[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 89 (Wednesday, July 12, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H5889-H5923]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 546 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4811.

                              {time}  1655


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4811) making appropriations for foreign operations, export 
financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Thornberry in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring to the floor today H.R. 4811, the 
fiscal year 2001 Appropriations Act for Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing and Related Programs. I urge all Members to support this 
bill.
  The Committee on Appropriations has recommended a bill with total 
discretionary spending of $13.281 billion. This compares to an enacted 
level, excluding emergency spending and including scoring adjustments, 
of $13.432 billion. The President requested $15.132 billion for the 
programs funded through this bill. In short, the bill responsibly 
reduces foreign aid spending by $151 million below fiscal year 2000 and 
by $1.8 billion below the President's fiscal year 2001 budget request.
  Mr. Chairman, there are those including the ranking member the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) who are disappointed in some 
of the funding levels for specific programs and activities covered by 
this bill. I sympathize with them, but we have a 302(b) allocation that 
limits us to the spending in this bill, and I have no choice but to 
live within that level. While it is true that the pending bill 
significantly cuts foreign aid spending below what the President has 
requested, I disagree with the rhetoric that we may hear today about 
the bad things that this bill does. Let me be clear: this bill 
preserves U.S. national interests and maintains American commitments 
abroad.
  The bill increases funding above last year's level for a number of 
critical initiatives which support U.S. national interests and which 
help to achieve America's humanitarian goals. These include increasing 
the child survival account by $119 million to a total of $834 million. 
Mr. Chairman, we receive more requests, more letters of support about 
the child survival than any other single issue in this bill.
  I know my colleagues will be pleased to hear that we have made such a 
significant increase once again in this crucial child survival account.
  We are increasing HIV/AIDS funding by $27 million, up to $202 
million; nonproliferation and antiterrorism programs by $25 million, up 
to $241 million; increasing the fund for Ireland by $5.4 million, up to 
$25 million; increasing the Peace Corps by $13 million, up to $258 
million; and increasing refugee programs by $20 million, up to $657 
million.

                              {time}  1700

  In addition, the pending bill fully funds the President's request for 
economic and military assistance for Israel, Egypt and Jordan; and this 
includes an increase of $60 million in military assistance for Israel. 
Indeed, 39 percent of the funds in this bill, or over $5.2 billion, 
will be available and be provided to the Middle East.
  Let me just comment once again about the controversy that has been 
discussed in the last several months about the Phalcon sale by Israel 
to China. As of this morning, as I announced earlier on the floor, the 
Israeli government contacted me by telephone and told me Mr. Barak had 
requested that I be informed and that the Congress be informed that the 
Phalcon sale to China has been stopped. I think that is a tremendous 
step in the right direction, and I applaud the decision of the prime 
minister in making this decision.
  I know many Members of the House have expressed to me and shared in 
my concern and yet were concerned about the possibility of a lengthy 
debate. So since that has been consummated and our objective has been 
fulfilled, there will be no need to discuss that reduction in the early 
disbursal account for Israel.
  Further, this bill continues to support American involvement in 
Africa and Latin America. H.R. 4811 ensures at least $1.55 billion for 
sub-Saharan Africa for development of humanitarian programs next year. 
In addition, thanks to the efforts of the gentlewoman from Michigan 
(Ms. Kilpatrick), a member of our subcommittee, we have included funds 
urgently needed for Mozambique, Madagascar, and southern Africa; and 
the committee directs that development funding for Latin America be no 
less than the fiscal year 2000 amount.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, the pending bill benefits American business by 
increasing funding for the Export-Import Bank and provides central 
funding for OPIC, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and for 
the U.S. Trade and Development Agency. In addition, the bill, thanks to 
the efforts of one of our colleagues from Ohio, retains long-standing 
Buy America requirements and protection for American jobs.
  I urge Members today to read the editorial in the Washington Post 
entitled ``An Unobserved War.'' It states that ``not much notice is 
paid in the West these days to the war in Chechnya.''

[[Page H5890]]

  Unfortunately, the Post is largely correct. While we hear many of our 
colleagues from the other side complain about various aspects of this 
bill, I doubt that you will hear any of them complain about the 
Clinton-Gore administration's deafening silence about Chechnya. 
According to recent press reports, Russian military actions in that 
area are even more brutal than what we had previously thought, 
including the rape, torture and murder of innocent civilians.
  The committee is not silent on this issue, however. No funds may be 
made available to the government of Russia if that government continues 
to violate the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe due to the 
deployment of its military forces in Chechnya. This sends two messages: 
one, that Russia should live up to its treaty commitments with the 
West; and, two, that it should end its military campaign in Chechnya.
  Mr. Chairman, the balance of the bill is good. Without question, 
there is room for improvement, and I expect some modifications will be 
made during the process; but I encourage Members to support its passage 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following chart for the Record, which 
details the funding provided in this bill, as well as a copy of the 
Washington Post editorial of July 12, 2000.

[[Page H5891]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY00.001



[[Page H5892]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY00.002



[[Page H5893]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY00.003



[[Page H5894]]

               [From the Washington Post, July 12, 2000]

                           An Unobserved War

       Not much notice is paid in the West these days to the war 
     in Chechnya. This is not, as you might think, because the war 
     is over, although Russian officials have declared victory on 
     any number of occasions. It is rather because the facts of 
     the war are inconvenient. Inconvenient for Russia's leaders, 
     who have done everything possible to keep reporters and aid 
     workers from observing the misery there, and inconvenient for 
     U.S. and European leaders, who want to cozy up to Russian 
     President Vladimir Putin.
       It's not that the war is a secret. The foreign minister of 
     Chechnya's elected government, who was in Washington a few 
     weeks ago, spoke--to those who would listen; the Clinton 
     administration had little time for him--of the terrible 
     hardship experienced by hundreds of thousands of Chechens 
     rendered homeless by Russian bombs and artillery. Many are 
     trapped in the southern mountains, he said, where most of the 
     fighting now takes place. Chechen and Russian civilians also 
     are often the victims of retaliatory bombings attributed to 
     Chechen fighters. On Sunday, Post correspondents Sharon 
     LaFraniere and Daniel Williams reported on a Russian command 
     post in the Chechen town of Urus-Martan that has become a 
     torture chamber. Many civilians have been raped, brutalized 
     and killed there, according to reliable eyewitness testimony. 
     ``They beat us because we are Chechens,'' a beating victim 
     told the Post.
       That reflects the kind of ethnic hatred President Clinton 
     denounced so eloquently, and fought against with such 
     tenacity, in Kosovo. He's had less to say about Russia's 
     assault on the Chechen people. But Mr. Clinton's reticence 
     looks statesmanlike next to the fawning friendship German 
     Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has bestowed on Mr. Putin. This 
     week European Union foreign ministers released $55 million in 
     aid to Russia that they had frozen last December to protest 
     the war. What's changed since then? The Chechen capital of 
     Grozny is still in ruins, the bombing continues, the Russians 
     have yet to credibly investigate or punish a single case of 
     torture. But the war is no longer on television.
       In 10 days Mr. Clinton and other leaders of top 
     industrialized countries will meet with Mr. Putin in Japan at 
     the annual G-8 summit. If the leaders express forceful and 
     public disapproval of Russia's abuses, Mr. Putin might 
     believe there is some cost to continuing human rights 
     violations. If they smile and shake hands as if all is well, 
     they will highlight their own hypocrisy while betraying the 
     hapless Chechens and the few Russian human rights activists 
     campaigning in their behalf.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this legislation 
before us today. I first want to commend our distinguished chairman, 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), on the manner in which the 
bill was put together. Unfortunately, because it is seriously deficient 
in the funding level, and I believe that has resulted in some skewered 
priorities in the bill, I cannot support it and cannot urge a vote of 
yes on it.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say for the purpose of starting this 
debate on this bill, which everyone knows is a statement of the 
importance we place on our leadership role in the world, this bill of 
$13.3 billion is well below the President's request of $15.1 billion. 
The President's request was less than 1 percent of the entire budget. 
The entire budget is $1.8 trillion. If we had a pie chart here, this 
amount in this bill would be just a line, a sliver, a hair, a thread, 
whatever is smaller, of our national budget. It is just less than 1 
percent. Yet the Republican majority could not see fit to meet the 
President's request, so I must oppose the bill. I will say why.
  The bill, I think to make judgment about it we should consider what 
is the vision of the bill, what is the knowledge it is based on, what 
is the plan it proposes, how does it respond to the spirit of the 
American people. I think it fails in every respect.
  I am led by President Kennedy's words. Anyone who knows American 
history knows that in his inaugural address President Kennedy said to 
the citizens of America, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, 
but what you can do for your country.'' Everyone knows that. But 
everyone does not know that the very next line in that speech, which I 
heard as a student here in Washington, D.C., in the very next line 
President Kennedy said to the citizens of the world, ``Ask not what 
America can do for you, but what we can do working together for the 
freedom of mankind.''
  That, I think, should be the vision and the spirit of this 
legislation, that what we put forward should give some of the benefits 
of democratization, some economic benefits to these emerging 
democracies. But this bill does not enable that to happen.
  As far as knowledge is concerned, we are blessed in this House of 
Representatives by the diversity of our membership. Members of our 
Congressional Black Caucus and of our Hispanic Caucus and the Asian 
Pacific American Caucus know and understand the cultures and politics 
of many of the countries that we would hope to cooperate with in this 
bill. They have been a tremendous intellectual resource to us, and yet 
we have not listened to them or heeded their call for increased 
funding, for example, for international debt relief, or increased 
funding for global AIDS, or other initiatives that we can take to help 
these countries. It is about cooperation. It is not necessarily about 
just assistance.
  So we have ignored the vision, we have ignored the knowledge, and 
what is the plan? We have a plan. We have a definite plan. As far as 
debt relief, for example, is concerned, Jubilee 2000 is an 
international ecumenical religious and lay community initiative to 
relieve international debt. Others will talk about the fact that many 
countries are paying more on their debt payments than they are on 
education and health services in their countries. This is a travesty. 
We should be doing something about it, at the same time as we are not 
alleviating poverty and we are exacerbating the AIDS crisis.
  In addition to the vision, the knowledge, the plan that we are 
ignoring, we are also ignoring the spirit of the American people, a 
compassionate people who want to alleviate poverty, stop the starvation 
of children throughout the world, recognize our interdependence in 
terms of health issues, infectious diseases and environmental 
degradation internationally.
  So we are ignoring the heart, the head, and the knowledge of this 
great congress with its diversity, and I think that this is the last 
time we will ever see a bill that looks like this, because we must 
assert the influence of our diversity on this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), a member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama 
for his excellent work in developing this bill. He has written an 
outstanding bill with extremely scarce resources provided to him, and 
he and his staff have worked very hard to meet the numerous concerns of 
many Members, including this Member. Since the gentleman from Alabama 
took over the helm of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, he and 
his staff have shown great patience in addressing so many of my 
concerns and those of other subcommittee members, and all of us truly 
appreciate this. It has been a great pleasure and an honor to serve as 
a member of his subcommittee and under his outstanding leadership.
  In particular, I am pleased with language in this bill and report 
supporting the furtherance of the peace process among Armenia, Nagorno-
Karabagh, and Azerbaijan. The region has been in a fragile state since 
the tragic event at the Armenian Parliament last October, but it 
appears that talks have resumed among the parties; and I hold out hope 
for a peace agreement.
  As indicated in the committee's report, I feel that a special 
negotiator is of critical importance in making progress on the peace 
process. It is vital that the State Department provide for a long-term 
special negotiator to follow through on this process. As Presidents 
Kocharian and Aliyev hopefully resume face-to-face discussions, I hope 
that the United States will do everything possible to facilitate a 
lasting peace in this region.
  I am grateful, too, for the committee's recommendation concerning 
Tibet. Tibet remains a desperately poor region, with the majority of 
its economic development targeted at the ethnic Chinese residing in the 
region. It is critically important that programs which support the 
Tibetans and their culture continue to be funded.
  I also support the committee's recommendation of $15 million for 
Cyprus. I am encouraged that Mr. Denktas and

[[Page H5895]]

President Clerides are engaged in talks in New York this month. It is 
critical that as Turkey's EU candidacy is considered, the reunification 
of this island nation must be addressed, and the U.S. should continue 
to work to facilitate peace.
  I am also pleased with the committee's continued insistence on 
limiting Guatemala and Indonesia to expanded-IMET. After the violence 
which raged in East Timor last fall, the high number of refugees that 
remain in West Timor and the volatile situation on the island as well 
as the violence which continues in various regions of Indonesia, it is 
critical that the United States does not restart military-to-military 
relations with Indonesia at this time.
  I am also pleased as well with the committee's attention and support 
of environmental and women's issues within the development assistance 
account.
  Finally, I strongly support the committee's funding aid for Israel. 
It is a critical time in the peace negotiations with respect to Israel 
and the Middle East, and I believe that it is imperative that the 
United States continue to support the peace process and provide the 
environment in which final agreements can be reached.
  However, having said all of this, and these items I support very 
strongly, I am very concerned about the overall funding level. The 
United States continues to enjoy the strongest economy ever, and yet 
the money we spend on foreign assistance continues to shrink.
  Today our country has arrived at the point of being the strongest, 
most economically productive nation on Earth, and yet we are shunning 
strong support and leadership in promoting and supporting our values in 
other parts of the world. This bill is vastly underfunded. How much 
more we could do to promote and protect democracy, human rights, the 
rule of law and free markets with a strong commitment of resources in 
this area?
  Again, however, on the whole, I support the bill and the excellent 
work of my colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan). 
He was presented with a very difficult task, and has succeeded in 
rising to the challenge.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a very valued member of the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs.
  (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to oppose the foreign operations 
bill. I just want to speak just a moment on it. In 1992, this bill was 
$18 billion, at a time when our country was suffering major deficits. 
We were funding this bill at $18 billion and doing a better part as a 
leader in the world with countries around the world.
  The President requested $15 billion for this 2001 appropriation, and 
I am sad to say that the bill before us is only $13.6 billion. We are 
the leaders of the world. We have a surplus that we never thought we 
would see, over $1 trillion over the next decade.

                              {time}  1715

  Surely, the leaders of the world, the United States of America, can 
share, and we want to share our tax dollars with those countries around 
the world because, as we say all the time, this is a global economy. We 
can be around the world in two or three clicks. God has blessed our 
country, and certainly we are in a position today to do better than the 
low funding that this foreign operations bill brings to us today.
  Mr. Chairman, HIV/AIDS. Today in Durbin, South Africa and for the 
last 5 days, people from around the world have been discussing, how do 
we attack the pandemic. What must we do to make life available for 
Africa, for India, and for the former Newly Independent States who are 
seeing a burst of the illness and disease devastate their families, 
their countries, and their very being. This bill does not do its part 
for being the leader in the world. The President recommended $240 plus 
million. This bill has much less than that, and it is a travesty. We 
can do more.
  We know now from our own country's experience with HIV and AIDS that 
prevention and education are the key to keeping the disease in control. 
We can do better and we ought to do better. Treatment for HIV, we know 
from our own experience with the disease in our country, that we can 
treat it, that one can live longer with it. So education, prevention 
and treatment are available to us. Why, then, is not the richest 
country in the world doing its part to make sure that we take care of 
the USA, of course, but also do our part around the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan), the chairman of the subcommittee, for his hard work. I want 
to thank him for sticking with it and making certain of the commitment 
that he and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the 
full committee, made to fund Mozambique and that it does include $160 
million, and I appreciate the gentleman's leadership for sticking with 
it when sometimes others did not want to stick with it. Mozambique has 
shown that they are head and shoulders above many other poor countries 
in the world and that they are doing their part, and I thank the 
gentleman very much for the appropriation that he has in this bill for 
Mozambique.
  I also want to thank the gentleman for the Phalcon sale, for seeing 
that it is eliminated. Prime Minister Barak, who is visiting our 
country today and trying to work out a peace agreement, and we all 
support peace in the Middle East, has withdrawn that sale, and I think 
the gentleman's tenacity as well as all of the Members of the Congress 
have made it possible that that sale has now been rejected and is off 
the table in our own self-interests and the interests around the world.
  Debt relief. There is no reason why we cannot do better with debt 
relief. Mr. Chairman, $82 million at a time when we have unparalleled 
surpluses, we can do better. This is the year of Jubilee. The Bible 
says that we ought to forgive debt. It has happened over and over again 
in other times in our existence, in the existence of human beings in 
this world, and today we can do that as well.
  IDA, International Development Assistance, a very important program 
that we have where we assist other countries in the world. But this 
bill cuts IDA over $100 million from last year's appropriation. Over 30 
percent of IDA has been cut. We are the leaders of the world. We have 
been blessed to be born in this country.
  I know that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) have done their best. We can 
do better. I urge a no vote on this bill.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would just like to share with my colleagues the procedure that we 
go through to arrive at this day, and that is, number one, we have a 
budget resolution and the budget resolution says we must protect Social 
Security, Medicaid and Medicare. We must do certain things, but in 
order to do that, we cannot outspend a certain level.
  So they give to the Committee on Appropriations to our distinguished 
chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) a designated amount of 
maximum expenditures that we can appropriate. So the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations then sits down and tries to divide the 
money in such a fashion that it will be fair to all areas of 
government, to the housing needs of the people of this country, to the 
medical needs of the people of this country, to the Defense Department 
in order that we can have a viable national defense.
  When he allocated the money to us, $13.2 billion, that is as much as 
we can spend. All of the rhetoric we hear today, Mr. Chairman, would 
indicate that we are not doing a responsible job in the division of the 
money that has been allocated to us. But Mr. Chairman, I think we have 
done a very responsible job. Each and every request that we got, not 
only from our Republican colleagues, but from my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, each and every request was considered, and a 
great majority of those requests were granted. We have directed the 
administration to do exactly what they wanted.

