[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 133 (Tuesday, October 5, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H9340-H9348]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1315
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2606, FOREIGN 
OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2000

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 307 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 307

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
     report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 307 is the standard rule waiving points 
of

[[Page H9341]]

order for the conference report to accompany H.R. 2606, the foreign 
operations appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. The rule waives 
points of order against the conference agreement and its consideration 
and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.
  I support this rule, and I support the underlying conference report 
as well. There are many important programs which are being funded in 
this conference report, and because there are no country earmarks, the 
President and the Secretary of State are afforded great flexibility to 
conduct foreign policy as they see fit in this area.
  I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan). I think he 
has done an extraordinary job, as has the ranking member, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). They have done a lot of hard 
work on this important conference report, and I urge both the adoption 
of the rule by our colleagues, as well as passage of the conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order consideration of the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 2606, a bill that makes appropriations for 
foreign aid and export assistance in fiscal year 2000. The rule waives 
all points of order against the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, foreign aid is part of the price we pay to be the 
political and the moral leader of this world, and, just as it is our 
duty as individuals to help others less fortunate than we are, it is 
our duty as a Nation to help those countries which are struggling. 
There are more direct benefits. Foreign aid creates jobs here in the 
United States, increases exports and opens markets overseas for 
American businesses.
  A report several years ago by the Washington polling firm of Belden & 
Russonello concluded that Americans strongly support humanitarian 
assistance to developing countries, which is part of foreign aid. In 
one poll, the average American thinks that almost one-third of the 
Federal budget is spent on foreign aid. However, in reality, less than 
1 percent of the Federal budget goes to foreign aid. The evidence 
suggests that the more people think about foreign aid, the more likely 
they are to support it.
  There are good provisions in this conference report. It provides a 
$65 million increase for the Child Survival and Disease Programs Funds. 
This includes a $5 million increase for UNICEF, which is so important 
to helping children throughout the world.
  The report also contains favorable language for microenterprise 
development, which has proven to be a cost effective way to help people 
become economically self-reliant.
  Unfortunately, the overall funding levels for the bill are 
insufficient to support America's leadership role in the world, and the 
bill cuts the administration's request for foreign aid programs by 
about 13 percent. This has been consistent over the past 10 years. Our 
foreign aid, especially on development assistance, continues to go 
down. As a matter of fact, it has been cut 50 percent in the last 10 
years.
  The Peace Corps is cut by $35 million below the administration's 
request, which will cause the reduction of 1,000 volunteers in the next 
2 years. As a returned Peace Corps volunteer myself, I am disappointed 
in the funding level of this important people-to-people aid program 
which enjoys broad support among American citizens.
  There are no funds to implement the Wye River agreement, which is a 
tremendous agreement between our President, Jordan, and Israel in the 
Middle East. The President is considering a veto of the bill largely on 
the grounds of inadequate funding.
  But, despite my concerns about the bill, I am willing to support this 
rule, which is the standard rule for conference reports, and it will 
allow for further debate of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as with so many other of the appropriations bills this 
year, we are hearing opposition from our good friends on the other side 
of the aisle because of the fact that they wish that more money was 
being spent. There is no doubt that proposals to spend money in myriad 
ways will be heard, and will continue to be heard, some of which, I am 
sure, make a lot of sense.
  We made a decision on this side of the aisle, and I think it is 
important to commend the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), 
the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), and the leadership, the 
Republican leadership, the Speaker, the majority leader, the whip, the 
conference chairmen, the entire leadership. They made a decision, on 
our side of the aisle we made a decision, that we will not in these 
appropriations bills tap, we will not get into the Social Security 
trust fund. And we are sticking to that decision. So we are going to 
see a lot of opposition based on the fact we are not spending enough 
money on these appropriations bills.
  This is the foreign aid bill. It is a very important bill. But we 
believe we are doing a good job, and we are doing the job within the 
existing resources that we have, while not tapping into, not going 
into, the Social Security trust fund.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time on the resolution 
bringing the conference report to the floor. The distinguished chairman 
of the subcommittee is ready, the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman 
Callahan), to explain the details of this legislation in great depth.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi), who is an expert and our ranking minority 
member on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time 
and for his leadership internationally and domestically on behalf of 
people in need, especially our children.
  Mr. Speaker, our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Hall), very clearly has pointed out some of the good things that 
are in this bill, and as I rise to talk about the rule, I am really 
rising in opposition to the bill.
  My colleague, our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Callahan), deserves credit for how he balanced the allocation that 
he had in the bill, and, again, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) 
pointed out some of the positive initiatives that are in the bill. But 
the bill does not measure up even in the slightest way to our 
leadership role in the world.
  I think it really is a disservice to the debate on the foreign aid 
bill to say that if we honor our commitments throughout the world, that 
that money will be taken out of Social Security. The fact is when these 
allocations were made, the foreign aid allocation was given very little 
priority.
  This bill is not only about cooperation between the United States and 
other countries. This bill is about our assistance for our own trade. 
We have financed in this bill the Ex-Im Bank, OPIC, as well as the 
Trade Development Administration, which assists in promoting U.S. 
exports abroad. So the allocation, as small as it is, is not even all 
about assistance overseas; it is about promoting U.S. products. In 
order for those products to be sold, we have to develop markets for 
them. So it is in our interest to cooperate with countries to help 
develop their economies.
  It is necessary for us in our foreign policy, which is an essential 
part of what we do here in the Congress, to honor the pillars of our 
foreign policy, to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction, to promote democratic freedoms so that the world is a more 
peaceful place as we deal with democracies rather than authoritarian 
regimes who might invade their neighbors or oppress their people, and, 
again, to promote our economy by promoting U.S. exports abroad.
  All of those goals are served very well, in addition to the broader 
issue of our national security, by our investments in this bill. These 
are investments that will pay off for us. We would not have to be so 
involved in sending our young people off and putting them in harm's way 
abroad if we were more successful in promoting the

