door so fast into the Mafia's pocket that we do not even know what is 
happening with that money.
  But the truth is that the Russians are in Armenia. They have bases 
there. They will not even allow our military observers to go in and see 
how they are plotting to undermine those new sovereign nations, those 
people that are so proud of their new sovereignty, whether we are 
talking about Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan or Turkmenistan or any of those 
countries, even Georgia, which are having their problems now.
  But there is a hell of a fight going on. Right now, the Russians are 
trying to throw us out. They are trying to bring down those sovereign 
nations of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. They want to 
have all that oil going north to Russia.
  We have got another problem with the Chinese. The Chinese are to the 
east of there. The Russians are to the north. The Chinese are doing 
everything they can in Mongolia to stir things up so they can grab the 
influence and they can have all the oil going east.
  Now who do my colleagues think sits to the south? Does anybody know? 
Have my colleagues been down there? Have my colleagues been to the 
Mideast? Have my colleagues been to Central Asia?
  To the south is Iran. Iran is doing everything they can, in other 
words, to

[[Page H7989]]

drag everything down there so the pipelines will have to go through it. 
And then the Iranians can continue to control and continue to blackmail 
the world, trying to bring down Israel and all of the other countries 
over there.
  So this is not just a very, very simple thing. If we were to say to 
the Russians and to the Armenian government, what I have said, tell 
those Russians to get out, and then let us sit down and let us 
negotiate, then we could accomplish something.
  But to simply say, no, we are going to side with the Armenians, and 
we are going to let the Russians continue to undermine everything 
there, that is just absolutely wrong.
  That is why we should repeal 907, and then we should have an all-out 
effort by our State Department and Members of this Congress to go over 
there, bring these people together, and solve the problem. That is the 
only resolution.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Radanovich amendment to 
strike the repeal of section 907 from the bill.
  During committee consideration of this bill, a provision was added to 
repeal section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, which prohibits direct 
economic assistance to the government of Azerbaijan until that country 
ends its blockade of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh. This amendment was 
misguided and, in my judgment, it should be overturned.
  For almost a decade, Azerbaijan has imposed a cruel and illegal 
blockade of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh. This blockade has cut off the 
people of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh from food, fuel, medicine, and 
other vital goods and commodities. It has stopped United Nations 
humanitarian assistance to the people of Nagorno-Karabagh and has 
created a humanitarian crisis in the region.
  I had the opportunity with my colleagues on our subcommittee, 
including the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and others to 
visit Nagorno-Karabagh, to visit Armenia, to visit Azerbaijan. It was 
very clear when we visited Nagorno-Karabagh to see the suffering. The 
life of these people made us come back even more committed in trying to 
bring the parties together to work out a settlement. We feel that 
lifting this blockade does not work towards that end.
  Currently, the process to bring a lasting peace to the Caucasus is at 
a very critical stage. The United States, as one of the cochairs of the 
Minsk Group, has been trying to bring the parties to the table for 
direct talks. Now, in my judgment, is not the time to change the United 
States policy in the Caucasus toward any one of the parties.
  Repealing section 907 at this critical juncture would only encourage 
the Azerbaijani government to dig in its heels in the peace process. It 
would remove what little leverage the United States has over the 
government in Baku to move it along toward an agreeable solution to 
this protracted conflict.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that opponents of this amendment have 
grossly exaggerated the scope of section 907. Let us be perfectly 
clear. Section 907 does not, does not prohibit the delivery of 
humanitarian and democracy building assistance to Azerbaijan. In fact, 
the United States has provided over $130 million in assistance to 
Azerbaijan through NGO's and PVO's since 1992.
  Section 907 also does not prohibit U.S. export financing assistance 
to Azerbaijan. OPIC, TDA, the Export-Import Bank are free to 
participate in projects in Azerbaijan. Section 907 does not prohibit 
oil companies from developing and investing in projects in Azerbaijan.
  In fact, during our visit, I dare to say, the oil companies were 
alive and well. At our meetings with the business community in 
Azerbaijan, I do not think there was one oil company that I ever heard 
of that was not there. So this is not prohibiting any action from the 
oil companies to operate in that region.
  Section 907 does give the United States leverage over a government 
that has not shown respect for human rights and the principles of 
democracy. Maintenance of section 907 will give the United States 
stronger footing in its attempts to bring the Azerbaijani government to 
the table and direct peace talks over Nagorno-Karabagh.
  Mr. Chairman, this, in my judgment, is a good amendment that deserves 
our support. I urge my colleagues to support peace in the Caucasus by 
voting ``yes'' on the amendment.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes. I reluctantly resist and 
oppose the amendment of my dear friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Radanovich). But I am convinced that, if we allow 
the section 907 to continue, that it will prevent us from working 
toward a peaceful solution in Central Asia.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Livingston) 
on his leadership on this issue. There is few people that have 
understood this issue better than he, and I support his efforts to 
facilitate the peace and stability that we are seeking between Armenia 
and Azerbaijan.
  Section 907 is an outdated provision which hamstrings our foreign 
policy options in the Caucasus.
  Azerbaijan remains the only former Soviet Republic barred from 
receiving broad-based U.S. assistance based upon conditions that no 
longer apply. Repealing section 907 sends a signal that will encourage 
investment and competence in Azerbaijan and thus will contribute to the 
stability of this strategical and vital region.
  Lifting section 907 is an important component of the comprehensive 
U.S. strategy for the region and will help facilitate our involvement 
in Central Asia. For 10 years, we have looked for peace there. The 
current system is not working. It is time that we change.
  Section 907 continues to undermine our neutrality in the negotiations 
between Armenia and Azerbaijan to promote peace. We need a balanced 
approach for the Caucasus, and this is why the administration also 
supports lifting section 907. The Caucasus could account for nearly 75 
percent of the world's known energy resources, and we stand to benefit 
greatly from stability in that region.
  Mr. Chairman, it is in our national interest to support repeal of 
this section. I urge my colleagues to reject the pending amendment and 
support the fundamental language of the bill.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment 
because two wrongs do not make a right. In fact, our actions today 
regarding section 907 will be a message to Russia and other countries 
regarding U.S. foreign policy and what we mean and that we do what we 
say and what we mean.
  Mr. Chairman, I am outraged that Azerbaijan continues to block 
distribution of much-needed American aid and assistance to the Republic 
of Armenia, and to the break-away Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh.
  Meanwhile, thousands of Armenians are still without adequate housing 
as a result of the 1998 earthquake. This is unacceptable. Not only is 
this blockade clearly immoral, it is illegal, according to U.S. law.
  The time has come that we stop making excuses for Azerbaijan. The 
time has come to quit playing politics with humanitarian aid destined 
for Armenia. Human rights must be protected. No one has the right to 
flaunt the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, no one, period.
  There should be no business as usual with Azerbaijan until their 
illegal, life-threatening blockade is lifted.
  I urge my colleagues, vote yes on the Pallone-Radanovich amendment. 
This is a vote for the people of Armenia. This is a vote for peace. 
This is a vote for solidarity.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman 
yield?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey) for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment. I 
think it is very, very important that we recognize that if we want 
peace in this

[[Page H7990]]

world, we have to have justice. If we want justice, we cannot stand 
idly by while one country simply says, we are not going to provide any 
humanitarian aid, no matter where it comes from, to another country 
that it happens to have a conflict with.
  I appreciate the fact that this is an enormously complicated and 
difficult political issue involving Armenian and Nagorno-Karabakh and 
Azerbaijan but for Azerbaijan to be able to stand by and say that no 
amount of human aid is going to get through Armenia, when I have 
visited Armenia and I have seen children going cold in the wintertime, 
I have seen elderly people in hospital rooms where the temperature in 
the hospital room was below freezing, and that is the kind of situation 
that occurred because of the fact that we have interests that would 
just as soon see us repeal section 907.
  What I say is if we want to see peace, if we want to see these issues 
solved over a period of time, then we cannot do it with just economics 
in mind. We have to do it with justice in mind. If we want justice, 
repeal the attempt to get rid of section 907; stand up to the Armenian 
people; stand up for peace and stand up for poor people around the 
world who are hurt far too often because economics comes before 
politics.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  (Mr. KNOLLENBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully rise to support the 
amendment by my colleague from California. As we all know too well, the 
countries of the Caucasus have been crippled by violence and conflict 
since the collapse of the Soviet Union. If one were to Nagorno-Karabakh 
or to Armenia or Azerbaijan, and many in this body have, one would know 
something about the geography. That, in turn, gives some glimpse of 
what the conflict is all about.
  For Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, this reality is worsened by 
Azerbaijan's devastating blockade of its neighbor. It is especially 
painful to see a country with the potential of Armenia recede into an 
economic stone-age at the hands of its neighbors.
  This is why, in the first place, we adopted section 907 of the 
Freedom Support Act with overwhelming bipartisan support. It prohibits 
the delivery of U.S. Government economic or military assistance to the 
government of Azerbaijan, unless it takes demonstrable steps to cease 
its blockade. They have not. They have not taken any steps.
  Section 907 sets reasonable conditions on the use of U.S. foreign 
aid. We struggled in last year's bill to ensure that it could not 
prevent vital humanitarian and democracy building assistance or export 
finance assistance to U.S. business. That took a tremendous amount of 
struggling, but it did come to completion.
  However, we cannot repeal section 907 until the conditions for its 
lifting are met. Unfortunately, Azerbaijan continues its crippling 
blockade of its neighbors. In addition, the negotiations over the 
resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict remain uncertain.
  Given these facts, these circumstances, now is not the time to reward 
the government of Azerbaijan. Hopefully, that time will come.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to support this amendment, but I hope that 
it is the last time that I or any of us have to do this. This provision 
has been the Congress' response to a difficult complex issue year after 
year, and yet we see no real progress.

                              {time}  1630

  We cannot only blame Azerbaijan. Armenia has to accept some of the 
blame for insufficient progress as well.
  One of the realities that we have to understand is that Azerbaijan is 
going to be one of the wealthiest countries in the world. It is not 
landlocked, as Armenia. It is not nearly as economically and militarily 
vulnerable as Armenia. In fact, it is going to be a major role player 
in the Caucasus in that part of the world.
  So it behooves us in the future to, in fact, be an ally of 
Azerbaijan. The reality is that we cannot under these current 
circumstances. But if we want peace in the Caucasus and protection of 
Armenia's sovereign borders and prosperity for the Armenian people, 
then we need to establish economic trade between Armenia and its 
neighbors on all sides. The situation today is untenable. In fact, 
there are people suffering in Armenia. There are people suffering in 
Yerevan, there are people suffering in Nagorno-Karabakh. But we must be 
part of the solution, not part of the problem. And part of the problem 
is that we have not moved forward. We have not been able to take 
sufficient initiatives. We have not been able to bring together the 
people in a sufficiently constructive attitude.
  I understand the frustration of the people in the State Department. 
They really feel that this amendment is counterproductive, that we have 
got to be able to assure the Azeris that there is a level playing 
field, that we are not playing favorites because of domestic politics. 
There is reason for them to believe that and to make that charge. But 
it is also true that they eventually will be holding the upper hand.
  They do have it in their means to find a way to relieve much of the 
economic suffering that the Armenians are encountering. They do have it 
in their means to move the Minsk peace process forward. I would hope 
that this is the last year that this is the only approach that this 
Congress can take, which is to continue essentially an embargo that, in 
fact, is hurting Armenians as well as Azeris and that is not consistent 
with the way we have resolved past conflicts.
  Mr. Chairman, I very much respect the people who want to lift 907, 
but I also respect not only the insight but the compassion of those who 
feel that this is not the time. I am just saying for the record that if 
this comes up again, I do not think it is the responsible decision for 
the Congress to simply stick with the same old response to a problem 
that continues to fester and is not getting any better, without 
initiative on the part of this Congress and those who understand the 
situation and who believe that peace and prosperity is possible and 
will only occur if we are willing to take the necessary political and 
diplomatic risks for that peace and prosperity to overcome the age-old 
animosities that have precluded it in the past.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  (Mr. ROHRABACHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran), my colleague, for those words. I have 
reached a different conclusion, but many of the things that the 
gentleman stated in his talk were right on target.
  I rise in support of the repeal of 907, which means I must oppose 
this amendment of my dear friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Radanovich). Let us note this, that this war, as the gentleman from 
Virginia has suggested, is going on and on and on.
  Mr. Chairman, I have visited Armenia and I have visited Azerbaijan. I 
have come to the conclusion, the honest conclusion, that the reason the 
war continues is because there is a perceived tilt in American policy 
towards Armenia in that part of the world and the Armenians thus are 
totally inflexible when it comes to negotiations with the Azerbaijanis, 
the Azerbaijanis who are desperate to make some kind of an agreement.
  But the Armenians, because it is perceived that the United States 
will do anything for them because of political pressure because, and 
let us face it, there are many Armenians that live in the United 
States, there are many Armenians that live in California, many of them 
are supporters of mine, they are fine people. But American foreign 
policy cannot be based on that political consideration. We should 
consider the cause of peace, the cause of freedom, and we have to 
consider also the national security interests of the United States of 
America.
  In this particular case, our unwillingness to try to be evenhanded in 
our approach in that area because of our fear of political 
repercussions from the Armenian community has prevented a peace 
agreement from being reached. Thus, both sides are suffering.

[[Page H7991]]

  Yes, as we hear about the suffering of the Armenian people in 
Nagorno-Karabakh, that is exactly correct. Those people are suffering. 
And equally suffering are the Azeris. Almost a million Azeris, 15 
percent of the population, are now displaced and refugees. They are 
suffering as well.
  What is preventing the peace from coming about? What is preventing 
the peace from coming about is the Armenians really believe that they 
can hold out because America is going to be on their side and we are 
not going to force them to make any kind of compromise and they are 
going to get the whole ball of wax.
  We should be instead trying to be evenhanded, trying to reach a 
compromise. Now, in both instances when I went to Armenia and 
Azerbaijan and talked to the leaders of both of these countries, again 
I find the Azeris anxious to try to discuss and find some solution. And 
I find the Armenians unwilling to give up an inch. One inch.
  There is an easy answer to this and it is very recognizable on the 
map. There is an Armenian enclave in Azerbaijan. We know about that. 
Nagorno-Karabakh. But also there is an Azeri enclave in Armenia. The 
Azerbaijanis are open to talking about some kind of a land swap where 
they would swap the entire Nagorno-Karabakh region which used to be 
part of their territory, which is major Armenian and should be part of 
Armenia, they would swap that and give their legitimacy for that in 
exchange for a corridor to that enclave of Azeri population in Armenia.
  Mr. Chairman, that deal that is so obvious to those of us on the 
outside is not being seriously considered because the Armenians believe 
the United States is on their side, Russia is on their side, all the 
big boys are on their side, so they do not really have to give up a 
thing. That attitude is what has prevented peace.
  If we really love Armenia and love people and are trying to help end 
suffering, and we love Azeris and Armenians on an equal level, because 
that is what we are supposed to be, evenhanded in trying to bring about 
peace and freedom in this world, then we will have the courage to tell 
our Armenian friends back home that we are going to have to reach a 
compromise here and they are not going to get every single thing that 
they want; that there is going to have to be a compromise to reach 
peace.
  If there is that kind of compromise, both sides will be better. Let 
us have the courage to call it as it is here. Let us meet our 
responsibility as the world's leading power and at the very least not 
be forced into positions by strong minority groups within our own 
country to take positions that are contrary to the interest of world 
peace, contrary to freedom, and contrary to our own long-term national 
security interests.
  So, I rise in strong support of the repeal of 907 and thus oppose 
this amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to removing Section 907 from our 
bill. Let me just bring this debate down to a more reasonable level 
that at least I understand. I am sure it is very confusing to any 
television audience that might be listening to this debate or any 
Members of Congress who might be back in their office.
  First of all, we are not talking about money. We are not talking 
about giving money to Azerbaijan. We met with President Aliyev when we 
were in Azerbaijan. I took our subcommittee there specifically for this 
reason, to see if indeed this country was sincere in its indications 
that they want to move towards a democracy. Mr. Aliyev did not ask us 
for money, nor is he asking us for money in this bill, nor do we give 
him any except for refugees. We give money to Armenia. We give more 
money to Armenia per capita than any other nation in the entire world, 
other than Israel. We are not talking about what kind of assistance we 
are giving to these countries. We are talking about a slowly emerging 
democracy.
  Mr. Chairman, when we met with President Aliyev, we talked about what 
he wanted. And I will admit, it was difficult for me to believe, 
sitting there talking to one of the top leaders of the former Soviet 
Union telling us sincerely that he wanted to democratize, he wanted to 
move his country up.
  They are blessed with the resource of oil that a lot of emerging 
countries do not have. They want to send this oil to the West rather 
than through China. So we are not talking about money.
  We are talking about his plea to let the United States people help 
him with his educational process. Mr. Chairman, with 907, it cannot be 
done. We are talking about assistance and help and care for the people, 
the sick people of Azerbaijan. With Section 907, it cannot be done. We 
are talking about lifting that. We are not talking about giving them 
money. We are not talking about anything that has to do with foreign 
assistance monetarily.
  We are talking about a confused region of this world that has been 
warring for centuries. We are talking about a country that has had 
differences with Azerbaijan and has a tremendous advantage in any peace 
settlement as long as this thing is in place. Let us not talk about 
whether or not this is going to permit the United States to dump 
millions of dollars into Azerbaijan, because it is not.
  I know a lot of these people that have spoken today are very 
compassionate. Many of them have been to Azerbaijan. Many of them may 
even be able to point it out on the globe. Some of them, probably, 
cannot. But let me tell my colleagues, the Constitution of the United 
States of America says that the administrative branch of government 
will determine foreign policy, the Congress of the United States shall 
be the check and balance.
  The people of this country elected President Clinton. He, in turn, 
has appointed Secretary Albright as Secretary of State. Secretary 
Albright called me and said this is one of the most important things 
that this Congress can do for this administration to have an effective 
foreign policy.
  Now we have all of these Members of Congress who may have been to 
Azerbaijan, like me only once, who now have become pseudo-Secretaries 
of State. They are trying to impose their will against the direction of 
the professionals we have hired.
  The administration is pushing for this. It is not the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) nor I. We recognize how important it is. 
Azerbaijan has another alternative with respect to that oil. They can 
send it through China. That would probably be the easiest route to go. 
But if we deny our American businesspeople, and we talk about oil 
companies, the right to participate, not with giving them money but 
with giving them OPIC assistance and Eximbank assistance, then we do 
not stand a chance to compete with the French and the German and the 
British and the Japanese and the Chinese who are all there trying to 
keep this section 907 in place because it is disadvantageous to 
American oil companies.
  So let us not talk about money. This has nothing to do with money to 
Azerbaijan. It has to do with a policy that the foreign policy 
professionals of that this country have hired to have foreign policy 
ability, and this is one of the top priorities that Madeleine Albright 
has requested and that is that we remove 907.
  This committee has taken a good look at it. I think we probably 
looked at this area of the world more than any other area of the world. 
We have been there. We have seen the needs. Some on the committee still 
disagree. But to those who have never been there, to those who have not 
had the opportunity to discuss this intelligently with the Secretary of 
State, I remind them that they are not Secretaries of State; they are 
Members of the House. They have a responsibility to the administration 
to give them the latitude they need to have an effective foreign 
policy.

