[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 111 (Monday, August 2, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H6811-H6839]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 263 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2606.

                              {time}  1929


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2606) making appropriations for foreign operations, 
export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, with Mr. Thornberry in the 
chair.

                              {time}  1930

  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, July 
29, 1999, amendment No. 3 printed in part B of House Report 106-269 by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) had been disposed of.
  Under the order of the House of that day, it is now in order to 
consider amendment No. 6 printed in the Congressional Record by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Andrews

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

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Andrews:
       Page 116, after line 5, insert the following:


               prohibition on funds for new opic projects

       Sec. 585. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, after 
     the enactment of this Act, for the issuance of any new 
     guarantee, insurance, reinsurance, or financing, or for 
     initiating any other activity which the Corporation is 
     otherwise authorized to undertake.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and a Member opposed each will 
control 15 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) seek to control the 
time in opposition?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my time be halved with the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and that she be given the 
authority to yield the time for her 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1996, this House voted to end welfare as we know it 
for single moms and for people struggling to raise families across 
America. This amendment says that it is time for us to end corporate 
welfare as we know it.
  The amendment says that the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 
OPIC, will be precluded from initiating new deals, new transactions, 
with the money that is in this underlying bill. It says that DuPont and 
General Electric, and McDonald's, and some of the largest corporations 
in the world, ought to risk their capital in risky international 
investments, not the capital of the American taxpayers.
  Now, I have had the opportunity to outline my views previously on 
Thursday night, but I want to quickly summarize them before yielding to 
supporters of my amendment.
  We will no doubt hear that this will cause chaos at OPIC. It will 
not. This amendment does not interfere with the ongoing operation and 
the wind-down of the entity. It simply says that funds should be used 
to effectuate that wind-down rather than to initiate new deals.
  We will hear that this will have a devastating effect on U.S. 
investment overseas. Frankly, the huge majority, the immense majority 
of private investments by U.S. corporations overseas have nothing to do 
with OPIC. They have to do with the judgments of entrepreneurs and 
investors in the global market every day.
  We will hear that somehow or another this is unilateral disarmament 
in the war on trade. It is nothing of the sort. It is the recognition 
that the real engine of international growth for the U.S. economy is 
not the taxpayers' pockets, but the entrepreneurs taking a risk.
  This is one of the few amendments I have ever seen that is supported 
by Ralph Nader and Milton Freedman. And that is probably all people 
need to know about why they should support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the 7\1/2\ 
minutes that has been yielded to me to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Menendez) and that he be allowed to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) will 
control the 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished ranking Democrat on the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. It really puts a 
damper on American entrepreneurship as we try to transfer technology to 
the least developed countries that we have in the world.
  Recently, this House passed the African Growth and Opportunity bill. 
It was not just out of compassion that we did it, but we wanted to make 
certain that we have people that are able to be able to be productive, 
to have disposable income, to have jobs, to have dignity, and not to be 
looking for welfare and to be looking for foreign assistance.
  What OPIC does is encourage private investment to have partnerships 
so that we are able to say that all over the world, especially in 
developing nations, that our great Republic will be able to have 
meaningful commercial trade relations.
  I have been to Africa. I have been there with Eximbank. I have been 
there with OPIC. I have been there with the State Department. Believe 
me, OPIC really encourages foreign investment, and we need it now more 
than ever.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and 
the Pacific of the Committee on International Relations.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H6812]]

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment. While the amendment might make for catchy so-called cost-
cutting sound bites, in reality it would significantly hurt U.S. 
foreign policy, result in a revenue loss for the Federal Government, 
and cost American jobs and American export opportunities. This 
amendment has only costs, in my judgment, and no benefits.
  First, contrary to some things that have been said, OPIC has 
contributed $3.3 billion to deficit reduction and the Function 1050 
account. In fiscal year 2000, OPIC anticipates it will contribute 
approximately $200 million to deficit reduction. OPIC is self-
sustaining and generates an annual increase in funding. If OPIC were 
eliminated, the budget would lose revenues rather than achieve savings. 
In fact, this amendment would put the Federal Government $200 million 
in the red for just the next year.
  Since OPIC's operating costs are covered by user fees, eliminating 
OPIC does not mean these resources are available for other programs or 
can be considered as cut spending. There are no millions of dollars in 
savings as claimed by the amendment's supporters, just lost jobs and 
export opportunities without any offsetting benefit.
  OPIC supports new, high-paying, export-oriented jobs in the United 
States. More than 237,000 jobs have been created as a result of OPIC-
supported projects. In 1998 alone, nearly 7,000 U.S. jobs were created 
by OPIC projects. Without OPIC, it is estimated that 70,000 job 
opportunities could be lost in the next 4 years.
  To those who express concern about OPIC supported investment abroad 
luring jobs away from America to foreign countries, this Member 
recommends they examine closely what kind of investments OPIC is 
supporting and what kind of so-called foreign jobs are being created. 
The United States cannot supply raw electric power to Egypt. We can 
supply American-made power generating equipment and services. How is 
selling power generating equipment and years of spare parts and 
services taking jobs away from Americans? If we don't sell the 
Egyptians these power plants, the Europeans, Japanese, Canadians, or 
other foreigners will.
  The United States does not grow tea. Therefore, how does investing in 
a tea plantation in Rwanda steal American jobs? Indeed, it supports 
U.S. jobs insofar as that tea operation needs tools, machines, trucks 
and other services--and these are products and services made by 
American labor.
  The United States is not home to the great African savannah and 
giraffes, lions, zebras, and baboons are not native wildlife. 
Therefore, how does supporting the eco-tourism industry in Botswana by 
investing in new hotels and tour operations take away American jobs? On 
the contrary, this development requires all kinds of infrastructure, 
construction materials, furnishings, vehicles, and services--these 
goods and services Americans produce and sell.
  OPIC-backed projects around the world are U.S. small businesses. Over 
the next 4 years it is estimated that OPIC projects will generate $23 
billion more in America exports. $6 billion of those exports are to be 
from over 150 American small businesses.
  OPIC has proven itself to be a successful supporter of American 
foreign policy. OPIC mobilizes private sector investment in support of 
U.S. foreign policy at no cost to the American taxpayer. The Andrews 
amendment would mean no support for U.S. investment in high priority 
foreign policy areas. It would eliminate an estimated $9 billion in 
increased trade and investment with Sub-Saharan Africa, $4 billion in 
Central America and the Caribbean, and $8 billion for development of 
Caspian Sea energy resources.
  Since 1971, OPIC supported projects which have resulted in the export 
of $58 billion of American products. More than $2.8 billion in American 
exports were generated by OPIC supported projects in 1998 alone.
  With respect to the Andrews-Sanders-Sanford amendment, I would have 
to say that it hurts American competitiveness and benefits our foreign 
competitors. Most of our developing nations, like France, Germany and 
Japan, offer a comprehensive array of export and overseas investment 
support. They clearly understand the importance of such programs in 
supporting jobs and economic growth at home. The U.S. spends less per 
capita, as a percentage of GDP, and in dollar terms on supporting 
private sector investment in developing countries than any other major 
competitor country.
  Mr. Chairman, the support OPIC provides is not corporate welfare and 
has not eliminated American jobs as the ``Dear Colleague'' letter 
circulated recently complained. Caterpillar was cited. It makes 
tractors in Illinois, and that is the epitome in Peoria of an American 
city. The Member, I suspect, would be surprised to find among the 
Caterpillar workers any of them who believe they are fat cats.
  These are hard-working Americans. OPIC helps promote the sale of the 
tractors they make at no cost to the American taxpayer. Given the 
significant support foreign competitors receive from their governments, 
without OPIC, America's Caterpillar is in many instances at a real 
disadvantage to Japan's Komatsu or Korea's Hyundai. Let us not ignore 
the consequences--ultimately, this Amendment benefits foreign 
competitors like Komatsu at the expense of American workers in all 50 
states.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to the charges by some OPIC critics that 
OPIC is not even authorized, this Member would remind his colleagues 
that the House International Relations Committee, the appropriate 
authorizing body, has already considered and marked up a new 
reauthorization for OPIC. This legislation is pending on the Union 
Calendar.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the Andrews amendment.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), one of the co-authors of this amendment 
and a person who has been very diligent about cutting costs for the 
American public.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I support this amendment and am, indeed, a cosponsor on this 
amendment because it makes sense to the United States taxpayer.
  This amendment is not about the inefficiency of OPIC. As government 
organizations go, it is quite efficient. It is not about the 
management. It has a good management. I have met with George Munoz, who 
is head of OPIC. The issue that this amendment gets to is not is OPIC 
able to handle the mandate that it has been given, but rather is that 
mandate in the best interest of the United States taxpayer. And I think 
if we look under the hood on this, we would come to the conclusion that 
no is the answer.
  First, Mr. Chairman, there is a financial risk to the U.S. taxpayer 
with OPIC. OPIC was given a billion dollars of seed money in 1971 when 
OPIC was begun, and yet if we look, since 1971 there has not been, for 
instance, a world war. These loans or guarantees are backed with the 
full faith and credit of the United States Government. If there was a 
war, we would see the cost to those guarantees. There has not been a 
global depression since 1971. If there was a severe economic downturn, 
we would see the cost to those guarantees.
  In fact, if we look in Brazil, where there is $1.9 billion of 
taxpayer exposure, OPIC itself has said that fully half of their 
portfolio could be affected by the crisis there. The same could be 
said, for instance, in Russia. So, one, there is a contingent liability 
that goes back to the United States taxpayer. Two, there is a direct 
cost.
  With the money that was originally provided, interest is earned on 
that money. And if we look at the income statement of last year, $139 
million was the net income and $193 million came as a result of these 
interest payments. That leaves a loss of $54 million.
  Admittedly, $54 million is not a lot of money in Washington, but back 
home that is a lot of money. In fact, I did a back-of-the-envelope 
calculation, and it would take 13,500 taxpayers, average taxpayers, 
working and paying taxes for a full year, to send Washington $54 
million.
  Third consideration is that it does cost American jobs. And that is 
not my opinion or the opinion of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews). That is the opinion of Time magazine. They did a three-part 
series on corporate welfare. What they found was, for instance, a $29 
million loan guarantee for Levi Strauss and Company to build a 
manufacturing plant in Turkey, while, at the same time, the Labor 
Department was handing out unemployment and training benefits for 6,400 
American workers who had been laid off in 11 American plants with Levi 
Strauss and Company. The point of that article was saying that the two 
were directly correlated.
  Finally, I would just make mention of the fact that this changes 
markets. If we change a market, we change where an investment can be 
made. And

[[Page H6813]]

so what we are doing is subsidizing development off our coast. And as 
well, what we are doing is preventing a marketplace from developing 
with other insurers.
  This is a need that needs to take place, but it could be easily 
handled by the Lloyds of London, who are not in this business right now 
because OPIC is.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/4\ minutes.
  First, let me thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member of the committee, for yielding me this 
time.
  I join my colleague the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) in 
saying that I am against corporate welfare, but this, the subject of 
his amendment, is not about corporate welfare. It is hard to understand 
how anyone can object to a program that returns money to the U.S. 
Treasury while at the same time furthering our foreign policy goals and 
helping to increase foreign investments and exports overseas.
  Last year, OPIC earned a profit of $139 million. And in fiscal year 
2000, OPIC will contribute an estimated $204 million in net negative 
budget authority. In fact, OPIC has had a positive net income for every 
year of operation with reserves now totaling $3.3 billion.
  All that we do through the appropriation process is to allow OPIC to 
spend money that it has already earned to cover its administrative 
costs. We do not save money for the taxpayers by cutting OPIC's 
appropriations. In fact, quite to the contrary. By supporting this 
amendment, we will forfeit an estimated over $200 million in net budget 
authority for the next fiscal year.
  At a time when Congress is trying to adhere to the constraints of a 
balanced budget, OPIC stands apart as a revenue-earning program. And at 
a time that we are facing record high trade deficits, we need to be 
looking at ways to expand our export promotion programs, not contract 
them.
  More American exports mean more American jobs. More than 237,000 
American jobs have been created as a result of OPIC's supported 
projects. In our home State of New Jersey, OPIC has provided over $1 
billion in financing and insurance, generating $3 billion in U.S. 
exports and creating over 10,000 jobs.
  We should not be so shortsighted. We live in a global economy and 
only those who can compete will succeed. This is not corporate welfare. 
OPIC is one of the ways that we ensure that American companies and 
American jobs thrive in the next century. We cannot afford to be so 
naive as to believe that American companies, large and small, can 
compete without this type of support when their competitors have the 
full economic and diplomatic support of their governments.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Andrews amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, we have OPIC because there is no private 
sector that can fill that gap. Lloyds of London, nobody could come in 
and fill that gap.
  In fact, OPIC has been partnering with Lloyds of London on being able 
to come up to a relationship whereby part of this type of insurance can 
be privatized. The reason we need OPIC is so that we can be on an even 
keel with our exporting partners around the world.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), one of the coauthors of the 
amendment with a leading voice for progressive issues in America.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment, which would strike a 
good blow against the $125 billion a year we are currently spending on 
corporate welfare.
  My, this is a strange debate. I am hearing conservative Republicans 
tell us they believe in government insurance. This is what it is.
  Now, it is interesting, however. This is not government insurance for 
middle-class homeowners. This is not government insurance for those 
people who are paying outrageous premiums for automobile insurance. No, 
no, no. We do not get government insurance for that.
  But if they are J.P. Morgan, they can get government insurance for a 
$200 million investment in an oil field in Angola. If they are Texaco, 
they get government insurance for $139 million for investment of a 
power generating project in the Philippines. If they are the Chase 
Manhattan Bank, they get socialized insurance.
  Here we have conservative Republicans, corporate Democrats telling us 
government insurance for the multinationals. I think that that is 
pretty strange.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we should note that in Indonesia 
right now OPIC officials are in that country, and they are in that 
country because the government there is suggesting that an American-
backed company may not be able to make as much money as they wanted; 
and if that in fact takes place, it is going to be the American 
taxpayer through OPIC that bails out that particular company that 
invested in Suharto's dictatorship.
  Mr. Chairman, another disturbing aspect of this situation is that the 
United States Government is providing financial incentives to the 
largest corporations in this country to invest abroad.
  Now, some of us think that it would be a very good idea for these 
corporations that are investing tens of billions of dollars abroad to 
maybe bring that investment back to the State of Vermont and other 
States around this country to put our people to work at decent paying 
jobs.
  I hear our friend say that OPIC makes money, OPIC makes money. Well, 
if OPIC makes money, then maybe we better think about government 
insurance in other areas. And I would yield right now to any person who 
is opposing the Andrews amendment to tell us that they are prepared to 
support government insurance for homeowners, government insurance for 
automobile people who need automobile insurance.
  Are they in favor of that, Mr. Chairman? Not. I ask the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Only government insurance for the large multinational corporations. 
Let us stop corporate welfare. Let us support the Andrews amendment.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), ranking Democrat of the 
Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I would join my friend from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) in having universal health coverage, but that is not the 
debate today. The debate today is whether this program helps or hurts 
Americans and American workers.
  I would argue that $52 billion in exports that OPIC facilitated helps 
American workers, that almost $3 billion in the U.S. the Treasury in 
fees from these corporations, not welfare, but charges to these 
corporations giving us profits in every year that OPIC has operated in, 
$20 million in 1970, in excess of $200 million in 1997, and even during 
the Asian financial crisis $138 million, and anticipated back over to 
$200 million next year.
  What this does is help American jobs, helps us export manufacturing, 
helps America's international national foreign policy get executed. It 
is cheaper than a Marshall Plan and it helps American jobs.
  The gentlemen who are opposing this amendment have good intentions, 
but they are dead wrong.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New Jersey prohibiting OPIC from supporting any new 
investment projects.
  This amendment would not only close down any future OPIC investments 
in Africa, but it would eliminate billions of dollars of OPIC-related 
hurricane assistance for Central America and the Caribbean. The 
adoption of this amendment would prevent billions of dollars of future 
U.S. exports from ever taking place. Thousands of jobs now held by 
American workers would be

[[Page H6814]]

lost, and millions of dollars in tax revenue would be unavailable to 
our States and local communities.
  Since its inception in 1971, OPIC generated over $58 billion in U.S. 
exports, created more than 237,000 jobs. It operates on a self-
sustaining basis and actually provides funding authority to pay for the 
humanitarian development and anti-narcotics programs contained in the 
legislation we are now debating.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Andrews amendment.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, let me just make one thing very clear about 
OPIC making money. OPIC holds government bonds. The Department of the 
Treasury of the United States then pays interest on the government 
bonds.
  So when we talk OPIC making profit, the profit is being paid for by 
taxpayers to an organization that holds government bonds. It has 
nothing to do with making money or having a profit.
  So let us just be clear about the fact that we use this terminology 
carefully. We know this is a very tough fight here because it is right 
at the heart of subsidies to the most powerful, and we understand that 
it is hard to win that. But I think it is very important that when we 
have this debate that we be clear about it.
  I am not suggesting for a second that anybody is trying to distort 
the truth. We have just got to get the facts about what profits are all 
about. It is not about any government operation making money in the 
marketplace. It has to do with taxpayers giving them money that then 
gets scored as extra money, which some call profits. That is in error. 
So we ought to be clear about what this organization actually does.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say, as 
chairman of the Subcommittee Domestic and International Monetary 
Policy, I would join the chairman in his assessment on the profit it 
makes.
  Now, we have heard that OPIC helps American workers, and we have 
heard that it hurts American workers. I want to focus on that one 
claim.
  Let us look at one of these transactions. In 1997, OPIC financed the 
building for Levi Strauss of a garment-making factory in Turkey, a $29-
million guarantee, because they did not want to finance it themselves 
and private insurers would not do it.
  Well, what happened when Levi Strauss built that factory? They laid 
off 6,400 workers at U.S. garment-making factories in 11 locations in 
the United States.
  Now, do my colleagues think that those 6,400 employees, if any of 
them are listening today, that they will buy this argument that we are 
creating jobs? We lost those jobs. And not only did we lose those jobs, 
but the Labor Department had to go in, and let me tell my colleagues 
what they had to do. They had to provide unemployment assistance, and 
they also had to provide trade adjustment assistance because of the 
Levi Strauss factory which had been built in Turkey, financed by OPIC.
  I strongly urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the chief deputy whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  As the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and others have 
talked about, we are in a global economy. OPIC does open markets. OPIC 
has helped create jobs in this country. And OPIC charges premiums. OPIC 
charges premiums.
  One of the big criticisms of OPIC is that the premiums are too high 
and that is why they have $3.3 billion in reserves. Now, if the 
premiums are too high and the private sector would be interested in 
going into these areas, why is it not there?
  OPIC fills a void that the private sector will not go into if OPIC is 
eliminated. They will go into troubled countries. They go into 
countries that insurance companies of a private nature will not go 
into. These premiums have generated $139 million last year. They are 
expected to generate $200 million this year.
  OPIC's claims because of the way OPIC is funded become a priority 
whenever these troubled countries try to reestablish relationships with 
the United States.
  No private company would have that great advantage in settling 
claims. That is why OPIC does not lose money. That is why OPIC does 
encourage trade. That is why OPIC works. That is why the private sector 
will not replace it if it is eliminated.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul).
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for this amendment. If it were 
true that this agency is profitable, we would not be here. They would 
be making profit, and OPIC would not need to come here every year.
  They are asking for $55 million. Where does the profit come from? It 
was stated earlier very clearly; from the interest they earn. They have 
a portfolio of $3 billion of U.S. securities.
  But these did not reduce the national debt. That is part of the 
national debt. We pay interest on that $3 billion. And this agency gets 
$194 million from it, four times the amount of the requested 
appropriation.
  No wonder on paper it looks profitable. And they say, well, the 
private companies will not insure some of these projects. That means it 
is probably risky. Why should the taxpayer assume the risk? Why should 
these corporations be protected with this corporate welfare?
  This is the reason why jobs are exported at a cost to the American 
taxpayer. It is bad economics. And it is a lot of twisting of the facts 
if we call this agency profitable at the same time they are getting 
$194 million that we barely talk about.
  How many other agencies of government get interest like this? This is 
almost a government unto itself, the fact that it has that much 
financing without even a direct appropriation because it is paid out of 
the interest budget.
  This is indeed a very important amendment. I believe that we should 
definitely vote for this. If we care at all about the taxpayer of this 
country, we should expose what is happening with corporate welfare.
  The little people are not coming to us today begging us to vote 
against this amendment. It is the corporations, the giant corporations, 
not our small mom-and-pop businesses. They are not coming and saying, 
please, please protect OPIC. No, it is the giant corporations that have 
been able to manipulate and get benefits from programs like this.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has 2 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) has 2 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has the 
right to close.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, the reason why we have this insurance 
program is the same reason why we have the HUD insurance program for 
homeowners in this country, low-income homeowners, because the 
marketplace does not provide for it, just as my colleague from Missouri 
just said.
  The other reason we have this program is because our trading partners 
around the world do this and do it a lot more. So if we are to pass 
this amendment and unilaterally withdraw from being a competitive 
trading Nation, we will only drive up the imports in this country, 
drive down the exports from this country, and cost Americans jobs.
  By passing this amendment, we will not do anything to bring capital 
back into this country. OPIC is used in my district where we have 
companies that are looking for new markets to get into.