[[Page H9342]]

pillars of our foreign policy through funding this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I hope that our colleagues will 
not say that the Social Security trust fund is at risk because we want 
to honor our commitments abroad.
  Let me just show you this chart, Mr. Speaker. In it you see this big 
yellow pie. That is the national budget. This sliver here, this little 
blue, less than 1 percent of the national budget, less than 1 percent, 
0.68 percent of the national budget, is spent on international 
cooperation.
  We are a great country. I come from a city where our patron saint is 
St. Francis. The song of St. Francis is the anthem of our community, 
and that is praying to the Lord to make us a channel of God's peace. 
Where there is darkness, may we bring light; where there is hatred, may 
we bring love; where there is despair, may we bring hope.
  We cannot solve all of the problems of the world, but we can bring 
hope to people, and that is what we try to do in this bill. This is a 
small price for us to pay to prevent putting our young men in harm's 
way and to honor the commitment of our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been fond of quoting President Kennedy on this 
bill, because everybody in the world who was alive at the time and 
those who study history know of his clarion call to the American 
people, the citizens of America, ``Ask not what your country can do for 
you, but what you can do for your country.'' But the very next line in 
that inaugural address, which I heard myself as a student here so many 
years ago, the very next line says, ``To the citizens of the world, I 
say ask not what America can do for you, but what we can do working 
together for the freedom of mankind.''
  That is what this bill strives to do. We cannot have that freedom, 
promote democratic values, stop the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction and build our economy by promoting our exports on the 
cheap.
  So I would hope that our colleagues would oppose the bill when it 
comes up. I have no objection to the rule. I urge our colleagues to 
vote no. Let us come back with a good bill we can have consensus on, 
that is worthy of a country as great as ours.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and 
congratulate my friend, the gentleman from Miami, Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart) for his superb handling of this issue and the very important 
input that he has had in structuring this and working closely with the 
distinguished Cardinal Callahan in helping to move this measure 
forward.
  There is, obviously, some controversy around it. But frankly, it is a 
measure which falls right in line with our commitment to fund our 
national priorities, and to do so under the very tight spending 
constraints with which we are forced to live.
  At the same time we are doing that, the conference report utilizes 
our scarce resources to ensure our successful and very important 
leadership abroad. A previous speaker mentioned the fact that we are 
committed to recognizing the importance of global trade. That is 
something that is underscored here.
  Another issue that is very important is for us to, obviously, address 
the spread of communicable diseases in the developing world, and 
especially among children. Legislation we are going to be dealing with 
later today also focuses on children. This conference report itself 
provides $715 million for child survival and disease programs that are 
highly effective in fighting diseases out there, such as tuberculosis, 
malaria, and yellow fever.
  We can all agree that the drug abuse issue is no longer simply a 
domestic concern, it is a global concern. The bill of the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) addresses that by providing $285 million to 
fight international drug traffickers. We recognize in doing so that 
wiping out that scourge of drugs must be a top priority for all nations 
throughout the world.
  The conference report also is very, very key to dealing with that 
continued challenge we face in the Middle East. This report maintains 
our commitment to Israel and Egypt, as laid out in the Camp David 
accords. Nearly half of the funding is devoted to peace in the Middle 
East, so this vital region will continue down the path towards 
democracy and prosperity and stability.
  So I urge my colleagues to join in support of this rule and the very 
important conference report.
  The easy issue which is often demagogued around here is to oppose 
foreign assistance. It is something that frankly I have done in years 
past. I have done it because in many instances we were spending much 
more than we should. But the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and 
other members of his subcommittee and the conference itself have dealt 
with these spending constraints which have been imposed on us 
appropriately, and they have established priorities. The priority for 
us is to maintain our Nation's leadership position in the world.
  We all recognize that the United States of America is the world's 
only complete superpower militarily, economically, and geopolitically. 
Responsibility goes with that, so providing this assistance is really a 
very, very small part of that.
  It is important to note that much of this assistance benefits the 
United States of America directly in dollars that are expended here. So 
I urge support of the rule, support of the conference report, and look 
forward to what probably will be a reasonably close vote, but I think 
we will be successful.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), a member of the Committee on Rules, for 
yielding time to me, and I thank my colleagues.
  I do want to add my appreciation to the cooperative efforts of the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) for their knowledgeable leadership.
  Right out of the box, I want to thank them for the $180 million 
increase in support of fighting worldwide AIDS, and in particular, the 
emphasis on Africa. I want to note the work of my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick). She and myself and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) went on an AIDS mission to 
Africa. We know this is not enough, but we are very grateful for the 
step that has been made.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that I have no concern with the rule, but 
unfortunately, I cannot support this final legislation. Let me say that 
I think the chart that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) had 
is very telling. It shows the sliver or the mere amount of monies we 
expend as a country for foreign aid. It does not, however, show that 
when we poll Americans, they frankly think it is higher, and would 
accept higher, because they understand the responsibilities that come 
with world leadership.
  So here are my concerns in this bill. First of all, we made a 
commitment in supporting and encouraging the Israelis and Palestinians 
to get together on the peace accord, in the Wye accord, to 
significantly work and fund that accord. The bill provides no funding, 
to my knowledge, to support the Wye accord. This funding is essential 
to support the renewed dedication of the Israelis and Palestinians to 
implement the Wye agreement and achieve an historic permanent status 
agreement over the next year. We must ensure that the framework of 
peace is stabilized by the resources. So I would hope that we would 
reach that point.
  I am also concerned about the cuts to development assistance and 
economic support fund, the multilateral development banks and debt 
reduction. The $87 million cut from debt relief programs for poor 
countries will damage the ability of the United States to contribute to 
the HIPC trust fund, which already is in jeopardy or may not be the 
best.
  Last week or 2 weeks ago, with a number of my colleagues, I joined 
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and others to challenge the 
IMF