                              {time}  1645

  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Committee on International 
Relations, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I object to the 
bill's striking of section 907 of the Freedom Support Act both on the 
substance and the procedure.
  I do not think that many of us consider ourselves, with all due 
respect, to be secretaries of State, and I have heard many colleagues 
on both sides of

[[Page H7992]]

the aisle suggest that they do not have the full abdication to the 
administration of what the United States role is in the world or a 
blank checkbook for that regard.
  For 9 years, 9 years the government of Azerbaijan has blockaded, not 
embargoed, but blockaded, meaning using force to blockade Armenia and 
Nagorno-Karabagh cutting off the transport of food, fuel, medicine and 
other vital supplies, creating a humanitarian crisis requiring the 
United States to send emergency life saving assistance to Armenia.
  By contrast, section 907 does not prevent the delivery of 
humanitarian aid to the people of Azerbaijan. As a matter of fact, to 
date more than $130 million in United States humanitarian and exchange 
assistance has been provided to Azerbaijan but through nongovernmental 
organizations.
  Azerbaijan has failed to live up to the basic conditions set forth in 
U.S. law pursuant to section 907. What does that say? Quote, taking 
demonstrable, demonstrable steps to cease all blockades and other 
offensive uses of force against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh.
  For this reason, we should not lift restrictions on aid to 
Azerbaijan.
  Second, I object to the provision of the underlying bill on 
procedural grounds. As a member of the Committee on International 
Relations, the committee which has the authorizing jurisdiction for the 
Freedom Support Act, I am clearly concerned that we set the process and 
the pattern, that the Committee on Appropriations usurped the 
jurisdiction of our committee, and that the Committee on Rules extended 
protection to the provision despite its violation of House rules on 
authorizing in appropriation bills.
  Section 907 remains an essential element of U.S. foreign policy 
towards the Caucasus as well as an expression of Congress' objection to 
Azerbaijan's illegitimate blockade of the Armenian people.
  I want to address one or two other things I have heard in debate. To 
suggest that American citizens of this country who identify with a 
certain national entity of another country, who may have been born here 
in the United States but whose roots in fact come from some other 
ethnic background, that those citizens have less of a right to petition 
their government for what they believe the United States policy should 
be any place in the world and that U.S. companies, however, with 
multinational interests have a greater right than United States 
citizens to petition their government in my mind is outrageous.
  We should take risks for peace but those should be on the side of 
making sure that Azerbaijan ceases to be the aggressor. Oil and oil 
interests themselves cannot be the guiding star of United States 
foreign policy, particularly at a time of an oil glut. We can get our 
pipeline, but the pressure should be on Azerbaijan, the aggressor, the 
aggressor, not the victim.
  When we assist the aggressor, we send the wrong message throughout 
the world. When we assist those who are undemocratic, we send the wrong 
message throughout the world. When we assist those who are trying to 
strangulate a people, we send the wrong mesage throughout the world. 
When we look the other way, when we lend a blind eye to what is 
happening in these parts of the world, simply based on economic 
interests, we go down a road which we have already had in our history, 
and we need not repeat that chapter again in our history.
  That, Mr. Chairman, is really in my mind the guiding principles we 
should be looking at as we determine how we vote on this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Radanovich-Pallone amendment.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words, and I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I categorically reject the arguments made by the 
preceding speaker as being both foolish and misguided.
  Nobody has come before this House to argue that oil is more important 
than human beings. There is nobody in this House who is arguing that 
any one group of Americans should be less entitlted to come before this 
House and argue their case than any other group of Americans.
  The whole point of bringing this authorized repeal to the floor 
within this proper piece of legislation is to remove a foolish, ill-
conceived provision that takes sides in a battle between two countries 
in another part of the world is because we do not have an Armenian-
American interest any more than we have an Armenian-Azeri interest.
  We promote the interest of the United States of America in world 
policy. And it is our obligation, as representatives of the people of 
the United States, be they Armenian or Azeri or of any other ethnic 
background, it is our interest to see to it that they are equally and 
properly represented in the national interest of this country. To 
suggest otherwise is incredibly wrong.
  I have heard some interesting arguments here today on this issue, 
some of them based in sincerity, some of them based in fact, and some 
of them based in total misinformation.
  Mr. Chairman, section 907 is a provision that we passed in 1992 after 
the Azeris and the Armenians were engaged for some years, in a tragic 
war with major loss of life on both sides. There were ultimately no 
winners because both sides lost lives and suffered great casualties. 
Azerbaijan lost territory. Nagorno-Karabagh, which was an Azeri piece 
of property, is now virtually totally controlled by Armenians and there 
was ethnic cleansing at the hands of the Armenians because the Azeris, 
some 700,000 of them, are living in refugee camps in Azerbaijan. I 
would like to reduce it, as the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) 
did, to understandable terms so that my fellow Americans can understand 
this issue.
  If I had two neighbors down the block from my neighborhood involved 
in an ongoing battle and I was worried that that battle was going to 
escalate, inflame my neighborhood, could possibly result in tremendous 
death and hardship to my neighbors, I would do something. In order to 
break up that battle, I walked over to one of them and I started 
beating him with a stick, and for 6 years I beat him on the head with a 
stick. For the other neighbor to come to me and say, we are almost 
going to solve this problem but just do not stop beating that guy over 
the head with a stick or else we will never solve the problem, that is 
effectively what we have done with Azerbaijan and Armenia.
  Certainly, we have friends who are Armenian Americans. I remember the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) who addressed us. She takes 
pride in her heritage, and well she should. Armenian Americans have 
come to this country and worked hard and prospered and done well. I 
guess we do not have very many Azeri Americans. So they have not come 
here, they have not prospered, they have not done well, and they do not 
have much access to Congress.
  For one reason or another, in the middle of a war, we go over there 
and start beating the Azeris with a stick. It is called section 907. 
And it says, we cannot transfer aid. We cannot deal with the Azer-
baijan Government. But we have given plenty of aid to the Armenians, as 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has already pointed out. They 
are one of greatest recipients of aid that we have in the world.
  What we are doing here today is not proposing that we cease our 
friendship with Armenia. It is just that we lessen our Congressional 
hostility toward the Azeris. It is an important part of the world. To 
suggest that it is due to oil is shortsighted and simply disingenuous.
  Is there oil in that part of the world? Yes. Is that important? Yes. 
Why is it important? Because if we can develop that oil in that part of 
the world, some \3/4\ of the world's oil reserves, we might make the 
Middle East less important.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Livingston) has expired.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 
3 additional minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Louisiana?
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.

[[Page H7993]]

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston).
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, the oil is important. One should never think, though, 
that the oil is the cause for this change in policy, other than to 
deemphasize the critical impact on the Middle East. We have for years, 
virtually since 1947 but certainly more recently, since my 20 years in 
Congress, we have been embroiled in disputes between Israel and her 
neighbors. One of the key ingredients for the strength of some of her 
neighbors is because of their possession of oil. They use it as clout.
  In the 1970's, 1980's, the fact is we had an oil embargo because they 
used it to strangle not only the Middle East but the entire world. By 
opening up the spigots in the Caspian region, both in the Caucasus and 
in Central Asia, we will deemphasize the importance of Middle East oil, 
and the stranglehold that those Middle Eastern oil territories have 
over Israel and the entire world.
  Repeal of section 907 is the national interest of the United States. 
That is not me speaking alone. That is Secretary of State Madeleine 
Albright, last time I checked still a Democrat, who says, section 907 
creates the impression that the U.S. approach to the Nagorno-Karabagh 
conflict is not balanced.
  It is critical that the U.S. be perceived by both Azerbaijan and 
Armenia as a fair and honest broker in its bilateral relations with 
each country and multilateral relations through the OSCE Minsk Group, 
of which we are a co-chair. We believe, this is from Secretary 
Madeleine Albright, that section 907 encourages other parties to 
calculate that the United States will continue to press only Azerbaijan 
and that they can accordingly maintain an intransigent posture towards 
the Minsk Group process.
  Madeleine Albright, our Secretary of State, the President of the 
United States, the entire Democratic administration and our Committee 
agree that section 907 should be repealed. We are also working with 
American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti 
Defamation League, the B'nai B'rith, the National Conference on Soviet 
Jewry. Why? Because they understand that it is in Israel's interest 
that this thing be repealed.
  The gentleman's suggestions are outrageous. And when he says that 
this is just oil related and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with 
U.S. national policy, I reject his position.
  I urge the repeal of section 907 and the defeat of the amendment by 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Radanovich).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield to gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations took such umbrage. I was referring to 
remarks made by previous speakers. I am glad to hear that the chairman 
says that no person in this country whose ethnic heritage is such that 
they should be diminished versus a U.S. company, but one of his 
previous speakers from his side of the aisle suggested that. So I hope 
that he takes his umbrage to his colleague and suggests to him that 
that type of suggestion is inappropriate for the Chamber and 
inappropriate insofar as that we do not want to make citizens in this 
country, because they come from a certain lineage, second-class 
citizens. I agree with him.
  On the question of oil, my simple suggestion is, there clearly has 
been various mentions of the question of the access to oil and the 
concern from it. That is a legitimate issue and interest of the United 
States, but the question is, does it rise to the national interest, the 
national security interest, and is this our beacon of light for U.S. 
foreign policy? I think that those are legitimate issues to raise.
  I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California for yielding to 
me.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I do want to make a couple of points, 
following up on what I have heard in the recent debate here.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the position of the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and in support of the amendment on the 
floor to restore the 907 provision to this bill.
  But I do agree with the chairman on a few points. One is that this 
region, the Armenia-Azerbaijan region, is a very important region of 
the world and policies there have serious ramifications.
  I agree that we must be, in making our policy decisions, acting in 
the interest of the United States of America. And I believe that the 
makers of this motion are doing just that.
  I understand that the chairman was dismayed when there was question 
of the motivation for the action taken in full committee, where 907 was 
repealed, and the motivation was attributed to the interest of the oil 
companies. I do not like questioning the motivation of our colleagues, 
and I understand the chairman's dismay. But I take issue also in the 
chairman's attributing motivation to those of us responding to the 
Armenian Americans in our country.
  I will have to get time later to continue my point, but I support the 
amendment on the floor.
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on International 
Relations, I rise in strong support of language in the foreign 
operations bill that eliminates 907 of the Freedom Support Act and in 
opposition of efforts to strike this provision of the bill.
  I do not think section 907 should have ever been in the law itself. I 
think it is regrettable that it was. I think the United States has to 
do everything it can to bring peace among all parties, and we know that 
is a troubled area in the world.
  The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Ike Skelton), the ranking Democrat 
on the Committee on National Security, says this:

       Security matters remain a major issue in the region. The 
     United States' ability to promote peace and economic reforms 
     in the region are significantly hamstrung by section 907. The 
     United States must be perceived by both Azerbaijan and 
     Armenia as a truly neutral peace broker in its negotiations 
     and approach to end conflict in the region. Section 907 
     damages U.S. national interest by undermining the 
     administration's neutrality and promoting a settlement in 
     that part of the world, an ability to encourage economic 
     embroiled legal reforms in Azerbaijan, and efforts to advance 
     an east-west energy transport corridor.

  We all know, and even those on the other side know, that one of these 
days 907 is going to be eliminated. And why not now? Why do we want to 
wait another year, like some suggest? I think this is the opportunity 
we have this year to eliminate it.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for 
yielding to me, and I rise in opposition to this amendment and in 
support of the elimination of section 907 of the Freedom Support Act in 
the foreign operations appropriations bill.
  I feel, Mr. Chairman, that we can no longer pursue a failed policy of 
prohibiting U.S. assistance to the government of Azerbaijan. The 
conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia is difficult and complex, as we 
have heard this afternoon. However, retaining section 907 does not 
assist in the resolution of their dispute. Moreover, it does not serve 
our national interest and our foreign policy initiatives.
  Section 907 limits our ability to be a neutral broker in the process 
of mediating the ongoing conflict. With section 907, we restrict our 
flexibility in dealing with a nation that is moving towards a market 
economy but, in the meantime, is greatly underdeveloped.
  Last January I had the opportunity to visit Azerbaijan, and I can 
tell my colleagues that we can influence great change with the lifting 
of section 907. The nation is greatly underdeveloped, with weak 
institutions and basically a closed society. By lifting section 907, we 
could provide technical and economic assistance, which would provide 
reforms that would create a more open society and increase stability 
and promote regional cooperation.
  While our foreign assistance to Armenia should remain in place, it is 
appropriate that at this time we move to

[[Page H7994]]

repeal section 907. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I ask that we 
defeat this amendment and restore section 907.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in strong support of the Radanovich-Pallone amendment 
to preserve the humanitarian aid corridor.
  I think I would want to begin my remarks by agreeing with one of the 
assertions made by the full committee chairman, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), in indicating the bipartisan nature of this 
debate, the importance of the debate, and the fact that all of us have 
the same goal in mind, and that is energy security, from an economic 
and national security perspective, as well as the issue of peace. The 
debate that is taking place today is a debate about the difference of 
opinion as to how to achieve both those goals.
  We have a situation in the Caucasus today that is not perfect; that 
if all of us collectively could affect, we would want to make perfect. 
We have a static situation that we want to move in the right direction, 
and that, again, is the question of the debate: What is the right 
direction.
  I do want to make sure we put the debate in the proper perspective 
and to reflect on events of just an 11-day period of time 83 years ago, 
when on April 8th, tens of thousands of Armenian men were rounded up 
and shot. Hundreds of thousands of women, men and children were 
deported southward across the mountains to Silesia and Syria. On April 
15th, the Armenians appealed to the German ambassador in Constantinople 
for formal German protection. The request was rejected on the grounds 
that it would be offensive to the Turkish government. By April 19th, 11 
days later, 50,000 Armenians had been murdered.
  Much has been said today during the debate about the war that is 
taking place today. In 1989, the government, not the people, the 
government of Azerbaijan began to kill Armenians because they were 
Armenians. A war took place because the Armenian government then began 
to defend itself and its people.
  This Congress, President Bush, then signed into law the Humanitarian 
Aid Corridor in 1992. And progress was made 2 years later because there 
was a cease-fire put in place that, as I understand today, 4 years 
later, remains in place. I think all of us, again, regret that it is 
simply a cease-fire and not a lasting peace, but progress was made 
because of the actions of this institution and President Bush in 1992.
  As many speakers have indicated before, this is not a question of are 
we wanting to cut off aid to Armenians. That is not the question. We do 
not want to do that. Do we want to cut off aid to the Azerbaijan 
people? We do not want to do that. We remain very concerned on our side 
of the issue about ensuring that the Azerbaijan government acts 
responsibly. And, as again a number of speakers have indicated, they 
have it within their power by the close of business today to end the 
blockade and to then have that relief money flow through their hands.
  Over $130 million has been provided for Azerbaijan refugees over this 
period of time. And it is important for all of us to note that in 1995 
the Armenian government indicated that they would allow relief supplies 
to flow through Armenia for the relief of Azerbaijan, in a remote area 
of that country, and the Azeri government refused to allow those goods 
and supplies to flow through Armenia. And I certainly question the 
government's, not the people's, intentions in this matter.
  The issue is, and someone has used the illusion that we are beating 
up one of these parties; that we are hitting them with a stick; that we 
are being unfair. We have a cease-fire in place. People are not being 
killed. As has also been indicated, people have talked to each other. 
And I think at this particular moment, if we would now lift the 
restriction, without the lifting of the blockade, what we are saying to 
the Azeri government is it is okay to blockade other countries; it is 
okay to provide for the restriction of commerce, medical supplies and 
humanitarian aid; it is okay, pursuant to Ms. Albright's letter to this 
institution, to try to extort money from our government.
  The chairman of the committee alluded earlier to the letter that 
Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State, sent to this institution. I 
find another passage very revealing.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply would ask my colleagues to vote in favor of 
the Pallone-Radanovich amendment.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I had prepared remarks, but I would like to use much of 
my time to respond to particular statements that have been made by 
opponents to the amendment.
  The first is that it is the President, charged under the 
Constitution, with making United States foreign policy. This is indeed 
a misnomer, a statement found in many eighth grade civics books but 
never found in any Supreme Court opinion or found in the Constitution 
itself.
  I commend those who oppose the amendment to the Barclays Bank case, 
decided by the Supreme Court a few years ago, in which the court 
recounts the very clear constitutional principle that foreign policy is 
to be made in the Congress and effectuated by the administration.
  The second issue is that we are not talking here about money or aid 
going to Azerbaijan. That is all we are talking about. Section 907 
restricts the transfer of U.S. tax dollars to the dictatorial regime in 
Azerbaijan. Those who want to talk about fiscal conservatism should 
draw the line here and say that the butchers in Baku should not get a 
single dollar of American tax money, at least while they blockade 
Armenia.
  We are told that Armenia should be blamed for the refugees that exist 
in Azerbaijan, and our hearts go out to those refugees. But why are 
they refugees? Because of the policy of the dictatorial government in 
Baku.
  We are told that where two countries are battling that we should be 
evenhanded. I have been very interested in the Middle East, and now and 
then we are told to be evenhanded between Israel and her enemies. We 
should not be evenhanded between the blockaded and the blockader. We 
should not be evenhanded between the perpetrator and the victim. We 
should not be evenhanded between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
  We should remember, as the gentleman from Indiana pointed out, that 
the government in Azerbaijan, that some would say we should send money 
to, is the government that butchered people on the streets of Baku just 
a few years ago.
  We are told that American policy tilts toward Armenia because of the 
activities of Armenian Americans. I would point out that American oil 
companies are at least as influential as Armenian Americans. The reason 
why our policy tilts toward Armenia is because Armenia is right and 
because their position reflects American values.
  We are told that many in this House do not understand the oil, do not 
understand the strategic importance, the economic importance of the 
Newly Independent States and of Central Asia. I would say that that 
expertise resides in the Committee on International Relations. But this 
authorizing provision never went to the Committee on International 
Relations, and there is no better reason to adopt this amendment than 
to say that this issue should come from the committee of jurisdiction.
  We are told that there are too many unilateral sanctions. Section 907 
imposes no sanctions. Azerbaijan enjoys Most Favored Nation status with 
the United States. Those who care about fiscal conservatism should not 
embrace the language, the terminology, that says that it is sanctions 
against a country for us not to give them U.S. tax dollars.
  Finally, I would like to point to the role of Joseph Stalin in this. 
Fifty years ago Joseph Stalin tried to strangle Berlin, and we 
responded with the airlift. Two generations earlier Joseph Stalin drew 
the borders of Azerbaijan and Armenia for the purpose of 
disenfranchising and leading to the oppression of Armenians in Nagorno 
Karabagh.

