[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 89 (Wednesday, July 12, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H5882-H5889]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4811, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT
FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 546 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 546
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4811) making appropriations for foreign
operations, export financing, and related programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. When the
reading for amendment reaches section 587, that section shall
be considered as read. Points of order against provisions in
the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are
waived except as follows: beginning with ``: Provided'' on
page 11, line 23, through page 12, line 8; page 80, lines 18
through 24; page 121, line 1, through page 122, line 12.
Where points of order are waived against part of a paragraph,
points of order against a provision in another part of such
paragraph may be made only against such provision and not
against the entire paragraph. Before consideration of any
other amendment to section 587, it shall be in order to
consider, and to dispose of, an amendment to strike that
section. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole
[[Page H5883]]
may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether
the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed
in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for
that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further
consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a
recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five
minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any
postponed question that follows another electronic vote
without intervening business, provided that the minimum time
for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions
shall be 15 minutes. During consideration of the bill, points
of order against amendments for failure to comply with clause
2(e) of rule XXI are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
{time} 1545
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). 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 546 is an open rule providing for the
consideration of H.R. 4811, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill
for fiscal year 2001.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
The rule also waives points of order against provisions in the bill
for failing to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting
unauthorized appropriations and legislating in a general appropriations
bill or prohibiting reappropriations in a general appropriations bill,
except as specified by the rule.
The rule leaves exposed to points of order, two legislative
provisions and one earmark restriction, areas under the jurisdiction of
the Committee on International Relations.
The rule also waives points of order against amendments to the bill
for failure to comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI, prohibiting
nonemergency designated amendments to be offered to an appropriations
bill containing an emergency designation.
The rule also grants the chairman of the Committee of the Whole the
authority to postpone votes and reduce voting time to 5 minutes
provided that the first vote in a series is not less than 15 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, in addition, the rule provides that Members who have
preprinted their amendments in the Record prior to their consideration
will be given priority in recognition to offer their amendments, if
otherwise consistent with House rules.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides a fair approach for the consideration
of the foreign aid appropriations bill.
One controversial area, which always lends itself to important debate
on the floor involves family planning funds and their potential use for
performing or promoting abortion, and the so-called Mexico City policy
which prohibits U.S. assistance to foreign organizations that perform
abortions, or engage in lobbying activities to change such laws.
While I am personally strongly pro-life, under the regular rules of
the House, a Member will have the opportunity to strike the section in
the bill related to the Mexico City policy and the full House will have
an opportunity to debate and vote on this issue.
Although several Members requested waivers for legislative
amendments, the Committee on Rules chose to report a standard, open
rule without granting waivers to any amendments. So no particular area
is given special consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and also the underlying legislation.
A lot of work has gone into it.
I am pleased to see that this is the 11th appropriations bill to come
before the House, and that this bill is within the committee's budget
allocation.
I think the pace of the work for the House this Congress has been
truly remarkable. I think that the Speaker needs to be commended and
congratulated especially for this, as well as all of those who have
worked so hard in bringing forth the appropriations bills.
I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for their hard work on
this important bill. I urge adoption of both the rule and the
underlying bill.
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 want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule, which will allow for consideration
of H.R. 4811, which is a bill that makes appropriations for foreign
operations, as my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart) has explained. This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate
to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
The rule will permit all Members on both sides of the aisle to offer
amendments that are germane and that conform to the rules for
appropriations bills.
Within the severe funding restraints placed on the Committee on
Appropriations, the subcommittee made a number of positive choices for
which I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
The bill increases the child survival and disease programs fund to a
level about $119 million more than last year's funding. This bill
includes $110 million for UNICEF, the same as last year's level.
These programs continue to demonstrate a commitment to the most
vulnerable of the world's population, the children. Their health and
well-being represents the hope for the future of the world.
The committee report directs the agency for international development
to consider initiating a school feeding program in Sierra Leone to
boost nutrition and school attendance in this war-ravaged country. I
recently returned with my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf), from visiting Sierra Leone and we can assure my colleagues that
this program is much needed.