[[Page H5896]]

  So now they come and say, well, it is not enough money for HIPC, for 
debt forgiveness for the impoverished nations. Maybe they are right. 
Maybe it is an insufficient amount of money. But just because President 
Clinton sends us a message to send $15 billion, it is not quite that 
simple, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to tell my colleagues that we have worked with 
both sides of the aisle, with the gentlewoman from California, with all 
of the members of the subcommittee, to try to bring to this floor a 
responsible bill that lives within the allocated funds that have been 
given to us. I regret that there are not more funds. Maybe they are 
right. Maybe less than 1 percent of the total budget is an inadequate 
amount. But we made the decision months ago that we were not going to 
interfere with Social Security, that we were not going to interfere 
with the solvency of Medicare, that we were not going to interfere with 
Medicaid, that we were going to do certain things; and now we have to 
live with what we decided in March. That is where we are today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
very distinguished gentleman from Chicago (Mr. Jackson), a member of 
the subcommittee.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) and other members of the Subcommittee on 
Foreign Operations on the work that they have done on this bill. I want 
to especially thank the chairman and ranking member for working with me 
in subcommittee to improve some sections of the bill with respect to 
Africa and those countries that are not as fortunate as the United 
States. However, if the U.S. is to maintain its position as a global 
leader, we ought to act like one and assist those countries that are 
most in need.
  We should create opportunities and spread stability throughout the 
world by combating infectious disease and poverty and working for 
conflict resolution, enhancing democratization and fostering the 
conditions for economic growth; that is in our national interests.
  However, this year's budget for this bill for which the chairman just 
spoke is below the President's request and below the fiscal year 2000 
enacted level. Moreover, I am deeply disappointed and disturbed that 
this subcommittee did not get more money to help demonstrate its 
leadership abroad, especially in some of the accounts that fund Africa 
and Latin America.
  In this bill, Africa would receive about $97 million less than last 
year and $267 million less than the President's request. In percentage 
terms, funds for Africa are cut by 14.6 percent, while the overall cut 
to this bill is 10 percent below the President's request. Africa does 
receive funds from other accounts like the Economic Support Fund, the 
Foreign Military Financing, the International Monetary and Education 
and Training, and Debt Relief. However, inclusion of those figures 
would show a greater reduction from the request as cuts have been made 
in all of those accounts.
  While the overall request has been reduced by 10 percent, the amounts 
requested to address the problems of debt relief in Africa and Latin 
America, the spread of HIV/AIDS in Asia and Africa, poverty alleviation 
and access to family planning have been cut disproportionately.
  Consider this: the bill contains only $82 million of the $472 million 
in pending requests for debt relief and a moratorium for countries who 
receive debt relief from obtaining new loans. It will not even provide 
enough resources to enable two countries, Bolivia and Mozambique, who 
have all met necessary conditions to obtain debt relief. On Monday, the 
Wall Street Journal said, ``One year after President Clinton and other 
world leaders vowed to write off $50 billion in debt owed by deserving 
poor nations, that effort is in danger of collapsing, largely because 
Congress, this subcommittee, has not paid the share of the U.S. tab.'' 
That is quite disgraceful.
  The bill contains only $202 million of the $244 million requested to 
combat HIV/AIDS. The staggering impact of this disease on health and 
development of affected nations has made it imperative that the U.S. 
provide more resources to combat the pandemic. In fact, so serious is 
the AIDS crisis in Africa that the U.S. has declared it a national 
security threat.
  The bill before us reduces funding for lending to poor countries by 
drastically cutting funding for the International Development 
Association, the African Development Bank and Fund, and the Asian 
Development Fund by 32 percent below the requested levels.
  Overall cuts to all programs in the bill which benefit Africa and 
Latin America are 15 percent.
  The $541 million requested for family planning programs has been cut 
to $385 million, which is 29 percent below requested levels. The bill 
also contains objectionable language on the Mexico City policy, which 
seeks to impose undemocratic restrictions on foreign organizations.
  Recently, Congress passed, and the President signed, a bill signaling 
a new relationship with Africa. To make this relationship a reality, we 
need to put our money where our mouth is. Additional funding needs to 
be made and provided for the African Development Fund and the African 
Development Bank and the Development Fund, for Africa needs to be made 
into a separate development assistance account.
  Many nations on the continent of Africa are making unprecedented 
progress towards democratic rule and open markets, and with the 
Development Fund for Africa included as a separate account, funding 
would be assured to remain focused on the long-term problems and 
development priorities of our African partners.
  Although there have been many concerns in the past about management 
of the African Development Bank, I know that strides have been made. I 
feel it is unwise to completely underfund the bank at this time when 
they are working diligently to address the management problems. I am 
encouraged that the African Development Fund received an allocation, 
however.
  Mr. Chairman, in turning our attention to some of the more important 
regions of the world, we should not turn our back on others.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I do not have before me the percentage of increase that we have 
provided for the continent of Africa during my tenure as chairman of 
this committee, but I would remind the gentleman from Illinois that 
this year, we appropriate more than $1.5 billion for sub-Saharan 
Africa. I think that under the circumstances of the limited allocation 
we have, and in response, a great deal, to the request that the 
gentleman from Illinois has made, that we have provided to sub-Saharan 
Africa a sufficient amount. I wish we had more, but we do not have 
more.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, with great respect for our chair and our 
ranking member, who both wish they had more for this bill, frankly, I 
rise in disbelief that we are here, once again, debating a foreign aid 
bill that is woefully underfunded. Whatever the reason, this bill, like 
just about every other House version of the foreign operations bills 
since 1995, is the epitome of myopic neglect. With a few notable 
exceptions, the bill underfunds almost every aspect of United States 
foreign aid. It is $1.5 billion less than the President's request; it 
undercuts our contribution to IDA, the arm of the World Bank that makes 
loans to the poorest of poor nations; it practically ignores the AIDS 
crisis in Africa that is plunging that continent further into economic 
and social despair every day; and it adds insult to injury by 
undercutting the President's debt relief initiative. And, once again, 
it violates fundamental principles of democracy by imposing a malicious 
gag rule on foreign NGOs participating in a bilateral family planning 
program.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we discuss for a moment 
why a strong United States foreign aid program is so critical, because 
it is very clear to me there is a misunderstanding in this Chamber on 
that point. The single most important argument for a stronger 
investment in foreign AID in this time of great prosperity and 
burgeoning budget surpluses

[[Page H5897]]

is that we have a responsibility to help those who have been left 
behind.
  In the Jewish faith, we call it ``tikkun olam,'' which means, 
repairing the world. What it means is that we recognize that if we were 
suffering under the scourge of a 20, 25 percent HIV infection rate or 
experiencing such a high level of infant mortality that we all knew 
someone who lost a child or could not send our daughters to primary 
school because only the boys were allowed to go to school, and even 
they could only go for a few years, that we would expect, and 
rightfully so, that other more fortunate nations around the world would 
help alleviate some of this suffering, and we, in turn, are bound by 
that same obligation.

                              {time}  1730

  I was brought up believing that the right thing to do is to repair 
the world, to help those who need it. Sadly, this bill takes that 
principle and throws it out the window.
  But there is another reason why such a low level of foreign 
assistance is terribly misguided, a more selfish reason. That is 
because in the long run we in the United States will reap the benefits 
from the stability sown by our aid.
  Countries that are now top candidates for foreign assistance can use 
our aid to strengthen their democracy, stabilize their economies, and 
improve the health and well-being of their citizens. When these goals 
are met and these countries become strong and independent, they will 
graduate from being recipients of our aid to being our strategic allies 
and trading partners. So it makes sense for us, it makes sense for 
them.
  In the last year of World War II, Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave his 
fourth inaugural address to the Nation. As the war raged and some 
people suggested that we ought not to be involved in the affairs of 
other nations, FDR made a profound case for the importance of the 
United States' engagement around the world. I think his words are 
particularly relevant today.
  He said: ``We have learned that we cannot live alone at peace, that 
our own well-being is dependent on the well-being of other nations far 
away. We have learned that we must live as men and not as ostriches, 
not as dogs in the manger. We have learned to be citizens of the world, 
members of the human community.''
  FDR's words from 55 years ago ring even truer today. We cannot turn 
our backs on the people of the world. It is in our interests to promote 
economic stability and democracy.
  Reluctantly, I will vote for this bill today because I do not believe 
that the Republican leadership in the House will produce a better bill. 
I do believe that this bill will look a lot different, a lot better, 
when it comes back to this floor after conference.
  I am telling the Republican leadership today that I refuse to play 
their game. I want to move the bill off the floor to the conference, of 
which I will be a member as soon as possible. As the most powerful 
Nation in the world, we have the capacity and the responsibility to 
improve the lives of those less fortunate. We cannot turn away from 
that obligation.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), a member of the Subcommittee 
on Domestic and International Monetary Policy of the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services, who is very knowledgeable about the 
world debt issue and a great leader on that issue.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am enormously proud as a 
Jew at this moment of the government of Israel and Ehud Barak. We are 
seeing on the part of the government of Israel an enormous outreach 
unlike what any victor in a war has ever done towards those it was 
forced to fight.
  I am therefore pleased that this bill funds at the requested level 
money for those who are trying to make peace in the Middle East.
  Precisely for that reason, I am very sad that I must morally vote 
against the bill. I am confident that in the end a bill will pass which 
will fund fully the needs of those in the Middle East, including Israel 
and this enormously courageous leadership of Ehud Barak.
  But I do not see how we can be asked to vote for a bill which at this 
point condemns countless hundreds of thousands of innocent children to 
death by starvation and disease which is avoidable.
  We debate often in this Chamber about measures, the outcomes of which 
we cannot be sure. We debate about things which can be uncertain, 
things which are complex. Sometimes things are simple and important. 
Millions of children and other vulnerable people in Africa and Latin 
America and in Asia, in the poorest countries in the world, literally 
the poorest countries in the world, go without food, go without 
sanitation, go without basic medical costs, partly because of policies 
for which we are responsible, because in the exigencies of the Cold War 
we lent money to thugs and crooks, unconcerned about how they spent it.
  Now the poorest people in the world, poor children and poor elderly 
and sick people, are being made to pay that back. The price of their 
paying it back is absolute, unremitting, degrading poverty leading to 
death.
  In this Nation, the wealthiest Nation in the history of the world, we 
are creating wealth at a pace unparalleled in the history of the world. 
A relatively small amount of money in terms of this budget, several 
hundred million dollars, could alleviate untold sufferings.
  For this House, with the money we spend in so many other places, for 
us to deny to the poorest people in the world the debt relief which the 
administration has asked for and which has been worked out is the 
cruelest single act of public policy I can recall in 20 years.
  I implore the House not to ratify this most callous refusal to 
alleviate untold sufferings, which we could do.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I might just briefly respond, Mr. Chairman, and remind the gentleman 
from Massachusetts that during my tenure as chairman of this committee 
we have created the child survival account, which this year contains 
more than $800 million to do precisely what the gentleman from 
Massachusetts wants.
  We have no problem with the destination that the gentleman seeks. It 
is like standing in this room and saying we want to get to that corner. 
The gentleman thinks maybe we ought to go to the left, which is the 
gentleman's party's view. I think that maybe we should go to the right.
  But we are trying to do precisely the same thing, and that is what 
the child survival account does, it provides for starving children, it 
provides for the sick, it provides educational opportunities in these 
poor countries. It does it directly, primarily through private 
volunteer organizations, not going through some dictator or corrupt 
president. It does it precisely the right way.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say to the 
gentleman that debt relief is an important part of that because 
otherwise the money goes in one pot and out the other.
  For all of the volunteer organizations which the gentleman cites and 
which I am glad he is working with, for all of them, their highest 
priority is the debt relief, which is unfunded in this bill.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, if they understood that the only way we 
could get the money under the allocation would be to take it away from 
the monies we are giving to them, they would change their minds.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree that there are many deficiencies with this 
bill, particularly the ones that have been cited by some of my 
Democratic colleagues: the lack of adequate funding for debt relief, 
the lack of adequate funding for AIDS, the 32 percent below requested 
funding for development in Asia and Africa, family planning cut 29 
percent below requested levels.
  We are acting as if we have to enact an austerity budget, and perhaps 
that was dictated by the budget resolution, in a time of huge and 
unprecedented surpluses.
  These considerations would ordinarily lead me to say we ought to vote

[[Page H5898]]

against the bill. But this bill comes at a particular time right now. 
This bill comes at a time when there are very sensitive negotiations 
which may determine whether there is major warfare in the Middle East 
or whether a peace agreement finally ends the 100 Years War.
  The aid for Israel and Egypt is locked into this bill. I very much 
fear that if this House today were to vote against this bill, it would 
send the wrong signal to the Palestinian negotiators, a signal of 
wavering support for Israel which might make the Palestinian 
negotiators even more rigid and less willing to make the necessary 
compromises to reach a peaceful settlement than they have thus far 
shown themselves to be.
  The Israelis have shown themselves willing to make very far-reaching 
compromises. So far the Palestinians have been rigid. They have to make 
compromise positions if there is going to be an agreement and not an 
explosion.
  For that reason, I do not want to send the wrong signal to them that 
could be misunderstood as wavering support for Israel. Therefore, I 
will vote for this bill today, but I want to make it very clear that if 
the deficiencies in funding for the Asian and African family planning 
and other accounts are not fixed as this bill goes through the 
conference, I may very well vote against the conference report when it 
comes back here. If the President should decide that he has to veto 
this bill, I will certainly vote to sustain the veto.
  But today, with the Camp David negotiations going on, today is the 
wrong time to send a signal that could be misinterpreted and that could 
deleteriously affect the chances for peace in the Middle East. Today I 
urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, for the moment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the very distinguished ranking 
member of the full committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I see things quite differently than the 
gentleman who just spoke. What I find amazing about this bill is that 
just the increase in the budget for the Department of Defense over the 
last 18 months, just the increase, is larger than the entire foreign 
aid assistance bill which we are debating today.
  Foreign aid as a percentage of our national budget is less than 1 
percent. This bill fully meets our responsibilities to our national 
interests in the Middle East. We understand that. The problem is that 
we are not a third-rate power who only has to worry about one part of 
the world. We have obligations to our interests in Africa, in Asia, in 
Latin America, as well as the Middle East.
  While this bill is a full policy for the Middle East, it shreds our 
ability to defend our interests in Latin America, in Africa, and to a 
lesser extent, in Asia. For that reason, it would be a horrendous 
mistake for us to vote for this bill until we have met our 
responsibilities to ourselves in each of the regions of the world.
  It would also be a mistake to vote for this bill until we provide a 
recognition of reality through debt relief. Debt relief is no great 
gift that we are going to be giving to the Third World, these are debts 
that are totally uncollectible. They were incurred by governments that 
were national disgraces and international jokes.
  We gave debt relief to the tune of billions of dollars to the new 
regime in Poland because we understood that was the only way for that 
economy to revive, for that society to revive after the communists had 
run that country into the ditch.
  The same is true many times over for many of these African and Latin 
American countries. We will never have markets for our own products in 
Africa, in Latin America, until we create the same economic conditions 
that we created in Eastern Europe through debt relief that was provided 
there.
  This country has also provided very large debt forgiveness for 
Israel, it has provided very large debt relief for Egypt. Now we are 
being asked to treat the poorest countries in the world, the same 
countries who have no capacity to pay back that debt, the same way. If 
we do not act, we will assure even greater numbers of deaths through 
the pandemic problem of AIDS that we now face on the continent of 
Africa.
  We need to get real. Eventually we will, and when we do, this bill 
will be worth supporting. Until then, because of the limitations 
imposed on the committee, it does not contain the resources necessary 
for us to defend either our interests or our moral obligations around 
this planet.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ 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. Chairman, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 
2001 foreign operations appropriations bill. I would like to associate 
myself with the remarks made by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey).
  Although I understand and share the concerns of many of my Democratic 
colleagues, such as the level of debt relief or lack thereof, the 
global gag rule, the lack of funding for HIV-AIDS, and the funding 
shortfall in general, despite all that, I feel that it is important to 
keep this legislation moving forward and address these concerns in a 
House-Senate conference.
  There are a number of important initiatives in this legislation which 
I requested and that are critical to U.S. security. This legislation 
includes a $5.4 million increase for the International Fund for 
Ireland, and a recommendation that Project Children receive $250,000 to 
help support their good works.
  I would also like to thank the committee for including $10 million 
for microbicide research.
  Finally, I would like to thank the committee for working with me to 
include language urging Arab states to establish full diplomatic 
relations with Israel.
  I would like to extend my gratitude to the chairman, the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the ranking member, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), and my good friend, the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey), for assisting me in including these initiatives.
  While I support this legislation, I would ask that the chairman 
address the concerns raised by my colleagues and myself when this 
legislation goes to conference. We will all be watching to see that 
additional funding is added. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the FY 2001 Foreign 
Operations Appropriations bill.
  Although I understand and share the concerns of many of my Democratic 
colleagues, I feel that it is important to keep this legislation moving 
forward and address these concerns in a House-Senate Conference.
  I, too, am concerned about the low level of funding for debt relief 
for the heavily indebted poor countries, the low level of funding for 
international infectious diseases, especially HIV/AIDS, and I am 
especially concerned about the low overall funding level of this 
legislation, which is about twelve percent less than the President's 
request.
  Like many of my colleagues, I am also unhappy that the so called 
compromise language from last year's Omnibus legislation placing a 
``gag rule'' on international healthcare providers was included in this 
legislation. This language represents an unnecessary rider, which the 
Republican leadership stated should not be included in appropriations 
bills. I will speak more on this issue when it is debated later.
  However, there are a number of important initiatives in this 
legislation, which I requested, and that are critical to US security.
  I would like to thank Chairman Callahan, Ranking Member Nancy Pelosi, 
and Representative Lowey for assisting me in including these important 
initiatives.
  This legislation includes a $5.4 million increase for the 
International Fund for Ireland (IFI). The IFI was established as an 
independent, international organization 1986 and receives contributions 
from the United States, the European Union, Canada, Australia and New 
Zealand. The objectives of the Fund are to promote economic and social 
advance and to encourage contact, dialogue and reconciliation between 
Unionists and Nationalists in the North of Ireland and the border 
counties of the Republic of Ireland.
  This funding is of critical importance at this juncture in the 
Northern Ireland Peace Process.
  Additionally, the Committee has included a recommendation that 
Project Children receive $250,000 to help support their work. Project 
Children brings Irish children from a range of ages to spend six weeks 
in the U.S. Sometimes a Protestant child joins a Catholic child in the 
same home with remarkably positive results. In addition, the program 
brings college