                              {time}  1715

  We did not let Joseph Stalin strangle Berlin and we should not allow 
those who walk in his footsteps, those who

[[Page H7995]]

served in his KGB, we should not let them strangle Armenia. Today there 
is an airlift to Armenia that should be unnecessary, because we should 
continue to tell Azerbaijan to stop blockading Armenia. We are told 
that the Armenians are intransigent and are unwilling to give up 
territory. Nothing is further from the truth. The government of Armenia 
is willing to trade land for peace, recognition and an end of this 
blockade.
  Vote ``yes'' on the amendment.
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) for striking 
907 in the bill. I believe the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) also 
had a stand-alone bill and I commend him, also.
  Let me just make two points. First of all, I was watching the debate 
earlier this afternoon and several folks made the point that in 8 to 9 
years the folks in Azerbaijan had not made any movement. To me that is 
a sign of a failed policy and it demonstrates once again the problem of 
a unilateral sanctions policy that I think that people in this body are 
going to want to look at in the future.
  The second point I would make is from the national security 
perspective. I suspect most of us know where Azerbaijan is. Their 
northern border is Russia, their southern border is Iran. It is a lot 
different being in their neighborhood than being between Canada and 
Mexico. In late March of this year, a shipment of 22 tons of stainless 
steel came south from Russia into Azerbaijan. It is a type of steel, a 
special type that is used for fuel tanks for Scud missiles. The Russian 
government had apparently been put on notice that this shipment may be 
coming from a company but it was able to get out of Russia nonetheless. 
Azerbaijan stopped the shipment within their country.
  Now, what did they do? Did they call the Russian company and say, 
``You've got this stuff mislabeled with phony labels, we've caught you, 
give us a bribe''? No. Did they call Iran and say, ``We've got your 
steel, let's make a deal''? No. They called the United States Customs 
officials and said, ``We think we've found something that may be of 
interest to you.'' The United States evaluated the steel and it turned 
out to be a type that is used in fuel tanks for Scud missiles, part of 
the Iranian missile development program. Does Russia reward this 
behavior for Azerbaijan? Of course not. This is a terrible 
embarrassment for Russia as it demonstrated once again that they have 
some problems in their export controls. Does Iran reward Azerbaijan and 
say thank you for stopping this import of this material we were trying 
to get from Russia so we could further develop missiles? Of course not. 
They needed that material. So what do we do? And what have we done? 
Nothing. We have not even bothered to pass a meaningless resolution 
thanking them for stopping this shipment that would have contributed to 
the development of the Iranian missile program. We can appreciate their 
courage, we can appreciate their location in a dangerous part of the 
world, but frankly that shows little benefit to a country in their 
particular geographic situation.
  I am going to vote ``no'' on this amendment for those two reasons. It 
is a failed policy that demonstrates once again the problems with the 
United States unilaterally going it alone; and, number two, they ought 
to be rewarded for contributing to our national security and helping 
our United States Customs officials stop this type of steel from going 
into the Iranian missile development program.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have genuine respect for my colleagues who care 
deeply about human rights anywhere in the world. It is a noble cause to 
commit oneself to human and individual rights, whether we be talking 
about Nagorno-Karabagh, South Africa, Armenia, Azerbaijan, or frankly 
right here in the United States of America.
  I know there has been much discussion today about the history of war 
and human rights in this area, in the area of the former Soviet Union. 
Frankly I would imagine that if the truth were to be known, there have 
been human rights abuses on both sides of this serious conflict between 
Azerbaijan and Armenia. I would imagine if the truth were to be known, 
we are not dealing with saints in either situation. I am not clear we 
will ever know the true history of some of the terrible human rights 
abuses in this part of the world. But what I do know is that this 
debate is not about who is for and who is against human rights in the 
world. I think this debate is about what is the best way, what is the 
best policy to bring about peace in a terribly critical part of the 
world, a strategic part of the world. For myself, I side with the Bush 
administration, the Clinton administration and our present Secretary of 
State in saying that 907 has not worked, it has not brought about 
peace, and that we should try repealing that particular sanction.
  I would like to make one comment on a personal note about the whole 
energy question that has been brought up. Some have said, that those of 
us that favor repeal of 907 are fighting for the oil companies. This is 
not about who is for or against the oil companies. But I would like to 
talk about the importance to our national security of having an 
independent source of energy outside of the Middle East.
  In 1991 when I voted to send American soldiers to fight against 
Saddam Hussein, we knew that we were sending soldiers to fight for, 
one, the democracy of Kuwait, but let us be honest, we were also 
fighting for stability in a part of the world where we depend upon 
their great resources of oil. I had to welcome back some of the 
families to Fort Hood in my district who were there to accept 
posthumously the silver medals and the bronze stars that were given to 
people, young men, who fought in that war. I had to see people come 
back in body bags rather than come home to families and communities to 
heroes' welcomes. The reason I say that is I think it is not just in 
the interest of the oil companies, far more importantly it is in the 
interest of American national security, and it is in the interest of 
those American soldiers who might have to go to other parts of the 
world like they did in 1991 in Kuwait and put their lives on the line 
if we do not diversify our source of energy. All it takes is one more 
war in the Middle East and unless we diversify our oil resources, we 
are going to have more soldiers from my district and citizens from your 
districts have to put their lives on the line to fight for, not oil 
companies but stability in the world economy and stability of our 
political system in the world. I think it is important in saying that 
in my opinion, repealing 907 perhaps will save some other young 
American soldier someday from having to come back to this country in a 
body bag or in a casket.
  So while I have tremendous respect for all of those who fought 
mightily and successfully over the last several years for human rights 
in this part of the world, I think that policy has not worked. Peace 
has not prevailed because of that. It is time to change that policy, to 
have an evenhanded policy. In the eyes of the Bush and the Clinton 
administration now, let us push an evenhanded policy that has a chance 
of bringing about peace in that part of the world, a chance of 
stabilizing a critically important part of the world, and a chance of 
preventing American soldiers from having to go back to the Middle East 
someday and put their lives on the line. That, Mr. Chairman, I think is 
important.
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I share 
his concern. Not being on either foreign affairs committee but from the 
Committee on Commerce I have watched, and the concern I have is that 
when we are dealing with the central Asian republics and the republic 
of Turkey, we cannot continue to turn our back on this part of the 
world. That is why I rise and agree with my colleague from Texas.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois is 
recognized for an additional 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I think it seems clear to all of us here 
who

[[Page H7996]]

have talked about this issue and I think the debate has been a very 
good one, that we ought to be able to agree on at least three goals:
  The first and most important goal is that we establish a condition of 
peace and normal relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. That ought 
to be the highest priority for the United States. Secondly, that we do 
everything within our power to encourage the development of the Caspian 
oil fields controlled by Azerbaijan by American oil companies. And the 
third goal would be that the oil pipeline to carry that oil developed 
by American oil companies to market go through Armenia. That would be, 
Mr. Chairman, a win-win-win situation for Armenia, for Azerbaijan and 
for the American oil companies. Unfortunately, people in that part of 
the world do not necessarily see things the way we do in the United 
States where there is a win-win-win, and often it is seen that if one 
side gains, the other side loses and you have only out of that a 
stalemate.
  Let us also agree that this administration's efforts in the peace 
process in that part of the world have been weak. This administration 
has not placed this at a high priority, has not done the kinds of 
things that can bring the parties to the table, and their latest ham-
handed effort was to force concessions on the Ter-Petrossian government 
in Armenia that were not acceptable to the Armenian people which then 
caused that government to lose a vote of confidence, caused that 
government to resign and a new government, a new capable government to 
take charge, the Kocharian government which is in some ways, much to my 
chagrin, a much harder line government than the one that was previous 
to that. So have American efforts been good or have they worked? No, 
they have been poor and they have not worked. All of us ought to get on 
this administration to make this at a high priority.
  Now, if someone is to act, should it be Azerbaijan or Armenia? We are 
engaged in this effort right now about repealing 907 because Azerbaijan 
says to the American oil companies, ``You can do business with us, but 
only if you get your government to repeal 907.'' We insist on the other 
hand that the Azeris themselves cause the repeal of 907 by simply 
saying, ``This blockade is over.'' They can do it tomorrow.
  Mr. Chairman, this conflict began in 1988 with anti-Armenian pogroms 
in the Azeri city of Sumgait. Ethnic cleansing was going on there 
before it ever went on in Bosnia. A nation of 7.5 million people 
attacked 150,000 of their Armenian minority. And there was brutal 
ethnic cleansing going on when in 1992 Wayne Owens, a Democrat, offered 
on the floor of the House the Freedom Support Act and said, no American 
money should go to a government that is permitting and encouraging and 
causing this kind of ethnic cleansing. And when that government ceases 
to blockade Armenia and when it ceases other offensive actions, then 
907 will cease to exist.
  Unfortunately, Azerbaijan continues its strangling blockade on 
Armenia four years after a cease-fire had occurred, in 1994. The Azeris 
could declare that blockade over tomorrow and section 907 would cease 
to exist. Because of the blockades by Azerbaijan and Turkey, 
humanitarian and all other assistance, including U.S. aid, has to be 
routed through Georgia, costing additional time and money to our 
country trying to help people in need. The Azeris and the Turks could 
stop these blockades simply by declaring them over. Yes, Azerbaijan has 
oil reserves and yes, Armenia is landlocked and a resource-poor country 
that is very dependent upon foreign assistance to survive these 
blockades, and the Azeris could have stopped the blockade long ago and 
there would be no 907.
  So should we today undo 907 gratuitously and give this repressive 
regime in Baku a victory they do not deserve? Should we side with a 
dictator?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Porter was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. PORTER. Should we side with the intransigent party? Should we 
side with the aggressor in a brutal war of ethnic cleansing? Should we 
side with an administration that cares nothing about its own refugees 
from the war? Should we side with a government that many believe is 
very corrupt? If so, you should vote against the Radanovich amendment.

                              {time}  1730

  Or should we at this point in time continue to side with the 
government that is moving more than any other in the region toward 
democracy? Should we side with people who are the victim of brutal 
aggression? Should we side with a party more willing to negotiate face 
to face and asking for face-to-face negotiations among the parties that 
are refused by the other side?
  Should we side with people who share our values? And should we then 
all insist that this administration move this to a high priority and 
bring the parties to the table, and have them both give up a little bit 
so that each can win, along with the United States as well?
  Mr. Chairman, I think that we have to continue within 907, that 907 
gives us the leverage to work and force the Azeris to make the 
concessions they ought to make, and I insist that this administration 
put this at the highest possible level and make the three goals that I 
outlined originally work. That is, peace and the normal relationship 
between these two very fine countries, a development of the oil field 
by the American oil companies, and by the building of a pipeline 
through Armenia.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, Barbara Tuckman once wrote a book about how governments 
through the ages have acted in their own noninterest. To adopt this 
amendment would not be in the interests of the United States of 
America. To adopt this amendment will not be in line with what we have 
as our goals in this world and to help shape a region to make it more 
stable and secure.
  We are confident that genuine independence and peace and prosperity 
for the nations in the southern area of the Caucasus and central Asia 
allows them to resist aggressive Iranian and Russian pressure, promises 
of American national interests.
  It is important that we understand what is at stake here. The 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) spoke about a pipeline that might 
go through Armenia. What if that pipeline went through Iran? That will 
not be in our self-interest at all. Why do we shove our allies, our 
friends, those that did us a favor and do favors for us, why do we 
shove them, if this amendment is adopted, toward the country of Iran? 
We know what it has done. There is terrorism in the area of squashing 
human rights.
  We must also think of our ally of Israel. It is interesting to read a 
letter from the Conference of Presidents of American Jewish 
Organizations that speaks on this issue and says that we must promote 
what is in the base bill for the interest of Israel as well.
  Azerbaijan has resisted all efforts to locate foreign troops on its 
territory. It has resisted the Fundamentalist government. Azerbaijan 
has also been strongly supportive of the Organization for Security and 
Cooperation in Europe's Minsk group, and the United States of America 
is a co-chair of that Minsk group.
  I think it behooves us to realize what is really at stake. Do we want 
to further American interests in this area, or do we by this wish to 
help the Iranian interests in this area?
  I think that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) is right. 
What he and his committee put into the base bill is correct. I fully 
support what is in this bill, and I will vote with the chairman and his 
committee against this amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Livingston) the chairman of the full committee, to continue the 
presentation that he was making earlier.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and I 
will be brief. I just thought it was important to sum up my feelings 
that 907 undermines the neutrality of the United States with respect to 
the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. We want both countries to 
be our friends, and we want to extend the hand of friendship to both 
countries, but 907 puts us in the position of slapping the

[[Page H7997]]

hands of the Azeris while extending the hand of friendship to the 
Armenians.
  Secretary Albright understands that. That is why she supports the 
repeal of 907. The American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish 
Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the B'nai B'rith, the National 
Conference of Soviet Jewry, they understand that proposition, as well 
as the importance to Israel, that we need to be neutral in our approach 
to both countries.
  I have heard a lot of arguments about how we made no progress over 
the years and therefore we should maintain Section 907 to sanction 
Azerbaijan. The gentleman from Arkansas pointed out that even then, 
Azerbaijan has been very helpful in working out matters of great 
importance to the United States.
  I would refer my colleagues again to the New York Times 
International, Monday, September 14, 1998, page A-6. The fourth and 
fifth paragraphs relate to the first movement, the first glimmer of 
hope for the settlement of the dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia. 
Admittedly, with Section 907 in place, there has been no hope. Now that 
we are talking about getting rid of Section 907, the New York Times 
says:

       There has been no settlement or no substantial movement 
     toward a settlement of the conflict, and the sides remain so 
     far apart that some fear another war. But last Monday, the 
     Prime Minister of Armenia, Armen Darbinyan, flew to 
     Azerbaijan to attend a regional trade conference.
       Before meeting privately with his guest, President Heydar 
     Aliyev of Azerbaijan told reporters that he looked forward to 
     ``the restoration of friendship between Azerbaijan and 
     Armenia in the context of a peaceful resolution in Nagorno 
     Karabagh.'' It was the first time in memory he had made such 
     a statement.

  We have progress now. The progress can be continued, but we need to 
lift Section 907, not reinstate it. If this amendment is adopted, it 
will be maintained as if nothing had happened, and the chances for 
progress in that part of the world will not likely be any more 
prominent, any more effective, than they have been since 1992.
  It is in the interests of the United States, it is in the interests 
of Israel, it is in the interest of all American and Israeli citizens, 
it is in the interest of the entire Western civilized world that peace 
comes to the Caucasus and peace comes to central Asia. And the only way 
we can do that is to deal evenhandedly with two countries, both of 
which should be our friend, and neither of which should be hostile to 
us nor should we be hostile to them. But that can only come to pass if 
we repeal Section 907 and reject this ill-conceived amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I support the realistic approach 
of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) to this whole issue 
dealing with Section 907.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to first apologize to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) for not allowing him to speak beyond the 5 
minutes, and I am glad to see that we are talking extra time at this 
point, because I think everyone should be allowed to speak for as long 
as they want this evening.
  I do want to say, though, that the notion that somehow the United 
States and the State Department have been taking a neutral position and 
that somehow the existence of 907 tilts us towards Azerbaijan or tilts 
us toward Armenia is simply not true. The United States is not neutral 
between these two countries. The U.S. has clearly taken a pro-Azeri 
position from the very beginning, and this administration and the State 
Department continue to take a pro-Azeri position.
  I say that because they tried to impose a settlement in Armenia with 
regard to Nagorno Karabagh that was not acceptable. They did not and 
they continue not to recognize the territorial integrity of Nagorno 
Karabagh, which existed as an entity even during the Soviet era. And 
the United States clearly and the State Department clearly have not 
taken the position that is supportive of Armenia.
  I am very afraid that by repealing section 907, we would be sending a 
clear signal to Azerbaijan that we are 100 percent supportive of their 
position and, as a result, they would have absolutely no incentive to 
try to resolve the conflict in the Caucasus, to try to resolve the 
conflict in Nagorno Karabagh and make peace ultimately with Armenia.
  Let me just address a few other things that were mentioned here 
tonight. I know a few of the speakers said we should not look at human 
rights abuses because they have existed on both sides. If we take that 
position, we are denying the historical fact of the Armenia genocide, 
and that is why so many people on our side of the aisle who are pro-
Armenia feel so strongly about what is going on there.
  Nagorno Karabagh was attacked by Azerbaijan. They suffered an 
aggressive attack by the Azeris and by Azerbaijan as a nation, and they 
had to defend themselves. The aggressor here was Azerbaijan. The 
aggressor historically in that area has been either the Azeris or the 
Turks, and to suggest that somehow this blockade which prevents 
humanitarian assistance from going to Armenia is not in some ways a 
continuation of that historic genocide is a denial of history.
  That is why we cannot allow this section 907 to be repealed, because 
otherwise the people of Armenia will continue to suffer and will not 
receive humanitarian assistance.
  Let me talk about the energy issue. I understand that some people 
feel that we should not discuss the energy issue here, but others have 
brought it up and talked about our energy dependence. The bottom line 
is that if we repeal section 907, we create no incentive for Azerbaijan 
to share its oil resources in the Caucasus region and to work with 
Armenia, which suffers an energy crisis. And right now, there is 
absolutely nothing that would prevent Azerbaijan from building a 
pipeline through Nagorno Karabagh, through Armenia and down to the 
Mediterranean. That is the direct way to do it, that is the easiest way 
for that pipeline to be built.
  Armenia has said historically that they would like to share energy 
resources and work with Azerbaijan in terms of a free flow of oil to 
the West. If we repeal section 970, we create no incentive for using 
that oil in a cooperative way within the Caucasus countries. That is 
the kind of signal that we are going to send.
  And lastly, let me talk about the peace process, because some of my 
colleagues on the other side have said that somehow repealing 907 will 
lead to peace. That is not the truth. What they are doing here is 
rewarding the aggressor. They are telling the country that attacked the 
Armenians in Nagorno Karabagh, they are telling the country that 
continues to blockade, that they are going to be rewarded by repealing 
section 970.
  We know historically that appeasing the aggressor does not work. It 
did not work in the case of Chamberlin. And what did we get? We ended 
up killing 6 million Jews in the Holocaust in Nazi Germany because we 
appeased the other side. We appeased Adolf Hitler. Start that policy of 
appeasement again, and we will see another genocide in the Caucasus, we 
will see a continual genocide of the Armenian people.
  I do not think that it is fair for people to ignore the historical 
reality of what is going on here, and if we want to achieve a policy 
where these three Caucasus nations work together, then do not reward 
the aggressor.