The bill also contains funding for the global alliance for vaccines
and immunizations. The lack of immunizations results in the death of
about 8,000 children every day, and the funding in this bill will help
close the gap between children who are immunized and those who are not.
Though there are some highlights in the bill, I am deeply troubled by
the overall low funding levels. The bill cuts the President's requests
by 12 percent. In fact, the overall funding is even lower than last
year.
Mr. Speaker, cutting off foreign assistance in a time of enormous
budget surpluses is irresponsible. It is unconscionable. Never before
has the United States had so much wealth available to help the poorest
of the world's poor. It is irresponsible to do so little when we have
so much.
We can eliminate tuberculosis in the world and polio and cholera and
so many things that we can do. We can save so many lives with a few
dollars.
Most people in this country when we ask them how much money do they
think we spend out of our total budget for foreign aid, most will say
somewhere between 17 percent and 25 percent, when, in fact, all we are
talking about today of foreign aid is less than 1 percent. And of the
humanitarian part, it is less than one-half of 1 percent.
Our basic principles tell us that when we reap of financial windfall,
we save some, we invest some, and we donate some to charity. Is that
not what we teach our children?
As a Nation, we are going in the wrong direction. It is our
obligation to help the needy, both in our own country and overseas.
This is what a great Nation does.
I am especially disappointed over the low funding for debt relief. A
number of
[[Page H5884]]
developing nations are struggling to overcome crushing debts that they
can never repay, and now is the time to reduce these debts. But
instead, the bill slashes the President's request for debt-reduction
programs by $180 million, more than two-thirds cut.
The cut comes on top of the failure by Congress to provide any of the
President's request for $210 million in fiscal year 2000 supplemental
appropriations.
Mr. Speaker, by turning our backs on the debtor nations, we are
condemning them to carry impossible financial burdens. I am ashamed.
A number of amendments were proposed that would increase the funding
levels for the most important foreign assistance programs, and these
amendments required a waiver of the House rules; however, the Committee
on Rules chose not to make any in order.
So that while this is an open rule, the amendments needed the most to
improve the bill cannot be offered. There are so many things that my
colleagues can say about this bill that it does not do.
As I said earlier, there are some good highlights, some good spending
in it from the standpoint of child survival, but when it comes to debt
relief and when it comes to development assistance, which has been cut
by 50 percent since 1985, I remember when we had a budget that was
around $19 billion, now the budget is below $12 billion. Egypt and
Israel take half of it, and the rest goes to the poor.
We could do so much better. We could end hunger, feed people, save
lives, end so many diseases that we have in the world today. Yet, we
become a Congress that is parsimonious and it is just not right.
We need to do better, and if there is ever a Congress that could
lead, ever a Congress that could be known for something that would be
generous to our own country and overseas, it would be to lead in this
area, to save lives.
So for all of these reasons and because the rule is restrictive, was
very restrictive and I thought there were very good amendments that
could have been offered and were not protected by the Committee on
Rules, I believe this rule should be opposed, it ought to go down.
We ought to start over again. We can do better than this. We have a
chance to save so many lives, and we are making a big mistake with this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, we do not have any other speakers on
our side of the aisle. We look forward to getting to the debate on the
underlying legislation. It is a good bill. We have $13.340 billion in
this bill for foreign aid, a lot of important programs we want to get
to work on.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues on the Democratic
side of the aisle will address their concerns about the bill before us
today, citing the cuts in funding to some of the poorest countries and
to international financial institutions, and adoption of this so-called
Mexico City language.
Mr. Speaker, I share many of these concerns and would urge my
colleagues to oppose the rule. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to use my time to
focus on some of the more positive aspects of this legislation with
regard to Armenia.
These provisions are the result of the hard work of Members on both
sides of the aisle, including both the distinguished chairman, the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the ranking Democrat, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), as well as the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), I see out there, and others.
Under the bill, the Republic of Armenia would receive 12.5 percent of
the total account for the Independent States of the former Soviet
Union, which translates into $92.5 million. While the dollar amount
would represent a reduction from the $102.4 million in fiscal year
2000, the amount in the current bill actually represents a slight
increase in the percentage of the IS act.