[[Page H5899]]

students to the United States through its ``Young Leaders'' program and 
places them in internship positions in local organizations. A number of 
U.S. Representatives have taken Project Children Young Leader interns 
into their offices and homes.
  With these additional funds, the true benefits of a lasting peace in 
the North of Ireland, economic prosperity and equal opportunity, will 
receive a much-needed boost.
  I would also like to thank the Committee for including $10 million 
for microbicide research and instructing USAID to work in consultation 
with the National Institutes of Health to ensure microbicide research 
and development takes into consideration the special circumstances of 
drug delivery in developing nations.
  As many of you know, microbicides are user-controlled products that 
kill or inactivate the bacteria and viruses that cause STD's and HIV/
AIDS and would fill a gap in the range of prevention tools because they 
are woman-controlled and could protect against various STD's, not just 
HIV. Microbicide products, it is hoped, will provide women in 
developing countries with a cheap, effective alternative to prevent the 
spread of STD's. Issues such as a lack of refrigeration, cultural and 
educational barriers, and a lack of access to medical facilities need 
to be considered carefully if microbicides are used effectively in 
developing nations. This funding will help ensure the special needs of 
developing nations are met with respect to microbicide research.
  I would also like to thank the Committee for working with me to 
include language updating the Arab League Boycott language, urging Arab 
states to establish full diplomatic relations with Israel. Israel has 
existed for more than 50 years and has earned the right to be treated 
as a full member of the international community.
  Once again, I would like to extend my gratitude to Chairman Callahan, 
Ranking Member Pelosi and to my good friend Congresswoman Lowey for 
their assistance, as well as the rest of the Committee.
  While I will support this legislation, I ask that you address the 
concerns raised by my colleagues and myself when this legislation goes 
to Conference.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the co-chair of the 
Congressional Women's Caucus.

                              {time}  1745

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) for yielding me the time and for her leadership 
on this bill and on some of the issues before this Congress.
  This bill vastly underfunds the AIDS prevention program and debt 
relief for the world's poorest countries and undermines our commitment 
to international family planning.
  The President pledged a multiyear U.S. commitment for debt relief, 
which this bill guts. It also drastically underfunds international 
family planning 30 percent below the President's request. Every day we 
in government face problems for which there is no solution, like global 
warming, the AIDS crisis, Parkinson's disease, but family planning 
presents a different challenge, we know what to do.
  Mr. Chairman, we know what the answer is, all we need is the funds 
and the political will to get the job done. Increasing international 
family planning to the President's request by 30 percent more would 
allow 11.7 million more couples to have access to family planning. It 
would also mean 2.2 million fewer abortions, and it would save the 
lives of more than 15,000 women and 92,000 infants.
  Earlier this year, many of us introduced a bill called Saving Women's 
Lives Through International Family Planning, we had over 122 
cosponsors. We asked this Congress to go ``Back to the Future,'' back 
to 1995 funding levels for family planning and meet the budget requests 
of the President. We asked for this money without restrictions.
  Gag rules are enough to make us gag in our own country. The gag rule 
would be unconstitutional around the world. It is unconscionable.
  This budget before us is far short of going back to the future. This 
bill also exports one of the worst policies, the gag rule language that 
is unconstitutional in our own country.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join in a bipartisan effort to 
strike this terrible antidemocratic, antiwoman, antifairness language, 
the gag rule out of the bill, it hurts some of the poorest women and 
countries in the world.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be offering a bipartisan amendment on behalf of 
the gentleman from New York, (Mr. Houghton), the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Luther) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), to plus 
up by $15 million the microenterprise loans for the poor. This will be 
offset with $15 million in cuts.
  We will probably hear some screams and some squeals from the 
bureaucrats or from big business, but I think we have a moral 
obligation to hear the cries of the poor of those in poverty, of those 
in Third World nations where the microenterprise loan for the poor of 
$16 or $60 can lift people out of poverty.
  I hope my colleagues will vote for this for three reasons: One, these 
programs work. Secondly, they go to people in poverty, mostly women. 
Thirdly, they go to start small businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope we can pass this to get this $15 million up to 
the approved authorization level.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the very distinguished ranking member of 
the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi) for yielding the time to me and ask my colleagues to look 
back at the oath of office they took when they were sworn in here.
  Mr. Chairman, it speaks of all the enemies, foreign and domestic. It 
says we need to fully discharge our duties. And in the Constitution, it 
talks about our defense and general welfare.
  I would submit to the body that if we pass this bill, we are doing 
neither; that our responsibilities here not simply out of the goodness 
of our heart and concern for the poorest people on this planet is not 
being met by this legislation, but what is in the best interests of the 
security of the United States is not being met. Whether it is the fight 
for AIDS and the opportunistic illness that has come to this country 
for people infected with AIDS in Africa and elsewhere, that come back 
in and not only takes the lives of Americans, but also increases the 
costs of the cure; TB that could once be cured for $2,000 per case is 
now $20,000 or $200,000 in some cases.
  Together we need to reject this bill so that we fully discharge our 
responsibilities so this great Nation can do the job that it must do 
for all the people in this world that look to us for leadership and for 
the American citizenry who depend on our responsibilities here to do a 
job that protects them, that furthers America's interests in every 
continent, not simply in one region of the world.
  We need to do what is right. I know the chairman of the committee, 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) understands that. The only 
way to get to that point is to join the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi) and reject this proposal and force this institution to 
address the responsibilities fully as our oath demands.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) who has been a 
leader in the fight against global AIDS.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the 
ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for her 
leadership and commend her for the continued effort and tenacity in 
trying to make sure that we have a fairness on this floor in terms of 
our services to foreign countries.
  Mr. Chairman, leadership is the operative word here today, and 
because of that, I will say to this body, if we are leaders, then 
please lead. Be leaders and be responsible for those things that we 
were sent here to do. It is unconscionable to me to see the most 
powerful country in this world reneging on children and women.

[[Page H5900]]

  Some of the poorest countries in this world are suffering and here we 
are opposing the administration budget for $244 million for HIV and 
AIDS. It is a pandemic in Africa; we know that. You knew that. We know 
the 50 million people who have been infected with HIV and AIDS.
  Why is it that my colleagues are minimizing the efforts that have 
been brought about with people throughout Africa in trying to combat 
this very critical infectious disease? I urge my colleagues to oppose 
this legislation. It is unconscionable. It is immoral. It is 
inconceivable.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me express my 
appreciation for the hard work of the chairman, the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), I am displeased with what has come.
  Mr. Chairman, I fully respect what the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan) has done in portions of this bill. I fully understand why it 
is important to support the Middle East and the peace deliberations. 
But we cannot afford to come here day after day and ignore the poorest 
people of the world, while we have a pandemic going on in Africa and 
Asia with AIDS. If we think that is going to stay in Africa, we are in 
for rude awakenings.
  The life expectancy is moving to year 30. Can my colleagues imagine 
any country, any nation that has a life expectancy of 30, and we are 
willing to walk away and simply say we just do not have the money when 
we know that we do?
  We can save Social Security. We can do the right thing about Medicare 
prescription drugs and still send some aid, the appropriate aid as 
frugal as is requested by the President, and we have ignored that. Let 
us vote against this and do it right.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, there is a saying in the church 
that I go to ``to whom much is given, much is required.'' This is 
supposed to be the greatest Nation, the most affluent Nation on the 
face of the planet Earth, in the history of the planet Earth. Yet, why 
is it when it comes to us delivering to those who need the most, we 
find excuses not to do it.
  When I heard the distinguished chair, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan) talking in his opening statements, I heard excuses of why we 
could not help those who need help. People in this House have traveled 
to Africa, and when they go to Africa they say, oh, what a shame, how 
bad it is, oh, this is pitiful. Yet when it comes time when we can do 
something about it, and foreign operations is that time, we find 
excuses not to do anything about it.
  It is time that we stop making excuses, put our money where our 
mouths are and do the right thing and give the money where it is needed 
and that is in the continent of Africa.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez).
  (Ms. SANCHEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking our chairman, 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and also our ranking member, 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for crafting this bill. 
They have had a difficult task.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned with the overall deep cuts to the 
bill and the disproportionately hurt African and Latin American 
countries, and I hope that when we send this bill to conference, we can 
fix some of that.
  I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) 
for implementing legislation I introduced last year about Professor 
Doan Viet Hoat. A journalist and university professor, Mr. Hoat spent 
nearly a third of his life in a Vietnamese prison for his efforts to 
bring freedom of the press and democracy to his native land.
  It is a rare individual who is willing to sacrifice their own 
personal freedom for the sake of their fellow man, and when we find 
such a person, it is important for us in Congress to acknowledge and 
recognize their achievement and the purpose of their struggle.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy and a 
champion on international debt relief.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) for the terrific work that she has done as the 
ranking member. She has taken on a tremendous responsibility and helped 
to organize us all. The foreign operations appropriations bill is 
scandalously underfunded.
  The entire region of sub-Saharan Africa has been ignored and 
abandoned by the Republican leadership in this bill. The African 
Development Bank's funding was cut by almost 25 percent below its 
current funding level and 50 percent below the administration's 
request.
  The African Development Fund was cut 28 percent below its current 
level and $56 million below the administration's request. As the 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International 
Monetary Policy of the House Banking Committee, I know how important 
these programs are.
  Development assistance programs that benefit Africa have also been 
underfunded. International disaster system was cut from $203 million to 
$165 million, barely a few months after floods ravaged Southern Africa. 
I am especially outraged by the lack of funding for debt relief.
  The bill contains only $82.4 million for debt relief with only $69.4 
million of which can be used to forgive the debt of the world's poorest 
countries. While HIV/AIDS epidemic continues to ravish sub-Saharan 
Africa; while the impoverished nation of Mozambique attempts to rebuild 
itself after it was nearly destroyed by devastating floods; while 
Nigeria scuttles to overcome the impact of years of dictatorship; while 
Tanzania, Zambia, Niger, Nicaragua, Honduras and Uganda continue to 
spend more of their budgets on debt service payments than they do on 
health and education combined, the Republican leadership is turning a 
deaf ear.

                              {time}  1800

  Shame on the failed Republican leadership.
  It is hard for me to imagine how Members of Congress who claimed to 
be faithful, God-fearing leaders of families and communities can reject 
the most impoverished and vulnerable people in the world.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this shameful bill, send it down the 
drain. Do not vote for it. It is outrageous.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), who is a senior 
member on the Committee on International Relations to close.
  (Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4811, the 
Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. This bill 
will significantly hamper our ability to compete in the international 
community. Unfortunately, this budget provides inadequate resources for 
discretionary investments.
  I am very concerned about the Africa accounts which cuts the African 
Development Fund, the Development Fund for Africa, the Africa 
Development Bank, and the Peacekeeping Initiatives.
  The bill underfunds the office of transition initiatives in Nigeria. 
It cuts economic support funds by $2.3 billion, international debt 
reduction by $180 million, African Development Bank by $3 million, HIV/
AIDS under Child Survival by $42 million, and Peacekeeping to Sierra 
Leone, Congo and Eritrea-Ethiopia by $16 million.
  Presently there is a meeting going on in Durban, South Africa, hosted 
by President Mbeki, where one out of four individuals in certain 
countries may die from AIDS. This bill reduces the global alliance for 
vaccines and immunizations by 25 percent. It is wrong. It is shameful. 
We should reject this bill.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page H5901]]

  Mr. Chairman, let me start off by telling the Chair what a 
magnificent job he has done for the last several years in presiding 
over this Committee of the Whole. He is a complement to the system, and 
certainly his understanding of the rules and procedure and his manner 
helps make a very difficult job a little bit easier.
  Under the rules of our side, this will be my last year as chairman of 
this committee. This is the sixth time I have come before this body and 
asked for their support in a bill that I have drafted. It is sort of 
sad in a way that I leave it. On the other hand, I am optimistically 
looking forward to the hope that the chairman of our full committee 
will award me a cardinalship of another committee, one that probably 
will not be as difficult as this one has been.
  But during this process, Mr. Chairman, Charlie Flickner, John Shank, 
Chris Walker, Nancy Tippins, Lori Maes, and Julie Schechter on my side 
of the aisle have been invaluable.
  Before I became chairman, I was a member of this subcommittee. But I 
will assure my colleagues that I knew very little because, back then, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was the ranking Democrat and 
chairman of this subcommittee, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Livingston) was the ranking Republican, and I was the back bencher who 
was not allowed hardly to say anything. But on the other hand, I did 
not want to say anything.
  So I had not done my homework, and suddenly one morning I woke up as 
chairman of this very important committee. So the educational process 
that these great individual staffers have given to me is invaluable, 
and I am extremely indebted to them.
  Not only to those staff people on my side of the aisle, but on the 
other side of the aisle, Mark Murray and John Stivers as well as the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) have been extremely courteous 
to me during this entire process.
  We have had great differences. We are having great differences 
tonight. But nevertheless, there has always been the true friendship 
that now exists between me and the staff members on both the Republican 
side and the Democratic side as well as my subcommittee members and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), my ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  It has been an interesting trip, and I think that we ought to go 
ahead and expedite this trip. Maybe during all of these opportunities 
we have to praise each other, we might even agree to some unanimous 
consent to limit debate since I think I have written the perfect bill. 
If we could just limit debate, all the Members could go home.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding to me.
  I want to speak for my colleagues in commending the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for his leadership as chair of this 
subcommittee. While we may not have always agreed on the particular 
priorities, he has always been a gentleman and has always welcomed our 
input into the process.
  I know that, at the end of this bill, and as we come back with the 
conference report, if we do, there will be more time for us to praise 
him and wish him well, as the ranking member of some other committee 
perhaps. That was a joke, Mr. Chairman.
  In any event, in addition to all of the very fine staff that was 
acknowledged, who are acknowledged by the chairman, I want to add Beth 
Tritter, Charles Dujon, Kim Rudolph, Alan Dillingham, and Will Painter 
for their fine service to this process as well and associate myself 
with the remarks that the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) 
made about the other staff members and how dependent we are in a very 
bipartisan way on their service.
  But I think I have the best chairman on the Committee on 
Appropriations, and he and the big chairman have always dealt fairly 
with us. We are going to miss the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman 
Callahan), Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I know we will see the gentleman from 
Alabama somewhere else along the way, so I wanted to commend him in 
that spirit.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I suppose the 
appropriate thing to say is I am going to miss the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), too; but I do not know that I really am going 
to miss her in this capacity. But I do appreciate what she has given to 
me in the form of friendship, in the form of intelligence, the great 
contributions she has made.
  I am sort of like the country singer David Allan Coe. Once he said he 
had thought he had written the perfect song. The gentlewoman from 
California says there will be an opportunity for us to praise each 
other sometime later on in the process, but I, like David Allan Coe, 
think that I have written the perfect bill. I think there is a good 
possibility that the Senate may just accept my bill, Mr. Chairman, and 
there might not be a conference; and, therefore, we will not have these 
opportunities.
  But, nevertheless, to our colleagues who are listening, as we go into 
the rest of this bill, I would encourage my colleagues to look at what 
we have done, and that is, the fact that we have drafted the best bill 
that we possibly could draft under the circumstances of the allocations 
that forced this to this point.
  I know there are some people who differ from me. The gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez) a few minutes ago was talking about a lack of 
attention to Latin America. Surely she jests because, under my 
chairmanship, we have quadrupled assistance to Latin America. Just in 
the last 3 years, we have given them nearly $3 billion.
  I had to fight this administration tooth and nail, with the support 
from the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Pelosi) to get them to 
recognize that another country exists in this hemisphere other than 
Haiti. We even put restrictions in our bills saying one can spend all 
the money one wants in Haiti, but one has to spend 10 times that amount 
in other countries in Latin America.
  So we have been the biggest supporters of Latin America trying to 
pound into the head of this administration the importance of our 
neighbors to the south. I think they have finally come around, and they 
are finally beginning to recognize that assistance to Latin America and 
South America is just as important as it is to the Middle East and to 
Africa.
  So we have done a great deal of good, I think, towards convincing 
this administration that other countries exist in this hemisphere that 
need assistance such as Bolivia, Honduras, Nicaragua, all of the Latin 
American countries.
  I am proud that we have brought to this floor a bill which reflects 
the best that can be arranged for the allocation we have. I would 
encourage my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the Committee for 
maintaining strong conditions on U.S. military aid for Indonesia based 
on the situation in East Timor. I would particularly like to recognize 
and thank the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. 
Mrs. Pelosi, for her leadership and actions in support of the people of 
East Timor.
  I also applaud Chairman Callahan and Ranking Member Pelosi for 
increasing to $25 million the amount of Economic Support Funds (ESF) 
targeted for the rebuilding of East Timor. I also hope that the United 
States will continue its policy of consulting directly with the 
communities and people of East Timor on reconstruction projects and 
employing, to the maximum extent possible, East Timor on reconstruction 
projects and employing, to the maximum extent possible, East Timorese 
in these projects.
  Like so many of the colleagues, however, I remain deeply concerned 
about the situation in East Timor. More than 100,000 refugees from East 
Timor who were forcibly removed from their country in December 1999 
remain trapped in squalid camps in the neighboring Indonesian province 
of West Timor. They suffer daily intimidation, harassment and acts of 
violence from the Indonesian-supported militias that control the camps. 
International humanitarian organizations, such as the International 
Committee of the Red Cross and the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees 
(UNHCR), have been forced to abandon their work in many of these camps 
because of acts of violence perpetrated by against their workers.