                              {time}  1745

  Do not reward the country that is continuing the blockade. Let these 
countries work together. Let the United States show that it can be 
neutral and work equally with the other countries. There is nothing to 
stop the United States from telling Azerbaijan that they should share 
their resources, their energy resources and work with Armenia and the 
other Caucasus nations.
  The U.S. is powerful enough to basically give the signal to 
Azerbaijan that if they do not lift this blockade, that we will not 
continue to support them, and that is what we should be sending, that 
signal to Azerbaijan.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the fine arguments of my friends from 
across the aisle, and with great due respect to the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, I do have to say that the bottom line I 
think of this legislation is fairness, and I really believe that it is 
unfair for a country like

[[Page H7998]]

Azerbaijan to block the foreign aid of another country, Armenia, when 
they are receiving foreign aid themselves. This is an issue of an equal 
playing field in that region of the world. Section 907 protects an 
equal playing field.
  In closing I just want to say it protects a level playing field, and 
with all due respect, we should not be blocking the foreign aid of one 
country to another. This preserves that level playing field in that 
region of the world, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Yates) for yielding, and I want to just convey a few 
thoughts at the end of this debate.
  First of all, may I identify my opposition, with reluctance, to the 
initiative as our distinguished chairman of the full committee, the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston). He knows the high regard in 
which members of the committee, including myself, hold for him, and I 
regret having to oppose his well-intentioned initiative, which was 
successful in full committee.
  I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pallone) and others who have been part of putting this amendment 
forward to repeal the repeal of Section 907.
  I think that some of the statements that have been made here today 
have been very useful and this debate has been useful. It certainly has 
focused the attention of our colleagues on a very important region of 
the world, and one which has emerging challenges for us. So in that 
regard, this debate has been very helpful, because it has been very 
educational on both sides of the issue.
  Frankly, both sides have very legitimate arguments about Section 907. 
However, I come down in favor of the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Radanovich) and commend him for his leadership in 
putting it forward.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) in his 
remarks laid out the issue very clearly. The gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Porter) earlier laid out the issue I think very clearly, as did 
many of our colleagues in the course of the debate. So I will not 
revisit that, except to say very simply that this Section 907 was put 
into place because there was a blockade of humanitarian assistance. The 
blockade was by Azerbaijan and Turkey for assistance going to Armenia. 
The minute the blockade is lifted, Section 907 is lifted. So this is 
about balance. I do not understand how this new amendment came to the 
full committee where we said, let us be fair, let us lift Section 907, 
and let us leave the blockade in place. It seems to me we have balance 
here with Section 907.
  As my colleagues know, some of the Section 907 provisions were 
relaxed in the course of time. We said that assistance could go to NGOs 
in the region, nongovernmental organizations in the region, but not to 
the Azeri government. There were concerns that people had of 
uncertainty about the leadership in Azerbaijan: the President had been 
the head of the KGB when Azerbaijan was part of the Soviet Union. So 
there were serious questions about human rights and Democratic freedoms 
in Azerbaijan, but the main issue was the blockade.
  Through the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), 
Section 907 was further relaxed when he visited there, saw that the 
Azeri refugees needed assistance too, and we knew that, but he brought 
the story back firsthand, that certain assistance could not reach them 
through the nongovernmental organizations. Some aid had to go through 
the government. So we agreed, under the gentleman's leadership, we 
agreed to this relaxation so that humanitarian assistance would be 
delivered through NGOs wherever possible, and if not, in some instances 
through the government. So everyone has been open to this being an 
effective tool for balance in the region.
  One more point about the peace process. There is a Minsk process in 
place which some Members have addressed here, and the 907 is a 
motivation for the Azeris to participation in the Minsk process which 
could bring peace to the region. Our humanitarian assistance and our 
cooperation with all the other countries in the region, whether it be 
Armenia, Nagorno Karabagh or Azerbaijan, should be related to their 
willingness to participate in the peace process.
  So in terms of substance, I think Section 907 is the motivation to 
keep the Azeris at the table, and again, would be lifted when the 
blockade is lifted. So much for the substance. Our colleagues who are 
very familiar with this issue have presented it very, very clearly 
before us, but I just wanted to put that in perspective a little bit.
  Now, in terms of some of the debate that has gone on here today about 
questioning motivation. Since the oil companies have been interested in 
Azerbaijan, there has been a heightened awareness of Azerbaijan and the 
need by some to lift the Section 907. I am not questioning anybody's 
motivation here today; I think there are legitimate arguments on both 
sides. However, I want to say 2 things.
  My chairman knows what high regard, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Livingston) knows what high regard I hold for him. But for him in the 
same remarks to be expressing his dismay at the suggestion that the oil 
companies were influencing our decision and then questioning the 
motivation of our colleagues, saying that they are motivated because 
there are Armenian Americans in their community
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Yates was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I thank my 
colleagues for their indulgence.
  For the distinguished chairman to be questioning the motivation of 
our colleagues because they are motivated by the Armenians in their 
community, and in the same presentation talk about the American Jewish 
Committee, the American Jewish Congress, the Anti Defamation League, 
B'nai B'rith, who are on his side of the issue, I think is not fair. I 
think it is contradictory. The fact is that the American Jewish 
Committee and the Anti Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress 
and B'nai B'rith have every right to express their view on this 
subject, but do not say the Armenian Americans are not an appropriate 
motivation for Members to come to this floor, but these other groups 
are. We welcome their input anywhere in the world starting, of course, 
with Israel, and if they care to intervene in some other area of the 
world, they have a right under our law to do that, and I respect that. 
But I hope that the rights of Armenian Americans would be respected as 
well.
  My final point is that I listened attentively as the distinguished 
chairman spoke about this as something that the administration wants 
and we cannot tie the administration's hand, and that Secretary 
Albright is for this. Well, that is interesting. That is very 
interesting, and I would like to, for the record, just talk for a 
moment about the statement of administration policy about this bill, 
because Secretary Albright and the President of the United States are 
concerned about the dollar amount in this bill, but that interest seems 
to be ignored by the same chairman who was using them as an authority 
for why we should go forward with lifting Section 907.
  The administration strongly opposes Mexico City restrictions, as they 
say in this. The administration strongly objects to the committee's 
action to leaving U.S. funds for the Korean Peninsula Development 
Organization, including language prohibiting the President from 
exercising his authority to transfer funds from other sources for this 
purpose, and it goes on and on. The administration objects to the low 
figure for the New Independent States, and are concerned about the low 
funding for economic support.
  So if we are going to use giving the administration a free hand, we 
have to go across the board with that. And with that, since my time has 
expired, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

[[Page H7999]]

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
think that we are nearing a closure on this debate, but I certainly 
would agree with my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), that this is what the Congress is all about. This has been a 
very spirited debate, and we have people on both sides of the aisle who 
feel very serious about their view on this.
  But let us not lose sight of our mission. Do my colleagues think for 
one moment that anybody who is in favor of the lifting of this ban 
against Azerbaijan is really against any human rights help? Do my 
colleagues think that we have any mission other than peace? No. This is 
an avenue for peace, and that is what this debate is all about. We are 
not here saying that we favor Azerbaijan over Armenia, or vice versa. 
We are not talking about money, because we do not give money to 
Azerbaijan, nor does Azerbaijan want money. We are here about talking 
about a possible avenue of peace.
  They have a group called the Minsk Group, and that group is trying to 
establish a process where they will sit down at a table and they will 
sign an agreement. When that happens, this war that has been going on 
for so many years will end through negotiations. But the 
administration, Secretary Albright and the President, tell us that the 
administration cannot create this peace document that both sides will 
sign, unless indeed this is lifted. It is an unfair advantage that the 
Armenians have. But it is not a question of whether one is pro-Armenian 
or pro-Azeri. That is not the question.
  The question is, what is the best possible avenue to finally have a 
peace agreement signed, drafted and signed by both parties, and as a 
result of that, create an opportunity for Azerbaijan to ship their oil 
through Armenia, hopefully someday, into the straits whereby it can be 
utilized by the western world, instead of the opposite direction of it 
going through China and being totally utilized by the Chinese.
  So it has been a very spirited debate. I encourage my colleagues to 
go along with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston)'s plan to 
help in this peace process, and the way to do that is to vote ``no'' on 
this amendment and to give the administration the ability they have to 
effectuate a peace in this region that has been fighting for so many 
decades.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, picking up on the comments of the previous speaker, let 
me state that I am not speaking in a pro-Armenian mode or a pro-Azeri 
mode. I am trying to be pro-American and pro-American values.
  I think the question before this House on this issue is whether or 
not, when we look at this or any other region of the world, we look at 
it in terms of what all of our values are, or whether we will, in fact, 
simply look at a region in terms of our economic or materialist values.
  It seems to me that we have to have a flexible view of our insistence 
on human rights. The best writing I ever saw on the subject of human 
rights was by Father Brian Hehir, who was the driving force behind the 
creation of the Catholic Bishop's document on nuclear war.

                              {time}  1800

  He observed in that statement that we had an obligation in promoting 
human rights to take into account both our ability to affect the 
situation and other considerations that impacted on the world's safety, 
the possibility of war, and our own security.
  The point he made is that there are some occasions when other issues 
are so overriding, such as the necessity to prevent the proliferation 
of nuclear weapons or the use of those weapons, that perhaps human 
rights have to take a second or third seat on the train.
  But when those issues are not at stake and we have a greater ability 
to press for human rights without interfering with our security or 
other values, then we have an obligation to do so. I think we face that 
situation in this instance.
  I have often been at odds with representatives of the American-
Armenian community because I have never favored earmarking funds in any 
foreign aid appropriation bill for anybody. An earmark means that you 
require the President to spend at least a certain amount of money. I 
have always been opposed to that for Armenia or anybody else.
  But on this issue, while I must confess to a certain degree of 
uncertainty because there are value judgments on both sides that are 
important, in the end I come down on the side of the amendment simply 
because I think that whether we are talking about the Executive Branch 
of government or the Legislative Branch of government, that all too 
often in this country and in our political system, when big business 
and big dollars speak, we tend to listen to them more than we do any 
other sector of our society. I think that is wrong.
  Does anybody really believe this amendment would have a chance of a 
snowball in Hades if we did not have a list of 14 oil companies who 
were lobbying for it? I do not say that to question the motive of any 
Member, because there are a good many other reasons for Members to be 
for this amendment.
  But when we see that we do have the Amoco, Exxon, Mobile, Penzoil and 
a number of others interested in seeing us change our position, then we 
see a likelihood that Congress will switch its position.
  But if we have other regions of the world where we do not have large 
economic players, then we do not pay any attention to them. I think 
that that represents a gap in what our values ought to be. I think that 
the best thing to do is to stick with the policy that we have stuck 
with the last 2 years. Support the amendment.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment, which would restore Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act.
  Over the past several years, the people of the Caucasus have suffered 
terribly ongoing military conflict in the region. Of particular 
concern, the extreme hardship and deprivation endured by the people of 
Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh defy both American and international norms 
regarding the human rights of innocent civilians.
  Recognizing the humanitarian needs of the Armenian people, U.S. 
Government has endeavored to provide assistance to the innocent victims 
of the conflict. Unfortunately, the delivery of much of this aid 
continues to be stymied by Armenia's neighbors.
  I have often spoken out against nations which have attempted to 
interfere with U.S. humanitarian effort around the world. I supported 
the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act in 1995 and its strengthening in 
1997, which banned aid to nations which block shipments of U.S. 
humanitarian assistance to other countries.
  The United States government has concluded an ongoing effort to 
promote peace and reconciliation between Armenia and Azerbaijan, both 
to end the human suffering and to achieve stability in the region. At 
this time, it would not be advisable to unilaterally eliminate the 
diplomatic tool that it embodied in Section 907 of the Freedom Support 
Act. This tool is intended to provide an incentive for peace, and I 
hope it will continue to be used effectively to that end.
  I urge your support of this amendment.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Porter-
Radanovich amendment to maintain section 907 of the Freedom Support 
Act.
  As Members know, Armenia is a land-locked country in the Caucasus 
that in 1991 finally achieved its long-sought goal of independence. 
Unfortunately, geography and conflicts with its neighbors has prevented 
the Armenian economy from flourishing. Armenia wants nothing more than 
a resolution to the conflicts with its neighbors.
  However, these neighbors must also be willing to negotiate with 
Armenia in good faith. Maintaining section 907 is essential to ensuring 
that there is a good faith peace process between Armenia and 
Azerbaijan.
  Vote in favor of section 907.
  Support the Porter-Radanovich amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by my colleagues Rep. Pallone and Rep. Radanovich to overturn 
the repeal of Section 907 in the fiscal year 1999 foreign operations 
appropriations bill and restore the original language that has been in 
law since 1992.
  Section 907 was adopted by Congress in 1992 as the Freedom Support 
Act and signed into law by President George Bush. It has always enjoyed 
strong bipartisan support. It provides guidelines for U.S. foreign aid 
to the

[[Page H8000]]

New Independent States and places restrictions on U.S. government-to-
government aid to Azerbaijan until that country ends its aggression and 
lifts its illegal blockades against the Republic of Armenia and 
Nagorno-Karabagh.
  Since 1992, the U.S. has been able to provide over $130 million in 
humanitarian and exchange assistance to Azerbaijan through non-
governmental organizations and private voluntary organizations. Section 
907, therefore, has not been an impediment to humanitarian and 
community-based development assistance for the Azeri people.
  During that same time frame, the people of Armenia have established 
democracy, engaged in free elections, and undertaken market reforms. 
The people and Government of Armenia would like to integrate the 
Armenian economy with the West, but has been blocked in these efforts 
by the continuing blockade of Azerbaijan. For the past nine years, 
Azerbaijan has blockaded Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh, cutting off the 
transport of food, fuel, medicine and other vital supplies.
  For its part, the Azerbaijan government remains authoritarian and 
continues to use blockades and force against the Armenian people and 
the people of Nargorno-Karabagh, thus failing to live up to the basic 
condition set forth in U.S. law. To date, the Azerbaijani government 
has taken no demonstrable steps to lift these illegal blockades. 
Furthermore, the U.S. State Department's Country Reports on Human 
Rights Practices for 1997, the Amnesty International Report 1998, and 
the Human Rights Watch Report 1998 have all documented the Azerbaijani 
government's human rights violations, its censorship of the media, and 
widespread police brutality.
  On the eve of upcoming elections in Azerbaijan, it would be 
unconscionable to repeal the democratic and non-aggression requirements 
embodied in Section 907. The corrupt and authoritarian government of 
former KGB General Geidar Aliyev would view the repeal of such 
restrictions as a ``green light'' for his undemocratic practices. 
Indeed, Azerbaijan's major opposition parties are boycotting the 
elections and have issued a joint statement denouncing the electoral 
framework as unfair and undemocratic. These political parties have 
called upon President Clinton to help the Azeri people overcome the 
current ``atmosphere of dictatorship.'' The Congress must not ignore 
the democratic aspirations of the Azeri people.
  So, why are we faced with the possible repeal of Section 907? For 
oil, Mr. Speaker, for Caspian oil. For the profits, Mr. Speaker, to be 
gained from ``black gold.'' Oil companies have been lobbying heavily in 
support of a repeal or the weakening of Section 907 so that an east-
west pipeline might be built to bring projected, but still 
undiscovered, Caspian oil out of Azerbaijan to Turkey and out to the 
West.
  So while the energy benefits of repealing Section 907 are largely 
speculative, the political consequences are clear and concrete: 
Continued repression in Azerbaijan; continued suffering and hardship in 
Nagorno-Karabagh and Armenia; compromise the ability of the U.S. to 
maintain its role as ``impartial mediator'' in the Caucasus; and 
jeopardize further regional security.
  Mr. Chairman, the only hope for lasting peace and stability in the 
Caucasus is to retain Section 907. The only choice in support of human 
rights and democracy is to retain Section 907.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Pallone-Radanovich amendment and 
overturn the repeal of Section 907.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231, 
noes 182, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No 447]

                               AYES--231

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Camp
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goode
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Souder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--182

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frost
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Quinn
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     White
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Bartlett
     Berry
     Clay
     Fawell
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Hilliard
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennelly
     King (NY)
     Lewis (GA)
     Meek (FL)
     Myrick
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Riggs
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Schumer
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1823

  Messrs. SKEEN, WELDON of Florida, FOLEY, PEASE, PETERSON of 
Pennsylvania, SCARBOROUGH, and NADLER changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mrs. CLAYTON and Messrs. SHAYS, CUNNINGHAM, RAHALL, YOUNG of Alaska, 
FOSSELLA, and DICKS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

[[Page H8001]]

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan) for yielding to me, and I would like to enter into a colloquy 
with the gentleman.
  Earlier this session, as the gentleman knows, by a vote of 356 to 61, 
this Congress passed and the President signed into law the Tropical 
Forest Conservation Act of 1998. This law provides the administration 
with the authority to reduce debt where appropriate for less developed 
countries that have globally outstanding tropical forest with the 
intention of protecting these valuable and rapidly dwindling natural 
resources.
  Mr. Chairman, $50 million was authorized for this new program for 
this year. While I am disappointed that those funds are not included in 
the pending appropriations bill, I realize that the authorization was 
enacted into law after the subcommittee completed its work and that 
budget constraints make it difficult to fund new programs this year.
  I would still hope, Mr. Chairman, that something could be worked out 
with the Senate. But in any case, it is my sincere hope that the House 
Committee on Appropriations will be able to fund this program in the 
next budget cycle.
  There is a provision of the recently enacted law that can be 
implemented at no cost to the U.S. Treasury. This provision amends 
section 808 of the Foreign Assistance Act to authorize common sense and 
cost-free debt-for-nature swaps and debt buybacks. However, I have been 
informed that in order to implement this provision, a technical 
amendment must be made to the appropriation for ``debt restructuring'' 
in the current appropriations bill.
  I realize that the gentleman from Alabama is not entertaining 
legislative amendments, and I respect that. However, I would inquire of 
the subcommittee chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Alabama, if 
this critical change could be made in a conference committee with the 
Senate.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
inquiry of the gentleman from Ohio. First of all, I would like to 
congratulate him on his success in achieving enactment of his 
legislation. It had broad bipartisan support and should make a real 
difference in tropical forest conservation.
  Second, I am aware that the bill authorizes debt swap at no cost to 
the Treasury. Even though no appropriation is required, legislative 
language is necessary in this bill in order to allow the Treasury 
Department to implement this provision. I can assure the gentleman from 
Ohio that I will make every possible effort to ensure that this 
language is included in any final appropriation legislation that is 
sent to the President.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
I deeply appreciate those assurances from the gentleman from Alabama 
and I look forward to continuing to work closely with him in the future 
in implementation of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act.