Given the fact that budgets are tight this year and the total level
of assistance to the IS has been decreased, I appreciate the fact that
the appropriators have recognized the need to continue our commitment
to Armenia.
Mr. Speaker, Armenia is a nation that has continued on the path of
democracy and free market economic reforms, despite daunting challenges
both external and internal. Armenia continues to suffer the effects of
blockades imposed by its neighbor to the west, Turkey, and to its
neighbor to the east, Azerbaijan.
In addition, the tragic shooting last October from the Armenian
parliament, claiming the life of both the prime minister and the
speaker of the parliament, could have undermined Armenian democracy.
But President Kocharian, who was our guest here on Capitol Hill just 2
weeks ago, took resolute and effective action to prevent the situation
from unraveling, thereby keeping Armenian democracy on track.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to applaud the members of the subcommittee
for maintaining section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, which restricts
assistance to the government of Azerbaijan until that country lifts its
blockades of Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh.
I also want to salute the subcommittee for providing funding for
confidence-building measures to resolve the Nagorno Karabagh conflict,
and also for language which urges the Secretary of State to move
forthwith to appoint a high-level, long-term special negotiator to
facilitate direct negotiations and any other contacts that will bring
peace to the people of the Caucasus.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to mention that as we get into the
debate on the amendments to this bill, it is expected that our
colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), will offer one or
more amendments to single out India for a punitive cut in development
assistance. Similar attempts to stigmatize India have been defeated by
increasingly lopsided bipartisan margins in recent years.
These amendments have been opposed by the chairman and the ranking
members of the subcommittee, as well as the Committee on International
Relations.
The arguments against the Burton amendment are stronger this year
than they have ever been. In March, President Clinton completed the
first visit to India by an American president in more than 20 years.
India is the world's largest democracy with over a billion people.
Mr. Speaker, it is a country that has made tremendous progress in
free-market economic reforms over the past decade. Cutting development
aid to India will only serve to hamper America's efforts to reduce
poverty, eradicate disease and promote broad-based economic growth in
the world's second most populous nation.
{time} 1600
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to continue Congress' long-standing
bipartisan tradition of defeating ill-advised efforts to punish India
through the Foreign Operations bill. I do not think this is the
appropriate vehicle, and it is ill advised more than ever this year.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the very
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak in
support of the rule and of course this bill, H.R. 4811, the fiscal year
2001 appropriations bill for Foreign Operations, Export Financing and
Related Programs.
I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from Alabama
(Chairman Callahan), who I think, because of his leadership and
determination in steering this bill through the legislative process, we
have something that may draw some disdain from some, but I think it is
a wholesome bill. It is a good bill.
This rule is obviously one calculated to bring about some debate
that, in the end, will bring us a product that I think will be proper.
It is never easy for a chairman to do that. I believe that the
gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), with his fairness and his
leadership, and frankly an astonishing amount of patience, which he has
done each year during this appropriations process, is something that we
should make note of.
[[Page H5885]]
I also would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi), the ranking member, who has provided leadership on many
important issues and promoted, I think, her views with a great deal of
energy and enthusiasm.
Of course, I would be lacking if I did not support and thank the
staff for the great work that they have done, all of them. I note Mr.
Shank and Mr. Flickner are two that have been extraordinarily helpful,
and all of them have been very much involved in this process to bring
about a bill that is drafted, I think, for success.
Mr. Speaker, this is a responsible bill that effectively allocates
the foreign assistance that we have available while providing crucial
support for our country's national security.
In the region of the former Soviet Union, this bill helps to
strengthen our relationship with our friend and ally, Armenia. The U.S.
relationship with Armenia is vital to our effort in promoting
democratization, economic development, peace and stability in the
independent states and particularly the Southern Caucasus.
This bill contains much-needed funding for Armenia as well as
important language directing the administration without further delay
to release the remainder of the $20 million provided in 1998 for the
victims of the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict.
I believe we have produced a productive, positive approach that will
facilitate peace in the Caucasus by emphasizing confidence-building
measures which have been discussed among the parties at NATO and OSCE
summits.
This bill also contains critical assistance to Lebanon. I
successfully sponsored an amendment during full committee consideration
with support on both sides to increase aid to Lebanon from $15 million
to $18 million.