[[Page H5902]]

  Also disturbing are the continuing cross-border attacks being carried 
out by the Indonesian-supported militias. Based and freely operating in 
the Indonesian province of West Timor, militias launch attacks against 
East Timor and against the United Nations peacekeeping forces in East 
Timor. These attacks must stop. The militias must be disarmed. And West 
Timor must cease being a safe haven for these paramilitary forces.
  The Government of Indonesia has pledged to improve conditions in the 
camps and, for any refugee who wishes to return, to guarantee their 
safe return. It has pledged to remove the militias from the camps and 
stop the cross-border attacks. To date, these pledges are just empty 
words. They have not translated into concrete actions on the ground in 
West Timor. Until these refugees are safely returned to their homeland, 
the U.S. must maintain restrictions on U.S. military aid and the 
Administration must maintain its suspension on all military-to-military 
relations. The Government of Indonesia and its Armed Forces, in 
particular, must understand the safe return of these refugees is among 
our highest priorities.
  I am deeply disturbed to hear that the Administration wishes to 
resume military-to-military relations with the Armed Forces of 
Indonesia (TNI). While conditions are  worsening for the East Timorese 
refugees in West Timor, the Administration wants to include TNI 
officers and troops in training exercises, military seminars, college 
courses, and to provide spare parts and other technical assistance for 
Indonesian military equipment. I can only urge the Administration, in 
the strongest possible terms, to refrain from taking such actions 
unless it wishes to see the restrictions in this bill expanded to 
prohibit by law such military relations.

  My distinguished colleague, Congressman Christopher Smith of New 
Jersey, and I have introduced a bill, H.R. 4357, the East Timor 
Repatriation and Security Act, which, among other things, would 
prohibit by law the military relations voluntarily suspended by the 
Administration in September 1999. Our bill currently has over 50 
bipartisan cosponsors. We introduced our bill because we were 
increasingly concerned about the deteriorating situation of the 
refugees in West Timor; the continuing militia attacks along the West 
Timor and East Timor border; and the lack of consultation with, 
participation by and employment of East Timorese in reconstruction 
projects. I am fully prepared to continue to press for greater action 
on these issues as the foreign operations appropriations bill moves 
toward conference.
  Mr. Chairman, it is very important that the bilateral and 
multilateral aid going to East Timor reach the people on the ground 
more quickly. I have heard nothing but good things about USAID projects 
in East Timor. We consult with the East Timorese people. Our 
reconstruction projects employ local workers, thus contributing to the 
rehabilitation of the local economy and the restoration of work and 
dignity to the East Timorese. But a great deal of the assistance is not 
showing up in the building of new homes and businesses, in the 
restoration of water systems, in electricity hook-ups and schools being 
reopened. Where is it going? I don't know, Mr. Chairman, but it 
certainly is not reaching the communities and people of East Timor.
  I hope the State Department and our representatives at the 
multilateral development banks and at the United Nations will press our 
allies to fulfill their commitments to provide assistance for East 
Timor. I hope our representatives and aid workers will press our allies 
and the NGOs involved in rebuilding East Timor to accelerate 
reconstruction projects and to make sure aid reaches those who need it 
most, rather than resting in the pockets of consultants and high-
salaried international officials.
  I was in East Timor shortly before the historic referendum on 
independence, which means I was also there shortly before the horrific 
outbreak of violence that devastated the country. The international 
community and we in the United States promised the people of East Timor 
that we would support them in their quest for freedom and independence 
should they choose it at the ballot box. So far, we have only let them 
down. Many of them have died because we did not keep our word. For all 
East Timorese, their lives have changed for the worse with the physical 
destruction of their homes, businesses and communities and the 
separation of families.
  We must do better in the future. This bill maintains the promise by 
this Congress to hold accountable those who destroyed East Timor and 
who forcibly removed the majority of the population from their homes. 
We in Congress must also hold the Administration accountable and ensure 
that the suspension on military-to-military relations is sustained. And 
we must remain committed to the rebuilding of East Timor and the 
ongoing process to bring full independence to this tiny but courageous 
country.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill before 
us. I am particularly disappointed that it allocates only a paltry 
amount of money to aid and assist Lebanon at a time when significant 
events have transpired in that country in recent months.
  In May, Israel withdrew the last of its troops from south Lebanon. 
Prime Minister Barak made a wise decision to withdraw from the country 
his troops had occupied since 1977; it will do much to improve the 
prospects of negotiating future peace accords in the Middle East. The 
Administration has rewarded Israel for its withdrawal, stating that $50 
million of Israel's aid package for the coming year will go to assist 
Israel as it redeploys its forces along the Lebanese border. I do not 
oppose this proposal. I would note, however, that Israel's total aid 
and assistance package provided by the bill before us is $2.9 billion. 
Including Wye funds allocated through the supplemental appropriation, 
Israel will receive $4.1 billion this year.
  Mr. Chairman, Lebanon is in dire need of assistance. The bill before 
us provides only $18 million to Lebanon, which is an improvement over 
last year's figure, but is woefully insufficient considering the 
changes that have taken place in Lebanon. This spring alone, an 
estimated $85 million in damage was inflicted on Lebanese 
infrastructure as a result of Israeli attacks. Lebanon has endured a 
prolonged civil war, foreign occupation, and an influx of refugees. The 
Lebanese government must have the ability to rebuild infrastructure 
damage earlier this year, reestablish order and the rule of law by 
civilian authorities in south Lebanon, and prevent further bloodshed 
from occurring along the Lebanese-Israeli border. I believe a six-year, 
$300 million aid package would be appropriate.
  Mr. Chairman, Metro Detroit is the home of nearly 220,000 Arab 
Americans, many of Lebanese descent. Many have come to the United 
States since 1975, seeking to escape the mayhem that so long gripped 
Lebanon. And though these recent Lebanese immigrants have become an 
integral part of Southeast Michigan, they maintain a passionate love of 
their homeland. They are hopeful that Lebanon will continue its 
efforts, begun at the close of the civil war in 1990, to rebuild and 
reclaim its place as a regional leader in finance and commerce.
  Disputes between the Lebanese government and Israel, and numerous 
militias in south Lebanon and Israel, are still unresolved. However, 
without stability in Lebanon, peace is impossible, and without peace or 
stability it is likely that renewed violence along the Lebanese-Israel 
border will occur.
  Peace comes at a price, yet building a lasting, comprehensive peace 
in the Middle East is a key foreign policy goal of our country. 
American assistance to Lebanon at this time would be a wise investment 
and work toward fulfilling this goal. Clearly, Lebanon, a long-troubled 
country, must be stable if a lasting peace is ever to take root across 
the Middle East.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify for the record that 
the bill language on Kyoto, in Section 577 of this bill, which was 
crafted in a bipartisan manner by my colleagues, myself, and Mr. 
Knollenberg, is in fact identical to the provision adopted on 
appropriations bills for Energy and Water and Agriculture, and 
essentially the same as the provision on the VA/HUD and CJS bills.
  However, I would like to clarify for the record that some additional 
characterizations of the provision, both in remarks made on the floor 
during deliberation of the Agriculture appropriations bill, and as 
submitted to the record on that bill, are not correct. They are in 
direct conflict with the bipartisan agreement that was crafted, and 
more importantly, with the statutory language which is now in the 
Agricultural Appropriations bill and the other bills I have listed, 
including the bill, Foreign Operations.
  The assertion that activities allowed under the language must be 
specifically authorized in incorrect. In fact, that is not what the 
language says. The language says that activities otherwise authorized 
by law are not subjected to any of the restrictions that may be imposed 
by the Kyoto proviso. There are many activities that the Administration 
engages in that fall within generally authorized activities--activities 
that are supported and funded by Congress in a bipartisan fashion.
  These types of activities include negotiations, both formal and 
informal, for instance--and many energy-saving programs that benefit 
consumers and the economy. Some Members on the other side of the aisle 
stated they have no intention of disrupting these programs, 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, characterizations in the record 
that activities must be specifically authorized in NOT reflected in the 
statutory provision that was agreed upon and adopted. It is simply not 
correct.
  There are many programs and activities that are funded by the 
Congress, and carried out

[[Page H5903]]

by the Administration, that are not ``specifically authorized'' by 
Congress, but are authorized under general provisions. Moreover, the 
U.S. continues to implement its obligations under the U.N. Framework 
Convention on Climate Change, which was ratified by the U.S. with the 
consent of the Senate. That is why the language that is included in the 
bills that I have listed--in Agricultural Appropriations, in CJS, VA-
HUD, Energy and Water, and now, Foreign Operations--does not say that 
only activities specifically authorized by law are allowed. If such 
language were included, it would bring a halt too many bipartisan 
supported programs and initiatives that this Congress, and many others 
before it, have supported and funded.
  I want to make clear, the language does not preclude the regulatory 
and non-regulatory programs that have bipartisan support and that save 
money for businesses and consumers, help the environment, and improve 
public health. It does not prohibit the many voluntary, non-regulatory 
programs and initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases--programs that also 
reduce energy bills, improve the nation's energy security, and reduce 
local air pollutants.
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, the United States Government has 
consistently placed African foreign policy on the back-burner. As a 
result, economic stagnation, human rights atrocities, and social and 
political unrest have been perpetuating throughout the continent. 
Zimbabwe is the perfect opportunity for U.S. intervention to have a 
positive impact in Africa, and ensure the sustenance of a fair and free 
democratic process.
  President Robert Mugabe has seized 804 farms for immediate 
distribution and resettlement. Violence has erupted throughout the 
nation. Not only has he rejected rulings from the independent 
judiciary, but he has enforced severe restrictions on the opposition's 
ability to campaign for parliamentary seats. Mugabe is using force to 
secure support and manipulate the outcome of the legislative elections 
this June.
  The United States must play a proactive role in Zimbabwe to ensure 
that legitimate elections occur.
  South African President, Thabo Mbeki, is securing money from 
countries like Norway and Saudi Arabia to purchase farms from willing 
sellers for redistribution. Perhaps, we should also look into a similar 
policy action that may enable adequate distribution and compensation of 
land. The European Union, Commonwealth of Nation, Southern African 
Development Community, and International Republican Institute are all 
sending observers to evaluate the legitimacy of the election on June 
25th. We must do our best to monitor this entire process, and ascertain 
a comprehensive report on the events that are and will transpire in 
Zimbabwe.
  In addition, I believe that we should still continue to provide money 
to Zimbabwe for HIV/AIDS programs to strengthen democracy, and to raise 
living standards despite the corruption that is occurring.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4611, the Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act 
for FY 2001. I'd like to thank Chairman Callahan and Ranking Member 
Pelosi for once again including $13 million in funding for the Tropical 
Forest Conservation Act of 1998.
  The Tropical Forest Conservation Act expands President Bush's 
Enterprise for the Americas Initiative--EAI--and provides a creative 
market-oriented approach to protect the world's most threatened 
tropical forests on a sustained basis. It is a cost-effective way to 
respond to the global crisis in tropical forests, and the groups that 
have the most experience preserving tropical forests--including the 
Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International and 
others--agree. The Administration is strongly in support of this effort 
as well. It is an excellent example of the kind of bipartisan approach 
we should have on environmental issues.
  Tropical forests harbor up to 90% of the Earth's terrestrial 
biodiversity. They act as ``carbon sinks,'' absorbing massive 
quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, thereby reducing 
greenhouse gases. They regulate rainfall on which agriculture and 
coastal resources depend, which is of great importance to regional and 
global climates. And they are the breeding grounds for new drugs that 
can cure diseases.
  Sadly, since 1950, half of the world's tropical forests have been 
lost. Between 1980 and 1990, 30 million acres of tropical forests--an 
area larger than the State of Pennsylvania--were lost every year.
  The Tropical Forest Conservation Act gives the President authority to 
reduce or cancel U.S. A.I.D. and/or P.L. 480 debt owed by an eligible 
country to the United States in exchange for the creation of a fund in 
the local currency that preserves, maintains, and restores tropical 
forests.
  Currently, three countries--Bangladesh, Belize and Peru--have been 
declared eligible by our government to participate in the Tropical 
Forest Conservation Act. In March, the President announced that the 
U.S. and Bangladesh are discussing a Tropical Forest Conservation Act 
agreement to reduce up to $6 million of that country's outstanding debt 
in exchange for its commitment to invest funds in tropical forest 
conservation programs. This would make Bangladesh the first country to 
benefit from funding under the Act, and we are hopeful that a final 
agreement will be reached in the very near future.
  Bangladesh's tropical forests cover more than three million acres, 
including an area that is home to 400 endangered Bengal tigers, the 
world's largest single population. The area also contains one of the 
largest mangrove forests in the world, and it has wetlands of 
internationally-recognized importance. Bangladesh is home to more than 
5,000 species of plants, compared to 18,000 in the United States, which 
is 67 times its size. Clearly, a debt-for-forests arrangement with 
Bangladesh could play an important role in preserving endangered 
species and protecting biodiversity, as well as helping that struggling 
nation's economy.
  Seven other nations also have expressed interest in participating in 
the program. These countries are Ecuador, El Salvador, Thailand, 
Indonesia, Paraguay, Costa Rica and the Philippines.
  I commend Chairman Callahan, Ranking Member Pelosi and the members of 
the Subcommittee for providing the necessary funds to begin to 
implement this legislation that preserves and protects important 
tropical forests worldwide in a fiscally responsible fashion.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. When the reading for amendment reaches section 
587, that section shall be considered read. Before consideration of any 
other amendment to that section, 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 Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4811

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, namely:

               TITLE I--EXPORT AND INVESTMENT ASSISTANCE


                export-import bank of the united states

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


                         subsidy appropriation

       For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, insurance, 
     and tied-aid grants as authorized by section 10 of the 
     Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended, $825,000,000 to 
     remain available until September 30, 2004: Provided, That 
     such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall 
     be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974: Provided further, That such sums shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2019 for the disbursement of 
     direct loans, loan guarantees, insurance and tied-aid grants 
     obligated in fiscal years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated by this 
     Act or any prior Act appropriating funds for foreign 
     operations, export financing, or related programs for tied-
     aid credits or grants may be used for any other purpose 
     except through the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated by this paragraph are made available 
     notwithstanding

[[Page H5904]]

     section 2(b)(2) of the Export Import Bank Act of 1945, in 
     connection with the purchase or lease of any product by any 
     East European country, any Baltic State or any agency or 
     national thereof.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Pelosi

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Pelosi:
       Page 2, line 25, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(decreased by $1,000)''.
       Page 30, line 8, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $179,600,000).
       Page 30, line 9, strike ``: Provided'' and insert the 
     following ``, of which $179,600,000 is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided, That the 
     $179,600,000 designated by this paragraph shall be available 
     only to the extent an official budget request that includes 
     designation of this amount as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to 
     the Congress: Provided further''.
       Page 132, after line 12, insert the following:

          TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS FOR DEBT RESTRUCTURING

       The following sums are appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, namely:

                       Department of the Treasury


                           debt restructuring

       For an additional amount for ``Debt Restructuring'', 
     $210,000,000 for a contribution to the ``Heavily Indebted 
     Poor Countries Trust Fund'' of the International Bank for 
     Reconstruction and Development (HIPC Trust Fund): Provided, 
     That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended: Provided further, That the entire amount shall be 
     available only to the extent an official budget request, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress. For payment to 
     the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Trust Fund of the 
     International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, there 
     is authorized to be appropriated to the President 
     $210,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.