                 Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Torres

  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Torres:


                               H.R. 4569

       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the general short title) the following:


          LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE FOR SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS

       Sec. 701. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     this Act may be used for programs at the United States Army 
     School of the Americas located at Fort Benning, Georgia.

  Mr. TORRES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1830


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order against 
consideration of the amendment, pursuant to the rules of the House, 
because an amendment in the form of a limitation must await the end of 
the reading of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) wish to 
be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. TORRES. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and to 
include extraneous material therein.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is advised that it is not in order to revise 
and extend remarks when addressing a point of order.
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin my remarks on this 
amendment by thanking the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I object to consideration of the amendment 
and raise a point of order for consideration of the amendment.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) must confine 
his remarks to the point of order. Does the gentleman wish to be heard 
on the point of order made by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop)?
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I do not see how his point of order in this 
instance applies here. This is an amendment being raised. It is printed 
in the Congressional Record. It is in keeping with the decorum of 
debate here in the House. I do not understand how the gentleman terms 
to limit this amendment to be brought before us as a body of Congress. 
Perhaps he can explain to us?
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) wish to be 
heard further on the point of order?
  Mr. BISHOP. I will be happy if the Chair would make a ruling.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) 
wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I understand this bill 
has been open to amendment throughout the course of the debate and the 
amendment was printed in the Record properly. We recognize that there 
are issues that can be brought up at the end of the bill, but this was 
a regularly scheduled amendment. It was accepted as a printed 
amendment, and the bill has been amended in regular order throughout 
the previous procedures.
  To set a new record, a new precedent at this point saying that this 
should be knocked to the end of the bill would, I think, violate the 
rules of the House.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. Under the rule, the last 
four lines of the bill have not yet been read. This amendment is in the 
form of a limitation, which must await the end of the reading of the 
bill, under clause 2 of rule XXI. Therefore, the point of order by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) is sustained at this time.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Tiahrt

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

       Amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 105-725 offered by 
     Mr. Tiahrt:
       Page 8, line 10, after ``services'' insert the following:
     ; and that any such voluntary family planning project shall 
     meet the following requirements: (1) the project shall not 
     make use of quotas, goals, or other numerical targets, on an 
     individual, local, regional, or national basis, of total 
     number of births, the number of family planning acceptors, 
     acceptors of a particular method of family planning, or any 
     other performance standard (this provision shall not be 
     construed to include the use of quantitative estimates for 
     budgeting and planning purposes); (2) the project shall not 
     include payment of incentives, bribes, gratuities, or any 
     other form of compensation or reward, monetary or 
     nonmonetary, to (A) an individual in exchange for becoming a 
     family planning acceptor, or (B) program personnel for 
     achieving any numerical goal or quota; (3) the project shall 
     not deny any right or benefit, including the right of access 
     to participate in any program of general welfare or the right 
     of access to health care, as a consequence of any 
     individual's decision not to accept family planning services; 
     (4) the project shall inform family planning acceptors, in 
     comprehensible terms, of the nature of the family planning 
     method chosen, its contraindications and potential health 
     risks, and available alternatives; (5) the project shall 
     provide a reasonable range of options of methods of family 
     planning, including natural methods; and (6) the project 
     shall ensure that experimental methods of family planning are 
     administered only in a scientifically controlled study in 
     which participants are advised of potential risks and 
     benefits; and, not later than 30 days after the date on which 
     the Administrator of the United States Agency for

[[Page H8002]]

     International Development determines that there has been a 
     violation of any provision contained in the preceding 6 
     paragraphs, or a violation of any other provision contained 
     in this heading, the Administrator shall submit to the 
     Committee on International Relations and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and to the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate a report containing a 
     description of such violation.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and a Member opposed, each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment is to provide a definition for the term ``voluntary'' 
for organizations which provide family planning assistance overseas.
  Certain restrictions already exist on this financial aid, and they 
are that none of the funds can be used to pay for abortions, that none 
of the funds can go to organizations which support coercive abortions 
or involuntary sterilization, and the programs that are to be used are 
to be totally voluntary. This does not change any of those current 
restrictions.
  It does change the definition, but, however, neither the law nor the 
regulations under the United States Agency for International 
Development or USAID, those regulations do not define the term of 
``voluntary.'' As a result, there has been gross violations of human 
rights.
  Human rights organizations have reported that nations across the 
globe that receive USAID funds are committing practices such as bribes 
to women to use experimental chemicals without warning them of any side 
effects. They are demanding sterilization quotas from health providers 
which prey on poor women and surpass their own means of doing so 
safely, resulting in death or permanent injury.
  In Peru, as reported by the New York Times and other major papers 
across the Nation, as my chart indicates, women were coerced into 
sterilization and in some cases this resulted in death. This does not 
change or add any restrictions to funds that USAID distributes. 
However, the term ``voluntary'' is defined, and I believe we can change 
at least some of these abuses by setting guidelines and setting 
guidelines for these countries on how this money is distributed.
  This amendment defines voluntary in the context of participation of 
population control or family planning projects so that projects shall 
not use quotas, shall not use payment of incentives or bribes, shall 
not deny any benefits like food or clothing and will provide full 
disclosure of the method chosen for birth control and also make 
available any information on family planning options.

                Involuntary Sterilization Horror Stories

  All of the following countries receive USAID funding and are engaging 
in forced sterilization tactics.


                               BANGLADESH

  Women receiving sterilization and contraception were offered payment 
incentives of $3 each, plus a new saree. Population Research Institute 
Review, July/August 1997, pg. 6
  The government also pays incentives to providers for signing up 
women. Earth Summit Watch web page on implementation of the Cairo 
Conference Programme of Action, one year after Cairo Report
  Women consent to sterilization out of desperation for food. 
Population Research Institute Review, July/August 1997, pg. 6
  Routine medical practices such as evaluating side effects of drugs 
and providing follow-up checks are ignored. Population Research 
Institute Review, May/June 1996, p. 5
  USAID endorses coercive incentives. Earth Summit Watch web page on 
implementation of the Cairo Conference Programme of Action, one year 
after Cairo Report


                                HONDURAS

  USAID funds help implement coercive program for experiments with 
Ovrette, an unapproved contraceptive pill. Warnings about the 
experimental drug's side effects on nursing mothers were hidden from 
the women in the program. Population Research Institute Review March/
April 1998, p. 3, 7


                                 INDIA

  Family planning programs depend on quotas, targets, bribes and 
coercion. Population Research Institute Review September/October 1997, 
p. 10--based on Washington Post article ``Teeming India Engulfed by 
Soaring Birthrate: Sterilization Quotas Blasted as Inhumane and 
Coercive'' August 21, 1994
  USAID funds sterilizations using Quinacrine which is illegal in India 
and scars/burns the fallopian tubes. Population Research Institute 
Review July/August, 1997 p. 14
  Conditions are miserable at the USAID funded sterilization camps, 
there are primitive, unsanitary conditions and appalling mortality 
rates. Population Research Institute Review September/October 1997, p. 
10--based on Washington Post article ``Teeming India Engulfed by 
Soaring Birthrate: Sterilization Quotas Blasted as Inhumane and 
Coercive'' August 21, 1994


                               INDONESIA

  Family planning programs rely on threats and intimidation to bring 
women into the clinics. Population Research Institute Review, November/
December 1996, p. 11
  Studies have shown that IUDs are inserted at gunpoint. Population 
Research Institute Review, November/December 1996, p.11
  The programs employ life-threatening denials of treatment and follow 
up care and offer no informed consent. ``From One Day to Another: 
Violation of Women's Reproductive and Sexual Rights in East Timor'' 
June 23, 1997, by Miranda Sessions, Yale University


                                 kenya

  Dr. Stephen Karanja (Karan-ya) has seen the following in Kenya family 
planning clinics:
  Women are coerced into Norplant implantation and sterilization. 
Population Research Institute Review, March/April 1997, p. 4
  Sterilized women are denied health care for debilitating 
Complications. Population Research Institute Review, March/April 1997, 
p. 4
  USAID is the biggest supporter of population control in Kenya. 
Population Research Institute Review, March/April 1997, p. 4


                                 mexico

  A young medical professional who goes by the name ``Maria Garcia'' 
has seen the following in Mexican family planning programs:
  Hundreds of forced sterilizations are documented. Population Research 
Institute Review, March/April 1997, p. 4
  Medical personnel are fired for their refusal to perform 
sterilizations. Population Research Institute Review, March/April 1997, 
p. 5
  Women refusing sterilization are denied medical treatment. For 
example, one pregnant woman with an umbilical hernia was refused 
treatment for the hernia unless she agreed to have a tubal ligation. 
Population Research Institute Review, March/April 1997, p. 5


                                  peru

  Many women, including Victoria Vigo Espinoza have been sterilized 
without consent, while others including Maura Castillo Nole and 
Ernestina Sandoval are sterilized in exchange for food. Still other 
women like Juana Guiterrez Chero and Celia Ramos Durand have died after 
forced sterilizations. Peru's Family Planning Under Fire: Critics 
Allege Poor Women are Coerced to Undergo Sterilization, by Anthony 
Faiola, Washington Post, February 12, 1998
  Family planning programs use coercion, misinformation and quotas and 
sterilization-for-food efforts. Peru's Family Planning Under Fire: 
Critics Allege Poor Women are Coerced to Undergo Sterilization, by 
Anthony Faiola, Washington Post, February 12, 1998
  Medical personnel must meet sterilization quotas and surgical staff 
are insufficiently trained and work under poor conditions. Population 
Research Institute Review, March/April 1997, p. 8
  USAID sponsors family planning billboards signaling to Peruvian women 
that the family planning methods employed are U.S. sanctioned. Alianza 
Latinoamericana para la Familia, PRESS RELEASE--February 11, 1998
  USAID targets local governments with quotas as a condition for 
funding and encourages pharmaceutical companies to push contraceptives 
on unsuspecting Filipinos. Population Research Institute Review, March/
April 1997, p. 5
  Women are secretly injected with abortifacient while receiving 
tetanus vaccines. Population Research Institute Review, November/
December, 1996, p. 3
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) seek 
the time in opposition?
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I do 
seek to control the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) will control 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I can accept the amendment proposed by the gentleman. I think that 
the intentions behind it are good and certainly it is a restatement of 
what we

[[Page H8003]]

all support, which is voluntary family planning.
  I do want to, though, bring up a couple of points about it, because 
paragraph 5 of the amendment requires that each family planning project 
provide a reasonable range of options of methods of family planning, 
including natural methods. I think that that is a very fine provision 
in his amendment.
  Under current law, the DeConcini amendment, which we have discussed 
here before, which is not deleted by this amendment, voluntary family 
planning projects must offer directly, either directly, referral or 
information, a broad range of family planning methods and services. The 
amendment has the effect of requiring that each project itself provide 
a range of family planning methods and options. Earlier we were talking 
about projects overall must offer a range of family planning methods. 
But according to the gentleman's amendment, it is every single project 
must offer a range. In other words, referral information about the 
availability elsewhere of other family planning options.
  I am reading the language of the bill. But simply put, the issue I am 
bringing up in support of the gentleman's amendment is that in the 
natural family planning, other options are not necessarily available in 
their projects. The gentleman's amendment does not delete the DeConcini 
language, which allows natural family planning projects to offer that 
option without offering a range of, a reasonable range of options, 
methods of family planning, including natural methods. So I think that 
we will have to address this issue in conference, but as I say, I say 
this rising in support of the amendment, calling attention to the 
gentleman to the situation that the amendment presents.
  I do want to use the balance of my time to say that the gentleman's 
emphasis on the word ``voluntary'' is one that I think every person in 
this body supports. International family planning is very, very 
important. I believe that it does reduce the number of abortions 
internationally, and that is a goal that we all share.
  It also is helpful for women to determine the size and timing of 
their families and that should not be a matter of coercion but a matter 
of conscience and of health and well-being of that particular family. 
So certainly involuntary sterilization, et cetera, has no place in any 
family planning projects that we would support. In fact, they would be 
repulsive to all of us who support international family planning.
  Again, the thoughtful Tiahrt amendment gives us the opportunity to 
say how many families internationally have benefited from that and that 
in our bill, we do support projects which Georgetown University has 
played a role in that provide projects, that provide natural family 
planning as their means of just that, family planning.
  The amendment also requires a report from the administrator within 30 
days of finding any violation of any provisions with this amendment. 
This, I think, is an onerous requirement. I think the report should be 
made, but I am just saying that the 30 days may or may not be 
realistic. I hope we could revisit that in conference. Just for 
example, one family, one health service provider not informing one 
family planning acceptor of potential health risk is a violation. Even 
if corrected, the nongovernmental organization manager of the project, 
a report must still be prepared and filed with the committee.
  I just think it is onerous. It is appropriate, but we should talk 
about what will work and stay in the spirit of the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) has expired.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Tiahrt 
amendment.
  This important amendment is being offered today to ensure that 
international population control programs which currently receive U.S. 
funding are administered in a voluntary manner. Unfortunately, as we 
can all see from the newspaper headlines on this chart, this is not the 
case in countries now receiving USAID funding.
  Mr. Chairman, every woman in this Nation has the right to choose, the 
right to choose whether or not to use family planning services, the 
right to choose which family planning method best serves their personal 
needs and values, the right to be fully informed of all methods 
available, the nature of the method chosen, including any health risks. 
Mr. Chairman, I believe poor women in poor countries deserve a choice, 
too.
  Recently, the government of Peru instituted national yearly 
sterilization quotas. In 1998, the government set a quota of 22,000 
vasectomies and 78,000 tubal ligations. As my colleagues can see, the 
number of women targeted is three times greater than the target set for 
men. This, of course, is no accident.
  Everyone knows government enforced quotas for population control 
bureaucracies inevitably lead to women being coerced. In Peru and other 
poor nations involuntary sterilizations of women has been the result. 
And in several instances, the procedure, as the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Tiahrt) said, has been performed by butchers in unsanitary 
conditions, which has led to death. Women in poor nations are 
vulnerable because their reproductive health needs are easily exploited 
by programs which move from making family planning available to making 
them compulsory.

                              {time}  1845

  In Mexico, hundreds of cases of forced sterilizations have been 
documented and women routinely are inserted with IUDs after childbirth, 
often without knowledge or consent. Mr. Chairman, these abuses must 
stop, and that is exactly what this language will help achieve.
  Mr. Chairman, if this Congress is not prepared to defend the human 
rights of poor and helpless women in third world nations. Who will? I 
urge my colleagues to support the Tiahrt amendment.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
before yielding my final 30 seconds to my colleague from New Jersey, to 
say to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) that I would be 
pleased to work with the gentlewoman to make something that would be 
amenable to both of us.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time and for his excellent amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, volunteerism is not something that is in the eye of the 
beholder. It needs a definition. We have heard it is voluntary, what 
goes on in China. It is not. In many countries, including many 
democracies, there is something far less than a voluntary program for 
family planning.
  I had a hearing in my Subcommittee on International Operations and 
Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations last February 
25th, and we heard from a doctor, a whistle-blower who actually worked 
in the program in Peru, and he talked about how coercion and all kinds 
of games and brinkmanship was used to get women to get tubal ligations 
against their will.
  We had two women who were sterilized against their will. One, bottom 
line, she said, ``They tricked me.'' Now, we want no part of that. It 
should be voluntary. And I really think the amendment of the gentleman 
from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) sets a great and valuable service and I urge 
support for it.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Tiahrt 
amendment to the foreign operations bill.
  Each year in the developing world, 600,000 women die of pregnancy-
related complications. Maternal mortality is the largest single cause 
of death among women in their reproductive years.
  That is why, Mr. Chairman, our support for reproductive health 
services becomes more important every day. Voluntary family planning 
services give mothers and families new choices and new hope--increasing 
child survival and promoting safe motherhood. Without our support for 
international family planning, women in developing nations will face 
more unwanted pregnancies, more poverty, and more despair.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it to be extremely ironic that often the same 
people who would deny women in the developing world the choice of an 
abortion, would also seek to eliminate our support for family planning 
programs that reduce the need for abortion.