[[Page H9343]]

for their hypocritical structure of debt relief for undeveloped 
nations. If we want to give them a fish, as opposed to giving them the 
opportunity to rebuild themselves, then we will continue to have 
poverty. Undeveloped nations want us to teach them how to fish, rather 
than give them a fish. All this so-called debt reduction and helping 
them with their debt relief keeps them needing fish, as opposed to 
relieving them of the burdens by providing more infrastructure and 
support that would help bring down their debt.
  The Heavily-Indebted Poor Countries initiative is supported by a wide 
range of religious and charitable groups, and was recently agreed to by 
the G-7 in Cologne, and mentioned by our president. We must help bring 
down the debt of these developing nations so that they can take the 
lead on social issues in their countries like HIV-AIDS, like education, 
like health care, like housing.
  I supported vigorously the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which 
provides an opportunity for trade to be used as a tool to economic 
advancements, but cannot have the intended effect unless the debt 
burden of these countries is adequately addressed.
  The African Growth and Opportunity Act is a trade bill. I support it. 
The African Growth and Opportunity Act will change how America does 
business with Africa. African countries want an equal trading 
relationship, but we at the same time must deal with the enormous 
amount of debt they must service.
  I have in that provision, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, a 
sense of Congress for corporations to develop an AIDS fund to 
compliment what we are doing in the Federal Government. But I can tell 
the Members that if we do not have debt relief, we are going to see 
these countries go down, down, down into a hole of no return.
  I would ask that we send this bill back and have it fixed, though I 
support the family planning efforts, and get us a real foreign 
operations bill. I thank Members for their work.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concern regarding the Foreign 
Operations Appropriations Conference Report. This legislation simply 
does not provide enough funding to carry out an effective foreign 
policy. It cuts American assistance to those who most urgently need it 
throughout the world and ignores some of our most pressing foreign 
policy priorities.
  Since the mid-1980's the resources devoted to our foreign assistance 
programs have steadily declined. Some of these decreases have been 
prudent reductions as we examined our international and multilateral 
commitments. However, these massive cuts in funding currently are 
threatening America's ability to maintain a leadership role in a 
rapidly changing world.
  The Wye accord between Israel and the Palestinians was a significant 
diplomatic effort on behalf of our country. The credibility of our 
country should not be put in a compromising position by this Congress. 
The bill provides no funding to support the Wye accord.
  This funding is essential to support the renewed dedication of the 
Israelis and Palestinians to implement Wye and achieve a historic 
permanent status agreement over the next year. This is not the time for 
the United States to renege on its commitments in support of a historic 
opportunity for peace in the Middle East.
  Implementation of the Wye agreement resumed immediately, with the 
first round of prisoner released, followed by the next stage of Israeli 
redeployments in the West Bank, and the assumption of permanent status 
negotiations. The Israelis and Palestinians have committed to achieve a 
framework agreement on the most difficult permanent status issues by 
February 2000 and a final permanent status agreement by later that 
year. I strongly oppose the lack of funding for the Wye agreement in 
this measure or any efforts that would impede progress in Middle East 
peace.
  I am concerned about the cuts to Development Assistance and Economic 
Support Fund, the Multilateral Development Banks and debt reduction. 
The $87 million cut from Debt Relief programs for poor countries will 
damage the ability of the United States to contribute to the HIPC Trust 
Fund, which is an essential component of current debt reduction 
programs as well as of the Cologne debt initiative. This massive 
reduction equates to a 72% cut from the Debt Relief programs. The 
developing nations of the world have developed strategies and plans to 
alleviate some of the debt burden of poorer countries. The expanded 
Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative is supported by a 
wide range of religious and charitable organizations, and was agreed to 
by the G-7 in Cologne. It is critical that the United States 
demonstrate its leadership by providing the necessary funding support 
for the first year of this initiative, which enjoys bipartisan and 
international support.
  The debt issue is one that cannot be ignored as the United States 
establishes a more mature trade relationship with Sub Saharan Africa. 
The African Growth and Opportunity Act provides an opportunity for 
trade to be used as a tool to economic advancement but cannot have the 
intended effect unless the debt burden in these countries is adequately 
addressed. African Growth and Opportunity will change how America does 
business with Africa. It seeks to enhance US-Africa policy to increased 
trade, investment, self-help and serious engagement. It seeks to move 
away from the paternalism which in the past characterized American 
dealing with Africa by encouraging strategies to improve economic 
performance and requiring high level interactions between the U.S. and 
African governments on trade and investment issues. The debt burden 
must be addressed.
  Payments on unsustainable debt have left many poorer countries facing 
the tough decisions of making debt payments or delaying necessary 
social, health, education or other programs designed to improve quality 
of living. Humanity is less than ninety nine days short of the year 
2000. Yet, poorer countries are still faced with 80 percent illiteracy 
rates, lack of food security, diseases affecting their children that 
are nonexistent in developed countries, and other malaise that should 
be eliminated.
  Debt reduction must be fully funded. The Congress must not ignore the 
historic opportunity presented by the Cologne debt reduction initiative 
to reduce the unmanageable debt burdens of the poorest countries, the 
majority of which are in Africa. By not funding this initiative, which 
is supported by a wide range of faith based and other private sector 
organizations, the Congress will ensure not only that the U.S. does not 
contribute its fair share, but also that the worldwide initiative does 
not succeed.