[[Page H6815]]

  The Stewart & Stevenson Company builds turbine engines and then sells 
them throughout the world. And when they sell more engines, they hire 
more Americans to build them in my district.

                              {time}  2000

  That is what this is about. So if you want to try and find some pure 
philosophy that only the United States is going to do, it will be at 
the expense of the American worker.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise today on behalf of small business owners 
and workers in my home State of Oregon and in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). This 
amendment to abolish OPIC would damage the efforts of Oregon's small 
businesses in emerging markets overseas. In Oregon, OPIC has financed 
and insured projects worth $27 million. These efforts have generated 
over $33 million in Oregon exports. Many new jobs come through 
businesses that supply goods and services to projects insured or 
financed by OPIC, businesses like Hyster Sales Company in Tigard, 
Oregon, and Interwrap Industries in Portland, Oregon.
  OPIC helps level the playing field for American businesses of all 
sizes which compete for overseas projects. OPIC offers American 
businesses essential risk insurance for their investments in high-risk 
emerging markets. It provides temporary financing for investments when 
private sector support is lacking.
  But OPIC does all of this in a fiscally sound manner. Customers which 
benefit from OPIC repay the full principal amount.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Andrews amendment.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry), a very articulate freshman Member.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Andrews amendment. 
I am not debating whether or not it is corporate welfare, but I want to 
talk about how OPIC must get its own house in order first as I lack 
confidence in this program.
  I am going to tell my colleagues a story about a company in my 
district, Mid-American Energy, who has been working with OPIC, had used 
OPIC to build a power plant in Indonesia.
  The government did a bait and switch. They put in a claim. Now they 
are pursuing to recover this lost investment. In May 1999, OPIC 
required an arbitration. Mid-American won in the United Nations 
Commission on International Trade Law, 3-0.
  What next? OPIC said, ``That's not good enough. We need you to do it 
again. We want you to go somewhere else for another arbitration.''
  When OPIC loses this time, will they change the rules again? Will 
they require this company to go three out of five arbitrations?
  Mr. Chairman, Mid-American has followed OPIC guidelines. Now it must 
fulfill its obligations. I urge the support of this amendment.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to corporate 
welfare. I am opposed to giving away taxpayers' money. I am even 
opposed to fattening fat cats. But I am not opposed to stimulating 
business growth and development in sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest 
region of the world. I am not opposed to saying that in order to 
facilitate the development of opportunity in areas that unless there 
was some private investment, nothing would happen. And so while 
generally I would be on the other side of an issue like this one, but 
because of the need in areas of the world for business development, I 
find myself in opposition to this amendment because I want to see 
Africa have an opportunity to grow and develop, and I support 
investment in countries like sub-Saharan Africa. I oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment to 
prohibit any funds for new projects by the Overseas Private Investment 
Corporation. Cutting OPIC's administrative budget will hurt our 
nation's 22 million small businesses who export directly or by contract 
to other countries.
  Specifically, cutting funds would cut what little business assistance 
sub Saharan Africa, the poorest region of the world receives.
  During this decade OPIC has increased its effectiveness in helping 
Africa. For instance, OPIC has currently four privately managed 
investment funds available to support investment in Africa. These 
programs focus on mining, manufacturing, broadcasting, information 
technology and I hope to see soon healthcare.
  The point I am trying to make here is that if we cut OPIC'S budget we 
would hurt small business, decrease our nation's exports, and cut jobs. 
For the past three years, OPIC's budget has been effectively frozen. We 
already have this organization working on a shoestring budget.
  OPIC is not a giveaway program, it is not a subsidy and it is not 
general assistance. It is not corporate welfare. This is an investment 
and I might add, an investment that is paying off. OPIC projects have 
generated $58 billion in U.S. exports and created more than 237,000 
U.S. jobs.
  I must confess that I am at a loss to understand how or why we would 
want to cut funding for an effort that is producing results, and 
effectively carrying out its mission. Why would you cut the budget on 
an agency whose budget is funded from user fees? Why prevent new 
investments? Why eliminate $9 billion in trade and investment in sub 
Saharan Africa? Why eliminate $4 billion in hurricane rebuilding 
resources in Central America and the Caribbean? Why undercut private 
sector rebuilding initiatives for the war torn Balkans? There is no 
reason to, and there is no reason to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I have always been told, if it ain't broke, don't fix 
it!
  OPIC is not broke, let's not try to fix it.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I 
appreciate the opportunity to summarize our point of view in the 
debate. I share with my friend from Illinois a real desire to develop 
Africa and other less developed areas. I just think we should do it 
openly and directly and not through the Trojan horse of corporate 
welfare which I believe is what OPIC is.
  Here is what OPIC really says. If someone wants to build a plant or a 
factory in New Jersey or Oregon or Texas, they are on their own, they 
have to go to a bank and take a risk and borrow the money themselves. 
But if they want to build the plant in a foreign country, another 
continent, then the United States taxpayers, if they are big enough and 
powerful enough, will have to reach into our pockets and subsidize it. 
The idea of us subsidizing these operations is wrong.
  Let us end corporate welfare as we know it and support this 
amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that I know the distinguished gentleman from 
New Jersey is well-intended in his beliefs, but I do believe him to be 
absolutely wrong.
  He mentioned the fact that plants have already spent their own money 
in his home State without government assistance, which is wrong to 
begin with, but the plants that are already there, like AT&T, like 
Berger International, like Schick, like Johnson & Johnson, Nabisco, 
Squibb and Ingersoll-Rand are all using OPIC, and I am sure that the 
thousands of employees who are benefitting from the fact that they are 
exporting the products could probably convince their fellow New 
Jerseyan that he was making a mistake.
  The same with the gentleman from Alabama who stood up and talked 
about it. Yet in his hometown of Birmingham, Alabama, Mr. Chairman, 
they utilize OPIC more than any other city in the entire State. But the 
good thing about that is they ship those products through the port of 
Mobile and enhance the ability of the people in my district to benefit 
from exporting these products.
  They say OPIC is not really making any money and how the books say 
that, but OPIC is making $200 million a year, period. That is the fact. 
They are not losing money. It is true that when our countries go now 
into a foreign country, they are on a levelized playing field with all 
of the other industrialized nations because all of the other nations 
have similar programs. These are insurance programs that for the most 
part insure that if the government expropriates all of the properties 
there, that OPIC, the United States of America, will guarantee payment 
to the bank from which most of this money comes from for their 
guarantees.

[[Page H6816]]

  This is not corporate welfare. This is a sensible export program that 
is vital to American industry. I would urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the Andrews amendment.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, is it the Chair's understanding that 
after this vote, there will be no more votes tonight, that the rest of 
the amendments that we debate tonight will be carried over until 
tomorrow so that this would be the last vote of the night?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. Under the rule the Chair has 
the authority to postpone votes on amendment and intends to do so after 
the vote on the Andrews amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
on this last amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
Andrews amendment and in support of the Overseas Private Investment 
Corporation, or OPIC.
  Let me tell you what OPIC has meant to companies, large and small, in 
my state of New Jersey. With the help of risk insurance provided by 
OPIC since the program began, New Jersey companies have generated $3 
billion in exports which supported 10,000 jobs.
  I hope my colleague from New Jersey will take note of the companies 
from New Jersey who needed OPIC insurance in order to sell their 
products abroad and thus support jobs here at home in our state of New 
Jersey.
  Many New Jersey companies have benefited from OPIC financing and 
insurance. They include, among others, Copelco Capital of Mahwah, Croll 
Reynolds Co. of Westfield; Engelhard Pollution Control of Iselin; Guest 
Supply Inc. of Monmouth Junction; H.W. Baker Linen Co. of Mahwah; 
Ingersoll-Dresser Pump Co. of Liberty Corner; Ingersoll-Rand of 
Woodcliff Lake, ITT of Midland Park; Maersk Inc. of Madison; Regal 
International of Closter.
  And what have these companies been able to do with OPIC Insurance? 
Let's just talk about some of the small New Jersey companies that have 
benefited. Misco America from Holmdel supplied products for a project 
in Ethiopia; Casale Industries from Garwood was involved in an 
electrical service project in Turkey; GAR International from Red Bank 
was a supplier for the privatization of a copper mine in Peru.
  So, again, I hope my colleague from New Jersey takes note of the 
importance of OPIC to New Jersey companies, large and small, and their 
employees.
  OPIC is a key component in our efforts to open up markets all over 
the globe to U.S. products and services.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment 
and support OPIC.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 103, 
noes 315, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 359]

                               AYES--103

     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Berkley
     Bono
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     DeFazio
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Evans
     Farr
     Fletcher
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     Largent
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Luther
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Norwood
     Obey
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Woolsey

                               NOES--315

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Abercrombie
     Bilbray
     Cooksey
     Frank (MA)
     Gephardt
     Hall (OH)
     Lantos
     McDermott
     Peterson (PA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Reyes
     Scarborough
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Waxman

                              {time}  2028

  Mr. WATKINS and Mr. EVERETT changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. FLETCHER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 359 I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in order 
to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia has a very serious problem 
that he brought to the attention of the committee. When we went to the 
Committee on Rules, we found that probably it would be better suited in 
the bill of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) which is to come 
up later on this week.
  In any event, the seriousness of the problem in Georgia actually 
impacts all others. I thought that we could enter into this colloquy 
with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) so

[[Page H6817]]

that he might explain the problem, so in the event that the measure 
cannot be handled successfully in the Commerce, State, Justice bill, 
that we may consider it in conference.
  I would like yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) to 
explain the problem and his request.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman indicated, we have 
a serious problem in this country with regard to individuals who are 
noncitizens who have been arrested for serious felonies and have been 
ordered deported.
  They are then in the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service pending the acceptance back by their country of their 
citizenship. Unfortunately, we have many countries, well over 100 
countries now, who have either refused to accept their citizens back or 
are unduly delaying the process of accepting them back, over 3,300 
people, and we are adding approximately 60 every month to this list. 
These are individuals who are having to be detained in our Federal 
detention facilities at a cost of about $67 a day, and the cost on an 
annual basis is somewhere in the neighborhood of about $80 million.
  My amendment would have addressed that by simply saying to those 
nations, many of whom do receive assistance under this particular bill, 
that they would not be able to receive that assistance unless they 
cooperated, which is the responsibility and the comity of nations to 
accept your citizens back once they have been ordered deported from 
another country, and that that would be a condition for their receiving 
assistance under this bill.
  As the chairman has indicated, unfortunately, we did not receive the 
waiver from the Committee on Rules, but it is a serious problem, not 
only in my district, but in many other parts of the country. We cannot 
criticize the INS for not issuing deportation orders when we run into 
the problems of these over 100 countries who refuse to cooperate with 
that deportation process.
  I want to thank the chairman for his cooperation in making the matter 
a matter before the House tonight. I appreciate his cooperation and 
look forward to working with the gentleman as we approach the Commerce, 
Justice and State appropriation, as hopefully we can find wording that 
will address the issue there. I also appreciate his willingness that if 
we are not successful there, to continue to work with us to find a 
solution.
  I think the American people expect when we order a person deported, 
that their country will accept them back, and, if they do not, that 
they should not expect to receive foreign aid at the same time they are 
costing the American taxpayers over $80 million a year.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would also say I 
believe this is the law of the land anyway. It is my understanding we 
are just not adequately enforcing it; that the State Department and the 
Justice Department have the authority already to enforce this, and yet 
they are failing to do so. It is an issue that needs to be addressed by 
this Congress, and I am very appreciative of the gentleman from Georgia 
for bringing it to our attention.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Burton

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana:
       Page 116, after line 5, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act in title II under the heading 
     ``development assistance'', not more than $33,500,000 may be 
     made available to the Government of India.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 
29, 1999, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), and a Member opposed 
each will control 25 minutes.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Burton 
amendment and claim all time in opposition to the Burton amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) will control 
25 minutes.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield half of 
the time allocated to me to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), and that she be allowed to control said time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield my time to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), and that he be allowed to 
control said time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is recognized.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, our foreign policy in our country has been concerned 
about human rights violations around the world for a long time. 
However, Mr. Chairman, we have been concerned about human rights around 
the world on a very selective basis in this country.
  Recently we were in Yugoslavia, in Kosovo, trying to help the people 
who were being persecuted on both sides, and there were about 10,000 
deaths in Kosovo. In Haiti, we sent in our troops a few years ago, and 
there were only a few hundred people killed, and it cost us probably 
several hundred million dollars to have our troops down there, but we 
thought it was a good cause in this country. Yet in places like the 
Sudan, where 2 million people have been killed, 2 million, in the 
struggle for freedom, we have not done a thing. Our role is almost 
nonexistent.
  In other parts of Africa, Rwanda, Burundi and Burma, where thousands 
and thousands, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, we 
have not done a thing. We do not even talk about it.
  In a place called Kashmir, where there are half a million Indian 
troops occupying that area, women are being gang raped and men are 
being tortured and killed. Amnesty International calls the policy of 
the Indian government ``An official policy sanctioning extrajudicial 
killings,'' and we do not even talk about it.
  In Punjab, since 1984, the last 14 to 15 years, a quarter of a 
million, 250,000 Sikhs, have been killed, not to mention those who have 
been tortured and maimed. In Kashmir, since 1988, a mere 10 years ago, 
60,000 Muslims have been killed. Thousands of so-called untouchables, 
Dalits, the blacks in India, have been killed.
  As result of some of these problems, there is a conflict going on on 
the border between India and Pakistan that could lead to a real problem 
for that part of the world, and, yes, the whole world itself, because 
both of those countries have nuclear weapons. According to our own 
State Department, India paid over 41,000 cash bounties to police for 
killing innocent Sikhs between 1991 and 1993. In July of 1998, police 
picked up Kashmir Sing, a man in Punjab. They said they arrested him 
for theft. Then they tortured him for 15 days. They rolled logs over 
his legs so he could not walk. They submerged him in a tub of water and 
slashed his thighs with razor blades and put hot peppers into the 
wounds.
  Sikhs are routinely found floating dead in canals with their hands 
and feet bound together. One thousand cases of unidentified bodies were 
cremated not too long ago by the military.
  Of course, I talked to you about the Muslim persecution in Kashmir 
where there are 500,000 troops. Women are gang raped while their 
husbands are forced to wait outside at gun point. The Christian 
persecution, since Christmas Day of 1998, there has been a wave of 
attacks on Christian churches, prayer halls, schools, including the 
murder of priests, one of which was beheaded.
  Our State department agrees. They said, ``There was a sharp increase 
in attacks against Christians just last year.'' Some of the things that 
are going on I cannot even talk about. They parade Dalit women, the 
blacks, around naked, and they are gang raped as well in many cases.

[[Page H6818]]

  The State Department report on page 22 says, ``The Human Rights 
Commission is prohibited by statute from directly investigating 
allegations of abuse involving army and paramilitary forces.'' They are 
talking about the Human Rights Commission in India. They are 
specifically prohibited by statute from directly investigating 
allegations of abuse involving the army and paramilitary forces.
  The human rights organizations around the world, such as Human Rights 
Watch says, ``Despite government claims that normalcy has returned to 
Kashmir, Indian troops in the state continue to carry out summary 
executions, disappearances, rape and torture.'' This report was written 
in July of 1999, this year.
  Methods of torture include severe beatings with truncheons, rolling a 
heavy log on the legs, hanging the detainee upside down, and the use of 
electric shocks. Indian security forces have raped women in Kashmir 
during search operations.
  I can go on and on.
  Amnesty International, another human rights group says, ``Torture, 
including rape and ill-treatment continue to be endemic throughout the 
country.'' This is in their annual report, 1999. ``Disappearances 
continue to be reported during the year, predominantly in Punjab and 
Kashmir,'' 1999. ``Hundreds of extrajudicial killings and executions 
were reported in many states, including Kashmir and Punjab,'' 1999, 
this year.
  I talk about this year after year after year. My colleagues who 
defend India's government policies keep coming down saying, ``Oh, well, 
it is a big country, the second biggest in the world. We have to keep 
those economic doors open. We have got to make sure that we do business 
with them.''
  Well, okay, let us do business with them, but let us at least send 
them a signal, send a little-bitty signal to them that these kinds of 
atrocities cannot be tolerated, should not be tolerated. $11 million 
cut from our foreign aid to India is a drop in the bucket. They are 
getting foreign aid from all over the world. So if we cut them by a 
mere $11 million, one-fourth of the developmental aid we are going to 
give them, to send a little signal that they should stop these human 
rights abuses, is that wrong? I think not.
  But if the persecution of these people were not enough, let me talk 
to you about something else, something that I think is extremely 
important that we have not talked about for a while.
  Last week, my colleagues who support these atrocities in India by not 
sending them a signal, last week the Indian oil minister attempted to 
circumvent the United Nations embargo on Iraq by extending a $25 
million loan to Iraq in a deal that knowingly violated, or were going 
to knowingly violate the U.N. trade sanctions imposed on Iraq for 
invading Kuwait in 1990. It was not until international pressure was 
put on India that they reluctantly bowed and complied with the U.N. 
rules governing these transactions.
  India's minister of oil and gas said, granted his agreement would 
violate U.N. sanctions, but he said his country would never allow a 
friend like Iraq to suffer. He went on to say India is deeply concerned 
about the situation in Iraq, adding that the Indian government would 
offer Iraq all the political, material, and moral support that they 
needed.
  India also wants to help Iraq rehabilitate some Iraqi oil refineries 
and a lubricant oil plant. India and Iraqi officials have said they 
would like to soon sign a contract to develop two oil fields in 
southern Iraq.
  So India wants to help one of the worst tyrannical regimes in the 
world, Saddam Hussein's, at a time when we are participating in a U.N. 
embargo. And we are going to continue to send the same amount of 
foreign aid or almost the same amount. We are not going to send any 
signal about the human rights violations or about them breaking this 
embargo, or wanting to break this embargo, about their intention to 
work with Saddam Hussein to develop the oil fields in southern Iraq? 
And I say to my colleagues, do you not want to say anything about this? 
Do you not want to send any kind of a signal to India?
  Eleven million dollars is a drop in the bucket, but it will tell the 
whole world that the United States is paying attention to the horrible 
human rights abuses that are taking place, the atrocities that are 
taking place, the killings that are taking place, and, yes, the 
violations of the U.N. embargo that they want to take place.