[[Page H8004]]

  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. Chairman, I wish that I were here today to support legislation 
that would allow our foreign aid dollars to pay for a full range of 
reproductive health services, not just the limited services that get a 
rightwing seal of approval every year.
  But at the very least, we should keep the doors of more family 
planning clinics open for the women who are desperately in need of 
their information and services. This will help reduce the number of 
abortions and improve the lives of women and their children.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment to the 
foreign operations appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, 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 CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) will 
be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


               Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Livingston

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 4.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 105-725 offered by 
     Mr. Livingston:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short tile) the following:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS


            amendments to the foreign assistance act of 1961

       Sec. 701. (a) Repeal of Contingencies Provisions.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 5 of part I of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2261) is hereby repealed.
       (2) Conforming Amendments.--(A) Section 634A(a) of such Act 
     (22 U.S.C. 2394-1(a)) is amended in the first sentence by 
     striking ``, chapter 5 of part I.''.
       (B) Section 653(a) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2413(a)) is 
     amended by striking ``451 or''.
       (b) Special Authorities Provision.--Section 614(a)(4)(C) of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2364(a)(4)(C)) 
     is amended by striking ``$50,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$35,000,000''.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  I was under the impression that we are going from side to side, and 
the last amendment was offered by the other side of the aisle.
  The CHAIRMAN. Members of the committee have precedence for 
recognition, and the chairman of the relevant committee has additional 
precedence upon recognition.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. And that is regardless of going back and forth, from 
side to side?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. That is under the precedents of the 
House.
  The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) is recognized for 5 
minutes on his amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and 
thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we are offering an amendment in response to the 
apparent determination of the administration to abuse existing law in 
order to rush $27 million in additional U.S. foreign assistance to 
North Korea within the next 2 weeks.
  Now, many of our colleagues might wonder why the administration would 
choose this moment to rush $27 million in additional foreign aid to 
North Korea, aid that is to be provided on top of $35 million we have 
already given to North Korea so far this year. After all, North Korea 
is a Communist country, an official state sponsor of terrorism, and a 
nation still technically at war with our Nation. They just fired a 
missile across Japan and, according to recent press reports, have been 
caught red-handed building an underground facility intended to conceal 
illegal nuclear activities.
  But I am not here to question today the wisdom of the 
administration's policy that has turned North Korea into the largest 
recipient of United States foreign aid in East Asia, even before the 
extra $27 million the administration wants to rush their way. I am not 
here to question the need for the extra $27 million nor the wisdom of 
the administration's timing. But I am here to object to their plan to 
misapply the law in order to do all of this.
  One of the legal authorities they plan to use to rush this extra 
funding to North Korea is section 451 of the Foreign Assistance Act. 
That provision allows the President to spend up to $25 million per year 
on unanticipated contingencies. The administration proposes to declare 
that North Korea's need for more foreign aid is an unanticipated 
contingency. That, of course, is observed.
  KEDO, the international organization that delivers our aid to Korea 
is deeply in debt. But that is nothing new. This fact was brought to 
the attention of the Committee on Appropriations last year, and the 
Congress agreed to insert additional funds in the fiscal year 1998 
foreign operations bill for KEDO. The administration did not think 
those extra funds were sufficient. But we often end up giving the 
administration less money than it wants. The fact is that Congress has 
known KEDO's debt situation for a long time and has legislated a 
solution to it.
  The only unanticipated contingency here is that the administration 
does not like the Congress' considered response to the situation, which 
Congress passed and the President signed into law last year.
  I would point out that all U.S. assistance for KEDO is, by law, 
subject to the so-called notification or reprogramming procedures under 
which the administration must notify the congressional authorization 
and appropriation committees before obligating those funds.
  For many years, under Democratic and Republican administrations, it 
has been understood that when these procedures apply, objections by any 
of the relevant committees to the proposed obligation of funds would be 
honored by the administration. In this case, both Chairman Helms and I 
have been informed that our objections would not be honored. This is a 
dramatic departure from long-established practice, a departure that, if 
continued, would jeopardize our ability to continue to work with the 
administration on many sensitive foreign policy issues.
  This amendment responds to the administration's proposal to misuse 
section 451 by repealing that provision of law, and also amends section 
614 of the Foreign Assistance Act so that the administration cannot use 
that provision next year to give KEDO more than $35 million that was 
requested by the President in the fiscal year 1999 budget submission.
  In closing, let me say that I recognize the bill before us is not 
likely to be enacted in time to stop the administration's misusing 
section 451 this year. We are, in effect, closing the barn door after 
the horse has run away. But it would be unconscionable to do nothing in 
response to this proposed abuse of existing law, and, accordingly, I 
invite support for this amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) seek 
the time in opposition?
  Ms. PELOSI. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, it is with the greatest regard for the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations that 
I reluctantly rise in opposition to his amendment. We usually are in 
more agreement than we are today, but I have grave concerns that this 
amendment can do real damage.
  I understand that this amendment has come about because of Congress' 
understandable concerns about the administration's use of the transfer 
authority to provide assistance to the Korean Peninsula Energy 
Development Organization. However, I think that this amendment severely 
constrains

[[Page H8005]]

the use of the section 614 waiver and to end altogether the Secretary's 
authority under section 451.
  These are two extraordinary authorities used judiciously by all 
administrations, including the present one, to respond to urgent and 
unforeseen foreign aid requirements. I am particularly concerned 
because it is directed at KEDO specifically, the Korean Energy 
Development Organization. KEDO's needs are urgent.
  We are well aware of strong opposition on the other side to KEDO, and 
that debate had appropriately taken place in our committee. I regret 
enormously that the Committee on Rules did not allow my amendment in 
order, which would have been a very fair amendment, which would say 
none of the funds would go unless the U.S., we ourselves, the United 
States, could confirm that the North Koreans were complying, that we 
had access to confirm the compliance. But the Committee on Rules chose 
to reject that. Now the chairman is coming in with a further hit at the 
administration on this.
  I say to the chairman, with all due respect on this, that he is 
playing with fire. We played with fire in the committee, and this is 
another step down that road. And so I urge our colleagues to oppose the 
Gilman amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the distinguished ranking member of the 
committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think the House has an obligation here to 
think not about whether we like or dislike the North Korean regime, but 
what will most protect the interests of the United States.
  There is no regime in the world that is one-tenth as crazy, as wrong, 
as abusive, and as dangerous as the North Korean regime. Everybody 
understands that. But the way to deal with an unstable regime, which at 
any moment could take an action which could put 50,000 American troops 
at risk, is not to eliminate the administration's flexibility in 
dealing with it.
  With all due respect, if we are going to leave in the middle of 
October and not be back in session until late January or February, we 
cannot afford to have the administration without the authority to react 
to the world. And this amendment, in my view, simply adds to the 
reckless nature of the provisions already in the bill.
  It is misguided because we do not like certain folks, if we take away 
our own tools in protecting our national interest in dealing with those 
folks. I do not think it is an either wise or responsible thing to do 
and I would urge opposition.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and following on the 
remarks of our distinguished ranking member, I want to say that I share 
the concerns that our colleagues have about the irresponsibility of the 
North Korean regime. Members of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, several of the members, I do not see any of them in the 
room at this time, visited North Korea last year. And by that, I do not 
mean Panmunjom but into North Korea, to P'yonghang the capital, and I 
can certainly firsthand agree with the horrible state of affairs.
  As a member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations, I 
have traveled with our chairman and members of the committee throughout 
the world and have seen poverty everyplace. But the poverty of spirit 
we saw in North Korea, the cruelty of the regime, that they could sit 
back while their people were eating bark and roots and grass, and yet 
spend a fortune on the war machine that is there, because they are 
focused and they are militant and they are irresponsible, it is for 
those reasons that I think we are playing with fire today when we are 
trying to tie the hands of the administration.
  Once again, the inconsistency of our colleagues who argue on 907 that 
we should not tie the administration's hands, and on this very, very 
dangerous issue, proceed to do just exactly that.
  This is a very serious vote. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
the Gilman amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I urge the support of the amendment.
  If 50 years ago we had said to Adolf Hitler, ``We will build you a 
truck plant if you just promise us that you won't build any tank 
plants,'' I think people would have thrown us all out of office. That 
is basically what we are doing with the North Koreans. We are building 
them a peaceful nuclear reactor in hopes they will not build any 
harmful nuclear reactors or engage in dangerous missile development.
  The fact is they are not even keeping their part of the bargain. They 
launched a missile over Japan, and this administration wants to throw 
money at them. The administration got permission from us to spend $15 
million. They then spent $27 million and have just thrown it at North 
Korea in the hope that they will be less dangerous. This will not 
happen.
  Let us not spend any more money and let us not give this waiver 
authority. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1900


                 Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Torres

  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Torres:
       In title II, in the item relating to ``Other Bilateral 
     Economic Assistance, economic support fund'', after the first 
     dollar amount, insert the following: ``(decreased by 
     $14,000,000)''.
       In title III, in the item relating to ``Funds Appropriated 
     to the President, International military education and 
     training'', after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(decreased by $1,400,000)''.

  Mr. TORRES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  Let me just see exactly where we are.
  As I understand it, the gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) has 
requested as a member of the committee that he bring up an amendment 
that is in order by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). Is 
that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform the gentleman that any Member 
may call up an amendment which has been printed in the Record. The 
gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) as a member of the committee has 
called up the amendment which has been read.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Out of deference to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Goodling), I would like to ask, is he aware that the gentleman is 
bringing his amendment up at this time? Could I make that inquiry?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman does not state a parliamentary inquiry. 
Does the gentleman wish to reserve a point of order?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) is recognized for 5 
minutes on his amendment.
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if you could explain to 
me the parliamentary procedure to offer a substitute amendment to the 
Torres amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is not able to yield to 
another Member for the purpose of offering an amendment, but for debate 
only. When the gentleman from California has completed his debate, then 
other Members may be recognized and at that point an amendment to the 
amendment may be in order.
  The gentleman from California is recognized on his amendment.
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin my remarks as I started out 
earlier by thanking the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for his 
ongoing efforts to working with me on funding for the School of the 
Americas provided in the foreign operations bill.
  I would point out that this year's bill contains similar language to 
what we adopted last year conditioning funding for the school on a 
certification report to be presented in January of 1999. Now, one 
positive outcome of last

[[Page H8006]]

year's requirements is the establishment of screening procedures at 
U.S. embassies for all candidates to U.S. military training programs, 
including the School of the Americas. Our embassy personnel are now 
required to do a double-check of the candidates once the host country 
has done an initial screening. The new screening process if carried out 
properly can certainly prove valuable to weed out those individuals 
with questionable backgrounds. Yet I am compelled today with my 
colleagues the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) to offer this amendment to prohibit 
any of the funds in this bill to be used for the school.
  I was disappointed in the certification report presented this past 
January wherein the Defense Department contended that the conditions to 
allow funding to the school had been met. Those conditions had resulted 
from a sustained public outcry from our constituents over the human 
rights track record of the School of the Americas' graduates and 
revelations that the school taught techniques that violated human 
rights. Unfortunately the certification report revealed a lack of 
understanding on the part of the military establishment on the depth of 
the human rights concerns surrounding the school and a lack of 
commitment, if you will, to improve the school's teaching.
  Has the School of the Americas reformed? Well, I see there are few 
changes in the school's standard curriculum. Most students continue to 
get only a mandatory four hours of human rights training in the courses 
that range from eight days to 47 weeks. There are continuing problems 
in the oversight of the curriculum because there is still no adequate 
external evaluation of the current curriculum. Most of the curriculum 
evaluations are done by subject matter experts, which are the 
instructors for the course that they are responsible for reviewing. 
Furthermore, there is a blatant admission by the Defense Department 
that it has no intentions of monitoring the school. These days, most 
government programs are scrutinized for performance measurements and 
results. Unlike other universities which are private institutions, the 
School of the Americas, a government, tax-funded institution, must be 
accountable to the U.S. taxpayer and judged by measurable results. By 
refusing to monitor its graduates, the School of the Americas denies 
the taxpayers that right.
  Mr. Chairman, in addition, new links between human rights violations 
and the School of the Americas graduates have been identified. In 
particular, the graduates of the school from Colombia. They are some of 
the principal architects of military-paramilitary collaboration that 
fuel the escalating violations in Colombia today. The statistics are 
staggering. Last year, over 3,500 people were killed for political 
reasons in Colombia. Paramilitary organizations operating with the 
complicity or even direct support of the armed forces were responsible 
for 60 percent of those killings. A definitive human rights report 
reveals that an astounding 124 out of 247 military personnel, that is 
50 percent, 50 percent of Colombian officials responsible for human 
rights violations were graduates of the school. Mr. Chairman, that is 
not just a bunch of bad apples.
  Mr. Chairman, I include in my remarks the list of those officers.
  The document referred to is as follows:

        The School of the Americas and Colombia: A Dishonor Roll

       Colombia's SOA graduates feature some of the principal 
     architects of military-paramilitary collaboration that fuels 
     much of the violence in the escalating human rights crisis in 
     Colombia today. Over 3500 people were killed for political 
     reasons in 1997; while the violence originates from all 
     sides, paramilitaries were responsible for 69% of these 
     killings last year, according to the State Department. 
     Paramilitary organizations operate frequently with the 
     complicity, and in some regions the direct support, of the 
     armed forces. A shocking 124 out of 247 military personnel--
     50 percent--cited in the definitive work on Colombian 
     officials responsible for human rights violations (El 
     Terrorismo de Estado en Colombia), were SOA graduates. Some 
     Colombians implicated in severe human rights violations were 
     featured as guest speakers or instructors or included in the 
     ``Hall of Fame'' at the SOA after their involvement in such 
     crimes. The list below is only a small sample of Colombian 
     SOA graduates involved in horrific human rights abuses. The 
     abuses continue.
       Pauxelino Latorre Gamboa.--Commander of the Twentieth 
     Brigade when it was implicated in the murders of three human 
     rights defenders in 1998. The Twentieth Brigade was just 
     disbanded in late May by the Colombian government because of 
     its involvement in these and other grave human rights 
     violations. Information provided by troops under his command 
     led to the May 1998 illegal assault on the offices of the 
     Catholic human rights group, Justice and Peace (Justicia y 
     Paz). In this raid, soldiers held guns to the heads of nuns 
     and other workers, forcing them to kneel on the ground while 
     soldiers ransacked office files. (1980, Commando Operations)
       Gen. Mario Hugo Galan.--Just in the news for calling Human 
     Rights Watch/Americas director Jose Miguel Vivanco and a 
     Washington Post reporter ``enemies of the people'' for 
     reporting that the Twentieth Brigade was being investigated 
     in connection with the murders of human rights defenders. 
     Such a label is tantamount to a death threat. (1971, course 
     #0-26)
       Gen. (Ret.) Farouk Yanine Diaz.--Former commander of the 
     army's Second Division in Bucaramanga, Yanine ``was accused 
     of establishing and expanding paramilitary death squads in 
     the Middle Magdalena region, as well as ordering dozens of 
     disappearances, multiple large-scale massacres, and the 
     killing of judges and court personnel sent to investigate 
     previous crimes.'' (State Dept. Human Rights Report for 1997) 
     (1991, 1990, guest speaker at the SOA; 1969, Maintenance 
     Orientation.) Yanine's SOA guest appearances occurred after 
     his alleged involvement in crimes such as the 1988 Uraba 
     massacre of 20 banana workers, the 1987 assassination of the 
     mayor of Sabana de Torres, and the 1987 massacre of 19 
     businessmen.
       Gen. Hernan Jose Guzman Rodreguez.--Dismissed by President 
     Samper in 1994 in an overhaul of military leadership to root 
     out corruption and drug trafficking (Reuters, 11/22/94), 
     Guzman was alleged to protect and aid the paramilitary death 
     squad MAS between 1987 and 1990, when it was responsible for 
     at least 149 killings. He also commanded the soldiers who 
     tortured, gang raped and executed Yolanda Acevedo Carvajal in 
     1986 (also implicated was SOA graduate 1st Lt. Samuel Lesmes 
     Castro, 1984, Cadet Arms Orientation). (Organization Mundial 
     contra la Tortura, et al., El Terrorismo de Estado en 
     Colombia, 1992) In 1993, after these crimes, Guzman was added 
     to the SOA ``Hall of Fame.'' (1969, Maintenance Orientation)
       Cpt. Gilberto Ibarra.--Used 3 peasant children in February 
     1992 to walk in front of his patrol to detonate mines. Two 
     were killed; one was seriously wounded. (U.S. Committee for 
     Refugees, Feeding the Tiger, Colombia's Internally Displaced, 
     1993) (1983, Cadet Arms Orientation)
       Segovia Massacre.--Nine SOA graduates were implicated in 
     the 1988 massacre at Segovia, in which 43 people died, 
     including several children. (Capt. Gilberto Alzate Alzate, 
     1983, Cadet Arms Orientation; Henry Borda, who was issued an 
     arrest warrant for his failure to prevent the massacre, 1980, 
     Cadet Arms Orientation; Major Luis Roberto Garcia Ronderos, 
     1983, Patrol Operations; 1st Lt. Edgardo Hernandez Navarro, 
     1985, Combat Arms Orientation; Gen. Raul Rojas Cubillos, 
     1971, Special Maintenance Orientation; Capt. Luis Fernando 
     Rojas Espinoza, 1984, Cadet Arms Orientation; 1st Lt. Carlos 
     Eduardo Santacruz Estrada, 1983, Cadet Arms Orientation; 
     Capt. Hugo Alberto Valencia Vivas, 1980, Cadet Arms 
     Orientation.) (El Terrorismo de Estado en Colombia)
       Trujillo ``Chainsaw'' Massacres.--Three SOA graduates were 
     implicated in the gruesome Trujillo massacres, in which from 
     1988-91, at least 107 prisoners of the village of Trujillo 
     were tortured and murdered--Col. Alirio Antonio Uruena 
     Jaramillo (1976, Small Unit Infantry Tactics), Col. Roberto 
     Hernandez Hernandez (1970, Automotive Maintenance Officer; 
     1976, Small Unit Infantry Tactics) and General Eduardo Plata 
     Quinones (1977, Command and General Staff College, 
     distinguished graduate; 1969, Maintenance Orientation). One 
     eyewitness said Uruena tortured prisoners, including elderly 
     women, with water hoses, stuffed them into coffee sacks, and 
     chopped them to pieces with a chainsaw. Uruena was dismissed 
     from the army in 1995. Quinones is believed at a minimum to 
     have been involved in the coverup. (AP, 2/7/95; El Terrorismo 
     de Estado en Colombia.)
       Riofrio Massacre. Alfonso Vega Garzon (1989, Cadet 
     Artillery Orientation) allegedly took part in the 1993 
     Riofrio massacre and was charged by the Attorney General's 
     Office on 12/6/94 (El Espectador, 12/6/94). Jesus Maria 
     Vergara was commander of the Third Division when troops under 
     his command committed the Riofrio massacre. He took part in 
     the subsequent coverup. (Special Maintenance Orientation, 
     1971)
       Chucuri Paramilitaries. Four out of seven officers charged 
     by human rights delegate for the armed forces in November 
     1992 for their role in organizing paramilitaries in the 
     Chucuri region were trained in the SOA. (Human Rights Watch, 
     Colombia's Killer Networks, 1996, p. 81.) (General Carlos Gil 
     Colorado, Course #0-6, 1969; Capt. Gilberto Ibarra Mendoza, 
     Cadet Arms Orientation, 1983; Capt. Orlando Pulido, Cadet 
     Branch Orientation, 1983; Lt. Francisco Javier Corrales, 
     Cadet Arms Orientation, 1987)
       Enrique Camacho Jimenez. Attorney General's office issued a 
     warrant for his arrest in connection with the formation of 
     paramilitary groups that kidnapped and killed