  I must oppose the $212 million or 31% cut from democratization and 
economic recovery programs in Latin America, Africa and Asia. This 
reduction in the Economic Support Fund would significantly constrain 
the United States' ability to respond to a host of threats and new 
crises around the world.
  These cuts would force the reduction of programs intended to increase 
political stability and democratization in Africa; support democracy 
efforts in Guatemala, Peru and Ecuador, and bolster democratic and 
economic reform in Asia, as well as sustain implementation of the 
Belfast Good Friday Accord. Cuts to these accounts will not permit the 
United States to provide sufficient funds for numerous priorities in 
Africa. I am concerned that as we applaud democracy, we are not willing 
to support it. I am concerned that during their critical transition 
periods, we may not be able to support emerging democracies like 
Nigeria.
  At a time when natural disasters and manmade conflicts are causing 
unprecedented damage throughout the world, Congress has cut the 
International Disaster Assistance and Voluntary Peacekeeping requests 
by over 25 percent. This dramatic reduction in funding for Voluntary 
Peacekeeping operations would decrease funds available for the 
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe mission Bosnia and 
Croatia, significantly reduce assistance for the African Crisis 
Response Initiative and African regional peacekeeping operations, such 
as ECOMOG, and eliminate funding for Haiti.
  Such a substantial reduction would raise international concern that 
the United States may not support its fair share of the international 
police force that will help to implement the Kosovo peace settlement, 
for which new resources will be needed. The conference initiative cuts 
funding for international peace by 41%. Adequate funding its critical 
for support of regional peacekeeping activities such as ECOMOG that has 
helped to maintain stability and avert the kind of humanitarian 
disasters that require much greater expenditure of resources.
  The severe cuts in the conference bill to provide assistance to the 
NIS will make it impossible to implement the Enhanced Threat Reduction 
Initiative (ETRI). The primary objective of the ETRI is to reduce the 
threat of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of rogue 
states. The bill effectively provides no resources to continue ETRI and 
reduces U.S. ability to prevent and terminate international security 
threats in Russia and the NIS.
  I thank my colleagues for increased funding to combat HIV/AIDS. Of 
5.8 million adults and children newly infected with HIV during 1998, 4 
million live in sub-Saharan Africa. AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa is a 
growing disaster. UNAIDS has declared HIV/AIDS in Africa an ``epidemic 
out of control''.
  Each and everyday, more than 16,000 additional people become HIV 
positive, and most live in sub-Saharan Africa where in South Africa 
alone, 1500 people become HIV+ each

[[Page H9344]]

day. Among children under 15, the proportion is 9 out of 10. To date 
82% of all AIDS deaths have been in the region and at least 95% of all 
AIDS orphans have been in Africa. It is estimated that by the year 2010 
AIDS will orphan more than 40 million children, with 95% in sub-Saharan 
Africa.
  Additional funds to combat HIV/AIDS are always welcome and I urge my 
colleagues to acknowledge this threat to mankind by addressing the 
international crisis.
  I thank my colleagues for funding the United Nations Population Fund 
(UNFPA), a vital program, which provides valuable voluntary family 
planning and other services in over 160 countries.
  I oppose the use of U.S. funds to lobby for or against abortion. U.S. 
funds should not be used in such a political debate. Governments should 
address those issues independently of U.S. appropriated monies.
  In closing, I must urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 
2606. Low funding levels translate to bad policy choices. At such 
funding levels, there will be no choice other than to keep considering 
supplemental appropriation request and budget amendments.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the subcommittee 
on the Committee on Appropriations who has done superb work on this 
bill.
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is always a difficult bill. It requires some 
difficult negotiations. But for the past 5 years, with my handling of 
this bill, we have worked in a very bipartisan manner to satisfy or to 
attempt to satisfy the needs of both sides of the aisle.
  I think this year is certainly no different, because not one Member 
on the other side at any point in this debate has ever come to me and 
said, ``Sonny, I think there is something wrong in your bill.'' They 
did not say, ``You left out Colombia, because we put Colombia's needs 
in there. They did not say, ``You left out Africa,'' because we 
responded to those who were interested in Africa. We did not leave out 
Israel, we did not leave out Jordan, we did not leave out many of the 
foreign countries that so many of the Members are interested in, 
because we worked in a bipartisan spirit to draft a bill.
  So the only problem we have here is this insatiable desire on the 
part of the President to give away American taxpayer money. They talk 
about revenue enhancement programs. I think the President calls it 
offsetting receipts. In Alabama we call it taxes, but the President 
says he wants some offsetting receipts, so let me suggest one. Maybe we 
could charge every foreign dignitary that comes into the White House $1 
million, because every foreign dignitary who walks into the White House 
comes out with a commitment from anywhere from $1 million to $50 
million. Maybe we ought to consider that.
  Maybe we ought to limit the ability of the President and the Vice 
President and the First Lady to travel. Number one, his trip to Africa 
cost the taxpayers $47 million because he took so many people with him. 
But that is not our problem. Our problems are the commitments that he 
makes.
  Every time the President meets with a foreign dignitary, they have a 
toast, which is appropriate. But every time they make a toast, the 
President of the United States says, here is my commitment to you. I am 
going to give you some more money. Then they run over here and say, 
this is an obligation of the United States. How can we possibly not 
fulfill our obligations?
  Mr. Speaker, this does not mean it is an obligation of the United 
States when the President of the United States raises his glass of wine 
to some foreign leader and says, I am going to send you $50 million. We 
do not have the money.
  The gentlewoman from California and I have worked so very well 
together. She told me not to mention social security. I am not going to 
say, even though it is a reality, if we give the President $2 billion 
more that he is asking for, it is going to impact social security.
  I apologize to the gentlewoman from California for saying that, and I 
will not say it anymore until the bill comes up. But let me tell the 
Members, in this bill no one, no one in this debate, no one in the 
Committee on Rules, no one on the floor of the House, no one by 
telephone call has called me and said, ``Sonny, you did not treat 
Lebanon right, you did not treat Armenia right, you did not treat 
Georgia right, you did not treat Africa right,'' because we worked in a 
bipartisan fashion to make absolutely certain that we did have a 
bipartisan bill.
  So we have a bipartisan bill, and it is $2 billion less than the 
President requested at this point. He just came last week and asked for 
another $100 million for another of his pet projects. In addition to 
that, he wants $2 billion more to give to Israel and to Jordan and to 
the Palestinian authority because of the Wye agreement.
  He is going to need some additional money, he says, for Kosovo, even 
though we responded to the wishes of this House on Kosovo by saying, we 
are not going to participate in reconstruction in Kosovo unless the 
European community puts up 85 percent of the money.
  We have done everything they asked. We have responded to all of our 
subcommittee members, our full committee members, and to every Member 
in this House who has come to me and said, we think you ought to do 
something. We have done every responsible thing we can do except 
satisfy this insatiable appetite for money that President Clinton has 
that he wants to hand out as he makes his travels, as I would do if I 
were in his position, during this last year and a half of his 
presidency. He wants to travel around the world. He wants more money to 
hand out.
  We do not have more money. The only way to get more money is through 
new taxes, through possibly jeopardizing social security or breaking 
the budget caps. I urge Members to bring this bill up, vote for this 
rule, and let us indeed debate this. If it fails and the President 
wants to veto it, let him veto it.
  I talked to the President the other night. I promise the Members, I 
think I had him convinced that I was right, that this is as much as he 
is going to get. The President said, ``Well, Sonny, maybe you are 
right. Maybe you are right. But,'' he says, ``I need to talk with my 
people.'' I said, ``I will tell you what, Mr. President, I will let you 
go at this point if you will invite me in the same room when you talk 
to your people, to let me tell them what I have just told you about the 
merits of this bill. And the President said, ``Well, maybe you are 
right. I will do that.''
  But unfortunately, at 9 o'clock that night, Sandy Berger called back 
and said they did not think it was wise for me to get into the same 
room with Madeleine Albright, with Sandy Berger, and Bill Clinton, 
because they knew that logically, and I say to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), they knew that logically I was correct, and 
that if indeed I were able to get them all in the room, no one could 
convince the President otherwise of the merits of this bill at this 
particular time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate very much the leadership of the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  I rise on the rule, and I am speaking in opposition to the outrageous 
underlying bill, although there are many positive initiatives, like 
increasing funding for security at our embassies abroad.