  Ms. PELOSI (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that my amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order on the 
amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 3 hours and that 
the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I did not 
even really hear what the gentleman from Alabama said.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, I ask for 
unanimous consent that there be a time limitation on this amendment and 
all amendments thereto to close in 3 hours.
  Ms. PELOSI. On this amendment?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, it would yield 1\1/2\ hours to the 
gentlewoman's side, or that the time be equally divided.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make sure I understood the 
content of the proposal of the gentleman from Alabama. Is it my 
understanding that the gentleman is asking unanimous consent that all 
time reserved for this particular amendment only is 3 hours?
  Mr. Chairman, under my reservation, I yield to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
  Mr. CALLAHAN. No, it says and all amendments thereto, Mr. Chairman.
  Ms. PELOSI. Thereto to this particular amendment, having nothing to 
do with any other amendments that are related to this subject, Mr. 
Chairman?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. That is correct.
  Ms. PELOSI. That is correct. Okay.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, 
and posing a question to the gentleman from Alabama, I am not clear. Is 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) saying that it will be 3 
hours total for everything or just the Pelosi amendment?
  Mr. Chairman, under my reservation, I yield to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, it is just the Pelosi amendment, 3 hours 
equally divided between the two sides.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and a 
Member opposed each will control 90 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee 
and the distinguished chairman of the full committee for their courtesy 
as we go forward with this very important amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment adds $210 million requested by the 
administration for debt relief for fiscal year 2000 supplemental 
request and $179.6 million for fiscal year 2001. The amendment, 
therefore, fully funds the pending request for debt relief before both 
fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001. This is approximately a $390 
million amendment.
  Approval of this amendment has now become even more compelling in 
light of the fact that the bill only contains $82 million of the $472 
million requested for debt relief. We have been working on the debt 
question in a very positive way with the chairman in his original mark 
where $221 million had been provided and where contributions to the 
HIPC Trust Fund had been authorized.
  We now find ourselves with only $82 million, which is not enough to 
remove debt relief for Bolivia, which has been imminent and awaiting a 
sufficient United States contribution. In addition, Honduras, which was 
devastated by a severe hurricane not long ago, will be unable to 
consummate their debt relief without additional funds. We have talked 
already about Mozambique and its readiness for debt relief.

                              {time}  1815

  I regret that we have to use the emergency designation for this 
amendment, but I would point out that the bill already contains $160 
million in emergency designation for the floods in southern Africa as 
an emergency supplemental funding. In addition, the supplemental just 
passed contains over $11 billion in emergency spending for everything 
from soup to nuts.
  It comes down to a matter of priorities. I know that we will be 
hearing from our colleagues about the urgency, the specifics of the 
need for this debt relief. This is part of an outside mobilization that 
is ecumenical in nature, it is worldwide in scope, and it is very, very 
essential for us to heed.
  As I said earlier, we are blessed in this caucus with a very diverse 
membership. This House of Representatives must hear what our membership 
is saying. We are blessed with the intellectual resources, the personal 
experiences, the direct knowledge of the cultures, the economies and 
the possibilities of countries south of the equator. The world does not 
stop at the equator, and sometimes I think this body acts as if it 
does. We must address these important economic needs in Africa and in 
Latin America and we can do so by the very important way of supporting 
these funds for debt relief.
  I will have more to say on this subject, Mr. Chairman, but I know 
that many members of the caucus wish to speak to this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) seek to 
control time in opposition?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) continues to 
reserve a point of order

[[Page H5905]]

against the amendment, and the Chair will assume that that point of 
order will continue to be reserved through the entire length of debate 
which has been agreed to by unanimous consent.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) is recognized 
for 90 minutes.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I think we all agree, Mr. Chairman, that the World Bank and the 
regional development banks have made a lot of bad loans that cannot be 
repaid. There are many decent and honorable people, including the 
leaders of our churches, who are asking Congress to support forgiveness 
of these poor countries' mountain of debt, and I commend them and I 
want to work with them.
  In fact, it is largely fiction that these loans are being repaid 
right now. That debt burden is one of the main causes of poverty and of 
HIV/AIDS in many, many poor countries is just not true. It is not the 
only one. It is a fact that these countries are forced to take out new 
loans in order to pay back their old loans. There is a vicious cycle of 
ever-increasing unsustainable debt.
  The debt left behind by bad loans is mortgaging the future of these 
poor countries and it should be forgiven by those who made the bad 
loans. That is why this committee decided some years ago to make almost 
all of our own foreign aid in the form of grants and not loans. Worst 
of all, the challenge of dealing with this cycle of bad debt exhausts 
the time and energy of the capable men and women who lead some of these 
countries.
  Unbelievably, the British Government is suggesting that HIPC apply to 
the countries ruled by tyrants and dictators, such as Sudan, Burma, and 
the Congo. I know that this House does not support helping such 
leaders. We all agree that continuing this vicious cycle of 
unsustainable debt makes no sense. That is my mission, and I invite 
others to join me in halting the accumulation of new debt as fast as 
old debt is paid off under this Heavily Indebted Poor Country scheme.
  Although this bill greatly improves the accountability of the HIPC 
scheme, almost everyone who has looked into the administration's 
original proposal finds fault with it. It does not help poor people 
obtain more health and educational services. Indeed, it could be 
detrimental towards benefits already being provided. In most cases, the 
original HIPC scheme does not even improve cash flow, a myth that has 
been put into the minds of a lot of good leaders of charitable 
organizations in our country and throughout the world.
  The existing HIPC scheme merely bales out certain multilateral banks 
and keeps their bond ratings high. This plan is not increasing cash 
flow to countries; it is going to bail out banks. That is where the 
money that is being requested is going, to give to banks who have made 
bad loans.
  In this country, if a bank makes a bad loan, there is a mechanism and 
a tax advantage encouraging it to write off the bad loan. In fact, the 
FDIC requires that they write off these bad loans. But in the 
international community, these multilateral banks that have decided 
that there is a scheme here whereby they can get people's sympathy by 
talking about the needs of the poor, what they are saying is, pay off 
these loans to our bank so we can once again be solvent. Thus, we will 
not have to write off these loans.
  This is a message that has not gotten through to the religious 
leaders that have been convinced. It has not gotten to those members 
who hear from their pulpits of the church every Sunday that we ought to 
be more compassionate, I think they ought to take a close look at what 
really is being proposed and who is going to benefit.
  I received a call just a few months ago from some singer named Bono, 
B-O-N-O, I do not know him, never heard one of his songs, but he was 
very knowledgeable and very compassionate and very wanting of us to do 
something for HIPC. I explained to him the GAO report that was 
requested by many of my colleagues on the Banking Committee which 
substantiates my argument that this is not going to help poor people 
get better health and education, that that is a myth, Mr. Chairman. It 
is not going to help poor people, in many instances, because it simply 
is bailing out some of these multinational banks. It is not even 
bailing out our bilateral aid. We have already forgiven those loans. 
This money is going to these multilateral banks, these development 
banks, because they have made bad loans.
  Now let me tell my colleagues of another myth about this scheme that 
has been placed upon the American people and the people worldwide who 
have noble causes, Mr. Chairman. They want to do what is right. They 
want to help the sick. They want to help needy people. No one denies 
that if that is what this could accomplish, that is what we would do.
  First of all, let me just give a scenario, Mr. Chairman. The scenario 
is that these countries have borrowed money. They have borrowed money 
that the banks loaned to them, not American banks, we are talking about 
foreign banks have loaned these countries money and now they cannot pay 
it back. So they are selling this myth, this scheme, to the American 
people and to people throughout the world.

  And, incidentally, I forgot to tell my colleagues that Mr. Bono now 
agrees with me that the Banks and IMF ought to be more responsible in 
this endeavor. And we will get to this endeavor in just a few minutes.
  But in any event, these countries are not paying interest on this 
debt from their own resources. They are not paying much principal on 
this debt, so it is not going to create any substantial cash flow. That 
is a myth. The principle of the scheme that has led people down this 
primrose path in expectation of providing human service to poor people 
is a myth. They are not denied human services because they are paying 
interest. Poor people are not paying interest, they are not paying 
debt. To the extent there nations are not paying anything on the 
principal, there is going to be no cash flow available to these 
countries to provide services to their people.
  It is going to be a cleansing of their books. So the leaders of these 
poor nations are going to wake up one morning, because of the 
generosity of the American and European people, if indeed we continue 
with this program, and their nations are going to be cleansed of debt. 
They are going to rush to the same banks that have put them in this 
position today and borrow some more money.
  And what are they going to do with it? They are going to do like they 
did in the country of Uganda, where America and Europe and worked out a 
debt reduction for the country of Uganda. The next week the president 
of that country bought a Gulf Stream airplane, a jet, for his own 
personal use that cost somewhere in the vicinity, with all of the 
things that go with a jet, of $50 million. So we got them out of debt 
one day, we cleansed the slate, and the next day they go right back 
into debt because a president buys a $50 million Gulf Stream jet.
  At least he had the brilliance to buy it from an American firm, and I 
am happy about that, but the point I am trying to make is, if we do not 
put some contingencies to this, then that is what is going to happen in 
all of these countries and, as a result, no monies are going to be 
available to help the very people that noble people we are trying to 
help. There is going to be nothing much available to help them.
  So, Mr. Chairman, we will talk later on about this HIPC scheme, but I 
would like to invite my colleagues to get a copy of the GAO report. The 
GAO report entitled ``Debt Relief Initiative for Poor Countries Faces 
Challenges,'' was requested by the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services. Let me tell my colleagues that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Leach) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the chairman and 
ranking member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, 
along with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters), the chairman and ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, sent to the 
GAO and they said, listen, give us a report on the debt relief 
initiative for poor countries who face challenges. And much to their 
surprise, the report comes back that says much of what I am telling my 
colleagues; that we ought to take a better

[[Page H5906]]

and longer look at the process we are going through because we are not 
going to accomplish any of the goals, or very few at the least, of the 
goals.
  No one in this House, no one in this country will deny the 
opportunity being given to assist poor people or to assist starving 
people or to assist sick people or uneducated people. This, in my 
opinion, is not the right way to go. We have still provided money in 
this bill to begin the process, but to limit the process by saying that 
they cannot go right back into debt the next day.
  I have discussed this with Secretary Summers, the Secretary of the 
Treasury of the United States. And in the beginning they said, oh, no, 
no, no way. Secretary Rubin told me there is no way we could have any 
moratorium on additional debt. But when Mr. Summers came on board and 
he looked at what I was saying, and other people started thinking about 
the responsibility of this program, now Secretary Summers agrees with 
me that there possibly should be some restraints on the ability of a 
nation to go right back in certain kinds debt the day after their debts 
are forgiven.
  Let us not fool ourselves. None of us would do this in our personal 
businesses, in our family lives, or in any other scenario that exists 
in the world. Nowhere should we allow these irresponsible and sometimes 
corrupt leaders the ability to borrow new monies simply because the 
United States of America and other countries are generous in their 
concern that people need to be helped.
  No one is contesting the need to be helped. I am not saying that we 
should not. I think we ought to take our limited amount of money and 
add to the Child Survival Fund, because we know child survival monies 
go directly to needy people. But under our allocation process we may 
even be forced to take money away from direct child survival to give it 
to some bank president who has made a bad decision and free up the 
books of a nation that is going to go right back into debt the next day 
and create the same position and posture that we are in today.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it was my intention at this time to yield to my 
colleagues, but I cannot resist. I must respond to the remarks of the 
gentleman. With all the respect that I have for him and knowing how 
important this issue is to so many Members of this Congress and to so 
many people in the religious community out there, I have to say, very 
regretfully, that his comments do a disservice to this debate.
  This is not a scheme. This is a plan. This is a plan that was very 
harshly scrutinized and developed by the G-7 in their debt proposal. 
That proposal is in jeopardy now. Why is it in jeopardy? Because the 
U.S. has not paid its share of the tab 1 year after the promise.
  Who is involved in this plan at the grassroots level? Well, let us 
start with the Vatican, His Holiness the Pope. Let us reach out then to 
an ecumenical movement, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who has 
spoken and traveled throughout the world promoting this plan.
  Desmond Tutu of South Africa stated: ``The new moral crusade follows 
the Biblical principle of Jubilee. In the Bible it says, all belong to 
God. All debts are forgiven in the Jubilee year. Debtors make a new 
beginning.''
  What this is about, Mr. Chairman, is an attempt on the part of people 
who minister to the needs of poor people throughout the world to 
alleviate poverty, promote democratic freedoms, and build markets for 
our products. In the interest of meeting the needs and lifting people 
up, there has to be some way to pull away the crushing mantle of this 
debt.
  As our distinguished ranking Member said earlier, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), it is nothing less than we did for countries in 
Europe, including Poland, following the Soviet collapse, nothing less 
than that.
  When we talk about this, we have to speak about it in a spirit of a 
strict plan. The IMF is not known for its programs that are soft on 
countries that want to receive loans. There is a very tough set of 
standards that these countries must live up to before they can have 
their debts forgiven, and much of it includes instituting budget 
austerity and programs that meet the needs of their people.
  Our distinguished chairman makes a good point when he asks why should 
we forgive loans on the one hand and make loans on the other. Well, 
simply because many of these loans were incurred by previous regimes. 
The world is changing. We all know that. And these early stages of 
democracy in these countries require that they be lifted not only from 
the oppression of the dictatorships but the oppression of the loans 
that were taken out by those dictators. So now we want to forgive the 
loans.
  The gentleman is simply not correct when he says these people are not 
paying any of their debts. The bilateral debts in many cases have a 
moratorium on repayment by some of these countries. But the debts to 
the multilateral banks still must be paid. So that is the rub. Many of 
these countries are paying more for their debt service than they are 
for education and health in their own countries.
  So while we may all agree that loan forgiveness has to be done 
responsibly, we have no quarrel with that. Of course it must be done 
responsibly. And those of us who fight for this funding insist on that 
responsibility. We are not here to talk about irresponsibility.
  While we may all agree on that and we would hope that the countries 
that receive this debt relief all act responsibly as well. An egregious 
example that the chairman may wish to point out, should not eliminate 
debt relief for all the other countries.
  Many of those countries have put the reforms in place. They are ready 
for the debt relief. They are ready to go forward with their economic 
growth that this debt forgiveness will engender for them. But the U.S. 
are holding it up.
  So while I respect the difference of opinion as to whether the amount 
of money is enough or not, I point out that $82 million is 20 percent 
of the President's request. It does not even begin to meet the needs 
for FY 2000 and 2001.
  So if we want to talk about priorities and you say that that money is 
enough and we say it is not, that is one thing; but to denigrate this 
proposal which has been negotiated at the highest level, mobilized for, 
advocated for at the grassroots level throughout the world, and which 
is urgently needed, is in my view, painfully and sadly a disservice to 
the debate.
  There is a need out there. It is urgent. It is great. We can speak to 
the specifics of it, and that will happen in this debate. But I would 
hope that the tenor of our remarks would not be condescending to the 
leadership of these countries who are trying their best to get on their 
feet and help their people and that it would not be dismissive of the 
efforts of the religious communities, starting with His Holiness the 
Pope and across the board.
  I might just name some of the organizations that were with us this 
morning at a press conference: The Council of Churches, the Catholic 
Relief Services, the U.S. Catholic Conference, and then many 
environmental groups, as well, and then Oxfam, Bread for the World, 
Jubilee 2000, which is the organizing group for this mobilization.
  So I hope that the debate will be respectful because it is with 
respect for every person on this Earth that we are going forward with 
this, with the need for people to have their needs met and to have 
children have some prospect of a future, and that can begin by lifting 
the burden of this debt.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would encourage my colleagues during this 3 hours of 
debate on this issue, and I think we should debate it and that is why I 
have not insisted on my point of order at this time but I still reserve 
that point, to take a look at what the GAO reported in response to the 
very question that is being raised tonight. The very people who asked 
for the GAO report thought it would be positive, it came back negative; 
and now they are saying ignore the report, ignore the responsibility we 
have to the taxpayers of this country, do it irresponsibly.
  In this bill we provide $69 million to start the process, but we 
restrict some