[[Page H8007]]

     five peasants (El Espectador, 12/23/94). (1985, Cadet Arms 
     Orientation)
       1st Lt. Luis Enrique Andrade Ortiz.--Alleged to be 
     intellectual author of a 1989 paramilitary massacre of a 
     judicial commission, in which 12 officials, including 2 
     judges, were killed; they were investigating military-
     paramilitary cooperation (also implicated was fellow SOA 
     grad. Col. Ramon de Jesus Santander Fuentes, 1986, Command 
     and General Staff); implicated in Ramirez family massacre, 
     1986, and other murders. (El Terrorismo de Estado en 
     Colombia) (1983, Cadet Arms Orientation)
       Victor Bernal Castano--Colombian legislature asserts that 
     Bernal Castano was enrolled at the SOA to avoid having to 
     answer to investigator about the Fusagasuga massacre of a 
     peasant family. (Charles Call, Miami Herald, 9/9/92). 
     (Command and General Staff, 1992; made ``Chief of Course'')
       1st Lt. Pedro Nei Acosta Gaivis.--Ordered the massacre of 
     11 campesinos, 1990. (El Terrorismo del Estado en Colombia) 
     (Cadet Arms Orientation, 1986)
       Capt. Carlos Javier Arenas Jimenez.--Participated in the 
     detention and torture of 19 individuals in June 1988. (El 
     Terrorismo de Estado en Colombia) (1987, Cadet Arms 
     Orientation)
       Major Alejandro de Jesus Alvarez Henao.--Principal member 
     of ``Muerte a Secuestradores'' (MAS), a paramilitary death 
     squad responsible for numerous assassinations and 
     disappearances (El Terrorismo de Estado en Colombia)(1984, 
     Joint Operations)
       Capt. Hector Alirio Forero Quintero.--Commanded a patrol 
     that disappeared 4 people on Feb. 11, 1988. On the same day, 
     he himself detained 2 more individuals and tortured them with 
     the help of fellow SOA graduate Carlos Morales del Rio. (El 
     Terrorismo de Estado en Colombia) (1977, Small Unit Infantry 
     Tactics)
       Gen. Ramon Emilio Gil Bermudez.--Dismissed from his 
     position as commander of Colombian Armed Forces in November 
     1994 in an effort by President Samper to root out corruption 
     and drug trafficking among the armed forces (Reuters, 11/22/
     94), Gil is alleged to have established, protected, and 
     participated in the activities of the MAS death squad. (In 
     1988, after his alleged death squad involvement, was guest 
     speaker at SOA; 1969, Maintenance Orientation.)
       Gen. Marino Gutierrez Isaza.--Implicated in the killing of 
     Gustavo Albeiro Munoz Hurtado in May 1982. (Guest instructor, 
     1985-86; 1973, Military Police Intelligence)
       Major Jorge Lazaro Vergel.--Aguachica military commander 
     who, according to a 1995 police investigation, organized 
     local paramilitaries. In June 1995, paramilitaries under his 
     command carried out the Puerto Patino massacre, in which 8 
     people in a village were executed. (Human Rights Watch, 
     Colombia's Killer Networks, 1996, pp. 48-51.) (1981, Cadet 
     Arms Orientation.)
       Gen. Jaime Ruiz Barera.--Implicated in the assassination of 
     Colombia's Attorney General Carlos Mauro Hoyos in 1988 and 
     alleged to have ordered the assassination and torture of 
     Claudio Medina Caycedo in 1979 (El Terrorismo de Estado en 
     Colombia) (Attended SOA after assassination of attorney 
     general, 1970, Military Intelligence)
       Gen. Luis Bernardo Urbina Sanchez.--Implicated in 
     paramilitary death squad activity, 1988-89; in the 
     assassination of Amparo Tordecilla, 1989 and Union Patriotica 
     member Alvaro Garces Parra; in ordering the detention, 
     torture and assassination of Mario Alexander Grandados 
     Plazas, 1987; in the disappearance of William Camacho Barajas 
     and Orlando Garcia Gonzalez, 1986. (El Terrorismo de Estado 
     en Colombia) (1985, Command and General Staff College)
       Col. Rito Alejo Del Rio Rojas.--Recently promoted to 
     commander of the Bogota area, Col. Rito Alejo as commander of 
     the 17th Brigade in Uraba during the mid-1990s facilitated 
     one of the most ruthless paramilitary campaigns in the 
     country. Believed to be one of the Colombians recently denied 
     a visa by the United States. (Washington Office on Latin 
     America, ``Human Rights Advocates Under Attack in Colombia,'' 
     1997) (1967, Cadet Orientation Course)
       Capt. Juan C. Alvarez.--As commander of the Barrancabermeja 
     intelligence network, Alvarez is alleged to have given the 
     orders to paramilitaries to carry out killings. Dozens of 
     murders of local citizens were attributed to the network 
     during 1991-2. (Human Rights Watch, Colombia's Killer 
     Networks, 1996, pp. 30-41.) (1987, Psychological Operations)
       In 1997, 99 Colombians were trained at the School of the 
     Americas; Colombia was number 3 of countries sending the most 
     students to the school that year.

  This list, of almost 40 high-ranking Colombian military officers who 
attended the school have been linked to murders, assassinations, 
disappearances, massacres, tortures, rapes, et cetera, et cetera of 
Colombian civilians. One of the most notorious graduates is the 
commander of Colombia's infamous 20th Brigade which was implicated in 
February of 1998, this year, for the murders of three human rights 
activists.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alabama insist upon his point 
of order?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. No, Mr. Chairman, I am going to remove my reservation 
of a point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, a part of my request is to delay the 
process until we can give the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling), who is the principal sponsor of the original amendment, an 
opportunity to come to the floor and explain what his original 
amendment did. Based upon what I am reading here, I do not think I am 
really going to object to his amendment, as far as final passage is 
concerned. But I do think we ought to take this time, especially since 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania is not here to defend his original 
amendment, we ought to take this time to talk about the merits or 
demerits of the School of the Americas.
  I for one agree with the Secretary of Defense who has contacted me as 
late as this afternoon and told me how very, very important IMET 
training is to our national defense. No more than I want to interfere 
with the Secretary of State's ability to have an effective foreign 
policy, do I want to do anything, and especially in a bill with my name 
on it, that would deny the Secretary of Defense the funds to 
effectively have a national defense, and that is precisely what he 
tells me.
  He tells me that the U.S. Army School of the Americas ``continues to 
be a key asset for pursuing our national security strategy in Latin 
America,'' for example. ``We have made great progress in promoting 
democratic values and respect for human rights through intensive 
interaction at all levels with the defense establishments of the 
region. The Defense Ministerial of the Americas, senior bilateral 
meetings, joint staff talks, and service chiefs' conferences convey our 
concerns at the highest levels.''
  So here we have the man that the President has put in charge of the 
national defense telling us that this is very critical. Now, he is 
talking about the School of the Americas. If he knew tonight that we 
were talking about reducing the funding for IMET training, which is the 
fund that trains military people all over the world so we do need to 
engage in any encounter that the people who are fighting alongside our 
soldiers and sailors will know exactly what we are doing. They will 
know our methodology. I think it is a very serious mistake.
  I know where the gentleman is coming from and I know where the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) is coming from. But the 
amendment before us tonight is simply saying we reduce the IMET 
training appropriation by a total of $750,000. So even with this 
amendment, it would not deny the Administration the ability to spend 
the rest of the IMET training on the School of the Americas, so you are 
not really accomplishing your purpose.
  I just think if you looked at the School of the Americas, and I know 
all of the horrible history that the Jesuit priests have told me about, 
questionable curriculum at the School of the Americas, but I sent my 
staff down there, and we checked the curriculum, and I have conveyed to 
them that if anyone anywhere can show me one iota of a textbook that 
teaches soldiers to go back to their countries and violate human 
rights, I personally will do everything I can to shut it down. But that 
is not the case.
  I think we should continue the School of the Americas. At this point 
I think we ought to have a full debate.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I am advised that Jeffrey Dahmer, the human cannibal 
from the Midwest who is now long past this life, was a graduate of Ohio 
State. By the reasoning of the minority, we would close down Ohio State 
because of Jeffrey Dahmer.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I know that, if I may reclaim my time, you are not 
going to believe this, Mr. Chairman, but I imagine even some graduates 
of the University of Alabama have committed some atrocious crimes. But 
we ought not shut down the University of Alabama because of that. Now, 
when they play Auburn University, it is different. Maybe they ought to 
be disadvantaged, because my kids now attend Auburn University and I 
have sort of had a transfer of allegiances there.
  But I do think, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) ought 
to

[[Page H8008]]

be able to defend the substitute that has been offered to his amendment 
and, I would encourage Members of the House to take heed to the 
Secretary of Defense, who has asked us today, please, do not cut these 
funds.
                                         The Secretary of Defense,


                                             Defense Pentagon,

                               Washington, DC, September 17, 1998.
     Hon. Sonny Callahan,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export 
         Financing and Related Programs, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Earlier this year in fulfillment of the 
     Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1998. I forwarded a letter 
     and report to Congress on the U.S. Army School of the 
     Americas. That report explained how we are ensuring that the 
     school is providing the kind of instruction the American 
     people expect from its military services. As I wrote you 
     then, the instruction and training provided by the School of 
     the Americas is fully consistent with the training and 
     doctrine, particularly with respect to the observance of 
     human rights, provided by the Department of Defense to our 
     own military students.
       The U.S. Army School of the Americas continues to be a key 
     asset for pursuing our national security strategy in Latin 
     America. We have made great progress in promoting democratic 
     values and respect for human rights through intensive 
     interaction at all levels with the defense establishments of 
     the region. The Defense Ministerial of the Americas, senior 
     bilateral meetings, joint staff talks, and service chiefs' 
     conferences convey our concerns at the highest levels. 
     However, it is through our interaction with lower level 
     officers, noncommissioned officer and soldiers that we make 
     our biggest impact over the long run, and the School of the 
     Americas is one of the best ways to reach them. Students of 
     the school return to operational units and put the lessons 
     they have learned about professionalism, subordination to 
     civilian leadership, and respect for human rights to 
     immediate use. These are the people that will lead the 
     military institutions of the future.
       I hope that you will support our efforts to maintain the 
     U.S. Army School of the Americas as viable asset in meeting 
     our national goals and objectives in Latin America. I 
     reiterate my commitment to the Congress and to the American 
     people that the School of the Americas is and will continue 
     to be a professional U.S. military institution, dedicated to 
     the goals of improving military professionalism, encouraging 
     regional cooperation, supporting democratic ideals and 
     principles, and promoting respect for human rights.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Bill Cohen.


 Amendment Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts as a Substitute for 
                 Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Torres

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a 
substitute for the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts as a 
     substitute for amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Torres:
       In lieu of the matter proposed add the following:
       ``In Title III, in the item relating to ``Funds 
     Appropriated to the President, International Military 
     Education and Training'' after the first dollar amount, 
     insert the following: `` `(decreased by $756,000)',''

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I 
ask unanimous consent that the amendment offered as a substitute for 
the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to 
say a few words about the individuals who are also cosponsoring and 
have initiated this amendment at other times, and that is my good 
friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) who himself has 
dedicated his life to improving the lives of not only Hispanic 
Americans here in the United States but Hispanic Americans throughout 
the hemisphere. He has worked extensively throughout Latin America, he 
has been involved in our own military in that region, and he is a very, 
very strong supporter with great credentials to say that the funding 
for the School of the Americas should come to an end.
  I am also joined by my friend and our most senior colleague the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) although you would never know that 
by looking at him. He, too, has had a distinguished record of standing 
up for the poor and for people that are voiceless in our world. I am 
honored to have him join with us this evening to declare that once and 
for all, school is out for the School of the Americas.
  Defenders of the school used to claim that they did not teach human 
rights abuses. But then a set of torture manuals were found in the 
curriculum. Defenders of the school used to claim that they taught our 
allies to respect human rights. But then one of the instructors came 
forward and said that the courses were a joke. Defenders of the school 
used to claim that the School of the Americas should not be shut down 
just because a few bad apples had attended the school, like convicted 
drug dealer Manuel Noriega of Panama or El Salvador death squad leader 
Roberto D'Aubuisson. But it is not just a few bad apples. It is enough 
of the barrel to say the whole thing is rotten.

                              {time}  1915

  Here are the facts:
  The School of the Americas' graduates include 19 of the 26 El 
Salvadoran officers accused of the 1989 murders of four Jesuit priests,
  10 out of the 12 El Salvadoran officers cited for the El Mozote 
massacre of 900 civilians;
  2 out of the 3 officers responsible for the assassination of 
Archbishop Romero;
  124 out of the 247 Colombian officers cited in the definitive work on 
the Colombian human rights abuses;
  6 Peruvian officers involved in the murders of 9 students and a 
professor;
  3 top leaders of the fearsome Guatemalan military intelligence unit, 
D-2.
  Defenders of the school say that the abuses have ended, but that just 
is not the case.
  Here are the facts:
  The commander of Colombia's 20th Brigade was linked to the murder of 
3 human rights' workers earlier this year.
  A fellow Colombian SOA graduate forced 3 peasant children to act as 
human minesweepers, and 2 died when they stepped on explosives.
  Journalist Richard Velez testified on Capitol Hill that he was beaten 
by troops under the command of another SOA graduate, where he was 
recording footage of soldiers striking a peasant demonstrator with a 
rifle butt.
  The Guatemalan bishop issued a report linking the School of the 
Americas' graduates with some of the worst abuses in that country.
  In Mexico, an SOA graduate commanded the troops who committed the 
1994 Chiapas massacre.
  Defenders of the school have taken a page right out of the psyops 
manual and come forward with another rationale to keep the school open. 
It is called counternarcotics. But dressing up the school in a new 
uniform will not fool anyone. The fact is that only 75 of the 981 
students, less than 10 percent, took the counternarcotics operation 
course.
  Mexico, a major transshipment point for drugs headed to the United 
States, trains more military personnel than any other nation at the 
SOA. A full third of last year's student body came from Mexico, but 
only 10 percent of the Mexican officers took the counternarcotics 
operations course.
  Defenders of the school cite the SOA's new-found commitment to human 
rights, but let us look at that. That commitment extends to a single 4-
hour mandatory human rights course which includes a slide show, a movie 
and a quiz. The SOA curriculum does include a 2-week elective human 
rights train-the-trainer qualification course, but not a single student 
has ever bothered to sign up for it.
  Defenders of the school say it has cleaned up its act, but how do we 
know? There is absolutely no tracking of graduates to measure whether 
or not our foreign policy goals are being met by the school or whether 
or not the human rights training is making any impression at all.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today not only in the name of peace and justice, 
but in the memory of all of those who are not present to speak out 
today against the school: the victims of these massacres; the 
disappeared; those who have been cowed into silence. We will not be 
silenced. Let us defeat the School of the Americas.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that I am totally offended that someone 
would come to this floor and attempt to take my amendment and totally 
distort it for whatever purpose they had in mind.
  I have been working on this issue for probably 5 or 6 years. Last 
time, in fact, my amendment passed unanimously.

[[Page H8009]]

  What I do in my amendment is tell the American people that we will 
not spend their hard-earned tax dollars by sending military aid to 6 
countries that cannot even support us 25 percent of the time in the 
General Assembly in the United Nations. Cannot even support us 25 
percent of the time. In other words, their idea about life and about 
human rights and about all those things that we hold near and dear in 
this country, their idea is totally opposite. Yet we ask our taxpayers 
to constantly send them money.
  I do not touch humanitarian aid, I do not touch developmental aid, 
because maybe there is some hope with both of those to try to do 
something about their violations of human rights. But now we are trying 
to turn this all around and say, well, these specific countries have 
something to do with human rights violations. It has nothing related to 
my amendment, which deals with their ability to support us in the 
United Nations 25 percent of the time.
  To me it is just a total unbelievable miscarriage of what we normally 
would think of camaraderie, I suppose, in the Congress of the United 
States.
  Again, when I began this crusade, there were 30-some nations who 
could not vote with us 25 percent of the time because their beliefs 
were so opposite of what we believe in the United States, and that is 
fine. That is fine for them. But we do not spend U.S. dollars, we do 
not spend tax dollars to support those violations.
  Thirty-some nations, when I first began this crusade; we are now down 
to 6. And again, I am totally offended that we would take my amendment, 
distort it, use it for some other purpose totally different than what I 
had intended in the first place.
  I am looking at taxpayers' dollars, taxpayers' dollars that we are 
collecting to send to nations and send military aid to nations that 
cannot even support us 25 percent of the time in our deliberations in 
the United Nations. That is a real tragedy. Americans should be 
incensed, and Americans are incensed, and that is exactly why the last 
time the legislation passed unanimously; not a distortion of the 
amendment, not what someone else wanted to present, and I am not sure 
why they did not present it on their own, but a distortion of my 
amendment.
  And I cannot emphasize enough, the American people watch our 
deliberation, American people want to give humanitarian aid, 
humanitarian aid and developmental aid to countries. They do not wish 
that we send military aid if, as a matter of fact, everything they do 
is totally opposite of the beliefs that we have in this country.
  And so again I cannot emphasize enough: Do not somehow or other 
relate this amendment to a good faith effort to make sure that the 6 
remaining, the 6 remaining countries that we are now down to, and take 
them off the hot seat and somehow or other distort that by some other 
effort that others want to make and could make strictly on their own 
and have nothing to do with my amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. I rise in support of the substitute amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the frustration of the Member who just 
spoke, but I will point out, those of us on this side of the aisle did 
not vote for the rule that required this procedure. They did. We asked 
them not to. They brought a rule to the floor which violated agreements 
which were made with the ranking Democratic member of the subcommittee 
on how amendments would be dealt with on family planning. They brought 
a rule to the floor which established a 5-hour cap on all debates, so 
that if one amendment took longer than it should, other people would be 
squeezed out and would not be able to offer theirs. And then when the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) did precisely what the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) asked, said that he should have done, 
he tried to offer his amendment on the School for Americas, and he was 
precluded from doing so because of the nature of the rule.
  So what happened was that the gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) were left with no 
choice but to use the rule that they imposed on us to enable us to 
debate this issue, and the reason we did it is because this amendment 
goes to the core values of what it means to be an American. What it 
means to be an American is not to support a school for the Americas 
that produces some of the biggest butchers who have reigned in Central 
America or Latin America.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has had his time, and I would be happy to 
yield to him after I make my point, but the gentleman said his piece 
and I am going to say mine.
  This bill should never have come to the floor under this rule. In my 
view, it is absurd to allow any Member of the House to offer an 
amendment put into the Record by someone else. But they passed that 
rule, we did not. We are simply operating under the rule, the only rule 
that they gave us, and we found a way, using their rules, to get the 
amendment onto the floor which goes to America's core values.
  And so the question is: Do my colleagues want to continue to provide 
financial support for a school which has a track record which would 
embarrass any decent American who is concerned about human rights? When 
this school produces people like D'Aubuisson, who goes on national 
television in El Salvador and publicly threatens the life of the 
American Ambassador there, it is time to question whether that school 
has a curriculum worth teaching.
  We have heard for years they are cleaning up their operation. We have 
seen the results, we have seen the blood, we have seen the torture, we 
have seen the human pain, for far too long to tolerate it.
  So it seems to me that these gentlemen should not be condemned, they 
should be congratulated for enabling the House to reach a vote on this 
issue, even though the rules were contrived to prevent it in the first 
place.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates).
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I join in the amendment to close the school. 
Closing the school would go a long way to dispel the perception that 
the United States only supports military juntas in Latin America.
  By a strange trick of fate, Mr. Chairman, this bill contains funds 
for two kinds of messengers that are sent by the United States to Latin 
America. We are sending the graduates of this school who go down there 
to act as dictators and violate the human rights of the people of the 
countries to which they are sent. We are also sending the Peace Corps 
to build up the countries, to educate the people, to foster the best 
interests of the people of the country. In which group do we believe? 
And which is better for the country?
  I think the school should be closed. The $15 million that this bill 
would have included ought to be made available for the Peace Corps, and 
it would be better for the countries they serve.
  So I say, Mr. Chairman, let us close the school because of the 
history of what has happened and is still happening down there.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Torres-
Kennedy amendment which would help us close the U.S. Army School of the 
Americas once and for all.
  The School of the Americas has taught some of the most ruthless 
dictators in Latin America to torture their opponents, censor their 
press, intimidate their citizens. It must be shut down.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an 
additional 2 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  Objection is heard.