                              {time}  2045

  So I would say to my colleagues, who I know have their minds already 
made up and who are going to be out here en masse tonight opposing this 
amendment, have a heart. Show a little bit of heart for these people 
who are suffering over there. Because unless we say something, nobody 
will.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out to Members and to the author of the 
amendment that the intent of his amendment is unclear. The amendment 
places a ceiling of $33.5 million on the amount of development 
assistance aid available to the government of India. However, the 
President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for all development 
assistance to India, including both aid to the government and aid 
directly to nongovernmental organizations, is only $28.7 million. In 
fact, about 85 percent of all aid funding to India goes through NGOs, 
not the government.
  Therefore, the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) 
would actually allow considerably more funding to the government of 
India than the President, the Secretary of State, USAID, and the 
committee is recommending. I do not think it was the intent of the 
gentleman from Indiana to increase funding for India, but based upon 
the reading of his amendment, it appears to me that it raises the level 
of assistance to India and he may want to withdraw it.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).
  (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Burton 
amendment.
  Cutting development assistance for India at this time would be 
totally counterproductive because it would undermine U.S.-India 
relations just when we're starting to make some real progress.
  India showed great restraint in the recent Kashmir crisis, and the 
Indian government has made a strong commitment to resuming bilateral 
discussions with Pakistan as soon as all militants have withdrawn 
behind the Line of Control.
  India has also indicated that signing the Comprehensive Test Ban 
Treaty will be a high priority.
  On both counts, India is moving in a direction that's totally 
consistent with U.S. security interests in South Asia. It would be 
foolish to put this progress in jeopardy by cutting India's development 
assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, human rights abuses should be taken seriously wherever 
they occur. India, like most countries in the world, doesn't have a 
perfect record.
  But according to the latest State Department report on human rights 
practices, India is making real progress. The Indian Supreme Court has 
acknowledged and condemned earlier human rights abuses in Punjab, and 
the independent National Human Rights Commission is conducting an 
investigation.
  The best way to improve human rights in India is to continue an open 
and frank dialogue, not to cut programs that limit the spread of AIDS, 
improve access to reproductive health services, and provide basic 
health care for mothers and children.
  With some 500 million Indians living below the poverty line, the 
modest amount of assistance we provide barely scratches the surface 
when compared to the overall need.
  But it's an important symbol of the relationship between the world's 
two largest democracies and it should be continued.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Ackerman) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Burton amendment. We 
have heard a variety of arguments as to why we should abandon ties with 
India, and frankly none of them make sense. The fact is that India, the 
world's largest democracy, is becoming

[[Page H6819]]

more closely aligned with the United States and is increasingly 
important to us as a trading partner and a strategic partner.
  Over a quarter of a million people are expected to vote in India's 
fall elections, free and fair elections open to every citizen of every 
religion of every region of every race. Think about that. A nation of 1 
billion people with a free and open press practicing democracy.
  This amendment sends the wrong message to the billions of people 
around the world who yearn for a secular stable political system, a 
political system in this country that our Founding Fathers believed 
should be based on universal freedoms. It sends the wrong message to 
the best allies that the United States will ever have, the world's 
fledgling democracies, whether they are the people of India, the people 
of Taiwan, or the people of Mali.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for opposition to the Burton amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), chairman of 
the committee, just said that our amendment only addresses 
developmental assistance when he knows full well that this amendment 
has been proposed in years past when developmental assistance and child 
survival and disease assistance was lumped into one category. Today he 
is trying to say that if our amendment passes, that we are actually 
increasing money to India, when I think they are trying to come up with 
a straw issue here to defeat the amendment and it is very 
disconcerting.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 second in which to 
respond by simply reading the gentleman's amendment. It says ``under 
the heading Development Assistance.'' The gentleman's amendment is 
drafted wrong. I know that is not his intent. I was telling the 
gentleman this to make him aware of the consequences. The amendment 
will actually increase the ability of the administration to increase 
development assistance.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Ackerman) for yielding me this time and for his great 
leadership on this issue and so many others.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Burton amendment which 
would cut aid to India. A similar resolution or amendment was defeated 
in 1997, and we should do so again tonight.
  The last two State Department Human Rights reports praised India for 
the progress the country has made in the area of human rights. And in 
the wake of the recent Pakistani-backed incursion across the line of 
control into Kashmir, India has been praised by the international 
community for the restraint it demonstrated and for the steps it took 
to ensure that the situation did not escalate out of control.
  The momentum gained in U.S.-India relations in recent years needs to 
be sustained and strengthened. It is the world's largest democracy and 
the world's strongest democracy should be supporting our friend and 
ally. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the intent of the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) to send a message to India. I 
really actually admire India. India is a very large country that was 
created in a period of turmoil after the decline and the dissolution of 
the British Empire, and India has managed over the years, with great 
hardship, to have some fundamentally democratic institutions; and we 
should all recognize that they have elections there and have struggled 
to have independent courts and free elections and some kind of freedom 
of speech.
  There have been ups and downs. In fact, I believe that the American 
business community has made a tragic error in focussing on Communist 
China as being that country which would be the recipient of aid and the 
recipient of investment over the years, when India was there and ready 
and willing to be a country that could increase the standard of living 
of its people by industrializing and making itself more prosperous.
  However, let us recognize that with that that India has made some 
major errors and some of them are based totally on ego. And when it 
comes to the Kashmir and the Punjab and Jammu, the Indian Government 
might as well not be a democracy. For people in those areas, India 
might as well be Nazi Germany. It might as well not have free elections 
at all, because those people are being denied their right and have been 
all along, especially in Kashmir, to determine their own destiny 
through a plebiscite that was required of them by the United Nations.
  The Indian Government today has, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton) pointed out, hundreds of thousands of troops occupying Kashmir; 
and many of these troops have engaged in, as troops do when they are in 
hostile territory, engaged in major human rights abuses that have been 
documented time and again by Amnesty International. There is really no 
doubt.
  Our own government's Human Rights department here and the State 
Department have documented these human rights abuses. And take a look 
at what is being said. The type of grotesque human rights abuses 
against the people of Kashmir is the very same things we saw Saddam 
Hussein committing and also Milosevic down there in Kosovo and against 
the Bosnians. These things require us to act and to treat India in a 
certain way to try to get them to change their behavior.
  First of all, and again let me go back to, India is a democratic 
government. I would hope people would invest in India, and I hope that 
the United States has closer ties to India in the future. Nothing would 
make that more likely than for them to seek peace in Kashmir by 
permitting the people there to have a vote of plebiscite which India, 
because of ego, continues to say no, no, no. And as long as that 
happens, India will be spending tens of millions if not hundreds of 
millions of dollars on weapons.
  Mr. Chairman, think of this. Today we are only talking about 
decreasing the foreign aid to India by $11 million, when the Indians 
themselves are spending hundreds of millions on conventional weapons 
and at least tens of millions, probably hundreds of millions, on 
nuclear weapons as well. That makes no sense at all for us to be 
subsidizing the weapons program of India. Instead, we should be sending 
this message to convince them to solve this long-festering problem in 
Kashmir and permit some of the democratic reforms to take place in 
Punjab and Jammu.
  This would be a very positive message for us to send for only an $11 
million reduction. I would hope that my colleagues join me. I am sorry 
if there has been some kind of a drafting problem with this amendment, 
and I would hope that the gentleman from Indiana is permitted to solve 
that drafting problem here on the floor with some minor alteration of 
the text.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask support for the intent of the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), who is a member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Callahan) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) as I have done for the last 5 
years or so.
  In light of the heightened tensions in Kashmir, the Burton amendment 
is the wrong approach at the wrong time. The gentleman from Alabama has 
mentioned the NGO situation. That is aside from some of the things that 
I want to say. It is important, obviously, but I want to say this 
amendment will have the inappropriate and ill-considered effect of 
ostracizing India at a critical point in the ongoing conflict over 
Kashmir.
  Mr. Chairman, instead of risking further tension in the region, the 
United States should be actively engaged in promoting peace in the 
subcontinent of Asia. While the eventual resolution of the Kashmir 
conflict must be resolved bilaterally between India and Pakistan, the 
United States has an interest in facilitating meaningful negotiations 
between the parties. In fact, I believe so strongly in bringing peace 
to this region, that I have encouraged the administration to appoint a 
special envoy

[[Page H6820]]

 to serve as an honest broker to the conflict.
  But in order to help bring a framework for peace, the U.S. must come 
to the table with clean hands. Supporting the Burton amendment would 
put the recent progress in relations between India and America at risk. 
Over the past year, we have seen increased dialogue on nuclear 
nonproliferation, a better understanding of India's security concerns, 
and an increase in U.S.-India trade and investment. This improvement in 
U.S.-India relations should be sustained and strengthened, not put at 
risk.
  In order to address concerns we may have about India, it is important 
to focus on fostering a positive and constructive dialogue. This 
amendment would do the exact opposite by risking the progress we have 
made.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote against the 
Burton amendment and in support of peace in Kashmir and engagement with 
India.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
opposition to the Burton amendment and ask permission to include the 
full text of my remarks in the Record.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise again this year to oppose the Burton amendment 
which would unfairly and unwisely cut foreign assistance to India. As 
this body has done repeatedly in the past, I urge my colleagues to 
reject this amendment.
  Adoption of this amendment would send the wrong message at the wrong 
time. We have recently witnessed the de-escalation of a dangerous 
confrontation between the world's two newest nuclear powers, India and 
Pakistan. Rather than praising India for the restraint it demonstrated 
during the recent situation in Jammu and Kashmir, the Burton amendment 
would rebuff India and, in targeting humanitarian aid, would punish the 
poorest and neediest people in a country where 500 million live below 
the poverty line.
  We are all aware of tensions in our relationship with India because 
of the nuclear tests fourteen months ago. Over the past year, however, 
we have made significant progress in intense bilateral talks between 
the United States and India. India has expressed readiness to cooperate 
in developing a multilateral agreement to halt production of fissile 
materials and to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. We need to be 
encouraging this sort of progress. The Burton amendment could stop it 
cold.
  India has made significant progress in liberalizing her economy and 
increasing trade and investment. The momentum created by these reforms 
would also be impeded by passage of the Burton amendment. United States 
businesses are India's number one overseas investor. Some 107 Fortune 
500 countries are currently invested in India, and United States high 
tech firms see India as one of the world's most important developing 
markets.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States must work with India to limit the 
proliferation of nuclear weapons, to address the security concerns of 
the region, and to safeguard the progress that has been made in 
protecting human rights. This amendment would not merely affect the 
level of assistance, which is already extremely limited, but far more 
significantly, would stigmatize India at precisely the moment we need 
most to build trust. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Burton 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Burton amendment.
  This amendment, whether it freezes, cuts, or caps foreign assistance 
to India, is a step in the wrong direction.
  India's Government is moving in the right direction, at a rapid pace 
to strengthen its ties with the United States and the world.
  The economic and diplomatic relationship between the United States, 
the world's oldest democracy, and India, the world's largest democracy, 
would receive a harmful blow with successful passage of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Government of India has been on a constant pace of 
change since 1991.
  Indeed, the most recent State Department human rights reports praised 
India for the substantial progress it has made.
  India has established a process to receive and resolve complaints of 
human rights violations.
  Those complaints are investigated.
  And when officials and members of security forces are found to have 
violated human rights, India has taken swift and sure action.
  Indeed, the human rights violations that Mr. Burton alleges, no 
longer exist.
  India is a strong and vibrant democracy, with an independent 
judiciary, a free press and an active voting population.
  More than 650 million citizens are expected to vote in India's 
elections later this year.
  There is no other nation that can boast of voter participation by 
that many citizens, and few that can match India's voter turnout which 
ranges around two-thirds of its voters.
  And, there is no other nation that can boast of its economic ties to 
the United States in comparison to India.
  U.S. business in India has grown at an astonishing rate of nearly 50 
percent a year since 1991, from $500 million then, to more than $12 
billion now, with the United States becoming India's largest trading 
partner and largest investor.
  Some one hundred of America's Fortune 500 companies have invested in 
India, opened offices and plants there.
  With so many large American companies that have now invested in India 
and opened operations there, it would be foolish to break those ties, 
ties that we have so diligently strived to assemble.
  It is false and misdirected to say that India is not our friend.
  I would remind my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that our Government and 
the Government of India have negotiated on very sensitive matters of 
disarmament and non-proliferation.
  Serious efforts have been made by our two countries to find common 
ground on these important security issues.
  Any action by the United States to stigmatize India on inaccurate 
human rights allegations will likely complicate our efforts to create a 
lasting and meaningful friendship in a very dangerous part of the 
World.
  It should also be noted that the aid we provide to India goes for 
very important projects. The aid we provide to India goes to the 
control of AIDS, to population control, disease control and rural 
development.
  These are important and worthy causes, causes that not only benefits 
India, they benefit us and the rest of the world.
  In 1997, we overwhelmingly defeated this amendment by a vote of 342 
to 82.
  We took the right position then, and we should take the right 
position now.
  Mr. Chairman, let us as Members of Congress not view the Government 
of India as being callous to alleged human rights violations.
  India has made great strides in their battle to bring together 
diverse states within its Region.
  Vote NO! on the Burton Amendment.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition 
to the Burton amendment.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just find it so sad to listen to my 
colleagues in support of this Burton amendment spread inaccurate 
information about India which has tried so hard to deal effectively 
with human rights problems within the country.
  The true human rights problem in Kashmir is that of a violent 
separatist movement supported by outsiders, supported by Pakistan, 
carried out by the followers of bin Laden and other extremist terrorist 
leaders destroying the homes and lives of thousands of peace-loving 
Hindus and Muslims.
  In Kashmir, and Kashmir is part of India, the Indian security forces 
are trying to maintain order and protect all the citizens of Kashmir, 
Muslims and Hindu alike, just like we would do in any State of the 
United States.
  I heard mention of Punjab. In Punjab, there is a Sikh government 
elected by the Sikhs themselves which has been in place for over 2\1/2\ 
years.
  Mr. Chairman, I heard mention of Dalits. The President of India is a 
Dalit, an untouchable. The President of India. The Indian Constitution 
specifically provides that the caste system is outlawed and not 
recognized in that state.

                              {time}  2100

  We have a national human rights commission in India that has been

[[Page H6821]]

lauded by the State Department and other international agencies for 
going after human rights violations, bringing people to justice, 
jailing people who committed those kinds of violations.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) talked about a loan to Iraq. 
The loan to Iraq, from what we understand, we have talked to the 
embassy, is nothing more than basically for humanitarian purposes. It 
is just totally inaccurate information that we are getting on the other 
side.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Inaccurate information. Human Rights Watch. My colleagues, I hear 
them quoting from them all the time. Amnesty International, I hear my 
colleagues quoting them all the time. They quote them all the time. 
They sit over there, and they smile and they laugh.
  Amnesty International Human Rights Watch, the 1999 report that just 
came out, 1999 report: gang raping women, gang raping women, torturing 
people, throwing people in canals with their hands tied behind their 
back and their feet tied, drowning them; and that is an error? Come on, 
guys.
  My colleagues are obviously concerned about constituents of theirs 
who lobby them hard. I understand that. But the fact of the matter is 
these things are going on, and we are not doing a damn thing about it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia 
and the Pacific.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 
The amendment, according to the intent of the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Burton), would cut one-quarter of the development assistance aid 
to India. This would affect, of course, not only American national 
interests, but some of the neediest people in the world in South Asia.
  Make no mistake about it, the purpose of the gentleman's amendment is 
punitive. It is designed to show our displeasure and our disapproval of 
the government of India. But India, a nation of a billion people, is 
too important to American interests to threaten or to punish in order 
to send a message or to show a pro-Pakistan tilt. Regrettably, despite 
his intent to the contrary, I have to submit that the gentleman's 
amendment does not serve our national interests, neither with regard to 
arms control nor in relationship to human rights.
  It cuts off all aid except Public Law 480 Title II when it comes to 
humanitarian aid. Some of the most important things that we are trying 
to do to assist the poorest people in the world and those specifically 
in India in this instance would be cut off. We are talking about 
immunizations against communicable diseases, basic education, nutrition 
programs, programs relating to HIV/AIDS.
  I urge opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton).
  India is already subject to a wide range of sanctions in accordance 
with Glenn Amendment to the Arms Export Control Act. As a result, all 
military assistance and even the commercial sale of defense articles 
are prohibited. All foreign assistance except humanitarian assistance 
has been terminated.
  While this Amendment does not affect the $81 million in P.L. 480 
Title II food aid provided by the United States, it does directly 
affect other kinds of humanitarian aid. Utilizing the waiver process, 
the remaining U.S. development aid program responds other non-food 
humanitarian aid which supports to two key U.S. national interests: (1) 
The global issues of population growth, infectious diseases and 
environmental conservation; and (2) the humanitarian concerns of 
alleviating poverty and supporting child survival.
  This Amendment would directly affect these poverty alleviation and 
basis development programs. It would cut HIV/AIDs containment and cut 
immunizations against such communicable diseases as polio and 
tuberculosis. It would cut basic education and nutrition programs. The 
recipients of this aid, mostly poor Indian women and children, have 
absolutely nothing to do with their government's nuclear proliferation, 
human rights or foreign trade policies. Their lives should not be 
further jeopardized for the sake of making a symbolic political 
statement.
  Our national interests in South Asia go beyond poverty alleviation. 
With India's and Pakistan's successful testing of nuclear weapons, it 
is in our own short term and long term national security interests to 
bring both South Asian countries into the regime of international arms 
control agreements. The chances for and consequences of nuclear warfare 
in this very volatile region are too great to belittle with symbolic 
political statements aimed at only party. In just the past few months, 
we have seen tensions escalate to a very dangerous level due to 
Pakistan's irresponsible provocations in Kashmir. The fact that India 
reacted in a relatively measured and internationally responsible way 
certainly helped contain and diffuse the conflict. While this Member 
doesnot support direct linkage between humanitarian aid and regional 
conflict resolution, to arbitrarily cut humanitarian assistance to 
India given these recent positive actions by New Delhi would, indeed, 
undermine the leverage we have and jeopardize our efforts to further 
engage India on critical nuclear proliferation issues that affect their 
own national security.
  Human rights problems exist in India. It is appropriate for us to 
express concern about this issue. However, cutting humanitarian 
assistance is not an appropriate or effective way to influence human 
rights practices in India. On the contrary, it only punishes the poor 
in India, who unfortunately, are often the actual victims of human 
rights transgressions.
  India is not our enemy. India is a friendly democracy. The United 
States continues to be India's largest trade and investment partner 
with trade between our two countries exceeding $10 billion annually.
  Deep cuts in humanitarian assistance to some of the world's neediest 
people are not the way to go about addressing the gentleman's concerns 
and advancing American interests. Accordingly, this member urges his 
colleagues to reject the Burton Amendment.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding me this time. This marks the fifth year that the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has submitted an amendment that unjustly 
singles out India and hopefully the fifth year that we decide to vote 
it down.
  The alleged claims of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) of 
India's human rights violations completely ignore the last two State 
Department human rights reports that praise India for its considerable 
progress in the human rights area.
  Supporting the Burton amendment would not just weaken our dialogue 
with India but would undermine the strong economic relationship that 
both of our countries have achieved.
  The United States is India's largest trading partner and largest 
investor. U.S. investment has grown from $500 million per year in 1991 
to more than $12 billion in 1999. Many large American companies have 
seen the economic opportunities in India and have invested heavily 
there.
  We clearly need to sustain and further strengthen the momentum that 
has been gained in U.S.-Indo relations, instead of proposing 
legislation that merely alienates an important ally.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Indiana. This marks the fifth year that Mr. Burton 
has submitted an amendment that unjustly singles out India, and 
hopefully, the fifth year that we decide to vote it down.
  Mr. Burton's alleged claims of India's human rights violations 
completely ignore the last two State Department human rights reports 
that praise India for its considerable progress in this area. The 
Burton amendment would substantially cut cricial U.S. humanitarian aid 
to India and would send the wrong message from the world's first 
democracy to the world's largest.
  With the recent Pakistani incursion across the Line of Control into 
Jammu and Kashmir, India was praised by both the Administration and the 
International Community for the extraordinary restraint it displayed in 
confining its response to terrorist occupied territory. Mr. Burton's 
amendment has a peculiar way of showing our support.
  The government of India has worked hard to address human rights 
issues. India has arrested and prosecuted more than 100 individuals 
associated with the recent string of religious attacks that occurred 
earlier this year and has passed laws to take action against those 
officials that have committed human rights violations. Truly, Mr. 
Burton's allegations continue to be based on outdated and inaccurate 
information.
  Supporting the Burton amendment would not only weaken our dialogue 
with India but