[[Page H5907]]

of that assistance to the extent that they must not borrow new money 
for a certain period of time, 9 months in some instances, 30 months in 
other instances.
  So we are not putting a veto on the HIPC program. We are providing 
$69 million for the program, and in the process we will be able to work 
out a reasonable process where we can achieve the same goal that these 
people want.
  The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) mentioned that the Pope 
has come out in favor of this. Well, I would like to tell the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) that the Pope is also against 
abortion. Does she agree with the Pope on abortion? If so, then we will 
not have the population debates that no doubt will take place later on 
in the bill.
  I know what the Pope has said. I think all ministers throughout the 
world agree with the destination that all of us are trying to seek. We 
all want to get to the same point. But this is not a responsible 
mechanism at this time because it permits them to go right back into 
debt and to squander money and to put their country in the same 
financial condition that they are in today.
  The GAO investigators confirmed that the only way there would be 
significant new resources for health and education in poor countries 
would be if these countries borrowed the money through new loans from 
the multilateral banks.
  I mean, how more clear could it be with the GAO report that the very 
proponents of this issue are advocating, how clear could it be?
  So what we have done in this bill is to say that we are not going to 
cut direct child survival assistance, direct assistance to HIV/AIDS in 
Africa, we are not going to cut from our allocation. Instead, we are 
going to give $69 million this year; and during the next 6 or 7 months, 
we can come up with a more responsible plan that denies these countries 
the opportunity to go right back into debt as they did in the country 
that I mentioned a few minutes ago and buy $50 million jets so they can 
travel throughout the world, or to even push some of this money into 
Swiss banks.
  So I am saying let us do it, but let us do it responsibly; and let us 
make absolutely certain that what we do goes to the intended people 
that we want to help. I do not know how more reasonable someone could 
be.
  The money is provided, the $69 million, to pay our fair share for the 
next 6 or 7 months. And when they come up with a responsible plan that 
will achieve intended purpose of this process, then we will give them 
some additional money. But to bail out some of these multilateral banks 
should not be our mission, and that is exactly what we are doing under 
the proposal that is before us.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy of the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services and an expert on 
international debt relief.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I am again grateful to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) for the leadership that she is providing on the 
whole issue of Africa but particularly on this whole business of debt 
relief.
  I am sorry that the chairman of the committee is leaving the room. I 
wish that he would stay, given some of the comments that he has made.
  First of all, let me take up the issue that the chairman seems to be 
alluding to: these irresponsible people in Africa, they do not know how 
to handle their money; we give them money and they go out and they buy 
jets.
  Well, I think we should reject that kind of condescending description 
of the problems of Africa. We do not hear him talking about Poland. We 
do not hear him raising questions about who else flies jets. We do not 
hear anything about Africa. We know what that is all about. We are 
accustomed to that kind of condescending accusations coming to people 
of color. I do not like it. I wish it would stop. And I do not 
appreciate the fact that this is all that can be talked about when we 
talk about what we do or what we do not do for Africa.
  The fact of the matter is this country met in the big G-8 summit and 
gave leadership to the idea that we should do something about forgiving 
debt. All of the churches, organized religions of the world, came 
together to talk about Jubilee 2000 and put together a magnificent 
program that included the churches and organized religion and included 
all the nongovernmental organizations and they moved forward. And this 
country made a commitment and we led. And we have worked very hard for 
debt relief; we have worked very hard for debt forgiveness. And we 
should forgive the debts of the most vulnerable and the poorest 
countries of the world.
  First of all, they cannot afford to pay it back. Some of them are 
starving their children, not being able to pay for education and health 
needs trying to pay back this debt. And the interest keeps piling up 
and piling up on this debt. They will never get it paid, even those 
countries that have gone under structural adjustment and have done 
well. We have allowed them to take from their economy dollars that they 
should be using for health and education and comply with structural 
adjustment, and we still have not gone back to help them in any 
appreciable way.
  But we find that the chairman does not talk about the increases that 
they did, foreign military financing program, $60 million per year for 
the next 10 years. If they are so concerned about how they spend the 
money and doing it in a responsible way and making sure that they set 
priorities, how do they have money to increase the foreign military 
financing program by $60 million a year and try to do it for 10 years?

                              {time}  1845

  I think this is outrageous. I think we need to deal with it like it 
is. This is Africa. Somehow it is less deserving. Somehow the people of 
Africa and poor people of the world in Central and South America and in 
other places are not worthy of debt relief or support. They are worthy 
only of condescending remarks that they cannot handle their money, that 
they only use their money to buy things they do not need.
  We did not talk like that when we talked about what we were going to 
do when the Soviet Union broke up. We do not talk about Russia that 
way. We do not talk about Poland that way. And we darn sure do not talk 
about Israel that way. There is nothing worse than a bully. There is 
nothing worse than somebody who picks on the least of these and the 
most vulnerable of these.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we began this debate by saying that this was a bad 
bill, but now the bad bill has become not only a terrible bill but 
terrible disposition expressed by the majority about Africa and its 
ability to handle the resources associated with providing for what the 
President of the United States has indicated a threat to the national 
security of the United States.
  What this bill fundamentally says in light of the gentleman's 
disposition is that lives in the Middle East somehow are just a little 
bit different or a little bit more precious than lives in Africa. There 
are 5,000 Africans who are dying every day associated with the AIDS 
disease and the AIDS crisis. The export earning potential that we 
passed, the by-product of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, the 
debt service is designed to save health care and reprioritize issues 
like education and health care on sub-Saharan Africa's continent. That 
is what is so critical indeed in this bill.
  A number of my colleagues have come to the floor of the Congress 
today and said, yes, AIDS is a problem; yes, all of these other 
problems exist in the world, but what we have to recognize is that a 
significant portion of this bill confronts very critical negotiations 
that are occurring at Camp David. Well, I sure hope someone at Camp 
David is talking about AIDS in Africa because Time magazine, Newsweek 
magazine, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, everyone has 
said that the number one plague confronting the world is AIDS on the 
continent of Africa and for this Congress

[[Page H5908]]

to play a blind eye and to ignore that fact is a disgrace. We ought to 
do something about it in this bill, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  To briefly respond to the remarks by the gentlewoman from California 
and gentleman from Illinois, I respect their passion and their concern 
for the people of Africa. But not once during my statement did I 
mention the continent of Africa. I did by chance mention Uganda because 
of the ridiculous situation that took place when the president bought 
the jet. I might remind the gentlewoman that even the President of the 
United States, Bill Clinton, has now decided that I am right and they 
have cut off further debt forgiveness to Uganda until such time as they 
can get this situation straightened out.
  My remarks were meant to be to the world. It applies to Central 
America. It applies to South America. It applies to Africa. It applies 
to every country where we are proposing to provide debt forgiveness. So 
I meant no disrespect to any race or disrespect to any continent. I am 
not condescending. I am telling you the facts. The facts are that we 
are giving $69 million of taxpayers' money towards this program to 
begin the process whereby in the process, and this is less than the 
Senate incidentally, that in this process they can come forward with a 
more responsible plan that can protect the integrity of the financial 
situation of these particular countries. The fact that some of these 
countries are in Africa, I did not mention that. You brought that up. I 
sort of resent you saying that I am condescending and implying that 
this is racist because it is not. This is responsible legislation.
  I am proposing that we do what you want to do, that is, provide for 
the needy people, whether they be in Latin America, South America, 
Africa, Israel, Russia, wherever they are, that we do it; but we do it 
responsibly. I do not think that is being condescending. I think it is 
being responsible, because we have the same exact destination in mind. 
We want to help needy people. We want to help the sick. We want to 
eliminate HIV/AIDS. We want to do all of this. We want these countries 
to be financially stable. But to just give them a blank check and say, 
well, this debt is forgiven, and, incidentally, this money is not going 
to these countries. This money is to go to these banks. It is not going 
to the countries. It goes to the banks, so the banks' books can be 
cleared. So we have no difference as to our destination or goal or aims 
or wants. We have identical destinations.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I will yield to the gentlewoman from California if she 
will stop saying that I am condescending.
  Ms. WATERS. No, I will not stop saying it yet, but I do appreciate 
your yielding. I would like to ask a question if I may.
  Is there $90 million in fiscal year 2001 for the foreign military 
financing program with $60 million of that an increase going to Israel 
and $60 million over the next 10 years in an increase while you are 
being prudent in your budgeting?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. That is correct. But that was the request of the 
President of the United States. I would like to remind the gentlewoman 
with respect to the assistance to Israel whereby we did increase the 
foreign military financing by $60 million, we cut $120 million from the 
economic support. I would like to remind the gentlewoman that that was 
the third rail of politics before I became chairman. No one dared walk 
on this floor and say, ``Let's cut assistance to Israel.'' But I went 
to Israel and at 2 o'clock in the morning met with then Prime Minister 
Netanyahu and he admitted that the economy there was now such because 
of the benevolency and the assistance of the United States, the economy 
was such that they could begin responsible reduction of economic 
support to Israel, and that process has been now for the last 4 years, 
and I have cut their economic assistance by nearly $120 million a year, 
so nearly $500 million.
  And so the argument that the financial assistance for military 
financing is moot, because the bottom line is I have cut Israel $60 
million a year net for the last 4 years because the Israeli government 
agreed to that. So I do not think it is irresponsible nor a good 
comparison.
  Ms. WATERS. Sir, you made cuts in all of Africa's budget. Where did 
you then increase Africa's budget where the cuts have been made in both 
the development fund and the other fund for Africa? You cut them, but 
there is no place where you increased the funds to Africa. Where did 
you do likewise for Africa?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I have proposed $69.4 million in HIPC funds which is an 
increase. That is an increase in itself.
  Ms. WATERS. Sir, the President asked for $400 million.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I do not care what the President asked for.
  Ms. WATERS. You told me what the President asked for in military 
financial assistance.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Just because the President of the United States----
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama will suspend.
  The Chair would kindly request that all Members follow regular 
procedure in yielding to one another or in requesting time from those 
who are controlling the time. The gentleman from Alabama controls the 
time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, the true scenario is this. The President 
of the United States has committed to participate in this debt 
forgiveness program of worldwide contributions, and we intend to 
fulfill responsibly some of the requests of the President. But just 
because the President calls up or writes me a note and sends a note 
over here and says, Sonny, give me 4 or $500 million does not make it 
an obligation of the United States of America. I think that you as a 
Congressperson and that I as a Congressperson have a responsibility to 
ask the President, Are you sure this is the right way to go? That is 
what I am doing. I think the President is making a big mistake, not in 
the amount of money that he requested, not for the programs that he is 
requesting that be enhanced, but because of the mechanism to get to the 
end result of the entire proposal of HIPC is where the mistake is.
  So I am saying, wait a minute. And you all know I am not the smartest 
man in the world. I am not the dumbest man in the world, either. And I 
have some background and experience in finance, not multibillions of 
dollars like some of our colleagues here in the House, but I have some 
experience. And anywhere in life, even in your family, if I overspent 
my Visa card, for example, and I went to my kids and I say, Kids, help 
me out, your daddy has done an irresponsible thing, the credit card 
company is telling me, ``Well, if they don't do this, they're going to 
take away my house and they're going to sue me,'' do you think even my 
kid would say, ``Dad, I'm going to help you, we're going to pay off 
your debt, but you're going to tear up that credit card.''
  That is exactly what I am saying. I am saying we should not give 
these countries the ability to go right back into debt the next day. I 
am telling you that this is a mistake, but at the same time I am 
admitting that maybe I am wrong. For in the interim, here is $70 
million towards our contribution, and we can go ahead and start with 
these programs. Just as we have already forgiven most of our bilateral 
debt, now we can help to bail out some of these banks because maybe I 
am wrong. So I am providing $69.4 million in this bill as a down 
payment to keep the program going in the hopes that the GAO report is 
wrong. Maybe I am wrong. But the GAO backs up what I am saying, and I 
think I am right at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am very, very dismayed by the comments that have been made by my 
distinguished chairman in this regard, because we can have a legitimate 
difference of opinion on an issue, but the course that this debate is 
taking is not worthy of this institution. We have a very serious policy 
decision to make. We have Members of this House who have worked very 
hard on this issue, and who know a great deal about the loan 
forgiveness program.
  The gentleman is correct. We do not want to promote irresponsibility. 
That has never been an issue. The fact, though, is that if you are 
lifting oppressive debt, much of it incurred by

[[Page H5909]]

previous regimes, why should a country not be able to borrow from the 
poorest of the poor window of the World Bank that administers to the 
poorest of the poor, the IDA window, assistance for basic human needs? 
For basic human needs? Why should they not be able to start investing 
in their economies?
  It is very simplistic to say, oh, I tore up my credit card, or my son 
tore up my credit card. That is not an analogy that is even in any way 
close to this. This is about countries wanting to assume 
responsibility. This is about countries saying yes to the reforms that 
they must comply with when they are applying for loan forgiveness. This 
is a very strict standard that is applied to qualify for these loans as 
HIPC, highly indebted poor countries.
  So if we want to say that this is not an important enough priority to 
our country, then let us say that, but do not mischaracterize what is 
being proposed here and what is being supported across the board by 
religious communities throughout the world and which the administration 
supports. The Secretary of the Treasury does not support the chairman's 
position. Of course we all support responsibility; and that is what we 
are advocating, too.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can have the tenor of the remarks return 
to a place that is more respectful of the hard work that has gone into 
this. I say that with great respect for the chairman and with great 
sadness, quite frankly.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the guiding principles of United States foreign 
policy is that whenever possible we use our assistance to enable 
developing countries to stand on their own two feet. That is precisely 
what this amendment would do and why I support it.
  Many countries in the developing world have been unable to spend the 
necessary resources on health care and on education for their citizens 
because they have been saddled by debilitating debt. New regimes 
elected with high hopes for economic opportunity and democratic ideals 
will remain unable to achieve their noble objectives because of debt 
incurred by previous, often corrupt regimes.
  Debt relief, as some contend, is not about giving a free ride to 
developing nations. That is not what we are talking about. It is about 
helping countries in sub-Saharan Africa build the health care 
infrastructure necessary to fight the AIDS epidemic.

                              {time}  1900

  It is about giving countries the chance to educate children, giving 
them hope for a better future. It is about giving nascent democratic 
regimes the chance to build constituencies, perpetuating the ideals of 
democracy abroad.
  The cost of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is a small price to pay for 
the myriad of benefits it will bring. It is disgraceful, in my 
judgment, that this small amount of money that this bill provides for 
debt relief will stall the global HIPC initiative and may deny relief 
to some of the world's most committed economic reformers. These 
countries have worked hard at developing concrete poverty-reduction 
targets, sound economic management practices. It would be shameful for 
us to turn our back on this important initiative.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Members if they have the 
opportunity to get a copy, I keep talking about this GAO report which 
was requested by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and 
others to substantiate their claim of the merits of this program; and 
once again, I do not deny that the intentions of those interested in 
this are anything other than noble, and I share the exact same goals 
with them.
  But in the results in brief of the GAO report, where they requested 
that the GAO report look into what we were doing, the results in brief 
say that the GAO's analysis shows that the decline in debt service for 
the seven countries, they selected seven countries in order to do their 
study, that these countries will only free up resources for additional 
poverty reduction if in the years prior to their qualifying for debt 
relief they are allowed to continue to borrow at the same level.
  That is precisely what I am saying is the fallacy of this overall 
proposal. They go on to say that this occurs because the countries 
previously borrowed for several reasons, including debt payments; and 
they will need to continue borrowing after receiving debt relief in 
order to meet their remaining debt payments and to increase spending 
for poverty reduction.
  These countries, are not paying any interest, they are borrowing more 
money to pay the interest. They are incurring more principal in order 
to pay the annual interest; and what they are doing is continuing to 
build up this debt.
  So what this report is saying is that the only way they are going to 
free up cash is if indeed they have more borrowed money which they 
cannot pay back.
  The route that we ought to be taking as an international community, 
and I am Catholic and I disagree with the Pope, because I don't think 
the Pope has had the opportunity to read such reports as this GAO 
report, nor do I think the Pope has had the opportunity to reflect on 
this. He is a very busy person. I do not think he has had the 
opportunity to reflect on the total program as to whether or not this 
mission will really benefit the very people he wants to help.
  If the Pope wants to help, if the gentlewoman from California wants 
to help, if this Congress wants to help, I have no opposition to that. 
But if we are going to do it, let us do it right.
  I started telling you about this credit card that I have 
overextended, so I go to my children and I say, Listen, Daddy is in 
trouble. Will you pay off my credit card? I promise you I won't do it 
again. My kids would say, Daddy, we are going to cut your credit card 
up.
  That is the responsible thing to do, and that is what we ought to be 
telling leaders of these nations, whether they be in Central America, 
South America, Africa, Russia, wherever they are, that we are going to 
pay off your debts. You are not going to get any of the money because 
you have got to flow it straight through to a multinational bank. But 
we are going to allow you to flow this money through to a multinational 
bank to bail them out of their financial crisis, but you are not going 
to be able to go to that same bank tomorrow and borrow more money.
  Now, maybe I am wrong, but that is the way I feel, and you are 
entitled to feel the way you feel. I think I am right, and it is not 
uncommon for these two sides to differ on a direction we might take on 
any given issue.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I must say, I differ with 
the gentleman in his interpretation of the GAO report; but if he is 
right, I am not that much of a theologian, but I notice that he 
corrected the Pope with the GAO. Are we hearing today the doctrine of 
GAO infallibility being promulgated on the floor of the House?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, conceivably so, and I 
am not questioning the intelligence of the Pope. I am just telling you 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) tells me we should support 
this because the Pope supports it, and my response to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi) is the Pope does not support abortion, and 
that if she is going to pay attention to everything the Pope says, she 
ought to be on my side on the abortion issue. That was just the point I 
was making.
  But the Pope, as I say, is a very busy person. But I think if I had 
the opportunity and the privilege of appearing before the Pope for 15 
minutes, as I have had the opportunity to appear before other people 
and convince them, that I could convince the Pope that I am right. The 
Pope would be issuing a proclamation tomorrow that would be read at the 
pulpit of every Catholic church in the world saying, Wait a minute. One 
of our colleagues, Catholic colleagues, has discovered a flaw in this 
proposal, and we ought to correct it and go forward.