The withdrawal of Israeli forces, armed forces from South Lebanon,
creates a great and immediate need for the U.S. and the international
community to assist the people of that region. This additional funding
will provide an important start by allowing USAID to expand its program
in Southern Lebanon. However, I am hopeful that the U.S. will be able
to provide a significant aid package to Lebanon in the near future to
help rebuild its school, repair and rebuild its infrastructure, and
further our goal of establishing a comprehensive lasting peace
throughout the region. I look forward to working with the subcommittee
on this effort.
This bill also provides important protections for our national
security. Once again, conditions have been included on aid to North
Korea through the Korean Energy Development Organization. Since 1994,
when the United States and North Korea established KEDO and the Agreed
Framework, the United States has upheld its commitments to North Korea.
I might add that North Korea is the biggest recipient of foreign aid
from the U.S. in Eastern Asia and Southern Asia. However, hundreds of
thousands of North Koreans have died from starvation while Pyongyang
continues to divert our aid to their military.
North Korea has repeatedly antagonized its neighbors and threatened
to launch ballistic missiles capable of hitting America. The conditions
of KEDO contained in this bill are necessary to ensure North Korea is
living up to its end of the bargain and uphold the national security of
the United States.
I am also pleased there is language in this bill to prohibit the
administration from implementing the Kyoto Protocol on climate change
without first sending it to the Senate for advice and consent as
required by the U.S. Constitution.
Both USAID and the State Department have attempted to pursue programs
and activities solely contained in the Kyoto Protocol. I have
documented these efforts in subcommittee hearing. I have also discussed
this matter on numerous occasions with USAID administrator Brady
Anderson.
Section 577 of this bill provides an appropriate balance by
prohibiting the administration from engaging in activities specifically
related to the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol, such as carbon
emissions trading, while at the same time protecting the long-standing
programs and activities within USAID which have been previously and
specifically authorized by Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of the House to support this rule for
what I think is a very responsible bill. The subject of foreign aid
often sparks heated debate on this floor, but I hope all Members will
unite behind this fair bill and what I believe to be a good rule to
maintain U.S. leadership and strengthen our influence across the globe.
I ask for Members on both sides of the aisle to support the rule and
the bill.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
(Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Hall) yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to reference language that is contained in this
bill that is identical to language included in the Agriculture
appropriations bill that was offered as amendment No. 58 by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), who just spoke relative to
the Kyoto Protocol.
I would like to follow up my remarks made during the floor debate on
the Agriculture appropriations bill. I was supportive of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and as agreed
to by myself and other Members.
I also agree with the gentleman's characterization of the language as
identical to the provision offered on Energy and Water and as contained
in this bill today. Essentially, it is also the same language as
contained in the VA-HUD and CJS appropriations bills.
However, I would adamantly disagree with one of the gentleman's
characterizations of the provision, both in his statement relative to
the Agriculture bill as well as to his statement just made now relative
to his use of the word ``specifically.'' They do not reflect our
agreement with the statutory language that is now contained in the
Agriculture bill and in this bill.
I would note for the Record that the word ``specifically'' is not
used in terms of authorization in the bill language in this
legislation. The assertion of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Knollenberg) that activities must be specifically authorized from my
perspective is not correct. There are many activities that the
administration engages in that fall within generally authorized
activities.
He has stated that he has no intention of disrupting these
constitutional authorities or the ability of the administration to
negotiate the climate change treaty or to engage developing countries
in a manner consistent with Senate Resolution 98, for instance; and yet
his characterization in the Record that activities must be specifically
authorized is not reflective of the statutory language that was agreed
upon and adopted by this House.
Additionally, the gentleman from Michigan has stated in the past that
the United Nations Framework Convention, which was ratified by the
United States Senate in 1992, requires specific implementing
legislation for programs or initiatives. That is also, from my
perspective, not correct. A ratified treaty carries the weight of law.
The U.S. has many obligations and commitments that it agreed to under
this ratified treaty and that are authorized without ``specific
implementing legislation'' beyond the treaty. No one, I believe, can
reinterpret the law or a treaty by making statements for the Record.