[[Page H6822]]

would also undermine the strong economic relationship that both of our 
countries have achieved. The United States is India's largest trading 
partner and largest investor. U.S. investment has grown from $500 
million per year in 1991 to more than $12 billion in 1999. Many large 
American companies have seen the economic opportunities in India and 
have invested heavily there.
  We clearly need to sustain and further strengthen the momentum that 
has been gained in U.S.-Indo relations. Instead of proposing 
legislation that merely alienates an important ally, I suggest the 
esteemed member from Indiana first take the time to travel to India and 
see its progress first-hand. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues 
to help India continue its progress in spreading the ideals of 
democracy by voting no to the Burton amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that there are seven 
multilateral and 13 bilateral donors that provide assistance to India.
  The United States is the seventh largest donor after the World Bank, 
the Asian Development Bank, the European Union, Japan, Germany, and the 
United Kingdom.
  So there is a lot of people that are giving money to India. But 
nobody is sending any kind of a message to them that they ought to 
clean up their act as far as the human rights tragedies that are going 
on.
  Christians are dying in Nagaland. Dalits, the blacks in India, are 
being persecuted and are dying because of Indian repression, because of 
the caste system. In Punjab, Sikhs are dying and being tortured. In 
Kashmir, women are being gang raped and men are being tortured and 
dying. People are going to jail without proper judicial proceedings.
  We ought to at least send a signal. That is all we are saying. They 
are getting money from all over the world. A signal. The signal is 
going to be sent tonight whether we pass this amendment or not because 
we are talking about it.
  The Indian ambassador came to me and did not want me to introduce 
this amendment because of what is going on over there right now. But 
somebody said to me a little while ago, what about the signal this is 
sending because of the chaotic situation that is going on up there on 
the border between Kashmir and Pakistan or India and Pakistan?
  But what about the signal that was sent when they were going to give 
$25 million to Iraq just the other day? When the Indian ambassador was 
in my office, they were planning to give $25 million to Iraq in 
violation of the U.N. embargo. Does not anybody care about that?
  Do we want them to support and work with Saddam Hussein? They said 
they are planning to work with him in developing oil fields in southern 
Iraq. Saddam Hussein has not changed. He is a terror to that entire 
region. He is a blot on the world. India says they want to help them, 
and we are not going to send a signal? Let alone the human rights 
violations.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), cutting development 
assistance to India.
  Democratic India is in a tough neighborhood. China occupies Tibet to 
India's north. China sells nuclear and ballistic technology to Pakistan 
on India's west, and China has sold over $1 billion worth of arms to 
the drug-running Burmese military junta to India east. Our Nation 
should be strongly supporting India, the only truly democratic nation 
of the subcontinent.
  Passage of the Burton amendment would undercut our strategic goals of 
supporting peace and stability through the promotion of democratic 
governments in the region.
  In regards to the point of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) 
that India will enter into a commercial arrangement with Iraq, I 
received information from the State Department that the Indian ministry 
of external affairs has issued a statement that India will only enter 
into contracts approved by the U.N. sanctions committee on Iraq.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Burton 
amendment.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time.
  India is the world's largest democracy, and I agree that she is not a 
perfect nation. But I really do not know any perfect nations.
  India is a young democracy, much younger than our very own. We still 
have problems with human rights in America. But India is moving, moving 
positively and progressively to try and overcome some of the 
difficulties of a country that has been colonized, a country steeped in 
poverty, a country that is seeking, working, struggling to overcome. 
Let us not take them back. Let us help them, not hurt them.
  There is an old African proverb that says ``When elephants fight, the 
grass gets hurt.'' Well, India will be hurt, 950 million of them. Let 
us help them, not hurt them.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of India and against the Burton 
amendment.
  Today, India is the world's largest democracy with 950 million 
people. For half a century India has struggled to overcome colonialism, 
religious and ethnic conflicts and all of the problems of 
underdevelopment.
  India has made tremendous progress in trying to address its human 
rights problems. India has instituted a process to receive complaints, 
initiate investigations of all claims, and passed laws to take action 
against those officials and members of security forces that have 
committed human rights offenses. The Burton amendment would eliminate 
U.S. assistance to help sustain these achievements.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that India is not a perfect country. However, 
and perhaps unfortunately, there are none, or at the very least, none 
that I am aware of. Even in our own country, one whose democracy is 
much older, one that is more technologically advanced, we are still 
trying to form a more perfect union and so is India.
  So why, why reduce or cut funding to the world's largest democracy? 
Why cut funds to a nation that is working hard and struggling to pull 
itself out of the depths of poverty and despair? Why cut back and or 
cut out the progress that is being made? W.E.B. Dubois is reported to 
have once said, when asked about the lack of progress being made by 
African Americans towards becoming a part of mainstream America, Dubois 
is reported to have said that ``a people so deprived should not be 
expected to race with the wind,'' perhaps one could say that a young 
democracy like India should not be expected to progress at a much 
faster pace.
  They are making progress in the human rights arena, but have not 
quite gotten there yet. They are moving in the right direction and I 
say, let's help and not hinder them, let us support and not oppose 
them, let us fund and not cut them.
  Mr. Chairman, I have lived long enough to understand the African 
proverb that says when elephants fight it is the grass that suffers, in 
this case it is the people, 950 million of them. Today let us make a 
stand for the 950 million people who need our help.
  Vote ``No'' on the Burton amendment and ``Yes'' for people of India.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. McCollum).
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Burton amendment 
this evening, as I have done several times over. A very similar 
amendment to make the same type of point was defeated in 1997 by a vote 
of 82 to 342 in this House, and I would hope that this amendment would 
be defeated by a similarly wide margin.
  The reason I feel this way and so strongly is because it is our 
national security interest for the United States to have a strong 
relationship with India.
  We do not need to be showing the kind of vote that a vote for this 
amendment would do right now when we are having the best relationships 
we have ever had with India in the entire history of the two countries; 
at a time when India is sharing a common fight

[[Page H6823]]

with us against terrorism, terrorism spawned by radical Islamists in 
that region of the world which do terrorist acts, not only in India, 
but all over the world, and particularly against our interests in many 
parts and maybe against us ourselves; at a time when China is a growing 
presence that we are not quite sure of and India provides a democratic 
ballast in that part of the world; at a time when India has just 
rebuffed the Pakistani incursion across the line of control in Kashmir 
and, under very extreme pressure of invasion, did the right thing and 
limited itself in restraint and, in the end, prevailed. I think this is 
a time to reward India, not to attack it.
  I personally have spoken with the Indian ambassador within the past 
week, and I am very aware that the activity level involving the 
question of the aid to Iraq is fully within the United Nations' 
parameters.
  There is nothing involved about human rights that has not been hashed 
over before. The reality is, yes, there are human rights violations; 
but the reality is our State Department says it is improving, and it 
says so in its most current report.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Burton 
amendment. There is no higher priority in U.S. foreign policy than 
checking the potential of aggression by the People's Republic of China. 
There is no greater interest in checking that potential aggression than 
the promotion of a stable, secure, and democratic India.
  As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) just said, no, India is 
not perfect. No one is. But India is essential to the future long-term 
interests of the United States.
  This amendment takes us in the wrong direction. It should be 
defeated.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the logic of some of the arguments tonight kind of 
eludes me. One of my colleagues was talking about India being such an 
essential ingredient in world peace and, for that reason, we ought to 
do everything we can to work with them.
  The logic that we have used with China is that China is so big, and 
they are a nuclear power, we have to stay engaged with them. We cannot 
criticize them. We cannot do anything but appease them because it might 
lead to a conflict down the road. As a result, we accept things like 
nuclear espionage; we accept things like illegal campaign contributions 
coming to the United States.
  Attitudes of appeasement usually do not lead to a solution. They lead 
to a conflict. We saw that in World War II when Lord Chamberlain went 
to Munich.
  All I can say is we are not talking about destabilizing or causing a 
problem in India right now. What we are talking about is sending a 
message to them. We are talking about sending a message to them that 
human rights violations, that gang rapes by Indian soldiers who are 
occupying, imposing martial law on Kashmir and Punjab will not be 
tolerated.
  I am not saying sever relations with India. I am not saying that we 
should not do business with India, trade with India. I am saying we 
should send them a strong signal like we should send to China. We do 
not want espionage from China. We do not want them stealing our nuclear 
secrets in our nuclear labs. We do not want them trying to influence 
our elections, like we do not try to influence theirs. We do not want 
India to violate human rights, or China.
  So we should send signals to those countries around the world where 
that occurs. We are supposedly the superpower. We are supposedly the 
moral compass in this world. If we are the moral compass, then at least 
send a signal to them.
  If we cut off just $11 million, and we did vote for that one year. We 
did pass that one year not too long ago, because I do remember debating 
Steven Solarz on this subject. I think sending that signal was the 
reason that India unleashed all of its resources that they possibly 
could to lobby this body so that we would not ever do it again. They 
evidently have been fairly successful.
  But the feeling I have that is so strong and the reason I bring this 
up year after year is because I cannot go to sleep at night when I know 
that there are gang rapes taking place, people being tortured, people 
being put in jail for no good reason other than they do not like what 
is going on when we are supposed to be the people who really believe in 
freedom, democracy, and human rights.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the debate for the last 
10 minutes, and I am appalled by the fact that the debate is taking 
place without any real examination of the question of Kashmir.

                              {time}  2115

  I have heard the various reasons that the gentleman has given for 
sending a signal to India, but the reason that all of us should be 
concerned about sending a signal to India is that the Kashmir bind that 
we have been in for almost 50 years is caused by the fact that India 
refuses to accept the simple route of Democratic self-determination for 
Kashmir.
  Kashmir is a large body of people who ought to have the right to vote 
as to what they want to do, whether they want to be independent or join 
Pakistan, or maybe we will even let India cross that off and do not 
have annexation to Pakistan on the agenda. Let them vote either to join 
India or to become an independent state. They will not even agree to 
that.
  If Kashmir were located in Europe or in Yugoslavia, we would all be 
concerned about the denial of self-determination by the people of 
Kashmir. It has gone on for decades now and nobody seems to care about 
the fact that the world's largest democracy, and India likes to call 
itself the world's largest democracy, and I applaud democracy in India, 
but it has great limitations and it is totally blind when it comes to 
democracy for Kashmir. Kashmir is not permitted to exercise the simple 
right to vote.
  Now we have a situation where the situation has escalated because 
these two powers, which dispute about a number of things but mainly 
about Kashmir, are now nuclear powers. They are nuclear powers. And I 
hate to say, but as new nuclear powers or amateur nuclear powers, they 
may rush into something and cause havoc in that part of the world. And 
of course, once we start using nuclear weapons, we have a problem with 
the atmosphere, we have a problem with the ashes being blown and 
radioactivity, all kinds of things can be set off by a war over Kashmir 
between Pakistan and India.
  I think that if we remove Kashmir as a point of contention between 
India and Pakistan, we would take a giant step toward promoting peace 
in that part of the world and toward avoiding a catastrophe which would 
pull in many other nations.
  Now, I was all in favor of doing what we did in Kosovo, because I 
thought it was important to establish a new moral order and to send a 
message to predators like Slobodan Milosevic. But India does not have 
any evil person we can personify in the case of Kashmir. But they have 
a long-term policy, a long-term policy of just denying the right to 
self-determination to the people of Kashmir. Who can justify that? And 
why not send a signal to India? Why not do something?
  I do not hear the United Nations debating it. I do not hear anybody 
proposing a sense of the Congress resolution. Why are we ignoring the 
problem of Kashmir? Why do we let it go on and on for decades? Are we 
waiting for an explosion? Are we waiting for something more serious 
that we will be drawn into? Are we waiting when we will have to take 
sides because of geopolitics, that China may be on one side, therefore 
we have to get on the other side? Why do we not proceed with a simple 
nonviolent solution.
  People have said we should not have gone into Kosovo with bombs; we 
should not have gone into Kosovo with NATO; we should have had a 
nonviolent solution. Here is an opportunity for a nonviolent solution. 
And India, as a nation, has always been in favor of nonviolence in many 
instances. Gandhi was the founder of the

[[Page H6824]]

whole nonviolent movement. Why do we not send a signal to India that we 
would like to see them change their ways and let Kashmir have a vote on 
self-determination. Any signal would be a good signal in my opinion.
  I certainly will support the gentleman's amendment, because nothing 
else is being done.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment of my good 
friend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Without question, the U.S. relationship with India has been 
undergoing tremendous improvements in the last decade. With the rising 
influence of Communist China over Asia, it is in the vital national 
security interest of the United States to solidify our friendship and 
cooperation with india.
  Not only is India directly threatened by the belligerent government 
in China, Pakistan gave military assistance to a band of terrorists who 
crossed into indian territory of Kashmir and began a military assault.
  The Indian military responded with equal force and fought to defend 
its territorial integrity. India was praised for demonstrating 
restraint and confined its military activities to recapturing its 
territory that was occupied by Pakistani-backed military forces. By 
adopting a proper and proportionate military response to the violation 
of india's borders, India took steps to ensure that the situation did 
not spin out of control and escalate further.
  The Burton Amendment would substantially cut critical U.S. 
humanitarian aid to India. Examples of humanitarian aid projects 
include: AIDS control, population and disease control, and rural 
development.
  In regard to trade, the U.S. is India's largest trading partner and 
largest investor. U.S. investment has grown from $500 million per year 
in 1991 to $12 billion in 1998. Despite the collapse of various 
economies in Southeast Asia over the last two years, the indian economy 
continued to grow at a rate of 6% in 1998.
  India has been criticized in the past for human rights violations. 
The last two reports on human rights from the State Department praised 
India for the substantial progress the country has made in the area of 
human rights and, of course, as mentioned the creation of the 
independent National Human Rights Commission.
  As many of my colleagues know, this is the world's largest democracy. 
Elections have been held in this country in a fair manner and they have 
made tremendous strides towards their democracy. In 1997, in the State 
of Punjab open and democratic elections were held and there was a 67 
percent turnout. Elections in India are regular. They are contested by 
numerous parties and scrutinized by a free press.
  Later this year, India will conduct the largest exercised democracy 
in the world. More than 250 million people are expected to vote. More 
than 100 national and regional political parties will be participating 
in the elections. India maintains an independent judiciary, a free 
press, and diverse political parties. The India press corps actively 
insists in investigating human rights abuses on a regular basis.
  So I understand my colleague. Every year he comes to the House floor 
and offers this amendment. But in this case, I think his differences 
with the government of India should not harm the Indian people, 
especially those who are in need of the aid.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has 
4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in opposition to the Burton amendment.
  As in the past, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has cited 
human rights abuses in India as the reason for his legislative 
initiative. While human rights abuses have been uncovered in India, it 
is important to note the significant progress that India has made in 
resolving human rights problems.
  As noted in the State Department's human rights report on India, 
India is addressing its human rights problems because it is a 
democracy, as noted, the world's largest. Although the country has 
confronted many challenges since gaining independence in 1947, it has 
stayed true to its founding principles.
  For 50 years, India has been striving to build a civil society, to 
institutionalize democratic values of free expression and religion, and 
to find strength in the diversity of its land and its people, despite 
such things as outside insurgence in Kashmir.
  I do not see why we would want to jeopardize this humanitarian aid. 
Withholding this aid would punish the same people this ill-conceived 
amendment seeks to protect, adequate nutrition, shelter, and education. 
These are human rights too.
  I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to also oppose it.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Burton 
amendment as I have in the past.
  We have heard India attacked for spending money on its own defense 
and yet it is subject to attack by the Pakistani army in an action of 
aggression as Kashmir. And just as importantly, China, one of the 
world's emerging powers, occupies a small part of India's territory.
  We have heard talk of the Iraqi potential loan, and yet that loan 
would go through only with the approval of the U.N. Sanctions 
Committee, which means that India will do nothing without the consent 
of the United States which has a veto on that committee.
  We are told that India should just allow Kashmir to secede, but there 
have already been elections in Kashmir. The chief minister is a Muslim. 
And we should hesitate a minute before we announce that every country 
should allow any province at any time to hold a referendum on 
secession, because when South Carolina wanted to secede, that was a 
rather bad idea.
  The Burton amendment is the wrong approach at the wrong time. In the 
wake of the recent Pakistani incursion across the line of control, the 
U.S. and India have a new opportunity to build a broad-based 
relationship. Instead of applauding India for the admirable restraint 
shown in the recent Kashmir crisis, this amendment would punish India 
by cutting crucial humanitarian assistance.
  The Burton amendment would substantially cut critical U.S. 
humanitarian aid to India. These programs limit the spread of HIV/AIDS, 
improve access to reproductive health services, and provide 
supplemental feeding and basic health services to mothers and children. 
A similar amendment was defeated in 1997 by a vote of 342-82. No 
similar amendment was offered in 1998.
  India is addressing the human rights violations cited by Mr. Burton. 
The last two State Department Country Reports on Human Rights praised 
India for making substantial progress in the area of human rights and 
for its independent National Human Rights Commission. The Government of 
India has also continued to allow the International Committee of the 
Red Cross to visit prisons in Kashmir.
  As further evidence of progress on human rights, India has arrested 
and prosecuted more than 100 individuals associated with the recent 
string of religious attacks that occurred earlier this year. In 
addition, India has passed laws to take action against those officials 
and members of security forces that have committed human rights 
violations.
  India is under constant terrorist attacks from the followers of 
people like Osama bin Ladin, who have training camps set up across 
India's borders in Pakistan. Groups like Harkat ul-Mujahidin, an 
organization officially designated as terrorist, by the State 
Department, routinely attack Indian citizens with car bombs, sniper 
attacks, kidnappings and wholesale slaughter of towns in an attempt to 
disrupt any kind of peace in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir.
  The greatest violations of human rights in Kashmir are being 
committed by the Pakistani sponsored terrorist groups which in the last 
several months have targeted dozens of entirely innocent civilians, 
from participants in wedding parties to passengers on buses.
  India is a strong and vibrant democracy that features an independent 
judiciary, free press and diverse political parties. In fact, the 
Indian press corp, among the most active in the world, assists in 
investigating human rights abuses, as do Indian non-governmental 
organizations.
  The U.S. is India's largest trading partner and largest investor. 
U.S. direct investment

[[Page H6825]]

has grown from $500 million per year in 1991 to $12 billion in 1998. 
Despite the collapse of various economies in Southeast Asia over the 
last two years, the Indian economy continued to grow at a rate of 6% in 
1998. In the first half of 1999, new foreign investment in India 
totaled $600 million.
  Many large American companies have invested in India and opened 
plants and offices there. More than 100 of the U.S. Fortune 500 have 
invested in India. Among those companies are General Electric, Boeing, 
AT&T, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Ford Motor Company, Microsoft, IBM, 
Coca Cola, Pepsico, Eli Lilly, Merrill Lynch, McDonnell Douglas, US 
West, Bell Atlantic, Sprint, Raytheon, Motorola, Amoco, Hughes, Mobil, 
and Enron.
  Later this year, India will conduct the largest exercise of democracy 
in the history of the world. More than 250 million people are expected 
to vote and more than 100 national and regional parties will be 
participating in the elections.
  The best way for us to help India continue to improve its human 
rights record is to engage in positive and constructive dialogue, one 
democracy to another. Not with punitive sanctions and cuts in 
assistance.
  The Burton amendment will run counter to the progress that has been 
made in bilateral relations between the U.S. and India. During the past 
year, U.S.-India relations have been marked by increased dialogue on 
nuclear non-proliferation, a better understanding of India's security 
concerns, and an increase in U.S.-India trade and investment. India and 
the United States worked very closely to repel the Pakistani regulars 
and Pakistani-backed terrorists from the Indian side of the Line of 
Control.
  The momentum gained in U.S.-India relations needs to be sustained and 
strengthened. A vote for the Burton amendment would send the wrong 
signal to the people of India.
  Proponents of the Burton Amendment will make note of reports that 
India has offered Iraq a $25 million line of credit. India has said 
that they will only do this in the context of UN guidelines on the 
Iraqi sanctions. That means they will need unanimous approval by the 
Sanctions Committee, which is essentially the Security Counsel, before 
they will go forward with the loan. The US can stop it and India will 
abide by the decision of the UN.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time, and I think I will make just a couple of points and then I will 
withdraw the amendment, because I have been convinced that since 2 
years ago they changed the way the developmental assistance was 
provided and that there has been a misprinting or miswriting of the 
amendment, which I truly regret, but I do not think I will get 
unanimous consent to change it, so I will not even ask.
  Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker talked about India's minister of 
oil and gas, and he said that India was only going to allow that loan 
if the U.N. said that it was all right. The fact of the matter is 
India's minister of oil and gas, and I am quoting him now, acknowledged 
the grant would violate U.N. sanctions but said his country would never 
allow a friend like Iran to suffer. So the intent of India was very 
clear. They were going to violate the embargo. They were going to 
violate the U.N. sanctions.
  Let me just end by saying that the reason I come down here year after 
year is not because I like to argue with my colleagues, because I know 
the other side outnumbers me. And though I really liked Cyrano de 
Bergerac, where he fought hundreds of people by himself and emerged 
victorious, I come down here with no false illusions. I know when I 
come down, my colleagues will beat me into the ground. But I think it 
is important that we bring this issue up, because human rights are 
being violated in Kashmir and Punjab; because U.N. agreements have been 
violated, going back to 1948 and the plebiscite that was agreed to.
  All I can say to my colleagues is that someday I hope that we will 
see fit to send some kind of signal to India that will bring about some 
positive change.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I will not 
object if we do that after the closing statements.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my request to 
withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his request.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) has 6\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think we are seeing a rather unique 
occurrence here on the floor today. Indeed, we usually enjoy doing 
battle with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). He sometimes is 
really a lone warrior on this issue, the overwhelming majority of the 
House of Representatives voting against his amendment. But, 
nonetheless, we have never come to the point where we have forced him 
into a full retreat on the floor of the House, and that is too bad, 
because we do appreciate hearing his point of view, in the minority 
though it might be.
  The gentleman's amendment is being withdrawn because it is flawed, as 
is his logic, as are his arguments. The gentleman's intent, as it 
usually is, is to come to the floor, as he has time and time again, to 
bash India. And his intent here was to cut aid. And, instead, the 
flawed amendment would indeed allow an increase in aid to be sent to 
India. Instead of sending a letter bomb, had his amendment passed, he 
would have sent a Valentine's card.
  The gentleman's intent was basically to hurt the most vulnerable 
people of the Indian society. Our assistance programs help children and 
the elderly and pregnant women. The gentleman from Indiana comes to the 
floor as a champion of human rights. Does he not know that in Kashmir 
there is an elected government, democratically elected; a government 
that is under continuous assault from secessionist terrorists who are 
responsible for numerous serious abuses, including extrajudicial 
executions, torture, kidnapping and extortion?
  Mr. Chairman, the fountainhead of human rights violations in Kashmir 
is state-sponsored terrorism from across the border in Kashmir. Just 
recently, we bore witness yet again to the fact that India was being 
victimized by an egregious invasion of forces from across the border in 
Pakistan. This invasion would have become a full-fledged war but for 
the commendable restraint shown by New Delhi. India has demonstrated 
that it is a responsible nuclear power, that it does not get provoked 
easily, and it knows that real power means acting with restraint.