[[Page H5910]]

  That is what I do with the $69 million that I have included in this 
bill. Let us go forward, but let us do it cautiously.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield, since he 
referenced my name in his remarks?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from 
California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman says that I heed the 
Pope when he is talking about debt relief, but not when he is talking 
about a woman's right to choose, or words to that effect, my comments 
to the gentleman were he was mocking this as a scheme; and I said this 
is not a scheme, this is a plan that has been thought out and proposed 
by the G-7. Just to get to the Pope for a moment----
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, let me reclaim my time and tell the 
gentlewoman an explanation of the word ``scheme.'' The scheme is not 
intended to reflect on the mission. I am saying a scheme has been 
presented to great charitable people of this world that does not do 
what they have represented to them in their proposal. Therefore, I 
think it is a scheme that has been concocted to convince people in this 
country, charitable people with good intentions, I think they have been 
misled; and, if that is the case, I think that should be called a 
scheme.
  Ms. PELOSI. If the gentleman will further yield, the chairman knows I 
have the highest regard for him, and it is with a heavy heart, as 
Lyndon Johnson used to say, that I say to the gentleman that he is 
absolutely wrong.
  I want to just get back to the Pope for a moment. The gentleman's 
powers of persuasion are considerable, but I doubt that he could 
persuade the Pope, the head of the church, whose mission is to 
alleviate poverty and respect the dignity and worth of every person on 
the face of this Earth, that we should not have international debt 
relief because of some egregious example that the gentleman might think 
up.
  The GAO, if one reads the report, admits, we have never said that if 
you forgive the debt, that there will not be future lending. The debt 
is from a previous regime, or mistakes made before; and now we are 
talking about a fresh start.
  But to get back to the Pope for a moment, because I want to make this 
point, I have never mocked, never, ever mocked, in fact I have 
respected the views of people who have a different view, some of them 
are in my own family, about a woman's right to choose and the rest. So 
really it offends me, and I say that regretfully, that the gentleman 
would say well, if you do not listen to the Pope about choice, why do 
you listen to the Pope about this?
  Well, I respect the Pope's view on all of these things. But when the 
gentleman was characterizing this as a scheme, and now the gentleman is 
defining a scheme differently than he emphasized it earlier, it was 
with disdain; and that is the part that I find regrettable, because 
this is a very important debate.
  This is a debate about whether our country will live up to its 
responsibilities that our President committed to at the G-7 one year 
ago. He is going to leave for Japan, for Okinawa, in another week, 
following the Camp David meetings; and he is going to have to go there 
and say I cannot fulfill the responsibility, the obligations that we 
incurred last year, because, maybe because somebody bought an airplane 
someplace, I do not know; but any excuse will do if you do not want to 
do something.
  So to say that $69 million is a start, and we all want to get to the 
same place, is like saying let us all go to the Moon; here are your 
roller skates. That means I cannot get there.
  So let us help these people get there. If we all do share the goal of 
alleviating poverty, if we all do share the goal of eradicating AIDS, 
as the gentleman referenced in his remarks, we have to put the 
resources where our compassion is. Compassion is great, but it is no 
substitute for a positive plan to go forward and the resources to match 
that proposal.
  So we have an important decision to make here, respectful of each 
other's positions, and it is: Is it that a statement of the values of 
this country is that we will help these countries get on their feet? 
Standards have been set by the IMF. If it is a given that once the 
oppressive old debt is removed that countries not be able to incur 
further debt, I cannot even understand how you could put a moratorium 
on basic human needs, loans from the IDA window, the poorest of the 
poor window of the World Bank, and say that that is okay, we will teach 
them some discipline and they will not be able to incur any debts. 
Economic development is essential to the success of these countries, 
and they need the hard window loans as well.
  So we are not talking about carelessness or irresponsibility; we are 
talking about sensible planning.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentlewoman has 
ample time. I thought she was going to question something I had said.
  Let me just tell the gentlewoman, number one, we are not talking 
about debt that our country has given to these foreign countries. We 
have already forgiven that debt. We have fulfilled our shared 
responsibility of that HIPC agreement through our bilateral debt 
forgiveness. I am not talking about debt that these countries owe to 
the United States of America. I am talking about debts that they owe to 
the multilateral banks.
  I am saying at the same time, Sonny, maybe you are wrong. That was my 
fear, that I would be making a mistake; and just in case I am wrong, 
which I really do not think at this time I am, nor have I heard any 
argument to the contrary. Just in case I am wrong, Mr. President, here 
is a down payment; here is $69 million to get you into the spring or 
fall, whereby we can look at a potentially more responsible mechanism 
for achieving the same goals that we all want to achieve.
  I do not see anything unreasonable about that, but I know that you 
all do; and I know that you all have the right to disagree, and I 
respectfully disagree with you.
  I will disagree with the Pope if indeed he says this is an 
irresponsible thing, but the Pope is too intelligent a person to deny 
that I am not right on this issue, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member 
of the full committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  I would like to talk about what the history of debt relief has been. 
When I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and the 
Iron Curtain fell, all of a sudden we had a tremendous opportunity. All 
kinds of countries in Eastern Europe, where people looked like us, they 
had the same colored skin, they had lots of people in this country 
lobbying for their cause because they were the same nationality my wife 
happens to be Polish, for instance, and we recognized that the previous 
Communist government had stayed in power only by incurring huge amounts 
of debts that were totally irresponsible. When they left power we had a 
choice of whether or not we were going to create the economic 
conditions that would allow a democratic government to flourish or not. 
So we forgave debt.
  As a result, you were able to get new investments, new economic 
growth in countries like Poland, and today they are reasonably healthy 
democracies, given what their history has been the last 50 years.

                              {time}  1915

  We also had debt relief provided for Egypt. That was done 
unilaterally with no consultation whatsoever with the United States 
Congress by one of the previous Republican administrations. And that 
was done because we needed the support of Egypt in the Middle East 
power game, and so not many questions were asked. But now we get to the 
hard cases. Now we get to the regions of the world that do not look 
like so many of us. We get to Africa, we get to Latin America, and the 
political pressures for us to do what is right and just are not quite 
as heavy as the political pressures were when we were dealing with 
countries that looked just like most of us.
  So now we are told that because some idiot from one of those 
countries made a dumb purchase, that somehow, that example ought to be 
used as an excuse to avoid our responsibilities in

[[Page H5911]]

dealing with this problem in Latin America and Africa.
  Now, the problem is very simple. A lot of these countries ran up debt 
when they were working for us and for the CIA and for our intelligence 
operations; they were conduits through which we were able to learn a 
lot about our political enemies around the world. So the Congress was 
asked to close its eyes while those governments did lots of dumb 
things. They abused human rights; they ran up huge debts. Now, we have 
new governments, and we are being asked to provide the same opportunity 
for new investment and new economic growth in those countries that we 
provided in countries that look just like most of us. It has been 
harder here. We are told that, well, this is just international debt 
that we are forgiving here and so we ought to put more stringent 
conditions on it.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that there are some countries that 
ought not to be lent an additional dime, and there are other countries 
who will be in a state of social and economic collapse if they do not 
receive new lending. We have some countries that are spending so much 
paying off the debts incurred by their former governments, that they do 
not have any money left to spend on education and health for their own 
children.
  So we are here, not out of any bleeding heart knee-jerk reaction. We 
are here because we have two responsibilities. One is to our own 
national security, because we cannot exist forever, no matter how 
strong we are, in a world where there are large segments that are 
essentially poverty-ridden and open to all kinds of potential political 
mischief; and secondly, we are asked to respond to our moral 
responsibilities to help people who never had a say in incurring these 
debts in the first place. The ironic thing about it is that they are 
not collectible. They are lousy debts and all we are doing is clear the 
books so that we will give these new governments the same opportunity 
to start afresh that we gave other governments who look like most of 
us.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that we ought to get on with the job, 
we will sooner or later; and if this bill did what it ought to do, we 
would be able to vote for it.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I am not a member of this committee; I do 
not know all of the great international nuances that are being 
discussed here. But I did come to the floor to speak, because it seems 
like the debate has gotten to a point to where there may be fingers 
pointed and charges being made back and forth, but I would just like to 
remind my colleagues that this debate about what other countries and 
their citizens may want or need, what the Pope may want or need, we do 
not sit here as a governing body to represent their opinions. We are 
here to represent the people of the United States. This is the people's 
House of the United States.
  I am a practicing Catholic, although I happen to be a pro-choice 
Catholic, but the Pope does not direct me how I am going to stand on a 
policy statement of how the people of the United States' money should 
be spent. It is not a foreign government's money, and it is not the 
Pope's money. It is the American people's money, and it is not our 
money.
  I just want us to understand that when we talk about forgiveness of 
debt, we should think about how many Americans are out there right now 
who say, this sounds pretty good. I would sure love to see Congress cut 
me the same deal that they are talking about cutting other people all 
over the world. Mr. Chairman, American taxpayers may be watching 
tonight saying, it really is true.
  I am just saying I hope that we understand as we are talking about 
all of these bigger issues that there are people out there that are 
struggling to pay their taxes, struggling to be able to play by the 
rules, struggling to pay for their debts, and then seeing the House of 
Representatives, the people's House talking and saying, we need to talk 
about forgiveness of certain debts, talking about it as if it is our 
personal funds that we are willing to have a charitable contribution 
out of.
  I bet, my colleagues, there are a lot of Americans out there who 
would say, great, Members of Congress, take it out of your pocket and 
put it in there, but you are taking it out of our pockets as taxpayers 
and giving it to another country, and giving it and giving it. It is a 
small, small, minute percentage of what we allocate out of this House, 
but do we not realize how much it just really rubs the taxpayers wrong 
when they hear the discussion of even the term forgiveness. I think 
that maybe we ought to talk about would we not be more productive in 
making people independent.
  I just want to go back to this whole discussion of the Pope. He does 
not pay the taxes and we do not represent him. I follow him as a 
religious leader of my church, but the Constitution mandates to me and 
every Member of this body that we represent the people in our district, 
not even one of the great religious leaders that lives in Rome.
  I would just say, we may disagree on this issue, on the 
technicalities of this issue, but I think the dialogue has gotten to 
where it is either/or: I am going to impugn your opinion for my 
opinion. I just think that people that are watching today and Members 
of Congress are watching, and remember, we are forcing this money, let 
me remind my colleagues, we are forcing this money from American 
citizens and resident aliens, forcing them under the threat of 
imprisonment to give us money, and we are sending this money all over 
the world.
  Mr. Chairman, we have an obligation to make sure that every cent is 
responsible and is being responsible in its application and is being 
held accountable. I think the chairman has pointed out that that cannot 
be said with all of these funds, and we have the obligation to make it 
so.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BILBRAY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman explain to me how we help 
taxpayers when we refuse to write off debts that are uncollectible that 
will never be repaid and which simply get in the way of creating 
markets for products that are made by Americans so that they can have 
better jobs and earn more money?
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say the same 
argument would be made by many taxpayers, Mr. Ranking Member; but the 
fact is that they are overburdened again and again and feel like they 
are over-taxed. The concept of saying they have to choose between child 
care and helping their family or sending their kids to school or being 
able to give what they want to their children, or the fact that they 
need, by force of law, to contribute to the Federal Government money 
that we then send overseas. I think that this is an issue that we just 
have to understand the dialog about.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time and also for her outstanding leadership on this issue.
  Let me begin by saying that I am very proud that Americans and 
specifically American taxpayers are not selfish, that they cannot bear 
the spectacle of 22 million people infected with AIDS in Africa; they 
cannot turn their backs on those people, and that they are not 
selfishly thinking only of their own concerns.
  With respect to this amendment, I am here to support it. Here are the 
facts: the President asked for $475 million, this committee only gave 
$82 million, and that is a travesty.
  Now, we hear a lot about corruption, but I am sure the chairman is 
not trying to say that the people who are dying in Africa ought to be 
sacrificed because of a corrupt leader. What we need to know about the 
facts of this issue is this: in Tanzania, for example, the government 
spends four times as much money on debt payments as it spends on health 
and education combined. What we need to know in this debate is that 
Uganda, Zambia, Nicaragua, and Honduras spends more on debt service 
than they spend on health and education combined. So this debate is not 
about corruption and it is not about wasteful spending.

[[Page H5912]]

  Now, here is an issue that really strikes me as interesting. The 
gentleman talks about how we need to be concerned about how the money 
is spent; we need to have conditions. We can apply conditions. The 
problem is, the committee did not just apply conditions, the committee 
cut the money substantially. It cut 80 percent of the funds that were 
going to be used for debt forgiveness.
  This is a project in which the United States and other developed 
countries are stepping forward and saying, there is a major epidemic, 
pandemic in Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, as well as in other countries, 
and we want to forgive debt as a group, this is true burden-sharing, to 
enable these countries to move forward, to spend money on health and 
education rather than on bad debts. This is a case where we really need 
to lead.
  Thankfully, the American people are not selfish. I think they will 
agree with us that we ought to adopt the gentlewoman's amendment; we 
ought to put the money into debt forgiveness; we ought to give these 
countries a chance, and we ought to respond to the crisis that exists 
in Africa.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a member of the 
subcommittee.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member for allowing 
the time for me to participate in the debate.
  I do not want us to lose sight on the importance of our country and 
who we are in the world. This is the greatest country in the world in 
many respects. We are enjoying a surplus in a time when many in our 
country are living better than they have ever lived. At the same time, 
many do not live as well.
  This foreign operations budget, as has been said over and over today, 
is less than 1 percent of our total budget. When we talk about debt 
forgiveness, we do it all the time, with our own American citizens, and 
we should. The S&L bailout, as we remember. We forgave a lot of those 
debts and many of those people involved in that scandal are living very 
well today. I am not opposed to it; I want us to take our 
responsibility as citizens seriously, to look at the world and see the 
ones who need forgiveness at this time.
  The G-8 countries of which we are the leaders to look to America to 
see what we do for the least of these in that G-8 environment. We have 
a responsibility and an opportunity to give and forgive debt for some 
of the poorest countries, who have no idea and cannot pay that debt, 
were not responsible for it. This country gave that debt to many of 
those leaders who are long gone. Why, then, do we today hold those same 
children in those very poor countries responsible? We do have 
standards. The IMF has standards. Bolivia, Mozambique have met those 
standards. But the appropriation is now not there to help those 
countries and other poor countries come into the 21st century.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. Chairman, Members of the House of Representatives, debt 
forgiveness in this year of jubilee, taught and mentioned in the Bible, 
is upon us. Let us rise to the occasion, do what is right, and forgive 
those poor countries at a time when God has blessed us to forgive.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I must confess, I am deeply distressed by 
the tone of this debate, at least in parts of it.
  Let me just cite one fact. For the 41 Nations that have been 
identified as the most heavily-indebted poor countries, external long-
term debt rose rapidly from less than $7 billion in 1970 to $169 
billion today.
  There has been some reference that the amendment would pay off 
multinational banks, as if these are multinational corporations, kind 
of using that rhetorical device. We are talking about debt owed to 
multilateral institutions and governments, not in this instance to 
private for-profit institutions.
  It has also been said that cash flow is not affected. That is just 
patently wrong. Unless debt is eliminated, these countries cannot 
obtain further cash flow. With elimination of debt, they will.
  Mr. Chairman, this is no scheme. This is a proposal, an edifice built 
by sovereign nations, by the G-8, who have decided that it is in their 
self-interest to act on this debt.
  Then it is said, well, let us give the money to the child survival 
fund, instead. As a former assistant administrator of the Foreign Aid 
Agency, I am all for monies for child survival, but let no one think 
that that is an alternative to governments pulling their own weight. 
Indeed, the Republican administrations have insisted that aid has to be 
shifted to help countries pull their own weight.
  I want to read the last part of the GAO report. I hope the 
gentlewoman from California will give me another minute if I need it, 
but I do not think I need it quite yet. I want to straighten out the 
references to the GAO report.
  I just saw it now. But we do not have to read it from cover to cover 
to know that the statements here using the GAO report are a distortion, 
purely and simply. Here is the key paragraph, and I have dealt with a 
lot of GAO reports, including when I was in a previous administration:

       The uncertainties over whether the initiative provides a 
     lasting exit from debt problems, the tension between quick 
     debt relief and preparing poverty reduction strategies and 
     the difficulties in financing the initiative should not be 
     seen, however, as a reason to abandon efforts to provide debt 
     relief to eligible countries.
       Heavily-indebted poor countries continue to carry 
     unsustainable debt burdens that are unlikely to be lessened 
     without debt relief. But participants and observers may need 
     to have a more realistic expectation of what the initiative 
     may ultimately achieve.