                              {time}  1930

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, as I said, the school, in my judgment, must 
be shut down, but the issue of what to do with the School of the 
Americas goes well beyond the deplorable actions of the school and 
right to the heart of the United States foreign policy.

[[Page H8010]]

  The question before us today is whether the United States has a moral 
responsibility to encourage other governments to respect human rights 
and democracy. Are human rights and democracy just catch phrases we 
use, or are they basic principles that we demand of every Nation?
  We must in my judgment demand human rights and democracy, in name and 
in practice, from our own military and all of our neighbors. That is 
why the School of the Americas is an affront to everything that the 
United States foreign policy should be about. That is why we must close 
the school.
  Fifty years ago, the School of the Americas was opened with the goal 
of improving United States ties to Latin American militaries. The idea 
was to educate our neighbors to the south about Democratic civilian 
control of the military. But over the last few decades, we started to 
hear reports of what was actually being taught there. Words like 
torture, beating, and execution were increasingly being associated with 
the school's courses.
  Then, some of the school's most distinguished graduates started to 
turn up in high positions in Latin American governments. People like 
Panama's drug-dealing dictator Manuel Noriega, now serving time in a 
United States prison on a drug conviction; and Roberto D'Aubuisson, who 
organized many of El Salvador's notorious death squads.
  In response, many of us have been calling for the school to shut 
down.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support my colleagues' efforts 
to cut funding for the Army's School of the Americas. It is time to 
close that institution that has long been responsible for teaching the 
world's great killers, human rights abusers, and brutal dictators.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a little bit of experience in this area. As some 
of my colleagues know, I led the investigation of the murders of the 
priests in El Salvador back in 1989. The 6 Jesuit priests were killed 
in cold blood, and I remain committed to the promotion of peace in this 
beautiful country and throughout Central America.
  During that investigation, Mr. Chairman, I was horrified to learn 
that 19 out of the 26 killers we implicated in the murders were 
graduates of the School of the Americas.
  As I dug deeper into the problems of El Salvador, I learned more and 
more what these graduates' exploits used in tearing the country apart. 
Massacre after massacre of innocent people were led by proud graduates 
of the School of the Americas.
  When I traveled to El Salvador last November to participate in 
ceremonies commemorating the deaths of the Jesuit priests, crowds of 
people came to me at the mass and pleaded with me to close that school. 
They could not understand how we, the world's greatest defender of 
human rights, could support such an institution of terror. They could 
not understand how the United States could run such a school that was 
responsible for the deaths of so many of their brothers and so many of 
their sisters. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I did not have an answer 
for these good people, but I did pledge to them that I would work to 
speak the truth about the School of the Americas.
  Mr. Chairman, since that time, every time I hear of another brutal 
massacre or egregious abuse of human rights in Latin America, the 
School of the Americas graduates are involved. It is almost uncanny how 
often we discover these graduates planned the killings, covered up the 
truth, and pulled the triggers.
  Mr. Chairman, do not just take my word for it. Open up any newspaper 
and read about what is going on in Mexico's Chiapas region; read about 
what is going on in Colombia; read about what is going on in Guatemala. 
Time and time again, School of the Americas' graduates are killing 
their own people, and we are responsible for their training.
  Mr. Chairman, I could go on and on, but all I ask is please, it is 
time to close the school.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to 
me.
  I just want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) who did a tremendous job in 
leading the investigation of the murders of the Jesuit priests in El 
Salvador in 1989. I was with him when he was down there last November 
at the mass, and I too was approached by so many people who had come to 
urge us to shut down the School of the Americas.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Kennedy-Torres amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time for us to stop funding for the School of the 
Americas.
  Every year, the Pentagon and other U.S. agencies spend billions of 
dollars in a broad array of training programs with Latin American 
militaries.
  Just yesterday, this House approved over $2 billion for counter-
narcotics activities in the Western Hemisphere, including a substantial 
increase in training, operations and equipment for Latin America.
  Under the Department of Defense, U.S. Special Forces teams carry out 
dozens of joint training activities each year with Latin American 
militaries.
  Latin American military officers receive education and training at 
150 places other than the School of the Americas through our IMET and 
INL programs.
  The operation of U.S. bases, joint military exercises, and other 
joint trainings throughout the region would not be affected by this 
amendment.
  These programs are by far the central part of the U.S. relationship 
with Latin American militaries.
  The Pentagon's National Defense University recently opened a Center 
for Hemispheric Studies right here in Washington, DC, to train Latin 
American officers in civil-military relationships.
  In brief, our relationships with Latin American militaries will not 
falter by prohibiting any funds in this bill from going to the School 
of the Americas.
  Our relationship with the people of Latin America, however, who have 
been so gravely harmed by so many students and graduates of the School 
of the Americas, will be greatly enhanced.
  I know many of my colleagues have been told that the abuses of the 
School are in the past. That simply is not true. Just this year, in 
1998, three human rights advocates were murdered in Colombia. The 
Twentieth Brigade, commanded by a graduate of the School of the 
Americas, is deeply implicated in these murders.
  And so our history of being partners in the murder of the very best, 
the most democratic, the most humanitarian Latin American citizens goes 
on. Thanks to the School of the Americas.
  The School refuses to review and evaluate the conduct of its 
graduates. My esteemed colleague, the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Torres, has requested such information and has been told the Pentagon 
will not undertake such a survey. The School does not want to know what 
its students and graduates are up to.
  But let me be clear, the School cannot escape its past, and it cannot 
escape its present.
  The past is very much alive in the people of Latin America. The past 
is very much alive in the hearts and minds and souls of the families 
and friends and colleagues of those who have been murdered, 
disappeared, tortured and abused by students trained by the School of 
the Americas.
  For the people of Latin America, when they wish to recall someone's 
memory, they say, ``PRESENTE.'' For them, the past is always present.
  Last year, I rose in support of this amendment and spoke from my 
heart about dear friends--six Jesuit priests and two laywomen--who were 
murdered by Salvadoran military units filled with students of the 
School.
  Last November, I traveled to El Salvador with Mr. Moakley to 
participate in events commemorating the lives of these martyrs. We 
spoke at the University where these priests worked, taught, and carried 
out human rights programs.
  We participated in an outdoor Mass celebrating their lives and their 
living memory. I cannot adequately describe the scene to you of this 
Mass. Thousands of people came to participate, covering the hillsides. 
Humble people. Students. Many who had walked for days to get to San 
Salvador in time for the Mass. Diplomats from many nations, including 
for the first time, the U.S. Ambassador. And as I prepared to take 
communion, I made a promise that I would return to Congress and work 
with my colleagues to stop funding for this School.
  For the people of this hemisphere, I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.

[[Page H8011]]

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) is recognized 
for 2 minutes, which is the amount of time remaining under the rule for 
amendments.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, after careful consideration, I rise in 
opposition to the amendment and the substitute offered by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) and the underlying amendment by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) which would prohibit funding the 
School of the Americas. While I respect the proponents of the amendment 
and share their alarm at some of the anecdotes, I cannot agree with 
their conclusions that the School of the Americas has no constructive 
role to play.
  It is in our interest to see that the militaries of Central and South 
American countries play a positive role in the region's fragile 
Democratic societies. While proponents of this amendment have 
spotlighted abuses of authority in human rights, there are hundreds and 
hundreds of soldiers and police officers who graduated from the School 
of the Americas and have gone on to conduct themselves honorably. That 
is not mentioned.
  Moreover, I believe that the cutoff of U.S. military assistance and 
links to the Guatemalan Army in the late 1970s provides an instructive 
example that we should heed. In the ensuing absence of American 
influence, the Guatemalan Army escalated its brutal counter-insurgency 
war that led to the slaughter of untold numbers of innocents. Despite 
the good intentions of the proponents of this amendment, I do not 
believe that the case has been made that ending the military-to-
military contact that takes place at the School of the Americas will 
actually make things better.
  General Serrano, the respected director general of the Colombian 
National Police who has an outstanding record of protecting human 
rights, even in the midst of a raging narcotics-fueled war, recently 
told our committee, and I quote, ``The School of the Americas trains 
our reaction forces for use in fighting narcotics trafficking with 
excellent results, and I am a witness to the fact that it is a very 
valuable instrument for training our men to carry out the antinarcotics 
fund.''
  I will, of course, continue to support prudent restrictions to ensure 
that students in the school are screened for human rights and receive 
adequate human rights training, as well as reports on the School's 
training and assessments of its recent graduates.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support 
the amendment to cut funding to the Army School of the Americas. This 
school has an infamous history, one that still haunts us today. In the 
past, the school literally taught military personnel how to oppress 
their people. We have all heard the shameful statistics on how many of 
the worst human rights abusers in Latin America were trained at the 
Army School of the Americas. For example, nineteen of the officers 
cited by the U.N. Truth Commission for the murder of Jesuit priests in 
1989 were graduates of the School of the Americas.
  People in Latin America still suffer from School of the Americas 
graduates today, particularly in Colombia. Just this year, three human 
rights activists were murdered in Colombia by a member of a brigade 
commanded by a graduate. A human rights report implicated 40 high-
ranking Colombian military officers who attended the school in mass 
murder and disappearances.
  Bishop Juan Gerardi was brutally murdered after releasing a report on 
human rights abuses in Guatemala that linked School of the America 
graduates to those abuses.
  Supporters say that the curriculum of the school has changed. But the 
world has changed as well. Now that many Latin American countries have 
turned away from military dictatorship to become democracies, we do not 
need to have military relations as the cornerstone of bilateral 
contacts. Military relations should no longer be the focus of the new, 
constructive U.S. relationship with fragile Latin American democracies. 
We can still pursue the same kind of military-to-military contacts we 
have with many countries around the globe, without having this school.
  Cutting the funding for the Army School of the Americas sends an 
important signal that the United States is repudiating the policies of 
the past.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to 
efforts to limit or reduce funding for the Unites States Army School of 
the Americas. For those colleagues of mine who may still have concerns 
about the School, I draw your attention to the language in the FY 1998 
Appropriations bill. I believe it adequately and responsibly deals with 
any remaining questions or concerns about the school. Specifically, it 
prohibits the use of international military education training funds 
for the school until: (1) the Secretary of Defense certifies that 
training provided by the School of Americas is fully consistent with 
U.S. training and doctrine, (2) the Secretary of State has issued 
specific guidelines governing selection and screening of candidates for 
the school, and (3) the Secretary of Defense has submitted a report on 
the training activities of the school.
  For the past five and a half years, I have had the honor of 
representing the area of southwest Georgia where Fort Benning and the 
School are located. I am proud of the school as I am proud of all other 
institutions that make up our military. I believe it is the best armed 
forces in the world and the most well run. The United States Army 
School of the Americas is but one small institution in our entire 
military system. It is an institution that has provided professional 
training to over 58,000 military and civilian police personnel form 
throughout Latin America--training that includes classes covering the 
principles of human rights and representative democracy.
  The school's contribution to the transformation of Latin America from 
totalitarianism to democracy has been tremendous. Today, only Cuba 
remains a totalitarian stronghold. Representative government has begun 
to take root in every other country in the region. As the record shows, 
many of the school's graduates have played leading roles in this 
transformation.
  If you have an opportunity to talk to these graduates, many will tell 
you that the values they studied and discussed during their stay at the 
school influenced their political thinking and motivated them in their 
countries' fight for democracy.
  In spite of this record, the school is once again under attack.
  Without one shred of real evidence, the people who are involved in 
these misguided attacks falsely accuse the school of promoting 
totalitarianism and torture. If you get beyond the rhetoric, which can 
be as deceptive as it is emotional, you will find their case is 
factually based on just two things: one, the few graduates who have 
been involved in human rights abuses--and two, certain military 
intelligence training manuals which were once used at the school in 
classes attended by some of the students, although not all--which the 
school got rid of six years ago.
  It's true some of the school's trainees have been linked to human 
rights abuses. Some, in fact, have been linked to sickening atrocities. 
But this, alone, is not evidence of wrongdoing at the school. As a 
matter of fact, most of the graduates have been among the good guys in 
the region's shift to democracy. Graduates have instituted human rights 
reforms in their militaries, prevented military coups against freely-
elected civilian governments, and have made their soldiers more 
professional servants of democratic governments. We need this to 
continue. The Latin American democracies are very fragile, this is not 
the time to stop the work we have started with our neighbors.
  This whole argument gets a little ridiculous. We know of other Latin 
American human rights abusers who attended colleges and universities in 
the United States. One is the notorious Hector Gramajo of Guatemala, 
who did not attend the School of the Americas but did graduate from 
Harvard. Personally, I think it would be absurd to brand Harvard as a 
school of assassins or call for its closure.

  In his own report on the school, Representative Kennedy says: ``We do 
not question the good values and the commitment of the U.S. personnel 
at the school today.'' According to his report, the reason for 
attacking the existing school is to make a fresh start. But that start 
has already been made. The school and its curriculum have undergone 
intense scrutiny over the past few years, and instruction on human 
rights and democratic principles has been exhaustively reviewed, 
sharpened and expanded. This institution is one of the most transparent 
in the U.S. military.
  The United States Army School of the Americas has been investigated 
and studied by the DOD Inspector General's Office, by the General 
Accounting Office, and by an outside private consulting firm. Every 
course except for the computer course has mandatory human rights 
instruction. Every instructor is certified to teach human rights. The 
school has a permanent human rights council and a Board of Visitors on 
which strong human rights' advocates serve. All say the school is 
effectively promoting U.S. policy on human rights and democracy, and in 
no way is violating it.
  This is certainly a cost-effective program.

[[Page H8012]]

  For less than $4 million a year, the school is promoting democracy, 
building stronger relationships with our neighbors, and combating 
narcotics trafficking. The school's critics never consider the cost of 
the crimes and human rights violations that were not committed because 
of the school's influence. The critics never count the benefits of the 
drug labs taken down, the terrorism prevented, the mines removed by 
trained professionals, and the peacekeeping operations. The school 
teaches all of these things, and its graduates carry out these missions 
day-in and day-out.
  Just listen to what the officials and agencies responsible for 
developing and implementing our foreign policy have to say about the 
school.
  Our drug czar, who served as a former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. 
Southern Command, has said:

       As Commander in Chief, my responsibilities included 
     furthering the development of professional Latin American 
     armed forces that promoted and protected human rights and 
     that were supportive of democratic governance. The School of 
     Americas was, and continues to be, the Department of 
     Defense's pre-eminent educational institution for 
     accomplishing these goals.

  The State Department has stated:

       The School of Americas today is an important instrument for 
     advancing our goals for the hemisphere. The school's 
     curriculum has changed to reflect the end of the Cold War and 
     our commitment to democracy, human rights, and development in 
     Latin America.

  And Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Henry H. Shelton, has 
commented:

       I firmly believe that the US effort to promote democracy, 
     encourage regional cooperation, foster respect for human 
     rights, and reduce the flow of illegal drugs in this 
     hemisphere would be seriously affected if the School were 
     closed.

  This is an issue that touches me personally.
  I regularly visit the school. I know the men and women who serve 
there. These are highly-trained, dedicated professionals who believe 
deeply in their country and in the country's mission to promote human 
rights and democratic principles everywhere. It is wrong to accuse them 
of violating their trust and working against the interests of democracy 
when all of the evidence reaffirms that this is not true.
  I strongly urge all of my colleagues to visit the school, learn more 
about the job it is doing, and not to rush to judgment on the basis of 
false and unfounded accusations made by people who may have good 
intentions, but who have little regard for the facts.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support the truth.
  Support the United States Army School of the Americas.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of saving the time of the 
House, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a roll call 
vote on the Tiahrt amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the voice vote stands, and the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) is agreed 
to.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) as a substitute for the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Torres).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XXIII, any vote on the 
underlying Torres amendment will be conducted as a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201, 
noes 212, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 448]

                               AYES--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gilchrest
     Goode
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Talent
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--212

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Clay
     Cramer
     Davis (IL)
     Dingell
     Fawell
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Kennelly
     King (NY)
     Manton
     McIntosh
     Meek (FL)
     Myrick
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Riggs
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Schumer
     Tauscher

                              {time}  1958

  Mr. TIAHRT and Mr. NORWOOD changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. LARGENT, Mrs. ROUKEMA and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was 
rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  2000

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Torres).

[[Page H8013]]

  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Torres).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last four lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Titles I through V, the appropriations paragraphs of title 
     VI, and sections 601 through 604, of this Act may be cited as 
     the ``Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 1999''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Snowbarger) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4569) 
making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and 
related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for 
other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 542, he reported the bill 
back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of 
the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 255, 
nays 161, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 449]

                               YEAS--255

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Coble
     Collins
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Strickland
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--161

     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Carson
     Castle
     Chenoweth
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Goode
     Gordon
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lee
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McHale
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Skaggs
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Wexler
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Clay
     Davis (FL)
     Fawell
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Kennelly
     King (NY)
     Manton
     Meek (FL)
     Myrick
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Riggs
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Scarborough
     Schumer

                              {time}  2019

  Messrs. HINCHEY, STRICKLAND, KENNEDY of Rhode Island, and LEWIS of 
Georgia changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________