                              {time}  2130

  India should be recognized for its exceptional conduct during the 
recent Kargil aggression. This amendment of the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Burton) does just the opposite.
  Who are the people terrorizing that he speaks of? These people are 
terrorizing the peace-loving people of the Indian state of Jammu 
Kashmir, Hindus and Muslims alike. They are the victims of terrorism 
for the last several years. It is terror that is unbridled and violent, 
and it is let loose by the Mujahidin members brought in from all over 
the world from overseas and aided and given arms by the Pakistanis. 
That is the real cause for human rights abuses in Kashmir.
  Mr. Chairman, the real violators of human rights in Kashmir are the 
numerous terrorist outfits owing allegiance for the fundamentalist 
religious groups. It is these religious fanatics belonging to such 
groups as the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, recruited, trained and unleashed by 
Osama bin Laden and his terror network, who are fanning the flames of 
human rights violations in Kashmir. The Indian troops that are there 
are there to maintain the peace and stability of their State of Jammu 
and Kashmir.
  The rights that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Burton) would seek 
to protect are the rights of Mr. Bin Laden, who has blown up U.S. 
embassies all over the world. Is that who we are concerned about? I 
think not. It is these terrorist groups and training camps that we have 
to target, not Democratic India, as violators of human rights.
  India is a beacon of unity and diversity. It is a multi-ethnic, 
multi-lingual, multi-cultural, and multi-religious civilization with a 
commendable record of tolerance.
  This is not the time, as the gentleman of Indiana (Mr. Burton) 
recognizes, to bring this amendment up. It is

[[Page H6826]]

not the time to bash India and to reward Pakistan. It is not time to 
punish the victims and to reward the aggressors.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, and to my colleagues in the House and to 
those that might be watching on television, if we were to have a vote 
on the floor of this House tonight or anytime and we would ask the 
Members of Congress as to whether or not they condone atrocities that 
are created anyplace in the world by any people, it would be 435 
against. That is not really the question here tonight.
  I do not question the motives of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton). As a matter of fact, I applaud him for bringing this issue to 
our attention, an issue of great concern to him. But my observation is 
India is the largest democracy in the world, and there are 300 million 
people who live in poverty in that largest democracy. And 85 percent of 
the monies that we appropriate in this bill goes to private, volunteer 
organizations who spend it on making things better for the poverty 
stricken people of India.
  There are other monies that go to India indirectly through this 
committee. For example, we fund UNICEF, and we also fund indirectly the 
Rotary International, which is in the process today of immunizing every 
child in India so there will not be a polio epidemic there and we will 
help to eradicate it.
  So I do not question the fact that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton) is concerned. I do not question his motives at all. None of us 
agree with any atrocities that are committed.
  If we look at the situation that the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Owens) mentioned in Kosovo, the KLA is murdering people in Kosovo. Yet, 
within the next few months, we are going to appropriate some more money 
for Kosovo for humanitarian efforts.
  We have already appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars already, 
and yet we still see the KLA now slaughtering the Serbs as they try to 
exit Kosovo and back into Serbia.
  So it is not an indication of tolerance. It is not an indication of 
no concern. It is an indication of we are doing the right thing, in my 
opinion, by appropriating this small amount of money, of which only 
probably less than $3 million goes to the Government of India and it is 
restricted in its use.
  So, in my opinion, we are doing the right thing with the money we 
have agreed to give to the President in order that he can handle the 
international affairs as he sees fit, as the Constitution says he will.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, let me just close by saying to 
my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), that I am not 
in full retreat. Withdrawing the amendment was because of a 
technicality, and I think my good friend knows that. And we are good 
friends. We worked together on other issues.
  But the thing that motivates me is 200,000 Christians that have died 
over the past 30, 40, 50 years in Nagaland; the 250,000 Sikhs that were 
killed in Punjab in the last 15 years; the 60,000 Muslims that were 
killed in Kashmir in the last 10 years; and the thousands of Dalits, 
who are lower cast people, the blacks, who are mistreated and killed in 
India.
  Maybe we are jousting windmills here. I do not know. But we have got 
to do what we think is right.
  So I would just like to say to my colleague, we will be back another 
time to fight this battle. And I am sure I will have some formidable 
opponents like my colleagues over there, but we will do the best we 
can.
  Just remember what Arnold Schwartzenegger said, ``I'll be back.''
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I just 
want to understand that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), under 
the unanimous consent request of last Friday I believe, has the right 
to offer an amendment, that this being withdrawn does not give the 
gentleman the right to offer a different amendment, and that that is 
not his intent.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
       Page 116, after line 5, insert the following:

      sense of the congress relating to colombian flower industry

       Sec. ____. (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The flower industry of Colombia has been recognized on 
     several occasions by the Department of State, the Drug 
     Enforcement Agency, and the United States Customs Service for 
     its substantive part in reducing drug-related and other 
     criminal activities while working closely with United States 
     law enforcement agencies to establish extensive anti-
     smuggling programs.
       (2) The flower industry of Colombia has been a leader as a 
     major private industry in reducing corruption in the 
     commercial sector and worked closely with the Government of 
     Colombia to strengthen the commitment of such Government to 
     preserve and advance its democratic institutions.
       (3) The flower industry of Colombia employs directly and 
     indirectly approximately 125,000 people in Colombia.
       (4) The flower industry of Colombia has established 
     numerous social programs for workers and their families such 
     as nursing care, day care, subsidized food and nutrition 
     programs, subsidized schooling, and most recently, a program 
     and publication dedicated to reducing intra-family violence.
       (5) This publication is designed to strengthen family value 
     and human rights among the workers of the Colombian flower 
     sector.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the flower industry of Colombia should be recognized for 
     its contributions to strengthening United States and 
     Colombian relations by insuring strong and healthy families, 
     domestic stability, and promoting good government in the 
     democratic nation of Colombia.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 
29, 1999, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) also 
seek to control the time in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
patience with this amendment.
  I rise today to offer the amendment to the Foreign Operations bill. 
The amendment is designed to recognize members of the Colombian flower 
industry who have worked diligently to improve the living standard of 
all people in Colombia.
  Known by their countrymen as Growers of Flowers, these business 
persons have been leaders in Latin American private industry in 
reducing corruption in the commercial sector, while working closely 
with the Colombian Government to bolster and advance its Democratic 
initiatives.
  Programs being supported and funded by Growers of Flowers include 
corruption reduction in the private sector, the establishment of 
nursing care, day-care, subsidized food, nutrition, and educational 
programs, and a new program to eradicate domestic violence.
  At this time there is scarce good news coming out of Colombia. On 
this past weekend, we read and saw further bombings taking place in 
Colombia.
  The work that Growers of Flowers is voluntarily doing on the ground 
is, however, a bright little light.
  I am offering this amendment this evening to acknowledge the 
contributions of Growers of Flowers, and I hope

[[Page H6827]]

my colleagues will join me in this effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, continuing to reserve my point of order 
on the amendment, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise with concern over this amendment. The amendment 
expresses a sense of Congress. Colombia is in a very grave situation 
right now. Its 40-year-old government guerrilla struggle and the latter 
day antidrug struggle is critical.
  The Colombian flower growers have been one of its most successful 
enterprises in Latin America, but not without help from our country. 
Our country allowed Colombian flowers into this country duty free.
  There is a downside to the Colombian success, the injury done to U.S. 
flower growers. We might note that since 1992, 50 percent of the U.S. 
carnation producers have left the business, 39 percent of the mini-
carnation producers have left the business, 54 percent of the U.S. 
chrysanthemum producers have left the business, and 41 percent of the 
rose growers have left the business.
  U.S. flower growers do not get acknowledged by U.S. Congress. Nor do 
they get any Federal help.
  Well, I am here to congratulate those businesses in Colombia that are 
doing well. I think that the flower growers are a good enterprise for 
Colombia.
  Let us not forget or let us not do this praise without remembering 
that there is a downside, because all of those Colombian flowers get 
into the United States free of duty.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, continuing to reserve my point of order, 
I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for being so generous 
in yielding.
  I support both of the gentlemen. I think they are both right. I think 
that the Hastings amendment is one that is an important one, and the 
recognition that he seeks to present to the flower industry of Colombia 
is important.
  But our colleague from California (Mr. Farr) is also right. I do not 
think that that recognition does damage to the flower industry in the 
U.S.; the free market does. But we must be sensitive to those needs 
because we have a wonderful flower industry in our country. But that 
does not negate the facts that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings) presents. I thank him for his leadership on this, especially 
at this sensitive time in Colombia's future.
  My colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), has been a 
champion on that score. He has been a friend of Colombia and is 
sensitive to the concerns that are there, too.
  So, hopefully, we will be able to find a way to recognize and also 
recognize our own industries here, as well.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise not to oppose the gentleman's 
amendment, but to address the concerns many of us have about the impact 
that the Colombian flower industry is having on American flower 
growers. I won't disagree with the gentleman that the Colombian flower 
industry has made progress in Colombia. However, I ask Mr. Speaker, at 
what cost?
  In 1991, Congress enacted the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) 
which provided for duty-free treatment, or reduced duties, on many 
products, including fresh-cut flowers, imported from the four South 
American Andean countries of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. This 
legislation was proposed to promote alternatives to coca cultivation 
and production by offering broader access to U.S. markets for legal 
products. Unfortunately, the act has not accomplished these goals.
  Since the enactment of ATPA, it is clear that Colombian fresh-cut 
flowers have been the greatest beneficiaries. In 1992, Colombia 
exported $87.7 million worth of fresh-cut flowers to the United States. 
By 1995, Colombian exports increased to more than $374.4 million. This 
represents a 427-percent increase over that 3-year period.
  How does the growth in Colombian exports compare with the domestic-
cut flower industry? Domestic growers of roses and carnations have been 
particularly hard hit. In 1996, Colombia exported approximately 1.7 
billion roses and carnations to the United States. Colombia now 
controls more than 50 percent of the United States market for roses and 
80 percent of the carnation market. Overall, Colombian flowers account 
for about 65 percent of the United States fresh-cut flower market.
  Meanwhile, the total number of U.S. fresh-cut flower growers has 
plummeted from 932 in 1992 to 706 in 1995, a decline of over 10 percent 
a year. Specifically, since the passage of the ATPA, more than 52.52 
percent of U.S. Carnation producers, 39.02 percent of U.S. mini 
carnation producers, 53.95 percent of the U.S. Chrysanthemum producers, 
41.62 percent of the U.S. Pompon Chrysanthemum producers, and 41.3 
percent of the U.S. rose producers have left the business. This impact 
on the domestic-cut flower industry has been disproportionately placed 
upon California, home of 58 percent of the United States cut flower 
growers.
  The ATPA provides the preferential treatment for Colombian fresh-cut 
flowers only--not for flowers from the Netherlands, or from any other 
country. This preferential treatment, however, is not serving its other 
intended purposes of reducing illegal drug production in the nation of 
Colombia.
  In 1996, an International Trade Commission (ITC) report found that 
the ``ATPA had little effect on drug crop eradication in the Andean 
region.'' This is a major understatement. in fact, since ATPA's 
enactment illegal drug crop cultivation has increased in Colombia. The 
number of hectares devoted to coca cultivation in Colombia increased 
from 37,500 in 1991 to more than 50,000 in 1995. The ITC report also 
found that ``[the] ATPA had a small and indirect effect on crop 
substitution during 1995.'' Thus, we have not achieved the intended 
goal of reducing drug crop cultivation by providing market access for 
alternative crops.
  We must do all we can to encourage Colombia to seek alternatives to 
drug protection. However, the ATPA has neither effectively reduced drug 
crop production in Colombia, nor has it improved the economic situation 
of cut flower growers in the United States. If we are going to fight 
drug production at its source in Colombia, Members and the American 
people should be informed that the Andean Trade Preference Act is not 
up to the task.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for 
their indulgence.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) is withdrawn.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Tancredo

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       Page 116, after line 5, insert the following:
       Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be provided for the United Nations 
     Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Program or the United Nations 
     World Heritage Fund.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 
29, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) is 
recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today cuts nothing from the total 
appropriations for the Foreign Operations appropriations, but it does 
prohibit any use of funds for the Man and the Biosphere Program and the 
World Heritage Convention.
  Currently, there are 47 Biosphere Reserves and 20 World Heritage 
Sites in the United States that in total make up a land area the size 
of my home State of Colorado. Creation of these reserves and sites has 
significant impact on non-Federal lands outside the designated areas 
and in several instances has caused major problems for private land 
owners.
  In fact, several States have passed resolutions opposing U.S. 
Biosphere Programs.
  Over the past several years in both the United States and Australia, 
the weight levied by World Heritage Sites has been brought to bear by 
private citizens carrying out the course of their industry.
  In Yellowstone National Park, the environmental impact statement for

[[Page H6828]]

the New World Mine was not even finished when the World Heritage 
Committee voted to place Yellowstone on the ``In Danger'' list for 
World Heritage Sites.

                              {time}  2145

  Likewise, the Jabiluka Mine in Kakido National Forest in Australia 
came up against a similar threat by the World Heritage Committee, but 
this time the verdict was much more agreeable. What is ironic is that 
the decision was handed down in Paris.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I withdraw 
my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama withdraws the point of 
order.
  Mr. TANCREDO. A decision affecting the land of private citizens in 
Australia was decided by bureaucrats in a country halfway around the 
world. These are decisions which should be handled by the government of 
the country in which the action in question takes place. It should in 
no way be given over to an international organization with foreign 
influence.
  Similar amendments to the one I have proposed have been passed in 
previous appropriations bills because these programs draw from funds of 
over 10 governmental agencies. This House has gone on record before to 
deny funding to these two particular organizations, and I believe that 
we must come together again to make sure more American taxpayer money 
is not used for programs which do not serve the American people justly.
  I believe that there are certainly better places for this funding to 
be spent than in UNESCO, an organization from which the United States 
withdrew over a decade and a half ago.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) seek to 
control the time in opposition?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I do seek to control the time, Mr. Chairman, but I also 
ask unanimous consent to give the time to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) and give her the authority to yield as she so 
deems necessary.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) will control 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the distinguished chairman for his generosity in 
yielding all the time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the very 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the 
ranking member on the authorizing committee.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
me this time in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the World Heritage Convention is an international 
treaty conceived and spearheaded by the United States during the Nixon 
administration under which countries voluntarily identify culturally 
and environmentally significant areas within their own borders and 
promise to continue to protect them.
  The program is totally voluntary. The land must be protected in order 
to be nominated. It is not protected after it is nominated. The only 
power that the World Heritage Committee has is if the country who 
nominated the site goes back on its promise to protect that area, the 
committee can drop the site from the list.
  The Man and the Biosphere program identifies protected areas where 
scientists can study entire ecosystems and then sets up a framework 
where those scientists can share their information internationally.
  The framework documents which control the Man and the Biosphere 
program and the World Heritage Convention both contain language making 
clear that they in no way alter the ownership or control of these 
lands.
  Since we were the first signatory of the World Heritage Convention in 
1973, 152 other nations have followed suit. This convention was not 
only a promise to live up to our own standards for protecting these 
sites, it was an invitation to other countries around the world to 
follow suit.
  These two programs have established the United States as a world 
leader in environmental protection and scientific study and the sharing 
of that information. Killing these programs will not hurt these sites 
in the U.S. They are already protected and will remain so. Yellowstone 
and Glacier National Parks will still be national parks if we withdraw 
from the World Heritage Convention. The Everglades will still be 
protected if we stop our scientific study under the Man and the 
Biosphere program.
  But this action will send a signal around the world that we no longer 
value the kind of environmental protection and scientific study that we 
as a Nation pioneered and asked the world community to join.
  We have seen this amendment a number of times in the last several 
years and the House has rejected this amendment each and every time 
because in fact a majority of the House understands the nature of the 
scientific study, the importance of designating these sites as World 
Heritage areas, and they also understand that this is a voluntary 
program. The fact that the process takes place in Belgium or in Paris 
or somewhere else, this is an international body. This is an 
international body. So that should not be foreign to the Members of 
Congress and that is one of the reasons why it is in this legislation. 
This is an international organization to foster the protection of these 
huge, huge world class environmental assets. The size of these assets 
is immaterial. Some of them are there because nations decided that 
these landscapes, these huge areas should be protected as we did with 
the Everglades, as we did with Grand Canyon, as we did with 
Yellowstone. That is the purpose of this program. The international 
scientific study is there so scientists in one country can help other 
scientists learn about the kind of protections, about the kinds of 
programs that work to protect these environmental assets.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong, strong opposition to this amendment.
  This amendment is a late-night, backdoor attempt to kill two programs 
that critics of those programs have been unable to kill in the light of 
day. Legislation to abolish the Man and the Biosphere and World 
Heritage Programs failed in 1996 and 1997 and looks like it may fail 
again this year. So we are here tonight to short circuit the process 
with a little amendment buried in a huge appropriations bill.
  The World Heritage Convention is an international treaty, conceived 
and spearheaded by the United States during the Nixon administration, 
under which countries voluntarily identify culturally and 
environmentally significant areas within their own borders and promise 
to continue protecting them.
  1. The program is totally voluntary.
  2. The land must already be protected in order to be nominated, it is 
not protected after its nominated.
  3. The only power the World Heritage Committee has is, if the country 
who nominated the site goes back on its promise to protect that area, 
the Committee can drop the site from the list.
  The Man and the Biosphere program identifies protected areas where 
scientists can study entire ecosystems and then set up a framework 
where those scientists can share their information internationally.
  The framework documents which control the Man and the Biosphere 
program and the World Heritage Convention both contain language making 
clear that they in no way alter the ownership or control of these 
lands.
  So if these programs are so innocuous, what's the big deal if we 
abandon them?
  Well, since the United States was the first signatory of the World 
Heritage Convention in 1973, 152 other nations have followed suit. This 
convention was not only a promise to live up to our own standards for 
protecting these sites, it was an invitation to other countries around 
the world to follow suit.
  These two programs have established the United States as a world 
leader in environmental protection and scientific study. Killing these 
programs won't hurt these sites in the United States. They are already 
protected and will remain so. Yellowstone and Glacier National Park 
will still be national parks if we withdraw from the World Heritage 
Convention and the Everglades will still protected if we stop our 
scientific study of that area under the MAB program.
  But, this action will send a signal around the world that we no 
longer value the kind of environmental protection and scientific study 
that we pioneered. We would be relinquishing our role as a world leader 
in the protection and preservation of culturally and environmentally 
important areas.
  Why at a time when the Nation is justifiably proud of its role as a 
world leader in so many areas, would we want to abdicate our role as a 
world leader in perhaps the most important fight of all, the fight to 
protect and preserve this planet for generations to come?