Finally, there are many programs and activities that are funded by
the Congress and carried out by the administration that are not
``specifically authorized'' by Congress. I am very concerned about the
use on the floor.
The gentleman's use of the word ``specifically authorized'' in his
floor remarks, for example, could include voluntary nonregulatory
programs or initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases, programs that also
reduce energy bills, improve the Nation's energy security, and reduce
local air pollutants.
I do want to make it clear that, again, I agree with the language
contained in this bill, in the Agriculture bill, the Energy and Water
bill, as well as CJS and VA-HUD.
I would note that the word ``specifically'' is not included in any of
the report language and is not included in any of the bill language,
and I would not want there to be confusion about the use of this word.
[[Page H5886]]
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. 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). She is the ranking minority member on the
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related
Programs. She is a great advocate for people hurting in our country and
around the world.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I thank him for his very impressive leadership on issues of
concern to people in need throughout the world.
Mr. Speaker, today we are going to consider a bill that is very, very
important because it will define how Congress sees our leadership role
in the world.
Unfortunately, we will not have the fullest of debates on the bill
because of this rule that we have before us. So I, with great
reluctance and great respect for the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart), who is presenting the rule, rise in opposition to it. I do so
for the following reasons:
The bill that we will consider later today, if this rule passes, is
seriously deficient in the resources to match the responsibilities of
our great Nation. In the past, I have tried to be cooperative, and if
it was a close call, come down on the side of moving the process along.
But this bill is a hollow shell. The only remedy we would have had is
if the Committee on Rules would have allowed some amendments to be in
order which would have helped correct some of the deficiencies in the
bill.
The Committee on Rules did not allow any of the amendments to be in
order. These amendments would have addressed the serious concern that
many Members in this House have about international debt relief.
Several of us had amendments to redress the lack in the bill.
One that I had proposed would have called for an increased funding of
$390 million to bring the total in the bill up to the President's
request for the supplemental and for the next fiscal year of
approximately $470 million.
My request was for the Committee on Rules to allow us to have this
amendment come to the floor under emergency designation. There is
already precedent in the bill that will be considered later.
The distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman
of our committee, placed in the bill funding for storm relief in
Mozambique and Southern Africa; and that money, we are very grateful
that that money is in there. It was really put in under the leadership
of the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick). That money survived
the process. We are grateful for that. It did also establish a
precedent which is emergency designation within this particular
appropriations bill.
Indeed, the debt relief is an emergency. We have a situation where
several of the highly impoverished countries are suffering under
oppressive burdens of debt. Some of them pay more on their debt each
year than they do for education or for health care for their people.
Many of these debts have been incurred by previous regimes and now
these countries have to bear that burden and are unable to lift
themselves up and enjoy for their people some of the benefits of the
more democratic systems that they have entered into.
So the bill contains only $82 million of the $472 million in pending
requests for debt relief, and we have no opportunity to address that
under emergency designation. The bill contains only $2 million of $244
million that we wanted for AIDS, global AIDS issues. At the same time
as the whole world of those interested in HIV/AIDS is converging, on
Durban, South Africa, in conference on how to deal with this pandemic
that is afflicting the world and especially Africa and Asia at the same
time we are deprived of having an amendment to acknowledge that
emergency with a $40 million emergency designation. The rule does not
allow that. I must oppose that rule.
{time} 1615
And then there is the oppressive language on international family
planning. The President had requested $541 million. The bill puts in
$285 million with the stipulation that if the oppressive language is in
there and the waivers are used, that is reduced by over $12 million,
down to $372 as opposed to $541 that the President has requested. So
the number is too low, the language is a gag rule, and we were not
allowed to have an amendment.
The Greenwood-Lowey amendment was not made in order so that this
House could work its will. It was not a question of changing policy, it
was a question of having this opportunity within this House of
Representatives to have a clean vote on that. In the past, our chairman
has provided that the bill would come to the floor clean of any
language relating to Mexico City and the House would then work its
will. This year is different. It contains the oppressive language with
no remedy allowed in the rule.
And so I must oppose this rule, urge my colleagues to do so, and also
to oppose the bill that may follow.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill
on foreign operations.