                              {time}  1345

  There is zero funding for the important Wye agreement, the Middle 
East peace agreement. I must say that I applaud the conferees for their 
bipartisan agreement to restore funding for the United Nations Family 
Planning Assistance and for the bipartisan agreement to strip out any 
antichoice riders. These are two important policy initiatives that are 
precedent setting that will be part of the underlying bill that returns 
to this House.
  Mr. Speaker, next week, our world reaches 6 billion in population and 
the decisions that we make on UNFPA and on other policy decisions will 
determine whether this number quickly doubles or whether we move more 
slowly.

[[Page H9345]]

 Funding UNFPA will save lives, maternal health, child health, and I 
applaud the conferees for their bipartisan support of putting UNFPA in 
and taking Mexico City out.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney) for yielding to me. She raised the issue about the Wye 
agreement, and I am pleased to note we have just received a letter from 
AIPAC dated October 5, and it was sent to the gentleman from Alabama 
(Chairman Callahan).
  It reads, ``Chairman Callahan, we are writing to express our support 
for the conference report on H.R. 2606, the fiscal year 2000 Foreign 
Operations Appropriations Bill which contains funding for Israel's 
regular aid package, including provisions for early disbursal, offshore 
procurement and refugee settlement. The Middle East peace process is 
moving forward. Both Israel and the Palestinians are committed to 
resolving issues between them within a year. It is important that 
Congress support Israel as this process moves ahead. And we therefore 
also hope and urge that Congress find a way to fund assistance to the 
Wye River signatories before the end of this year.''
  The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has assured us that he will 
be working in the conference to try to obtain sufficient funding for 
the Wye River agreement. This is a very complicated measure, but it 
covers many of our concerns, and I want to commend the gentleman for 
working out a very difficult foreign operations measure, and it 
deserves the support of our entire House.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I simply want to reiterate something very important that 
the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) said. The gentleman 
pointed out that obviously there could always be more requests for more 
money. But he explained what was done within the resources available, 
not doing three things which we refuse to do. Raise taxes. We refuse to 
raise taxes. Bust the balanced budget. We refuse to bust the balanced 
budget. Or go into the Social Security Trust Fund. We refuse to go into 
the Social Security Trust Fund.
  So not doing those three things, we are doing a good job of funding 
the Government's needs, including the very important programs that our 
friends on the other side of the aisle have pointed out.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this is very important work that the subcommittee 
has brought forward in the context of this conference report. We need 
to get it passed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard on this 
bill. Unfortunately, although it is a difficult bill, there are many 
reasons to oppose it. We have had the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney) indicate some of them.
  Some will oppose it because of the Mexico City provisions. Some will 
oppose it because of various foreign aid proposals in here. I am going 
to oppose it because it took out the language which the House voted, in 
which it stopped money from going to keep the School of the Americas 
program.
  In 1980, four U.S. churchwomen were brutally murdered in El Salvador. 
One of them was a good friend of mine, Sister Dorothy Kazel from 
Cleveland. In 1989, six Jesuit priests were massacred in El Salvador. 
Archbishop Oscar Romero and Bishop Juan Gerardi of Guatemala were 
assassinated. Almost 100 of the El Mozote community in El Salvador were 
massacred. In 1992, nine students and a professor were killed in Peru. 
In 1997, 30 peasants in the Colombian village of Mapiripan were 
massacred.
  Mr. Speaker, these people were innocent civilians and missionaries 
working for peace and justice, and they were brutally killed by 
officers who received their training from the United States Government 
at the School of the Americas, and the rule of the House should have 
stayed. We should have eliminated those funds, and no one who cares 
about peace and justice should vote for the rule or the bill.
  Furthermore, another reason to oppose this bill, American tax dollars 
have been used to blow up water systems, sewer systems, bridges, 
railroad trains, buses, tractors, hospitals, libraries, schools and 
homes, killing and maiming countless innocent women and children. In 
Yugoslavia, Serbia was wrong to wage war on the Kosovar Albanians. NATO 
was wrong to bomb Belgrade, and we are wrong to further punish Serbia 
by making them a terrorist nation which stops any opportunity for 
democratic opposition to grow to Milosevic. If we want to get rid of 
Milosevic and give the Serbian people an opportunity to grow a 
democracy, do not make it a terrorist nation.
  This Congress has messed up the policy in Iraq by not forcing the 
administration to come to an accounting on that, and we are going to do 
the same thing in Serbia by letting this legislation pass which puts 
them as a terrorist nation. It is time that we stand up for what is 
right and for a future where we really can have peace.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the bill.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the fiscal year 
2000 foreign operations bill, but I do want to indicate support in the 
way this legislation affects U.S. policy towards Armenia and India.
  First, I want to express my appreciation to the conferees, 
particularly the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member, for their 
continued attention to Armenia, Nagorno Karabagh, and the entire South 
Caucasus region.
  This year's legislation provides somewhat more assistance to Armenia 
than we provided in the last fiscal year, $89.67 million or 12.2 
percent of the total of $735 million for the New Independent States of 
the former Soviet Union. The conference report also specified that 15 
percent of the funds available for the South Caucasus region be used 
for confidence-building measures and other activities related to 
regional conflicts including efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution 
of the Nagorno Karabagh conflict.
  The House version of the legislation contains several report language 
provisions that would contribute greatly to peace and stability in the 
South Caucasus region. The administration should follow through on the 
policy directives contained in the House report which are now 
incorporated in the conference report. The House report specifically 
directs the Agency for International Development to expedite delivery 
of $20 million to the victims of the Nagorno Karabagh conflict. The 
people of Nagorno Karabagh suffered during their war of independence 
with Azerbaijan, and their need for help continues to be significant. 
They should not be discriminated against in terms of receiving 
humanitarian assistance simply on the basis of where they live.
  The administration should also heed the House report language 
regarding the peace process for Nagorno Karabagh, stating that 
assistance to the governments of the region should be proportional to 
their willingness to cooperate with the Minsk Group. And finally, I 
want to applaud the conferees from both bodies who have maintained 
section 907 of the Freedom Support Act.
  Turning to India, I want to thank the conferees and particularly the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Pelosi), the ranking member, for not 
adopting a provision in the Senate version of the legislation singling 
out India as one of a handful of nations that would have to receive 
special congressional approval before the allocation of foreign aid. 
Section 521 of the Senate bill talked about special notification 
requirements for countries such as Colombia, Haiti, Liberia, Pakistan, 
and also included India in this list; but the House conference report 
does not, and I want to thank the conferees for making that change.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished

[[Page H9346]]

gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to at this moment actually 
praise the gentleman from Cleveland, Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), who came up 
and says he is going to oppose this bill. And I am praising him because 
at least he is going to oppose this bill for a concept and a reasonable 
concept that I think the American people could understand, and that is 
we are spending money on something that he has some concerns about. But 
at least the gentleman from Cleveland is standing up and saying that 
the bill is spending money that he does not want spent.
  In a time to where we are struggling to try to make sure we do not 
continue the crime of raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, at a time 
that we are trying to finally address the national debt, at a time to 
where we are finally trying to bring some fiscal credibility and live 
within a budget, at least the gentleman is coming forward and saying, 
``I am opposing this bill because it is spending money.''
  But there are speaker after speaker after speaker who will oppose 
this rule and then justify it because we are not spending enough money 
all over the world. The gentleman from Ohio at least is consistent at 
saying let us protect Social Security and stop spending here. The 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), chairman of this committee, has 
come forward with a proposal that is moderate and reasonable. Let me 
say this to the gentleman and to the ranking member, thank you for 
taking the abortion issue out of this debate. It is something that a 
lot of us really hate every year.
  But now to oppose this bill and oppose this rule because we are not 
spending enough American money overseas is absolutely absurd. And some 
of my colleagues may not think the American people understand it, but 
it is their money. Can we not have a foreign aid policy that does not 
require us to take from our grandparents' Social Security or take from 
our children's future to be able to be an international leader? Do we 
have to buy our way into our standard as the world's superpower?
  Is this something that comes with a slip of paper and a little bill 
that says, Excuse me, American taxpayer, if you want to claim to be the 
greatest Nation in the world, you have to buy it year by year by 
sending your money out of Social Security or your money out of your 
children's savings account to another country that then God knows what 
happens to this money?
  Everybody knows that. Some may not believe that the American people 
understand foreign aid. And I think they respect a reasonable aid for a 
reasonable amount of time. But I think the American people are saying 
enough is enough. The time has come that we allow the world to grow up 
and start paying some of their bills and quit looking to Washington and 
quit looking to the United States to be the sugar daddy to pay for 
everything. We may be Uncle Sam, but we are not Mom and Dad to the 
world. But we are Mom and Dad to our children and our grandchildren, 
and we are the children of our parents who want our Social Security 
Trust Fund to be left alone.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I ask those who stand up to oppose this bill, I ask 
them to stand up and point up, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) did, where they want the money taken out of this bill. But do 
not stand up and talk about how we need to spend more money overseas 
and then stand up tomorrow and talk about what are we going to do to 
protect the Social Security Trust Fund.
  There is an obligation here that when we come to oppose something 
that we also provide the answers. If we are not spending enough money 
where my colleagues want to spend it in this bill, show us where we 
take it out of somewhere else to move it over. I ask that we all have 
the fiscal responsibility that goes along with the privilege of being a 
representative of the House of Representatives.
  If Members want to spend the money, tell us where it is going to go, 
which committee it is going to come out of, whose trust fund it is 
going to come out of, and will the seniors or the children of America 
be asked to pay for a debt that we are incurring overseas because we do 
not have enough guts to tell the rest the world enough is enough. We 
are going to take care of our own first.