[[Page H6829]]

  This amendment is an attempt to short circuit the will of the 
Congress and it would send a terrible signal to the rest of the world. 
Oppose the Tancredo amendment.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. The opponents of the amendment have suggested that in fact we 
have seen this many times before and it has been turned down by the 
House. In fact, the House has passed and the Congress has passed this 
amendment more than once on other programs, on other appropriations. I 
refer specifically to the State Department authorizations for fiscal 
year 1998 and 1999, agreed to by recorded vote of 222-202. The Interior 
appropriations bill, fiscal year 1998, agreed to 222-203. The 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1998, all of these.
  For one thing Mr. Chairman, these two programs actually receive 
funding from a variety of different organizations and a variety of 
different departments, and so you have to go after them as you see them 
arise. That is why we have had to do this before. But each time, at 
least in the situations that I have identified, they have been passed 
by this House.
  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 will defend the committee position in opposing 
reluctantly the distinguished gentleman from Colorado's amendment to 
our bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to note that the House 
Committee on Appropriations mark for the IO&P account is $167 million, 
which is $25 million below the administration's request. An additional 
reduction of $2 million to this account would further erode our ability 
to gain international cooperation in protecting the environment and 
natural resources.
  A $2 million reduction to the IO&P account exceeds our voluntary 
contribution to the Man and the Biosphere program, $355,000, and the 
World Heritage Fund, $450,000. As a result, this amendment would force 
reductions in other worthwhile scientific and educational activities, 
such as the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and the 
International Council of Scientific Unions at a time when we look 
toward science to increase our understanding of global environmental 
problems.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. TANCREDO. I thank the gentlewoman for letting me interject here. 
The fact is that we have amended our own amendment. We do not strike 
any particular dollar amount, we just prevent funds from going for 
these two programs. It actually would go other places in the bill.
  Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. We need to 
make those contributions to the Man and the Biosphere program. 
Everything else is fully funded.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment. I 
commend the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) 
for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  There have been a number of comments made with regard to the original 
treaty obligations of the United States, but concerning the Man and the 
Biosphere program, Congress has never gone on record either authorizing 
or supporting such a program to be carried out. Furthermore, many 
people have raised the issue as to the treaty obligation for the World 
Heritage Fund. This, however, is not true.
  In article 16, paragraph 2 of the convention concerning the 
protection of world cultural and natural heritage, it states that each 
state may declare at the time of ratification that it shall not be 
bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 which deals with the payment of 
regular contributions to the World Heritage Fund. Likewise on October 
26, 1973, the Senate consented to the ratification of the convention 
subject to the declaration that the United States is not bound by 
provisions dealing with regular contributions to the World Heritage 
Fund. The Senate has the power to ratify, but this House has the 
responsibility of the public purse. We are not bound to contribute to 
the program with the hard-earned money of the American people.
  I strongly urge support of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 263, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation for 
     any category A Investment Fund project, as listed in Appendix 
     E, Category A Projects, of the Corporation's Environmental 
     Handbook of April 1999, as required pursuant to Executive 
     Order 12114 and section 239(g) of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2199(g)).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 
29, 1999, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama reserves a point of order.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment cuts funding to environmentally sensitive 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation fund projects, such as oil 
refineries, chemical plants, oil and gas pipelines, large scale logging 
projects, and projects near wetlands or other protected areas. Current 
OPIC investment funds are not subject to any transparency requirements. 
Furthermore, no specific information on these projects is contained in 
OPIC's annual reports.
  As a consequence, Congress, the public and the residents living near 
OPIC projects have no knowledge of the potential environmental and 
related financial and political risks. What is the taxpayer's interest 
in these projects?
  Taxpayers are liable for OPIC investments overseas if they fail. I 
want to repeat that. Taxpayers are liable for OPIC investments overseas 
if they fail. Private corporations and investors make investments in 
OPIC investment funds. OPIC-supported funds, in turn, make direct 
equity and equity-related investments in new, expanding and privatizing 
companies in ``emerging market'' economies. While taxpayer money is not 
actually invested in these funds, taxpayers are liable for the 
investments should they fail. These funds have invested in more than 
240 business projects in over 40 countries. Recent estimates show that 
the total amount in Investment Fund programs will soon reach $4 
billion.
  Since taxpayers are exposed to millions of dollars of potential 
liabilities, I believe OPIC has a responsibility to Congress and to the 
public to operate in an open and transparent manner. The lack of 
environmental transparency conceals environmentally destructive 
investment of these funds not only from Congress and the American 
public but also to locally affected people in the countries where OPIC 
projects are run.
  For example, a 1996 Freedom of Information lawsuit focusing on OPIC 
activity in Russia revealed that an investment fund project was 
involved in a clear cutting of primary ancient forests in northwest 
Russia. Russian citizens, expecting democracy building assistance from 
the U.S. Government, had not been provided with any environmental 
documentation. In fact, according to documents obtained in a lawsuit, 
an OPIC consultant had falsely documented the Russian citizens' support 
for the harmful, irreversible logging of pristine forests.
  OPIC investment funds have also been involved in a gold mine in the

[[Page H6830]]

Cote d'Ivoire in the area of a primary tropical forest which is opposed 
by local citizens. Reports of other troubling projects are also being 
circulated. Conservation groups have filed Freedom of Information 
requests to obtain the names, nature, location and environmental impact 
assessments for all OPIC investment fund projects. OPIC, however, 
continues to conceal the environmental consequences of these 
questionable investments from the public.
  What little information has been uncovered about these funds reveals 
a checkered environmental record. With environmentally and socially 
sensitive projects being a main focus of the funds, public disclosure 
of environmental impact assessments is even more crucial.
  Organizations such as the National Wildlife Federation, Friends of 
the Earth, Institute for Policy Studies, Environmental Defense Fund, 
Sierra Club, Center for International Environmental Law and Pacific 
Environment and Resources Center have long advocated increased 
transparency in OPIC investment fund projects.
  Representatives of these organizations met with the new OPIC 
President in February, where he agreed with their assertion that these 
funds should be transparent when it comes to the environment. OPIC 
recently launched a $350 million equity fund for investment in sub-
Saharan Africa which will include transparency and public disclosure 
provisions. But, Mr. Chairman, there are still 26 other funds which 
remain shrouded in secrecy. With almost $4 billion invested in these 
programs and OPIC's sketchy environmental record, it is ever more 
important that OPIC be held accountable to the public regarding its 
investment in environmentally sensitive projects.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that it is the 
intent of the gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
  That being the case, I will withdraw my reservation of objection and 
claim the opposition time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me. So with almost $4 billion invested in these programs and 
OPIC's sketchy environmental record, it is ever more important that 
OPIC be held accountable to the public regarding its investment in 
environmentally sensitive projects. The ideal legislation to correct 
the lack of transparency in investment fund projects would require the 
public disclosure of environmental impact assessments conducted on all 
new investment projects.
  It would also allow for public commentary where citizens, especially 
those living in the affected area of the project, could voice their 
opinions of the project. In the case of projects already under way, a 
renegotiation of contracts to allow for public disclosure would be 
required to avoid breach of contract concerns. In the absence of 
legislation like this and because of the limitations of appropriations 
bills, my amendment simply cuts funding for environmentally sensitive 
investment fund projects. If we cannot have full transparency in all 
investment fund projects, then OPIC should not be involved in projects 
that are environmentally sensitive.
  While projects like oil refineries, gas and oil pipelines, chemical 
plants that produce hazardous or toxic materials, and large-scale 
logging projects may be necessary for the industrial development of 
developing countries, holding the U.S. taxpayers liable for investments 
in projects that could pose serious environmental or health risks to 
local populations with no public oversight or disclosure is 
unacceptable.
  It is OPIC's policy, as outlined in the Environmental Handbook to 
conduct rigorous internal Environmental Impact Assessments on all 
environmentally sensitive projects. Environmental impact assessments 
are also required by law as found in Executive Order 12114 and Public 
Law 99-204. However, while the assessments for insurance and finance 
projects are publicly disclosed, assessments on Investment Fund 
projects are not. Accountable government demands that these assessments 
be disclosed.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is endorsed by Friends of the Earth, 
Environmental Defense Fund, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Sierra 
Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Center for International Environmental 
Law, Pacific Environment and Resources Center, Rainforest Action 
Network, Institute for Policy Studies and Amazon Watch.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and shed some light on 
OPIC's environmentally sensitive Investment Fund projects.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, as vice chairman of the International 
Relations Committee, this Member rises in strong opposition to the 
Kucinich amendment which would cut the funding of the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation's (OPIC) Investment Fund program. While this 
Member shares the distinguished gentleman's concern about funding only 
environmentally responsible projects, given that OPIC already has an 
effective environmental review program, it appears that the underlying 
purpose of this amendment is to drastically cut and restrict OPIC under 
the guise of environmental protection. Mr. Chairman, we have already 
had this debate on the Andrews amendment.
  Contrary to the claims of some OPIC opponents, all of OPIC's fund 
investments must meet stringent world class environmental standards. 
These standards are higher than any other bilateral export credit, 
investment or insurance agency in the world. In fact, no other 
investment funds program has higher standards. OPIC requires that each 
environmentally sensitive fund investment must undergo a complete 
environmental impact assessment and must meet OPIC obligations to 
mitigate potential environmental harm. Each funds project is subject to 
OPIC environmental monitoring over the life of the project. This 
includes the Russian forest project which has been cited and about 
which this Member has been informed did meet applicable World Bank 
Environmental Standards.
  Moreover, by imposing new, additional standards by Congressional fiat 
and well beyond those established at the time the fund was established, 
this amendment could potentially expose the U.S. taxpayer to lawsuits 
for breach of contract.
  The Kucinich amendment as written would directly undercut U.S. 
assistance programs to the neediest of developing countries and leave 
the environments of these countries open to unregulated exploitation. 
For example, the new $350 million Africa Infrastructure Fund would not 
be able to make the most of its potential investment because 
infrastructure, by definition, tends to involve environmentally 
sensitive programs. These investments, under current laws and 
regulations, must follow sound environmental standards. This initial 
$350 million investment is expected to leverage another $2 billion in 
investment in Sub-Saharan Africa. It is unlikely that the Africa 
Infrastructure Fund could even raise private sector money under the 
conditions required by the pending Amendment. As a result, the benefits 
that Africa so desperately needs will be lost. This includes 
environmental improvement projects in the areas of clean water, forest 
protection and conservation of natural resources. Indeed, if unable to 
access resources from the Africa Infrastructure Fund, African nations 
will be forced to run to other sources of investment including those 
that may not require the same standards of environmental responsibility 
as we do thereby resulting in further exploitation of and damage to 
Africa's fragile environment.

  This Member would refer his colleagues back to all of the sound 
reasons detailed during the debate we just had on the Andrews amendment 
about why OPIC is an important and successful component of American 
foreign policy and trade promotion. While the approach of the Kucinich 
amendment may be somewhat different, the cost of it equals that of the 
Andrews amendment. Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to 
strongly oppose this amendment.
  Any projects supported by OPIC in what is called Category A that 
subsequently change in nature from the description provided in 
application materials, and will thereby cause material impacts to the 
environment, shall be required to submit additional EA documents to 
OPIC that must be acceptable to OPIC in its sole discretion.
  Industrial categories:
  A. Large-scale industrial plants.
  B. Industrial estates.
  C. Crude oil refineries.
  D. Large thermal power projects (200 megawatts or more).
  E. Major installations for initial smelting of cast iron and steel 
and production of non ferrous metals.
  F. Chemicals:
  1. Manufacture and transportation of pesticides;
  2. Manufacture and transportation of hazardous or toxic chemicals or 
other materials.
  G. All projects which pose potential serious occupational or health 
risks.
  H. Transportation infrastructure:
  1. Roadways;

[[Page H6831]]

  2. Railroads;
  3. Airports (runway length of 2,100 meters or more);
  4. Large port and harbor developments;
  5. Inland waterways and ports that permit passage of vessels of over 
1,350 tons.
  I. Major oil and gas developments.
  J. Oil and gas pipelines.
  K. Disposal of toxic or dangerous wastes:
  1. Incineration;
  2. Chemical treatment.
  L. Landfill.
  M. Construction or significant expansion of dams and reservoirs not 
otherwise prohibited.
  N. Pulp and paper manufacturing.
  O. Mining.
  P. Offshore hydrocarbon production.
  Q. Major storage of petroleum, petrochemical and chemical products.
  R. Forestry/large scale logging.
  S. Large scale wastewater treatment.
  T. Domestic solid waste processing facilities.
  U. Large-scale tourism development.
  V. Large-scale power transmission.
  W. Large-scale reclamation.
  X. Large-scale agriculture involving the intensification or 
development of previously undisturbed land.
  Y. All projects with potentially major impacts on people or serious 
socioeconomic concerns.
  Z. Projects, not categorically prohibited, but located in or 
sufficiently near sensitive locations of national or regional 
importance to have perceptible environmental impacts on:
  1. Wetlands;
  2. Areas of archaeological significance;
  3. Areas prone to erosion and/or desertification;
  4. Areas of importance to ethnic groups/indigenous peoples;
  5. Primary temperate/boreal forests.
  6. Coral reefs;
  7. Mangrove swamps;
  8. Nationally-designated seashore areas;
  9. Managed resource protected areas, protected landscape/seascape 
(IUCN categories V and VI) as defined by IUCN's Guidelines for 
Protected Area Management Categories; additionally, these projects must 
meet IUCN's management objectives and follow the spirit of IUCN 
definitions.
  Mr. Chairman, this member will finally include with information as to 
why the Kucinich amendment on OPIC supports investment funds will kill 
the new Africa Infrastructure Fund.
  I. The Kucinich amendment is a bullet to the heart of OPIC's $350-
million New Africa Infrastructure Fund.
  This amendment would:
  Stop the fund from investing in a majority of infrastructure projects 
(since many infrastructure projects are environmentally sensitive).
  Prohibit most investments in clean water, sewage treatment, 
transportation, electric power and other projects that improve the 
lives of African people.
  Undercut the fund's ability to raise the private sector matching 
funds.
  Make the fund uneconomical and less able to invest in women and 
microenterprises.
  It would deny the benefits of the fund, including:
  6,800 new jobs for Africans.
  Almost $50 million in annual revenues for the countries of sub-
Saharan Africa.
  $2.5 billion in additional financing capital to Africa.
  $350 million in exports from the United States.
  II. This amendment undercuts the environmental protections and new 
transparency built into the New Africa Infrastructure Fund
  OPIC has world-class environmental standards that apply to all OPIC 
programs and funds:
  All environmentally sensitive projects must undergo a complete 
environmental impact assessment.
  The New Africa Infrastructure Fund projects will provide for public 
notice and public comment period in the host country.
  All environmentally sensitive projects must meet OPIC requirements to 
mitigate potential environmental harm.
  All environmentally sensitive projects are subject to OPIC 
environmental monitoring over the life of a project.
  The New Africa Infrastructure Fund must have at all times an 
environmental management system and a full-time qualified environmental 
expert supervising the implementation of OPIC requirements.
  III. The amendment would jeopardize investments by two other OPIC-
supported Africa funds totaling $270 million.
  These funds:
  Would be prohibited from investments in many manufacturing, 
agricultural, and processing projects as well as many basic services in 
sub-Saharan Africa.
  Will generate more than $300 million in US exports (estimated).
  Will create an estimated 5000 African jobs.
  IV. The amendment would harm, rather than help, the environment in 
Africa.
  Because OPIC funds would be prohibited from any environmentally 
sensitive investment:
  Some infrastructure projects will go forward with no obligation or 
requirement to meet OPIC's world-class environmental standards.
  Africa will lose the benefit of OPIC's world-class standards being 
applied to a broad range of infrastructure, manufacturing and natural 
resource projects.
  V. This amendment will undermine OPIC's ability to fulfill its 
commitment to create another $150 million fund for Africa as called for 
in the House-passed Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) 
is withdrawn.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns:
       Page 116, after line 5, insert the following:


         report on atrocities against ethnic serbians in kosovo

       Sec. ____. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act in title III under the heading 
     ``peacekeeping operations'' may be obligated or expended for 
     peacekeeping operations in the Kosovo province of the Federal 
     Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) until the 
     Secretary of State prepares and submits to the Congress a 
     report containing a detailed description of the atrocities 
     that have been committed against ethnic Serbians in Kosovo, 
     including a description of the incident in which 14 Serbian 
     farmers were killed on or about July 25, 1999, and a 
     description of actions taken by North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization (NATO) forces in Kosovo to prevent further 
     atrocities.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 
29, 1999, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I also reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts also reserves a point 
of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I come here tonight, Mr. Chairman, just to request a simple study. 
None of the funds that are appropriated under this act, under the title 
``peacekeeping operations,'' they should not be obligated or expended 
for peacekeeping operations in Kosovo, province of the Federal Republic 
of Yugoslavia, until the Secretary of State prepares and submits to 
this Congress a report containing a detailed description of the 
atrocities that have been committed in this case against the Serbians 
in Kosovo.
  Thirty-four churches, Mr. Chairman, have been bombed since the Air 
Force, since NATO has stopped their bombing exercise and we declared 
that we won the war, and of course recently 14 Serbian farmers were 
massacred on or about July 25, 1999; and my point this evening is that 
we are going to appropriate more money for peacekeeping operations, and 
I really think it is appropriate that we get the State Department under 
NATO, State Department working with NATO, to start to tell us what 
actually occurred. Are Serbians now seeing reverse cleansing at the 
expense of the Albanians?
  Now there was a recent U.S. Today article that raised so many 
questions about the Clinton administration talking about their numbers, 
and they said, quote, ``many of the figures used by the administration 
and NATO to describe the war-time plight of the Albanians in Kosovo now 
appear greatly exaggerated as allied forces took control of the 
providence. Instead of 100,000 ethnic Albanian men feared murdered by 
the rampaging Serbs the estimate now is only 10,000.''
  So I am hoping to bring to light through the study that I have in my 
amendment that before we go any further let us find out what has 
happened in Kosovo and about these 34 churches that have been bombed 
and the number

[[Page H6832]]

of people that have been killed and talking about these 14 Serbian 
farmers who are massacred. Why not? Let us hear the straight scoop now 
that we are in control of Kosovo and find out the real story.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich).
  (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Stearns 
amendment that would call for a report on atrocities against Serbs. A 
report by the Secretary of State on the atrocities against Serbs in 
Kosovo and the July 25 massacre is necessary because there must be 
ongoing accountability for the ongoing atrocities against Kosovar Serbs 
and Albanians in Kosovo.
  Security must be our top priority in the Balkans. Peacekeeping 
operations are supposed to keep the peace. But there was no peace when 
14 Serbian farmers were killed on July 25, 1999, in one of the worst 
massacres since the end of the war. Who is accountable for this? Who 
did this? How did this atrocity happen amidst peacekeeping troops? How 
can we prevent this from ever happening again? We need answers.
  A report describing these atrocities will provide answers. More than 
146 Kosovar Serbs and Albanians have been killed since the end of the 
bombing campaign on June 10. More than 150,000 Serbs have fled Kosovo 
since NATO arrived on June 10. More than 20 Serbian Orthodox churches 
have been damaged or destroyed since June 10. Only yesterday a Serb 
Orthodox cathedral in the province's capital, Pristina, was bombed.
  These are not signs of peace. For true peace to prevail, there must 
be accountability of these actions. Peacekeeping operations will amount 
to nothing if they cannot prevent continued ethnic cleansing. 
Peacekeeping operations will amount to nothing if the perpetrators of 
these and other crimes are not brought to justice. This report on 
atrocities committed against the Serbs including the July 25 massacre 
is necessary if the NATO-led peacekeeping force intends to prevent any 
further atrocities from happening in Kosovo.
  Again, I support this important amendment, and I ask my colleagues to 
join me in voting for the Stearns amendment; and again I think we are 
all concerned about events in Kosovo. We are all concerned about what 
happened to the Kosovar Albanians. Let justice be consistent, and let 
us also be concerned about what is happening to the Serbians.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, still reserving my point of order, I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Stearns) about his concerns in Kosovo and mindless killing of 
innocent Serbian citizens who are trying to do the same thing that the 
Kosovars were doing when they actually did Kosovar into Albania. We are 
not going to tolerate that.
  With respect to the gentleman's concern about reconstruction in 
Kosovo, as subcommittee chairman, along with the full committee 
chairman, we have a full hold on all money going to Kosovo until such 
time as the administration proves to us that the money is going to be 
spent for the intended purpose of refugee assistance.
  The United States cannot tolerate the slaughter of Serbs. They are 
faced with the same problem, the same philosophical differences, but in 
the reverse of the Kosovars; and we cannot tolerate that, and we must 
insist with the administration at some point, which I think I can do 
that as chairman of this subcommittee, of accountability.
  Give us the accountability of what is taking place there. How can we 
continue to tolerate this? Or how can we continue not to speak out so 
openly against the same atrocities that led this Congress to 
appropriate the millions of dollars that we sent to Kosovo and the 
front-line states.
  So I share my colleagues' concerns, but I still reserve my point of 
order.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely correct. And 
I am sure the gentleman is likewise aware of the fact that another, 
that other action has granted $20 million for security for Kosovo, and 
with the KLA being in charge of the province, it raises questions as to 
whether or not that money would actually be for the security of the 
people there or would be to advance the interests of the KLA.
  So I thank the gentleman for expressing his concern that was raised 
by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), and I appreciate the 
gentleman's sentiments.