I say this notwithstanding what I recognize to be a great deal of
hard work on the part of the chairman and the ranking member, and
notwithstanding what I think are very good provisions regarding aid to
Armenia. But the sad fact is that this bill is another case in which
our rhetoric far exceeds our actions. We talk a great deal about
helping poor countries, but when we look specifically at the issue of
debt relief, we find that we have provided a level of funding that is
woefully inadequate.
This bill contains only $82 million of the $472 million requested for
multilateral debt relief assistance. I mention that because this debt
relief is not the United States going it alone, this debt relief is in
the context of working with the G-7 countries, the major developed
countries in the world, who have made a commitment to provide debt
relief jointly to sub-Saharan Africa and other developing countries.
Why is this problem so bad? For example, consider Tanzania. The
government spends four times as much money on debt payments as it does
on health and education combined. In Uganda, Zambia, Nicaragua, and
Honduras, the government spending on debt service is greater than
government spending on health and education combined. These countries
cannot develop under this crushing burden of debt.
I would also mention that debt relief is not conducted in a vacuum.
It is tied to democratization. It is tied to economic reforms. These
reforms have been occurring, but these countries still need debt
relief.
Probably most crucial today, however, in today's debate, is this
simple fact. Twenty-two million have died in sub-Saharan Africa of
AIDS. The crisis in sub-Saharan Africa is pandemic. We have a situation
in which those countries cannot provide the health care that they need
to, the education about AIDS that they need to because they are
providing debt service, debt service which basically provides money
going from the poorest countries back to the wealthiest countries.
We have an opportunity to exert leadership, to say to the world that,
working in concert with other developed countries, we are going to
provide debt relief, to put some action behind our rhetoric, to provide
relief for AIDS, and to provide general debt relief so poorer countries
can develop and progress.
Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. Firstly, let us have it clearly understood that
foreign assistance is an aid to America, it is not a hindrance.
When we came to Congress, those of us in 1992, we spent $18 billion
in America on foreign assistance. Now we propose in this measure less
than $12 billion. Overall, the bill cuts programs which benefit Africa
and Latin America by 15 percent. The bill also cuts nonproliferation,
anti-terrorism, de-
[[Page H5887]]
mining, and related programs by 32 percent from the administration's
request, and it cuts 27 percent from funding for Eastern Europe and the
Baltic states.
Mr. Speaker, I just returned from a CODEL to Bucharest, Romania, led
by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and Senator George
Voinovich, along with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and several others of us.
There we met with more than 350 parliamentarians representing 54
countries. And let me tell my colleagues that the whole week we were
there we were touting the leading role that the United States plays in
the world. Frankly, I hope none of our colleagues from those
parliamentary bodies are watching the procedures in this House today,
because I am embarrassed.
Setting aside the procedural problems with this rule, the fact that
several amendments that would make this bill stronger have been
disallowed, the underlying bill itself is weak to the point of
impotency. We tout ourselves as being one of the most charitable
nations in this world, and yet this bill appropriates less than 20
percent of the President's request for debt relief. This level of
funding will deny relief to some countries, such as Mozambique and
Bolivia, who have already met the conditions necessary to obtain debt
relief. In addition, this low level of funding would seriously
jeopardize the highly indebted poor country initiative because it may
lead other bilateral donors to reduce their contributions.
Defeat this rule and defeat this bill.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this unfair
rule. The foreign operations appropriations bill is one of the most
important pieces of legislation we will consider this year.
It is up to this Congress to provide the resources that are adequate
to maintain the United States' leadership in the international
community. That is why I am deeply disappointed that this rule denies a
voice to some key constituencies in this Congress and denies the House
the opportunity to respond to some of the most urgent global needs.
For instance, this rule denies Congress the opportunity to debate our
amendment to eliminate the anti-democratic Mexico City language that is
already included in the bill. The very same amendment passed the House
last year during the debate over foreign operations. I am outraged that
we are prohibited from even letting the House express its will on this
issue and have a free and fair debate.
This rule also denies Congress the opportunity to respond adequately
to the global AIDS crisis. Our ranking member, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), sought to offer an amendment increasing
funding for the AIDS crisis and giving these funds an emergency
designation. Our administration has made it clear that the AIDS crisis
is a national security emergency, and former Treasury Secretary Robert
Rubin called it the biggest impediment to economic development in
Africa.