                              {time}  1400

  Charity starts in America. Commitments start in America. Then and 
only then, after we have paid for our domestic commitments to our 
seniors and our children, will we be talking about making any new 
commitments to the rest of the world.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I really do not 
think that the Chamber needs to be lectured by the Republican majority 
about fiscal responsibility. They cannot even come up with a budget. We 
still have not passed a budget. Every budget they come up with raids 
the Social Security Trust Fund.
  They came up with an irresponsible huge tax break for the wealthy, 
which would have destroyed the Social Security tax fund, which would 
have dipped into the Social Security tax fund. Then they get up on the 
floor and attempt to portray themselves as the party of fiscal 
responsibility. They have busted the budget caps.
  They have just been devious about it and have gone around it by 
declaring the census an emergency when we all know that this country 
has had a census for hundreds and hundreds of years. That was a way 
they could bust the budget caps and go around it. Perhaps by the same 
nonsense, we could declare foreign aid an emergency.
  So let us not be lectured by the Republicans about fiscal 
responsibility because the tax break for the rich that the President 
was courageous enough to veto would have killed Social Security for us, 
for our children, and for our grandchildren for many, many years to 
come.
  Now, I am a big supporter of foreign aid, and I am embarrassed by 
this bill. I am embarrassed by it because there is an isolationism bent 
in the Republican Party where, every year, we provide less and less 
monies for foreign aid.
  Now, we can all get up and give a great speech about how we need the 
money for home and we need to build housing and build schools, and we 
need all that. But the United States is also the leader of the world. 
We used to say the leader of the free world when we had the Soviet. Now 
we say the leader of the world.
  Unfortunately, our friends on the other side of the aisle, the minute 
the Soviet Union collapsed, most of them saw no further need for the 
responsible foreign aid. The fact of the matter is, no one made us the 
leaders of the world. We chose to pick up and take the mantle.
  With leadership comes responsibility, and we do not have enough money 
to fulfill our foreign aid obligations in this bill. I have gone around 
to foreign capitals and seen our embassies and seen our hard-working 
Americans do the best they can with what they have had, and I am 
embarrassed by it. Because there is not enough money to have embassies 
and to have fully staffed embassies and to have the types of programs 
that the United States as the leader of the free world needs.
  This bill is $1 billion less than last year. It is $2 billion less 
than what the President asked for. It has no money for the Wye Accords. 
We talk about a fight with the Soviet Union. We won the Cold War. Now 
we are going to throw it all away.
  Developmental funds for Africa are cut. All these emerging Nations, 
we say we want them to have democracy and free market economy; and then 
we do not put our money where our mouth is where a little bit of money 
would just go a long, long way.
  Foreign aid, 75 to 80 percent of the foreign aid that we give comes 
back to the United States in terms of purchasing American goods and 
services. So it stimulates our economy, and it is good as well.
  Now, this is such a terrible bill that the Republican leadership 
prepared for days and days and weeks and weeks have been putting this 
bill on and pulling it back. They do not have the votes to pass this 
bill. I say we should let them go back to the drawing boards, come up 
with a responsible bill that we can be proud of so America can lead 
again.

[[Page H9347]]

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out just a few things. 
The essence really of the debate today is whether, as the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Bilbray), the previous speaker, pointed out, more 
money which, except for one speaker on the other side of the aisle, 
insufficient amount of money is the reason for their opposition to the 
bill. That is a legitimate discrepancy. We refused to go into the 
Social Security Trust Fund.
  Now, with regard to what the distinguished gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Engel) just stated, U.S. embassies and consulates, they are in 
another appropriations bill in the State Department; Commerce, State, 
Justice, that bill, not in this one.
  Now, it is important to point out again, and I reiterate it, we made 
a decision, the leadership, and we are standing firm behind our 
leadership on this. We are not going to go into the Social Security 
Trust Fund. We are not going to do it. We made that decision. We are 
sticking to it. Obviously, it subjects us to pressure. We see argument 
after argument after argument that they want more and more and more 
money.
  Many of the programs that they talk about are probably good programs. 
But we are going to stick to our commitment. We are not going to go 
into the Social Security Trust Fund. We are not going to do it.
  This is a good work product. We want to bring it to the floor. This 
rule does so. We deserve to get into the details of the debate. The 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), our chairman, the prime author 
of this legislation is ready to provide the details and go into the 
details of this debate in depth.
  But we need to pass this rule in order to get that debate. It is a 
procedural rule. It is a standard procedural rule, bringing forth the 
negotiation between the House and Senate known as the conference report 
that is finalized for foreign aid.
  So we are ready to go, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily oppose the rule before 
us, but today I am forced to cast a very difficult vote against the 
conference report to the Fiscal Year 2000 Foreign Operations 
Appropriations bill.
  It is unfortunate that strong supporters, like myself, of foreign 
assistance to countries such as Israel, Columbia, Armenia, India, and 
Egypt are being placed in a position where it is necessary to vote 
against assistance for those priority countries.
  This legislation also has important contributions to UNFPA and other 
international programs, which I fully support and have urged my 
colleagues to support. In fact, I thank the conferees and the gentleman 
from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) for fulfilling the will of the 
authorizers and the intent of the House by including funding for UNFPA, 
which I offered as an amendment earlier this year. However, a no vote 
on this bill is a vote in favor of a strong U.S. foreign policy and a 
vibrant foreign assistance program.
  Mr. Speaker, the numbers in this report are clear. They speak for 
themselves. This legislation is nearly $2 billion below the President's 
request for foreign assistance. Almost every major account is 
underfunded.
  The conference report does not include the $87 million for debt 
relief initiatives for the poorest countries, and it cuts $200 million 
from economic development and democracy-building programs in Africa, 
Asia, and Latin America, to name just two important initiatives which 
will be hampered by this report.
  Additionally, this legislation has no money, not one single dollar, 
to fulfill our commitment to the Wye agreement to the Middle East Peace 
Process. I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman) and APAC, and I am sorry to disagreewith my Chairman, but 
as the gentleman has stated there is no Wye funding in this bill at 
this time, and it ought to be there.
  Mr. Speaker, the President has made his position crystal clear; 
increase funding for foreign assistance and include the Wye funding or 
he will veto the legislation. I know it. My colleagues know it. The 
Republican leadership knows it. Yet, here we are, with legislation that 
fails to fund U.S. foreign policy priorities and threatens stability in 
the Middle East.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report is bad for America, it is bad for 
the Middle East peace process, and it is just plain bad policy. I urge 
my colleagues to live up to our commitments, support the President and 
vote against this antiforeign aid bill.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in vigorous opposition to this rule 
and to this bill. I would like to alert the Members of this chamber of 
something they may not have heard; and that is, buried in this bill is 
yet another one of the insidious repeated antienvironmental riders that 
have so infected our appropriations process.
  Because hidden in this bill is an amendment that would prevent the 
United States of America from engaging, engaging in a discussion with 
the developing world on how to get them to start help dealing with the 
problem of climate change.
  There is no reason in this bill or any other bill to shackle our 
ability to discuss with other Nations of the world how we are going to 
move forward and how we are going to deal with climate change. This has 
been infecting other bills. We should stop it right here.
  In the last few days, we have debated other antienvironmental riders. 
This is one dealing with perhaps the most insidious environmental 
problem that we have. Because, while 15 of the hottest years in human 
history have been in the last 15 years, while the temperature has risen 
so that we are having droughts in the Midwest and places of Antarctica 
breaking up and places in the Tundra changing. While we are doing this, 
the majority puts in another antienvironmental rider that tells us we 
should do nothing about this problem.
  Well, the one thing I can be sure of about climate change is that we 
cannot lead in the position of the ostrich. We cannot lead the world in 
solving this problem by sticking our heads in the sand and allowing 
other places of anatomy to be out and exposed to the wind. We have got 
to start leading to a solution of climate change.
  If we kill this rule today, and it might be a close vote, so I hope 
Members may consider this, if my colleagues want to stand up against an 
antienvironmental rider, cast a no vote on this rule. Let us show some 
leadership.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I assume that the distinguished gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee) was referring to the Kyoto Treaty, which has to 
be, pursuant to our constitutional system of advice and consent of the 
Senate, has to be given consent by the Senate. So that is an issue 
obviously that is of great importance and is a decision that the Senate 
will have to make.
  Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers at this time with regard to 
the rule. It is a procedural rule. This is a procedural rule. We seek 
to bring the conference report to the floor. That is why we have to 
pass the rule first.
  Once we pass the rule, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the 
prime author of the conference report who has provided a tremendous 
amount of leadership, as well as hard work on this issue, is ready.
  The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) is ready to delve into the 
details. He has pointed out how any and all requests that were made of 
him by our distinguished friends on the other side of the aisle, he did 
his utmost to comply with. Yet, we are seeing now systematic opposition 
generally because our friends on the other side of the aisle want more 
money. But they want more money for everything.
  So what we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is to bring forth, get to 
the debate on this foreign aid conference report. But in order to get 
to the debate on the foreign aid conference report, we have to pass the 
procedural