                   Organized Crime Gangs Rule Kosovo

                            (By Laura Rozen)

       Around 30 people a week are being killed in Kosovo as 
     organized gangs take advantage of the U.N.'s failure to 
     police the province.
       Nato spokesman Jamie Shea admitted yesterday a ``law and 
     order vacuum'' has been created by a long delay in deploying 
     U.N. civil administrators and an expected 3,000-strong police 
     force. But he insisted the war-torn province was not yet out 
     of control.
       Western diplomats in Pristina say gangs, some of which are 
     suspected of having links to the Kosovo Liberation Army, are 
     taking apartments, real estate, businesses, fuel supplies and 
     cars from Kosovo Albanians and Serbs, who have little 
     recourse to justice.
       A British K-For official in Pristina said: ``UNMIK (the 
     U.N. interim administration) is unprepared to take over law 
     and order. In the absence of police and legitimate rules, a 
     vacuum has occurred.
       ``That vacuum is being filled by organized crime. Albanian 
     gangs are inviting Kosovo Serbs to leave their apartments. 
     Now Kosovo Albanians are being invited to leave.''
       Because so many Kosovo Albanians had identity documents and 
     license plates seized by Serb forces, and because there are 
     now no border controls, many gangs are moving in unhampered 
     by the 37,000 K-For soldiers.
       While the U.N. plans to deploy 3,125 international police, 
     only 400 have arrived. The police commander has decided not 
     to put troops into active service until he has enough to 
     patrol entire areas. Currently, the commander says, his most 
     urgent need is for border police to keep out more gangs and 
     smugglers.
       The German K-For commander, General Fritz von Koriff, said 
     his soldier stop cars to search for weapons and frequently 
     come across smuggled items, such as massive amounts of 
     cigarettes, particularly at the Morina-Kukes border crossing. 
     But Nato's mandate does not permit his soldiers to confiscate 
     any item except weapons, and the smugglers are permitted into 
     Kosovo with their loot if it is believed they are from the 
     province.
       One of the biggest problems involves gangs showing up at 
     homes to claim ownership and threatening to beat those who 
     refuse to move out.
       No statistics are available on the number of property 
     seizures, but anecdotal evidence suggests a growing problem. 
     And, while initially it seemed that seizures were ethnically 
     motivated, and targeted at Kosovo Serbs in the capital 
     Pristina, increasingly Kosovo Albanians are victims as well.
       Kosovo's provisional prime minister, KLA leader Hashim 
     Thaci, 31, denied his organization was behind seizures of 
     Kosovo Serb apartments. ``We have no such information. We 
     know there are those who have left Kosovo, but we have not 
     forced anybody to leave, or put pressure on them to leave. 
     That is propaganda. Any one who has not committed crimes is 
     free to live in Kosovo.''
       According to a U.N. police commander, who asked not to be 
     identified, intelligence suggests there are three main types 
     of organized criminal gangs in Kosovo: Russian, Albanian, and 
     those linked to the KLA. Some analysts suggest that the 
     seized apartments and other looted goods are the KLA's way of 
     paying debts to arms procurers, funders and important 
     soldiers and there relatives.
       U.N. officials deny the organization's slowness is 
     responsible for Kosovo's growing crime problem. One senior 
     U.N. commander said, unlike K-For, which has been preparing 
     for a Kosovo mission since February, the U.N. wasn't told it 
     was to take over civilian operations in Kosovo until June.
       An American involved in the international police force 
     warned that by the time the U.N. police are deployed, 
     criminal gangs will already have their networks set up, and 
     will be as much a menace for Kosovo's Albanian population as 
     they are for the Serbs.

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I wish to associate myself with my 
colleagues' remarks, and I look forward to working with them to press 
upon the administration the concerns that were expressed here by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich), and I commend them for their leadership on this issue.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, to further comment, too, on my comments, 
as my colleagues know, I have a friend who is from greater Serbia. He 
now lives in French Guyana. His name is Mr. Nalvik, and Mr. Nalvik has 
kept

[[Page H6833]]

me posted throughout this entire encounter on the feelings of a lot of 
Serbian people which are diametrically opposed to Mr. Milosevic. So we 
do have some people in Serbia who deserve some attention, some respect 
because they did not agree with Mr. Milosevic, but in any event the 
gentleman's point is taken. I hope he will withdraw it, and if so, I 
will remove my point of order.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Alabama, and I 
will withdraw it. I just would like to make a final argument here.
  I think the gentleman has touched upon it, and my good colleague from 
Ohio has touched upon it when he mentions the word ``accountability.'' 
We need to take taxpayers' money and help people; I understand that. 
But in the overall understanding of this project, we need to have 
accountability for the taxpayers' money, how it is being spent.
  So with that in mind, and I am hopeful that the chairman will 
consider part of what I have in report language, if not at least to 
make the attempt to tell the administration that money will not be 
given, taxpayers' money will not be given until there is full 
accountability in this case and that we have balance and fairness.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Before, Mr. Chairman, I had forgotten I told the 
gentleman from Massachusetts that I would yield to him. Whatever time 
remaining I have on my point of order, I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) is 
recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me, and I also would like to associate myself with the comments that 
have been made by the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. There 
is no question that there is no shortage of hatred in Kosovo these 
days, and I would just point out that the first sizable delegation of 
Members of the Congress was led by the gentleman from Ohio, the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, of which I serve 
as the ranking member; and we saw the attempt on the part of American 
forces there, having detained some 10 or so Serbian Kosovars and some, 
almost 30, Albanian Kosovars for a variety of actions, but there are no 
courts in Kosovo to send those actions to, actions of looting and arson 
and, in fact, murder.
  In this particular instance, the 14 Serbian farmers, and one can 
surely not condone that kind of activity, already three people have 
been arrested for that. On the other hand, there have been no arrests 
and may well never be. In fact, the perpetrators out of the Yugoslavian 
armed forces are probably quite free and among the elite of the 
military in Belgrade at this time for the atrocities; and I could go 
into a list of them, one after another, the atrocities of 30 and 40 and 
50 people who had been killed and burned, hacked apart by machete 
attack, small children, children as young as 2 years shot in the head, 
along with aged people thrown into a well along with cows and rocks and 
so forth as part of the atrocities that were perpetrated there. So 
there is no shortage of atrocities, but we cannot condone those 
activities, and I thank the gentleman for withdrawing his amendment.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Stearns) is withdrawn.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 116, after line 5, insert the following:


 sense of the congress relating to resolution of the conflict between 
                          eritrea and ethiopia

       Sec. ____. The Congress--
       (1) expresses its satisfaction with the decision of 
     President Isais of the State of Eritrea and Prime Minister 
     Meles of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia to agree 
     to the Organization of African Unity (OAU) framework in 
     settling the border dispute between Eritrea and Ethiopia and 
     to enter into proximity talks in Algeria for implementing a 
     cease-fire between the two countries;
       (2) encourages the completion of the modality talks between 
     Eritrea and Ethiopia as quickly as possible and encourages 
     the two countries not to renew hostilities;
       (3) appreciates the de facto cease-fire agreed to by 
     Eritrea and Ethiopia;
       (4) appreciates the efforts of the Organization of African 
     Unity and the Government of Algeria for aiding in the 
     negotiations between Eritrea and Ethiopia; and
       (5) in order to more firmly move Eritrea and Ethiopia 
     toward a resolution of the conflict between the two 
     countries, expresses its intent to reconsider its position 
     with respect to Eritrea and Ethiopia if there is a resumption 
     of hostilities between the two countries.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 
29, 1999, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

                              {time}  2215

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, just a few minutes ago I rose in opposition to the 
Burton amendment regarding cutting funds to India. Part of my reasoning 
for such strong opposition was to encourage opportunities for peace and 
the resolution of the conflict and to encourage India to engage in 
efforts to resolve the tragic conflict and to support India in that 
effort.
  I now rise to express that same kind of support for the terrible 
tragedy that is occurring in Eritrea and Ethiopia. I rise with a sense 
of Congress to encourage a peaceful resolution of Eritrea and the 
Ethiopian conflict and to offer this amendment to acknowledge that 
there has been progress.
  Currently negotiations are being conducted by the State of Eritrea 
and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. These negotiations are 
in response to their governments' acceptance of the OAU framework, the 
Organization of African unity framework, to settle the dispute between 
these two critical on the Horn of Africa.
  Our colleague, Mickey Leland, some 10 years ago was continuing to go 
back and forth to Ethiopia because of the tragedy of the famine. In a 
few days, it will be 10 years when we lost Mickey Leland in Ethiopia on 
a humanitarian mission.
  I know that his continued efforts there were to ensure that Ethiopia 
would be a strong nation, peaceful nation, and a friend of the United 
States.
  Now we have an opportunity to encourage Ethiopia and Eritrea to 
correct and resolve this latest conflict, and I applaud them for 
agreeing to engage in peace negotiations. The commitment the Prime 
Minister of Ethiopia and the President of Eritrea to move forward and 
give their people peace and tranquility should be applauded. The 
Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict has substantially damaged the economic growth 
and development of the countries and has led to humanitarian suffering 
on both sides of the border.
  For 30 years, a problem dividing Ethiopia and Eritrea was Eritrea's 
claim that its people have a right to self-determination. In 1991, this 
long and costly struggle ended through a coalition built to topple the 
Ethiopian dictatorship that was not acceptable to either country. For 7 
years of peace, both neighbors pursued paths of economic and social 
development to give rise to the very idea of renaissance, establishing 
a path to economic growth and a better quality of life for the people.
  The border dispute that ignited hostilities has smothered any 
confidence that things would be really better. The war has taken a 
vicious toll on the people in the countries. The number of casualties 
are almost surreal. We have seen reports of over 18,000 victims within 
3 or 4 days of fighting. Individual border battles have involved over 
90,000 soldiers fighting from various fronts. In Eritrea the army is 
estimated to be over 250,000 soldiers, men and women, a huge drain on a 
population of 3.5 people.
  That is why I brought to the attention of this Congress my desire for 
a

[[Page H6834]]

sense of Congress to acknowledge the movement, the progress, that has 
been made, the fact that the OAU agreement has been accepted or at 
least has been moved on and as well that there are efforts toward 
trying to resolve this.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New York, the 
Chairman of the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentlewoman's concerns that 
Ethiopia and Eritrea, two fine countries that have already suffered too 
many years of communist dictatorship, have spent 14 months at war with 
one another, and the loss has been tragic. We are hopeful now that 
there is a cease-fire, that they will implement the cease-fire and 
return to peace. I want to commend the gentlewoman for focusing 
attention on the cease-fire that is under way.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that the distinguished chairman of our committee 
will be calling for a point of order on this sense of the Congress 
motion, but I did want to take a half a moment to join her in 
commending our former colleague here, Mickey Leland. When the 
gentlewoman mentioned that it is 10 years, it seems impossible, but 
indeed it was 1989. I was with my family in Cairo when we got the bad 
news. We were all going to join Mickey in Nairobi when he left 
Ethiopia. Of course, he invited everyone to go to Ethiopia with him.
  Fortunately for everyone else, he did not have a large enough plane 
for everyone. Maybe if he had a larger plane, he would still with be 
us. Every day I remember him, because his picture is on the wall of my 
office, holding a baby, that beautiful picture of Mickey Leland. He was 
there, not helping countries, but helping people.
  I am particularly pleased that the gentlewoman at least has us 
focused on peace in that region because that is what we should be 
working toward. Once again, I commend the gentlewoman for calling the 
Congress' attention to this important region of the world.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I share the gentlewoman's concern about the war in Ethiopia and 
Eritrea, and I too am optimistic that the war between these two nations 
will soon be ending. I remind Members that bin Laden has long utilized 
Sudan as a terrorist training ground. In fact, Sudan served as a safe-
harbor for the bin Laden terrorists who blew up the U.S. embassies in 
Tanzania and in Kenya. But I sincerely hope that the gentlewoman would 
withdraw her amendment. I do not want to insist on my point of order, 
but I must insist if the gentlewoman does not choose to withdraw it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. If the chairman would allow me just to 
summarize, then I would like to ask unanimous consent upon my summary 
to withdraw this amendment.
  I appreciate very much the chairman of the Committee, the chairman of 
the Committee on International Relations and their ranking members for 
their kind words and agreement with me on the importance of this issue.
  Let me close by simply saying that we have at least the makings of 
the potential of an opportunity for peace. The de facto cease-fire and 
the work of the government of Algeria in aiding the negotiations 
between Eritrea and Ethiopia should also be recognized, and hopefully 
the Congress will continue to monitor this circumstance to avoid the 
loss of life and certainly in tribute to my predecessor, Mickey Leland 
and his love for Ethiopia and love for mankind we can monitor the 
circumstances there.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentlewoman's concerns that 
Ethiopia and Eritrea, two fine countries that have already suffered 
many years of communist dictatorship, have spent 14 months at war with 
one another.
  I am very hopeful that they will implement the ceasefire and return 
to peace.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.


                  Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Paul

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

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Paul:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following:


   limitation on funds for abortion, family planning, or population 
                            control efforts

       Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be made available for--
       (1) population control or population planning programs;
       (2) family planning activities; or
       (3) abortion procedures.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 
29, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama will control the time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to transfer my 5 
minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and that she 
may yield said time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment is straightforward. It prohibits the use 
of any money for population control, family planning, or abortion of 
any funds authorized in this bill, appropriated in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the question really is this: Should the American 
taxpayer be required to pay for birth control pills, IUDs, Depo-
Provera, Norplant, condom distribution, as well as abortion in foreign 
countries. Those who believe this is a proper and legitimate function 
will vote against the amendment. Those who believe that it is not a 
proper function for us to be doing these things around the world would 
vote for my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I mention abortion because although this bill does not 
authorize funds directly for abortion, any birth control center that is 
involved that receives funds from us and are involved with abortion, 
all they do is shift the funds. All funds are fungible, so any country 
that we give money to that is involved with abortion, for whatever 
reason, or especially in a family planning clinic, can very easily 
shift those funds and perform abortions. So this is very, very clear-
cut.
  I would like to spend a minute though on the authority that is cited 
for doing such a thing. Under the House rules, the committee is 
required to at least cite the constitutional authority for doing what 
we do on each of our bills. Of course, I was curious about this, 
because I was wondering whether this could be general welfare. This 
does not sound like the general welfare of the U.S. taxpayer, to be 
passing out condoms and birth control pills and forcing our will on 
other people, imposing our standards on them and forcing our taxpayers 
to pay. That does not seem to have anything to do whatsoever with the 
general welfare of this country.
  Of course, the other clause that is generally used in our legislation 
is the interstate commerce clause. Well, it would be pretty tough, 
pretty tough, justifying passing out condoms in the various countries 
of the world under the interstate commerce clause.
  So it was very interesting to read exactly what the justification is. 
The Committee on Appropriations, quoting from the committee report, the 
Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report this 
legislation from

[[Page H6835]]

clause 7, section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United 
States of America, which states ``no money shall be drawn from the 
Treasury but in consequence of appropriation made by law.'' 
``Appropriations contained in this act,'' the report says, ``are made 
pursuant to this specific power granted by the Constitution.''
  That is not a power. That was a prohibition. It was to keep us from 
spending money without appropriation. If this is true, we can spend 
money on anything in the world, and the Constitution has zero meaning. 
This cannot possibly be.
  So all I would suggest is this: Be a little more creative when we 
talk about the Constitution. There must be a more creative explanation 
on why we are spending these kinds of monies overseas.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), defending 
the position of the committee.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the Paul amendment, 
and it is not even reluctantly. It is with grave disappointment, 
frankly, that this amendment is even being proposed, though I respect 
the gentleman's right to do so, and I respect the gentleman.
  If this Paul amendment would be enacted, it would cause deaths and 
suffering for millions of women and children. I say that without any 
fear of contradiction.
  Of course, we all want to reduce the number of abortions performed 
throughout the world, and the best way to do that is to promote family 
planning. It seems hard to believe that the gentleman would stand up 
and say he does not know why it is in our national interests that we 
improve the plight of children, poor children and families throughout 
the world by allowing them the opportunity to make decisions for 
themselves about the timing and the number of children that a family 
would have, or that the impact that this has on women, alleviating 
poverty, raising the literacy rate, and, again, giving more empowerment 
to women by having them control their own destinies.
  The issue of population, certainly we understand that our world's 
resources are finite. I think that most would agree that it is in our 
interests as well as the interests of every person living on this Earth 
that we husband our resources very carefully, and that includes curbing 
uncontrolled population growth. I say that as one who does not support 
any forced measures in that end, but voluntary efforts to that end.
  This amendment would close the most effective avenue to preventing 
abortions. The gentleman says that well, if we spend this money, then 
the organizations that use this money but also perform abortions have 
this underwriting, or the money is fungible, and, therefore, we are 
supporting abortions.
  I think the gentleman knows full well that no funds may be used for 
abortion procedures. That is the law of the land. We reiterate it every 
time we have a discussion on this subject. If you are going to apply 
fungibility, you would have to apply it to everything we do here. I do 
not know why all of a sudden when it comes to international family 
planning, fungibility becomes a principle, but when we are dealing with 
the defense bill or any other appropriations, we never say that giving 
money for this, that or the other purpose helps that country underwrite 
some practices that we might not approve of.
  The amendment would end a more than 30-year-old program recognized as 
one of the most successful components of U.S. foreign assistance. Tens 
of millions of couples, Mr. Chairman, in the developing world are using 
family planning as a direct result of this program, and the average 
number of children per family has declined more than one-third since 
the 1960's.
  Three out of four Americans surveyed in 1995 wanted to increase or 
maintain spending on family planning for poor countries. I was, this 
year, in India and saw what happened in those states where there was 
effective family planning as opposed to what was the plight of the 
people in areas where the women did not have access to this family 
planning information.
  So I believe that this amendment would be contrary to the interests 
and values of the vast majority of the people in the world, and 
certainly, speaking in our own terms, of the American people. In 
February 1997, both the House and the Senate showed their commitment to 
the USAID International Family Planning Program by voting for the early 
release of funds specifically for this program.