How can we, as the international health community gathers in Durban,
South Africa to discuss this pandemic, turn our backs on this crisis?
Debt relief has been severely underfunded, and the committee denied the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and others the opportunity to
designate this important funding as an emergency.
As developing nations are crushed under the burden of mounting debt,
unable to devote the necessary resources to the health and education of
their people, we continue to deny this funding. Without this relief, my
colleagues, we are dooming countries that have tried hard to break the
cycle of poverty to repeat this cycle indefinitely.
Extreme poverty worldwide is an emergency. We should have been able
to designate it as such, and I urge my colleagues to join me in
opposing the rule.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 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. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), a member of the Committee on Rules, and
to express to him the value of his contributions to end world hunger
and his leadership on this issue.
Let me also comment on the chairman and the ranking member of this
subcommittee, realizing that in many instances they have worked
together on issues, and I particularly thank the members of the
subcommittee the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), and others on that
committee that have worked so hard on the issue of HIV/AIDS
internationally.
I rise to indicate that I wish in addition to having an open rule,
that points of order on certain very vital issues could have been
waived. It is clear that if this Nation wants to continue living in
peace, then we must encourage world peace and world economic order.
With regard to foreign aid, foreign assistance, this appropriations
bill is an investment in our peace. And until we go home to our
districts and explain what foreign aid is all about, we will continue
with this mismatched debate on the floor of the House providing for
legislation that does not do its job.
One in five South Africans are HIV positive and are dying. The reason
they are dying is because there is no access to the prescription drugs
at a cost that they can deal with that we have the privilege of having
in this Nation. A population that is dying cannot build its Nation,
cannot raise its children, and cannot provide economically for itself.
Simple as that. When a Nation crumbles under its own weight, its own
burden of debt, its own health problems, it impacts the very citizens
in our respective locations where we come from. The comfort of being
able to go to a doctor, to be educated, even though we have our own
problems, is hurt by the fact that the world is hurting.
To not provide the dollars that are needed for debt relief adds
additionally to the burden of the United States of America and its
citizens. A simple investment of the amount of monies that are
necessary to provide this debt relief would be an investment for our
safety and our security.
I would hope that when we debate this bill that we will find it in
our hearts, Mr. Speaker, to pass amendments that will remedy the
problems in this bill and truly invest in world peace and world order.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to just say that this bill is very inadequate, and I want
really the people that listen in and watch the Congress in action,
because so many people are under the misunderstanding that we spend so
much of our total budget on foreign aid, to understand that the fact is
that is not true.
If we put everything together, including aid to Israel and Egypt, of
our total budget it is less than 1 percent that goes for foreign aid.
Most people across the country think that we spend somewhere between 17
and 25 percent of our total budget on foreign aid. We have done polls
on it. A lot of our elected officials run against foreign aid and they
tell people we spend too much money, but the fact is it is less than 1
percent.
In our own country the bottom 2\1/2\ to 3 percent of our people live
in great poverty, whether it is in the cities or in Appalachia or in
other parts. As a matter of fact, they rank as low as any people of the
poorest of the poor in the Third World countries. The first thing this
Congress ought to do is take care of that problem.
Now, this bill does not have anything to do with that, but if
Congress was going to be known for anything, and I would love to see
this someday, I would love to be part of a Congress that someday said
we are going to take care of our poor. They are going to be fed and
they are going to have shelter and they are going to have clean water.
And then we could take some of this tremendous surplus that we have and
forget about giving these multibillion dollar giveaways on tax cuts to
so many people and start helping some people live, to eat, to be
immunized, to pay for debt, to have development assistance so they can
help themselves.
For every dollar we invest overseas, we get $2.37 back. This is not a
bad deal for us. Economically it is a good deal, if we want to consider
it just on economic terms.
[[Page H5888]]
{time} 1630
But this budget is inadequate. We can do better. Hopefully some day,
and I do not know if I will be around, I would like to be part of a
Congress that ends hunger, that ends disease. We can end tuberculosis,
we can end cholera and we can end polio and so many of the diseases in
the world. We have the ability.