[[Page H9348]]

rule to do so. That is what we would like to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say that I do not have a problem with this rule. 
I do not think many people over here do either. I am not going to ask 
for a roll call on the rule. I think the rule is in good shape. It is 
the proper order for a conference committee to have a rule like this.
  I will oppose the bill when the bill comes up for a vote. The reason 
why I oppose the bill is that I do not really have a problem with what 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has done and his staff. I 
think they spent money they were given. They made the proper choices as 
to the allocation and some of the earmarks, especially relative to 
child survival funds and basic education.
  The problem that I have had in the last 10 years with the foreign 
budget or the foreign appropriation budget is, and I testified before 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) is that there are so many 
areas of this foreign aid budget that are lacking.
  We have cut the development assistance fund by 50 percent in the last 
10 years. If there is one thing that the American people have said, 
when we invest money overseas, invest it in a way in which people can 
start to take care of themselves and be self-sufficient. But the very 
thing that they want we have cut by 50 percent.
  We have cut Peace Corps this year. We have cut a lot of programs 
relative to humanitarian aid of which we could be a leader, and we have 
been the leader for years. There are so many things to do in this world 
and our own country that we have the ability to do it.
  One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out how to feed 
people, how to give medicines to people, how to immunize people. We 
have eradicated smallpox in the world. With just a little bit more 
money, we could start to eradicate polio and TB and those kinds of 
diseases that are easy. This is not a hard thing to do.
  We know logistically how to get food to people. We know how to 
immunize people. We know how to feed people. At the same time, we 
should not be giving it from government to government. We should be 
giving it through our NGOs, the nonprofit organizations, the CARES, and 
the World Visions, and the Catholic Relief Services, and the Oxfams, 
and all of the great NGOs in the world, because we get good value for 
our dollar.

                              {time}  1415

  Another thing. This is a practical thing that produces jobs. For 
every dollar we invest overseas, we get $2.37 back. We do not lose 
money on this deal; we gain, and yet year after year it gets more and 
more frustrating that we continue to cut back on these funds that are 
so invaluable to our own workers and that would help the world so much.
  We do have a responsibility. It is interesting that when we ask 
Americans how much they think of the Federal budget we spend on foreign 
aid, every poll will show that the American people believe that we 
spend somewhere between 18 and 22 percent of our total budget on 
foreign aid. And the fact is that is wrong. We spend less than 1 
percent of our total budget on foreign aid, and it is going down.
  The area that I care so much about, humanitarian aid, is less than 
one-half of 1 percent. Maybe someday we should separate political and 
diplomatic aid from humanitarian aid and really fund it and solve some 
of these problems like polio and TB. We know how to lick this. We know 
how to feed people, and yet we do not do it.
  I know the leadership has taken a position on this of no more money 
for these programs. But they are wrong, and we disagree with them, and 
that is why so many of us are going to vote against the bill. So I say 
the rule is okay, vote for the rule, but when this bill or this 
conference report comes up, vote against it.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We heard multiple speakers on the other side of the aisle with regard 
to the issue, and all but two said that their opposition to this 
foreign aid bill was because there was not enough money. I just want to 
be clear that even though we on this side of the aisle are standing 
firm behind our leadership in not raising taxes, in not busting the 
balanced budget, in not going into the Social Security Trust Fund, 
despite that, on this bill for foreign aid we have $12.617, that is 
almost $13 billion. That is almost $13,000 million for foreign aid.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for his 
extraordinary job. I think this has been a very good example of the 
underlying difference that separates the two sides of the aisle. With 
only two exceptions, every single speaker on the other side of the 
aisle got up and opposed this legislation because there is not enough 
money in it. And so there is a fundamental difference, but a very good 
job has been done by our side, our leadership, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, and so I support not only this rule but the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this is important, we need to get it passed, and that is 
why at this point I support the rule and urge my colleagues to vote for 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________