                              {time}  2230

  We had to have a vote at that time.
  Mr. Chairman, I see some of my colleagues on their feet, and I am 
pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman), chairman of the authorizing committee, the Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks 
of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). Population control, 
population planning is so important today. That is the next crisis that 
we are to be confronted with. The growth of populations around the 
world are going to lead to hunger in impoverished areas. And where we 
have hunger and poverty, we soon have hostility.
  The best way to prevent that is to help with family planning and with 
population control. And I thank the gentlewoman for her arguments in 
opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, it is my duty in this House as chairman 
of this subcommittee to draft a bill. And in order to draft a bill, I 
have to depend upon a very able staff which really did the drafting of 
this 119 pages of law that hopefully will be passed tomorrow morning.
  But upon my instruction, I would like to reiterate, and I know the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) has already brought it out, but since I 
am responsible for writing this bill, the bill says that none of the 
funds made available under this heading may be used to pay for the 
performance of abortions as a method of family planning.
  So I just wanted to make perfectly clear my position as the author of 
this bill with respect to abortions.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman's 
position on this is well-known.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman makes the point that we should not use 
the abortion issue to talk about fungibility and I believe that she is 
correct. I think it should apply to everything. This is the reason I do 
strongly oppose Export-Import Bank money going to Red China. Their 
violations of civil liberties and abortions are good reasons why we 
should not do it, and yet they are the greatest recipient of our 
foreign aid from the Exim Bank. $5.9 billion they have received over 
the years.
  So I would say, yes, the gentlewoman is correct. All of these 
programs are fungible. And I agree that the wording in the bill says 
that our funds cannot be used. But when we put our funds in with other 
funds, all of the sudden they are in a pool and they can shift them 
around and there is a real thing called fungibility.
  So once we send money to a country for any reason, we endorse what 
they do. Therefore, we should be rather cautious. As a matter of fact, 
if we were cautious enough we would not be in the business of taking 
money at the point of a gun from our American taxpayer, doing things 
that they find abhorrent around the world and imposing our will and our 
standards on them.
  Mr. Chairman, birth control methods are not perfectly safe. As a 
gynecologist, I have seen severe complications from the use of IUDs and 
Depo-Provera and Norplant. Women can have strokes with birth control 
pill. These are not benign.
  And my colleagues say we want to stop the killing and abortions, but 
every time that the abortion is done with fungible funds, it is killing 
a human being, an innocent human being. So for very real reasons, if we 
were serious about stopping this and protecting the American taxpayer, 
there is nothing wrong with some of these goals. I agree. As a 
gynecologist, I would agree with the goals, but they should not be done 
through coercion. They should be done through voluntary means through 
churches and charities. That is the way it should be done.

[[Page H6836]]

  Mr. Chairman, we do not have the authority to coerce our people to 
work hard, pay their taxes, and then take the money into foreign 
countries and impose our will on them.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Paul).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that I 
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 263, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       The amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 116, after line 5, insert the following:

       Sec. ____. (a) Of the amounts made available in title III 
     under the account ``international military education and 
     training'', $4,000,000 made available for the United States 
     Army School of the Americas is transferred as follows:
       (1) $2,000,000 is transferred to the account ``economic 
     support fund'' in title II and made available for providing 
     training and education of Tibetans in democracy activities 
     and for monitoring the human rights situation in Tibet.
       (2) $2,000,000 is transferred to the account ``united 
     states emergency refugee and migration assistance fund'' in 
     title II and made available for the Tibetan refugee program.
       (b) Of the funds appropriated in this Act in title II under 
     the account ``economic support fund'', not less than 
     $2,250,000 shall be made available for providing training and 
     education of Tibetans in democracy activities and for 
     monitoring the human rights situation in Tibet.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in actuality I wish I did not have to rise to the floor 
to offer this amendment. I wish that Tibet was living in peace and 
harmony. I wish the Dalai Lama who is in exile, who I had an 
opportunity to meet and discuss these issues with, was free to go back 
to Tibet.
  My amendment offers to provide $4 million to the Economic Support 
Fund to provide training and education of Tibetans in democracy 
activities and for monitoring the human rights situation in Tibet made 
worse by the activities of China. In addition, we would offer 
additional funds to be of assistance to the Tibetan refugee program.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a need for something to be done. As we 
recently remembered the 10th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square 
tragedy, we continue to acknowledge the human rights abuses imposed by 
the Chinese government. Whether on the mainland or other areas, the 
Chinese have shown themselves to be opposed to the basic human rights 
principles we all aspire to achieve.
  The Chinese have tripled their missile threat to Taiwan. China does 
not understand they cannot force a free and democratic Taiwan to unify 
and that they should accept its existence.
  We still watch as China continues its occupation of Tibet. Since 
1951, when the People's Republic of China invaded Tibet, hundreds of 
thousands of Tibetans have been killed outright or have died as a 
result of aggression, torture or starvation. Over 6,000 monasteries and 
temples have been destroyed. China has implemented a consistent pattern 
of suppression in an attempt to eradicate the Tibetan culture.
  The continued population transfer of Chinese to Tibet threatens the 
existence of the unique national, cultural, and religious identity of 
the Tibetan people. The fragile Tibetan plateau is seriously threatened 
by the exploitation of its environmental resources by China.
  The Tibetan people have demonstrated repeatedly for independence from 
China. Their struggle is nonviolent and worthy of special attention. It 
is important to provide funding to encourage them in their efforts, 
encourage them in democracy, encourage them in being able to monitor 
the various human rights abuse.
  Indeed, when in 1989 the Dalai Lama, leader of the Tibetan people, 
received the Nobel peace prize, the international community documented 
its commitment to free Tibet. There are 110,000 Tibetan refugees living 
in 53 settlements in India, Nepal and Bhutan. Over 1.2 million Tibetans 
have died in a widespread program of imprisonment torture and 
executions orchestrated by China. Tibet's unique culture and Buddhist 
religion have been systematically suppressed as China has looted 
Tibet's enormous mineral wealth, natural resources, and priceless art 
treasures, transporting them back to China to fuel its own economic 
growth.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the Committee on 
International Relations for its removal of $8 million from the World 
Bank to avoid this so-called apartheid system where there was a 
movement of 50,000 Chinese farmers into Tibet creating almost an 
apartheid system where the Tibetans would not have the good jobs or 
opportunities, but the Chinese would.
  Coercive birth control policies, including forced abortion and 
sterilization, are continuing to wipe out the Tibetan people. It is 
important that the children be formost in our focus on peaceful efforts 
to return Tibet to its people and to bring the Dalai Lama home.
  I rise Mr. Chairman to offer an amendment which will take $4 million 
out of the fund which contains the Foreign Ops funding for the School 
of the Americans, and redistribute it to the Economic Support Fund and 
the Emergency Refugee and Migrations Assistance Funds for specific use 
in Tibet.
  As we recently remembered the 10th anniversary of the Tainanmen 
Square tragedy we continue to acknowledge the human rights abuses 
imposed upon the people by the Chinese government. Whether on the 
mainland or in other areas, the Chinese have shown themselves to be 
opposed to the basic human rights principles we all aspire to achieve.
  The Chinese have tripled their missile threat to Taiwan. China does 
not understand they cannot force a free and democratic Taiwan to unify 
and that they should accept Taiwan as a friendly and independent 
neighbor and establish diplomatic ties.
  And we all still watch as China continues its occupation of Tibet. 
Since 1951, when the People's Republic of China invaded Tibet hundreds 
of thousand of Tibetans have been killed outright or died as the result 
of aggression, torture or starvation. Over 6,000 monasteries and 
temples have been destroyed. China has implemented a consistent pattern 
of suppression in an attempt to eradicate the Tibetan religion and 
culture.
  The continued population transfer of Chinese to Tibet threatens the 
existence of the unique national, cultural and religious identity of 
the Tibetan people.
  The fragile Tibetan plateau is seriously threatened by the 
exploitation of its environmental resources by China.
  The Tibetan people have demonstrated repeatedly for independence from 
China. Their struggle is nonviolent and worthy of special attention. 
Indeed, when in 1989, the Dalai Lama, the leader of the Tibetan people, 
received the Nobel Peace Prize the international community documented 
its commitment to a free Tibet.
  There are about 110,000 Tibetan refugees living in 53 settlements in 
India, Nepal and Bhutan. Over 1.2 million Tibetans have died in a 
widespread program of imprisonment, torture and executions orchestrated 
by China.
  Tibet's unique culture and Buddhist religion have been systematically 
suppressed as China has looted Tibet's enormous mineral wealth, natural 
resources and priceless art treasures, transporting them back to China 
to fuel its own economic growth.
  An apartheid system is in place, following the mass migration of 
Chinese into Tibet. These immigrants now dominate the economy and hold 
all the best jobs. Employment prospects for Tibetans are virtually 
nonexistent.
  Coercive birth control policies, including enforced abortion and 
sterilization, are completing the policies of wiping out Tibet's 
identify forever. We watch China, the world's most oppressive police 
state, control Tibet. There are between a quarter and half a million 
Chinese troops in Tibet. China permits no news media in Tibet. Amnesty 
International and foreign diplomats are refused permission to visit. 
Tibetans in Tibet are liable to interrogation, imprisonment and torture 
for having unofficial contact with foreigners.

[[Page H6837]]

  Tibet covers an area the size of Western Europe and is the world's 
highest plateaus. The Culture is magnificent and unique. Until 1950, 
Tibet had retained that ancient culture.
  My amendment would offer additional hope to the Tibetan people that 
the international community, particularly the United States is 
supportive of their independence and that we are providing resources 
for improved systems and enhancement of aid programs.
  The United States Army School of the Americas will have $4 million of 
its appropriations transferred to a true democratic cause. Our efforts 
to provide international military training and education to the armed 
forces in Latin America has at best led to questionable practices by 
its graduates. We want democracy. We want to see our funds used to 
support the development of democracies. The Tibetans want democracy. 
Some graduates of the School of the Americas have not demonstrated such 
a commitment.
  Graduates of the United States Army School of the Americas include 
some of the worst human rights abusers in the Western Hemisphere, 
including 19 Salvadoran soldiers linked to the 1989 murder of six 
Jesuit priests and their housekeeper and her daughter. Two of the three 
officers cited by the Guatemalan archbishop's office are suspected of 
the killing of anthropologist Myrna Mack in 1992, as well as three top 
leaders of the notorious Guatemalan military intelligence unit D-2 were 
graduates of the School of the Americas.
  One-half of the 247 Colombian army officers cited in the definitive 
work on Colombian human rights abuses, El Terrorismo de Estado en 
Colombia, in 1992 were graduates of this School.
  Ten of the 30 Chilean officers against whom a Spanish judge in 1998 
requested indictments for crimes of terrorism, torture and 
disappearance as well as the El Salvador death squad leader Roberto 
D'Aubuisson graduated from the School of the Americas.
  Two of the three killers of Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador 
and 10 of the 12 officers responsible for the murder of 900 civilians 
in the El Salvadoran village El Mozote are graduates.
  And the most notorious for us, three of the five officers involved in 
the 1980 rape and murder of four United States churchwomen in El 
Salvador graduated from the School of the Americas.
  Reducing funding for this School does not prevent the United States 
from providing appropriate training for military personnel of Latin 
American armed forces. It is conceivable that by our actions a better 
military training and education program can be developed. With a most 
improved screening process for potential students.
  I urge you to support my amendment for democracy.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) has done an outstanding job of focussing attention on the 
violations by the People's Republic of China with regard to the Tibetan 
people. We cannot give enough attention to the occupation of the 
People's Republic of China in Tibet and we welcome the gentlewoman's 
remarks.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that on page 39 of the 
committee report, we recommend that $250,000 be made available for 
democracy training and education activities for Tibetans. In addition, 
on page 55 of the report, we recommend $2 million for continued 
humanitarian assistance for the Tibetan refugees.
  So the committee has already addressed the concerns of the 
gentlewoman from Texas. We do not earmark, as she well knows, in our 
bill. This amendment would earmark and, therefore, I must continue to, 
number one, reserve my point of order.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) I commend for bringing the plight of Tibet to the attention once 
again of our colleagues. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), our 
distinguished chairman, has been most cooperative on this issue of 
Tibet. It is a priority for many of us on the committee. And, of 
course, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the 
authorizing committee, has been a champion on the Tibet issue for a 
long time.
  But as the gentleman from Alabama said, the funds are in the bill 
already because this is a priority. The plight of the people of Tibet 
challenges the conscience of the world and by and large the world 
ignores their plight. Our bill does not, and the more attention we can 
call, the better.
  Mr. Chairman, even though this may not be able to be received by the 
full House this evening, nonetheless, the bright light that the 
gentlewoman focuses on Tibet once again is appreciated and will 
contribute to freedom there one day.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude by 
simply thanking both the ranking member and the chairman for the 
efforts that have been made in the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, 
Export Financing and Related Programs, as well as that of the chairman 
of the Committee on International Relations. My effort tonight was to 
provide more resources because of the horrific situation in Tibet. The 
abuse of human rights and the exile of the Dalai Lama.
  I would like to continue to work with all of the committees and as 
well the chairman, ranking member of the subcommittee and the Chairman 
of the Committee on International Relations as we try to bring peace 
and dignity to the Tibetan people.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Paul

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Paul:
       Page 116, after line 5, insert the following:


   limitation on funds for export-import bank of the united states, 
overseas private investment corporation, and the trade and development 
                                 agency

       Sec.   . None of the funds made available pursuant to this 
     Act for the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the 
     Overseas Private Investment Corporation, or the Trade and 
     Development Agency, may be used to enter into any new 
     obligation, guarantee, or agreement on or after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 
29, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan) each will control 5 minutes.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides that no funds for new 
obligations, guarantees, or agreements can be issued under the Export-
Import Bank under OPIC or under the Trade Development Agency. This 
again is an attempt to try to slow up the amount of dollars that flow 
into corporations and for their benefit specifically as well as our 
foreign competitors.
  China, for instance, receives the largest amount of money from the 
Export-Import Bank. Outstanding liabilities for the Export-Import Bank 
is now $55 billion. There is $5.9 billion that have been granted to the 
Chinese.
  Last week we had a very important vote on trade. It was hotly debated 
over human rights issues. I voted to trade with China because I believe 
it is proper to trade with people. We are less likely to fight with 
them. And in this institution, too often we use our terms carelessly 
and we talk about free trade as being something which is managed trade. 
Free trade here generally means that we will have the NAFTA people 
managing trade, the World Trade Organization managing trade, and we 
will subsidize our businesses.
  Just this past week we had the World Trade Organization rule against 
us saying that we grant $2 billion worth of

[[Page H6838]]

tax benefits to our own corporations and they ruled that that was 
illegal. This is all done in the name of free trade.
  I say that we should have free trade. We should trade with our 
friends and with anybody who would trade that we are not at war with. 
We should really, really be careful about issuing sanctions. But here 
we are, last week we had the great debate and a lot of people could not 
stand the idea of trading with Red China because of their human rights 
record and I understand that, although I did not accept that position. 
But this is the time to do something about it.
  Trading with Red China under true free trade is a benefit to both of 
us. It is a benefit to our consumers and it benefits both countries 
because we are talking with people and we are not fighting with them. 
But it gets to be a serious problem when we tax our people in order to 
benefit those who are receiving the goods overseas.

                              {time}  2245

  Now, if there is a worldwide downturn, this $55 billion of 
liabilities out there could be very significant in how it is going to 
be paid back. The Chinese right now, their economy is not all that 
healthy. They are talking about a devaluation.
  So this is a liability that the American taxpayers are exposed to. If 
we do have a concern about Red China and the Chinese, yes, let us work 
with them, let us trade with them, but let us not subsidize them.
  This is what I am trying to do. I am trying to stop this type of 
subsidies. So my bill, my amendment would stop any new obligation. It 
does not close down Export-Import Bank. It allows all the old loans to 
operate and function, but no new obligations can be made, no new 
guaranties, and no agreement, with the idea that someday we may truly 
move to free trade, that we do not recognize free trade as being 
subsidized trade as well as internationally managed trade with 
organizations such as NAFTA and World Trade Organization.
  Those institutions are not free trade institutions. They are managed 
trade institutions for the benefit of special interests. That is what 
this type of funding is for is for the benefit of special interests, 
whether it is our domestic corporation, which, indeed, I would 
recognize does receive some benefit.
  Sixty-seven percent of all the funding of the Export-Import Bank goes 
to, not a large number of companies, to five companies. I will bet my 
colleagues, if they look at those five companies in this country that 
gets 67 percent of the benefit and look at their political action 
records, my colleagues might be enlightened. I mean, I bet my 
colleagues we would learn something about where that money goes, 
because they are big corporations and they benefit, and they will have 
their defenders here.
  It is time we look carefully at these subsidies.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. In 
doing so, I want to correct the record. Those of us who were asking for 
raising tariffs on products coming from China were not interested in 
cutting off trade with China. What we were doing is to say, let us have 
the same reciprocity between our two countries as we would expect from 
other countries.
  But then to use that and say it is all right to give a $70 billion 
trade surplus to the regime so they can strengthen their hold on the 
people of China but we should take out our concerns with China on the 
Ex-Im Bank I think is very inappropriate. That is why I oppose it.
  The Ex-Im Bank does not subsidize the Chinese government. The Ex-Im 
Bank subsidizes U.S. manufacturers selling into countries, including 
China.
  The Paul amendment would not allow the Export-Import Bank to assume 
any new business. This would mean that all of the Ex-Im's resources 
would be used to liquidate existing transactions. In other words, Ex-Im 
would slowly, gradually shut down.
  I agree with the gentleman that we must subject the Ex-Im, OPIC, and 
all of these institutions to harsh scrutiny. Are they performing the 
task that is their established purpose, to promote U.S. exports? The 
Ex-Im Bank, I think, from the scrutiny we subjected to in our committee 
does that.
  The gentleman's amendment is ill-advised. The same would apply to 
OPIC, which, by the way, does not operate in China.
  So I urge our colleagues to oppose this amendment for many more 
reasons than I have time to go into.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have already discussed the impact of the closing 
down of OPIC earlier tonight, and my colleagues can see that the will 
of the House certainly agreed with those of us who think that we must 
have this competitive level playing field with the rest of the G-7 
Nations.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is absolutely right when it comes 
to basic sounding good things, a feel-good amendment, when he talks 
about Ex-Im Bank giving money to Red China. Ex-Im Bank does not give 
money to Red China. Ex-Im Bank loans money to American businesses to 
establish programs in Red China. There is no prohibition against Red 
China coming to the United States to invest with the support of a 
similar organization in China.
  What we are saying is we want to be just like the rest of the world 
when it comes to global economy. This is a global economy. The only way 
our people can participate in global economy is to have the same 
advantages as do Canada, as do Japan, as do Germany, as do France. We 
need this in order to work today in a global economy.
  So we are not talking about losing money. That is not the question 
here. Ex-Im bank is not losing money. We are talking about whether or 
not we are going to have a financing capability that will enable 
American jobs to be exported to all of the countries that the gentleman 
from Texas mentioned.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I think it is the same debate that we had on OPIC 
except this one is twice as bad because, also, he closes down the Ex-Im 
Bank as well and cuts off the ability of American business people to do 
business in most any foreign country.
  I urge opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that it is truly a subsidy to 
a foreign corporation, a foreign government. For Red China, 
corporations and governments are essentially identical. They are not 
really quite in the free market yet.
  But the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) points out that, no, 
that is not true. The money does not go to Red China and they buy 
things; we just give it directly. We do not even send it round trip. 
This is true.
  We take taxpayers' money. We take taxpayers' guarantee. We give them 
to those huge five corporations that do 67 percent of the business. We 
give them the money. But where do the goods go? Do the goods go to the 
American taxpayers? No. They get all of the liabilities. The subsidies 
help the Chinese.
  So, technically, yes, we do not send the money there. But who is 
going to pay it back? The Chinese pays the loan back. If they default, 
who pays the bill if the Chinese defaults? Who pays the bill if they 
default? It is obviously the taxpayers.
  What I am pointing out is that $5.9 billion that the Chinese now had 
borrowed from us, from the Export-Import Bank, is a significant 
obligation that, too, is on the backs of the American taxpayer.
  So I urge support for the amendment because, if we are serious about 
free trade, just please do not call it free trade anymore. Call it 
managed trade. Call it subsidized trade. Call it special interest 
trade. But please do not call it free trade anymore, because it is not 
free trade.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that the $16 
million, or whatever figure he is using that goes to China, goes in the 
form of things like airplane. Yes, a lot of it goes to Boeing,


[[Page H6839]]

which is a huge corporation. But the benefit that the American 
taxpayers receive are the thousands of jobs that Boeing provides in 
order to export this plane to China who pays for it. If indeed there 
was some problem, we can always go and get the airplanes back.
  It is not like we are giving something away. We are creating jobs. I 
might tell my colleagues that many of those Boeing jobs are located in 
the State of Alabama.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 263, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) will be 
postponed.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Payne 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the UN World Food Program (WFP) last Tuesday expressed 
fears of a ``worsening humanitarian crisis'' in southern Sudan, 
resulting from the inability to transport food to those who need it. 
This ban has made most of the region inaccessible to relief agencies 
trying to deliver urgent humanitarian assistance to some 150,000 
people.
  Mr. Chairman, the funds appropriated by this amendment which is more 
than $4,000,000 will be used for rehabilitation and economic recovery 
in areas of Sudan which have endured many hardships due to their 
religious and political beliefs. These funds will help support 
education, crop growth and other needs necessary for the basic 
existence of these people.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a humane, well thought out, gesture offered by 
the gentleman from New Jersey and I urge all Members to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Tancredo) 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. 2606) 
making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and 
related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________