So, with that, I apologize to my colleagues for going on and on and
on. They have heard me give this speech many times, but it needs to be
said over and over again.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), for whom I
have great respect, and also all the Members who have spoken this
afternoon on this issue.
I know that there is always more money that could be spent. There are
always more things that could be done by Government. But I am not
ashamed of what the American people, through their Congress, do in
foreign aid.
We are spending $13.340 billion. That is $13,340 billion in this bill
for assistance for peoples in other countries, for the poor and the
needy in other countries. I think that is something that the American
people have to be very proud of and that is something in the tradition
of generosity of the American people. And so, I support this
legislation. I thank all of those who have worked so hard on it,
especially the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan).
Mr. Speaker, I urge at this point support also for this rule, which
will bring to the floor the legislation for consideration of debate in
an open rule permitting any amendment that is germane and pursuant to
the House rules.
So I support this rule. I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, there is language contained in this bill
that is identical to language included in the Agriculture
Appropriations bill as amendment #58 by Mr. Knollenberg relating to the
Kyoto Protocol.
I would like to follow up my remarks on the floor, during
deliberations on the Agricultural Appropriations bill. I was supportive
of the amendment offered by Mr. Knollenberg, and as agreed to by myself
and other members. I agree fully with Mr. Knollenberg's
characterization of the language as identical to the provision adopted
on Energy and Water, and contained in the Foreign Operations bill, and
essentially the same as on VA/HUD and CJS.
However, I would disagree with one of Mr. Knollenberg's
characterizations of the provision, both in his remarks made on the
floor, and as submitted for the Record. They do not reflect our
agreement or the statutory language which is now contained in the
Agricultural Appropriations bill and the other bills mentioned.
Mr. Knollenberg's assertion that activities must be specifically
authorized is incorrect. There are many activities that the
administration engages in that fall within generally authorized
activities. Mr. Knollenberg has stated that he has no intention of
disrupting these constitutional authorities, or the ability of the
administration to negotiate the climate change treaty or to engage
developing countries in a manner consistent with Senate Resolution 98,
for instance. And yet, his characterization in the Record that
activities must be specifically authorized is not reflected in the
statutory provision that was agreed upon and adopted.
Additionally, he stated that the United Nations Framework Convention,
which was ratified by the United States after consent by the Senate in
1992, requires specific implementing legislation for programs or
initiatives. That is also incorrect. A ratified treaty carries the
weight of law, and the United States has many obligations and
commitments that it agreed to under this ratified treaty, and that are
authorized without ``specific implementing legislation'' beyond the
treaty. No one can reinterpret the law by making statements on the
floor.
Finally, there are many programs and activities that are funded by
the Congress, and carried out by the administration, that are not
``specifically authorized'' by Congress. For example: Mr. Knollenberg's
characterization made on the floor using the word ``specifically''--
which is not contained in this bill, the Agriculture, Energy and Water,
or VA-HUD bills, implies that some regulatory and non-regulatory
programs that have bipartisan support and that save money for
businesses and consumers, help the environment, and improve public
health would have to be rolled back.
Mr. Knollenberg's use of the word ``specifically'' authorized in this
floor remarks would include voluntary, non-regulatory programs or
initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases--programs that also reduce
energy bills, improve the nation's energy security, and reduce local
air pollutants. Let me be clear. The language in this bill and those
mentioned before very deliberately does not include the word
``specifically'' and I wanted to ensure for the record that the
gentleman's floor characterization does not represent our agreement on
this issue and it is not the congressional intent in this bill.
The language included in this bill does not do anything to interfere
with valuable research, existing programs, or ongoing initiatives
designed to carry out the United States' voluntary commitments under
the 1992 Climate Change Convention.''
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Without objection,
the previous question is ordered on the resolution.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225,
nays 199, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 394]
YEAS--225
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--199
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
[[Page H5889]]
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--10
Campbell
Carson
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Cooksey
Forbes
Matsui
McNulty
Smith (WA)
Vento
{time} 1652
Mrs. THURMAN, Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut and Mr. CRAMER changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. EHLERS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________