  To use this report as an argument to thwart the effort of the 
administration to live up to its essential commitments as part of a G8 
program I think is inexcusable.
  I want to close with this. What is in our national interest? Africa 
and other countries face a tragedy, a human tragedy that could affect 
all of us, including our security and surely our sense of morality. For 
us to sit here and insufficiently fund debt relief is inexcusable in 
terms of American national security and American ethics. We must do 
better. Adopt this amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of order on 
the amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), former chair of the 
Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy of the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and an expert on 
international debt forgiveness.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding time to me and for doing such a great job.
  The gentleman from Michigan made it very clear that when the chairman 
of the subcommittee quoted the GAO report, he got it exactly backwards. 
I guess to just stick with the theological tone that has occasionally 
intruded here, we now know that the devil may quote Scripture and the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing 
and Related Programs may quote the GAO report, but neither one of them 
can be trusted on the interpretation.
  The GAO says that debt relief is not enough. It does not say, do not 
give them debt relief, it says debt relief is not enough to do poverty 
reduction. So the notion that because debt relief is not enough to 
accomplish the ideal, we should therefore do less, makes sense only to 
the chairman of the subcommittee.
  I also want to talk about the Pope. Obviously, we all have agreements 
and disagreements with the Pope, although respect for him, as the 
gentlewoman from California said.
  But the Pope is not speaking here ex cathedra. This is not primarily 
a theological exposition. The Pope heads the most extensive anti-
poverty organization in the world. Priests and nuns and church workers 
are the most sustained group of anti-poverty workers all over the 
world. The Pope's recommendations in this public policy come to us

[[Page H5913]]

better grounded, I must say, than the off-the-cuff observations of the 
chairman of the subcommittee. The Pope is reporting based on 
information he gets from people who are the on-the-ground poverty 
workers.
  Here is the issue. This analogy to a credit card is, as the gentleman 
from California said, to use a technical parliamentary term, silly. We 
are talking not about an individual with a credit card, we are talking 
about, in many cases, regimes that borrowed and in many cases were 
overthrown with our help because they were corrupt and brutal.
  New governments are in power. The question is whether the people who 
are now living in those countries should be bled, should be denied 
basic food and medicine, to pay off old debts.
  The gentleman has said, Well, it is to bail out the multinational 
banks. No, the multinational banks, and let us make this point, when 
the bill came to us last year from the administration it did have 
provisions so some of the funds could have, after debt relief, 
continued to fund some of the activities of the multinational financial 
institutions. We stopped that. The bill that passed says the funds 
generated, whether from gold sales or from appropriations, go only for 
debt relief and nothing else.
  Now, to say to these countries, by the way, we will give you debt 
relief but you cannot then ever borrow for anything else, is a very 
cruel approach. What about a country that has instituted democracy, 
that has instituted some reforms and gets the debt relief, and then 
wants to deal in a responsible way with its economic development? No 
entity finances all economic developments on a cash basis. People do 
not buy homes that way, businesses do not grow that way, and countries 
require some investments.
  Investment means, give us some money now and we will pay you back 
later, maybe through equity, maybe through debt.
  I have to say, and I am glad the gentleman from Alabama is back here 
now, because I want to express my disagreement with one of his constant 
premises, he keeps telling us that we agree on the goal. I must tell 
the gentleman that I see no evidence of that. I see no evidence that 
the gentleman from Alabama has been strongly moved to try to alleviate 
poverty.
  Indeed, we heard the gentleman from California previously say the 
taxpayers do not want us using their money this way. I am very proud to 
be able to say that I believe that the people I represent, the people 
in my congressional district, on the whole want me to vote to use this 
relatively small amount of money to stop children from starving to 
death and to prevent disease from ravaging innocent people. I really 
believe that. If they do not, they can find another representative.
  I do not believe that the people I represent do not want me to do 
that. The gentleman from Alabama said before, well, he set up this 
children's survival fund. The problem there is that money is not 
leaking but rushing out of these countries, on the one hand.
  It does not do much to put money in on one end if it just goes out in 
the other. We need both. They are not alternatives.
  The gentleman said the problem is the allocation. But the gentleman 
voted for the budget that set up the allocation. The allocation is an 
artificial fact which everybody knows is not going to hold up anyway.
  The fact is this: Virtually every organization in the world, 
religious and nonreligious, Catholic, Protestant, secular, has come 
together to lobby the American government for this. This is not some 
construct of the Clinton administration or the Blair administration or 
the Jospin administration, this is a response by governments to the 
overwhelming demand of nongovernmental organizations, religious and 
nonreligious, based on their experience.
  They say, look, the very least you can do is to go to the poorest 
countries in the world and do not make them continue to pay out the 
money. There is no blank check here. There is a requirement that the 
countries follow some basic responsible positions.
  They will not do it perfectly. If the rule was that money does not go 
to anybody who did not spend it perfectly, we would have no CIA, we 
would have no HUD, we would have no Pentagon.
  But here is the issue. Overwhelmingly, not just the Pope but the 
people the Pope supervises and all the Protestant churches and all of 
the non-governmental organizations and environmental organizations and 
poverty organizations that deal with international human concerns came 
to the governments and said, do this, and our government has been 
willing to do this.
  There is an obstruction. The obstruction is the budget that has been 
brought forward which does not fund it in anything like the adequate 
amounts. The GAO report in fact, read correctly and fairly and in 
context, says do this, but this in and of itself is not enough.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ose).
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment, and I have 
had more than ample opportunity to sit in committee meetings and share 
time with my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, who is 
extremely far-reaching in his thoughts and what have you.
  However, I must rise to respectfully disagree with some of his 
conclusions.
  I just want to share some of the deliberations that took place in the 
subcommittee as it relates to debt relief for the highly-indebted poor 
countries.
  Just for the edification of the Members who are in this body who were 
not in attendance at that committee meeting, what we are considering 
here is a proposal in effect to forgive debt that has been accumulated 
by a number of heavily-indebted poor countries over the past years, the 
purpose of which would be to allow them to thereafter raise their 
standard of living, either by investing in infrastructure or in 
hospitals or schools or medical assistance, and care for their people, 
the people who live in those countries.
  Keep in mind, this debate in the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services took place this year, this being 2000. I just want to remind 
everyone that in the seventies and eighties when these loans were 
originally extended to these now highly-indebted poor countries, the 
loans and the grants and what have you were extended on the basis of 
providing these countries with the resources to raise their standard of 
living, to build roads and infrastructure and hospitals and schools.
  So we find ourselves in the unique position today of in effect having 
in the seventies and eighties provided loans to raise the standard of 
living of these countries by virtue of investing in their 
infrastructure. Now we are going to forgive these loans so that these 
countries can raise the standard of living by virtue of investment in 
their infrastructure.
  Let me just examine a little bit how we discussed this system would 
work within the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
  As Members know, or as many know, we have various organizations 
around the world that are involved in investment in highly-indebted 
poor countries. We have the International Bank of Reconstruction and 
Development, we have the World Bank, we have the IMF, we have various 
other things. Each of these institutions on their ledger sheets carry 
gold as an asset.
  The manner in which we talked in the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services about financing these loans to the highly-indebted 
poor countries, I just want Members to follow this, was we were going 
to take the gold that is on these balance sheets and unilaterally 
revalue it, and then we were going to take the difference between the 
book value of the gold on these balance sheets and the revalued value 
and basically collect interest on that difference and use it to relieve 
this debt.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of a more hobgoblin system by which we 
would conduct our financial affairs than to take what in effect is a 
rose that we hold at a value of $5 and say it is now worth $350 and 
take the difference of the $345 and use it to finance this debt 
forgiveness. I mean if I did that in private business, I can tell my 
colleagues I would be on Bill Gates' level. I would welcome that 
opportunity. However, I cannot get away with that.

[[Page H5914]]

  I do not see why it is that the Federal Government, that this Federal 
Government would enter into that kind of a financial exercise, the 
purpose of which would be to forgive loans for the purpose of raising a 
standard of living.
  Mr. Chairman, keep in mind, that the original purpose of the loans 
was to assist these highly indebted poor countries with raising their 
standard of living, so having given the loan, having time passed, now 
we are going to forgive the loan for the purpose of allowing these 
highly indebted poor countries to raise their standard of living.
  The debate in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services 
revolved around what constitutes a highly indebted poor country, and I 
would just like to share with the other members of this committee that 
the standard that was used was, if I recall correctly, the accumulated 
debt of the country as a percentage of its gross domestic product. It 
had no connection whatsoever to the amount of trade or commerce that a 
highly indebted poor country who would be extended this debt relief 
might engage in with the United States.
  There was no connection between commerce with the United States and 
the relief of debt to these highly indebted poor countries. We 
discussed at length amongst some of us whether or not we should change 
that standard by which we extended debt relief to account for the needs 
of our friends like Mexico or some of the trading partners with whom we 
have substantial economic commerce and with whom we have very, very 
specific United States interest with which to protect.
  I would submit to my colleagues, in wrapping up, that extending or 
providing debt relief on loans that were originally granted for the 
purpose of raising standards of living, but now to provide debt relief 
for the purpose of allowing those debtors to raise their standard of 
living is at best circuitous and at worst challenges even the most 
brilliant of our scientists in terms of the logic they are in.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out 
that the gold revaluation in which we got a lesson from the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Ose) is completely and entirely irrelevant to this 
bill. We did authorize gold revaluation last year with regard to the 
IMF debt.
  This is a bill which appropriates money for the development banks, so 
the gold revaluation issue, whether we like it or not, is not involved 
in this bill. This is a bill that appropriates dollars to deal with the 
development banks, not with the IMF which had the gold revaluation, but 
it is still more relevant than the reading of the GAO report of the 
chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, let me say that last year, the House, the 
Senate and the administration engaged in what I would call and has been 
termed a historic act of grace, and it was designed to relieve the debt 
of the poorest nations of the world.
  My interests came about actually on an airplane flight from the 
middle of America, from Iowa, back home to Westerville, and I read the 
New York Times and there was a picture of a B2 bomber, and the question 
was ``what's the limits of America's power?''
  When I read this article, I was really struck by the notion that 
while the United States has incredible military power, unprecedented 
military power and obviously now unprecedented economic power, many 
nations in the world were beginning to fear us, resent us. And as I 
thought about it, I thought if we have all of this power, and we do, it 
does not make any sense to not share some of the bounty that we have 
with those that have little.
  I must tell my colleagues, I am not particularly interested in all 
the calculations that have been presented tonight, because I have been 
in Angola, and I have seen people hauled with half bodies through 
little villages as a result of a civil war. This is not designed to 
provide aid to people who are in the middle of a civil war, but it is 
designed to provide some help and some hope to people who have 
absolutely nothing.
  The fact is that this resentment towards the United States has been 
growing. Last year, we had a historic act of grace that frankly was 
bipartisan in nature, and that, to some degree, disturbs me about the 
debate tonight.
  The chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan), was, in fact, at the end of the day instrumental in being 
able to provide up to $200 million in debt forgiveness and to permit 
the IMF to use some gold reserves in an additional effort to relieve 
the debt payments of the poorest of the poor. Is all of this going to 
be right? No.
  I will tell my colleagues this, this Congress just this year 
appropriated $100 million for local firefighters and EMS squads, and 
the last time I checked my Republican philosophy, that did not fall 
into the category.
  When we look at the amount of money that we waste on both sides of 
the aisle for projects, the simple fact of the matter is, the United 
States must do something to help alleviate poverty in this world. We 
cannot turn our back on people who have nothing.
  Is it all going to work out right with the accountants? The answer is 
probably not. Foreign aid never does, because we are giving it to 
people who sometimes are the wrong people. But there is an effort in 
this bill and in this procedure to make sure that the money that we 
give to the poorest of the poor is going to be accounted for.
  My feeling is that this bill is underfunded in this area. Some of us 
say lift the allocation. I am not interested in lifting the allocation. 
I am interested in priorities, and I think this ought to be a major 
priority. I think the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) should be 
complimented for what he did last year and let me say also that last 
year the people that engaged in the historic act of grace were people 
like the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert); the gentleman from 
Texas (Majority Leader Armey); my colleague, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank); over in the Senate, Senator Christopher 
Dodd, Senator Connie Mack, Senator Paul Coverdell, a long list of 
Republicans and Democrats, who believe that it is essential that we use 
debt forgiveness as a way to provide some hope to the poorest of the 
poor.
  A little bit of the concern that I have tonight, because I am going 
to be very involved again this year. I am going to be very involved in 
trying to make sure we do more to help the poorest of the poor, and I 
believe we will have support, strong support, at the end of the day 
from the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). Discussions were 
entered into yesterday with the administration.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) is 
very interested. And I tell my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
that we are going to need to fix the IMF. There may be some 
institutional changes that affects a body that all too many times has 
imposed the wrong economic principles on poor nations. And there is 
going to be a push for this kind of reform in the IMF.
  The fact is that I think at the end of the day we will have a 
package, and it will be a package that will call for increased 
accountability for the money that goes to the poorest of the poor. 
There will be increased reform on the International Monetary Fund that 
has imposed many times the wrong economic prescriptions on poor 
nations, but I would suggest in this body that we not make this issue a 
partisan issue.
  I can also say to the groups that have been so involved in this, we 
have to work with the Members. It is a foreign aid bill. It is not 
always the most popular bill at home. But at the end of the day, I 
believe that we can on a bipartisan, congressional and administration 
agreement reach out again to provide another historic act of grace that 
will give hope to people who today all too often have no help.
  Let us try to work together and let us try to recognize that this 
solution must be bipartisan, will be bipartisan, and let us keep, as 
one effective politician in this country has said, let us keep hope 
alive.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Meek), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)

[[Page H5915]]

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). I come here tonight to 
strongly support the Pelosi amendment. It is troubling to see that we 
are using the General Accounting Office report as a litmus test for 
what we should do here in this Congress. To me, we have run out of 
procedural things to do and things that have common sense.
  There are so many ironies that I have heard here tonight. We have 
given aid to people in civil wars. We have propped up dictators around 
the world. So tonight to come before this body and say because of 
someone buying an airplane that means that we are going to withhold the 
kind of relief which they need, it is disingenuous to do that. We know 
that is true. We have a moral obligation to work and help the continent 
of Africa.
  Debt relief is desperately needed by the world's poorest countries. 
We talk a good game here in terms of poverty. But are we going to do 
something about the countries who need it most? These countries have 
had to make drastic cuts in essential human services, such as health 
and education. Do we want the AIDS epidemic, which is now becoming a 
pandemic to reach this country? It will.
  Those of us who know history know about the black death. We are not 
immune to any of these health problems. If my colleagues do not think 
we are, read the history of the World Health Organization. We are 
dealing with a very serious virus here. We must do something to relieve 
this.
  Debt relief is nothing new to this country, many of it was 
accumulated during the Cold War. As long as there was Communism, I did 
not hear too much fight against it. We gave debt relief.
  We know that these countries are supported now because we are giving 
it to them in a very small way, very little money. So these corrupt 
dictators, which we propped up over all the years, they are not there 
any more, these countries are trying to straighten up and live within 
our guidelines.
  The debt of the Congo was accumulated during the oppressive rule of 
Mobutu. Nicaragua's debt was accumulated during the dictatorship of the 
Somoza family and the subsequent civil war. It is unjust and immoral to 
expect the impoverished people of these countries to pay back these 
debts.
  Mr. Chairman, all of us have heard of Jubilee 2000, those of my 
colleagues who profess Christianity and other kinds of religions, this 
is the year for us to come together and do some work for the poorest of 
the poor.
  It is the right thing to do. The supporters of Jubilee 2000 now 
include a broad expanse of Catholic, Protestant and Jewish religions. 
It is time for us to come together.
  I rise to support the Pelosi amendment to increase funding for debt 
relief for the world's most impoverished countries.
  As many of my colleagues know, debt relief is desperately needed by 
the world's poorest countries. In Zambia, Niger, Nicaragua, Honduras 
and Uganda, government spending on debt service payments is greater 
than government spending on health and education combined. Tanzania 
spends four times as much money on debt payments as it does on health 
and education combined. The governments of these countries have been 
forced to make drastic cuts in essential human services such as health 
and education in order to make payments on their debts. These debt 
payments constitute a transfer of wealth from the world's poorest 
countries to the world's most wealthy countries.
  Debt relief for the world's poorest countries is supported by a 
worldwide movement known as Jubilee 2000. This movement was begun by 
Christians who believe that the year 2000, the two thousandth 
anniversary of the coming of Christ, is a Jubilee Year. According to 
the Bible, the Lord instructed the people of Ancient Israel to 
celebrate a Jubilee--or a Year of the Lord--every 50 years. During a 
Jubilee Year, slaves were set free, and land was a redistributed.
  Activists know that forgiving the debts of the world's most 
impoverished countries in the Year 2000 is the right thing to do. 
Supporters of Jubilee 2000 now include a diverse group of Catholic, 
Protestant and Jewish religious groups, development specialists, labor 
unions, environmental groups and other non-governmental organizations.
  Many of the debts owed by poor countries were accumulated during the 
Cold War, and many are the result of loans to corrupt dictators who are 
no longer in power. The debt of the Congo was accumulated during the 
oppressive rule of Mobutu. Nicaragua's debt was accumulated during the 
dictatorship of the Somoza family and the subsequent civil war. It is 
unjust and immoral to expect the impoverished people of these countries 
to pay back these debts. Supporters of Jubilee 2000 also know that debt 
relief is a moral imperative.
  The Administration requested a mere $225 million for debt relief for 
the world's poorest countries in fiscal year 2001. Unfortunately, the 
Foreign Operations Appropriations bill includes only $69.4 million in 
debt relief funds for these countries. The Pelosi amendment would 
increase debt relief appropriations to fully fund this modest request. 
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Leach).
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my distinguished friend, the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for yielding me the time, and let 
me also identify with his dilemma.
  I think on behalf of the Congress, we all ought to recognize the 
difficulty the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) has with 
dealing with a slight budget and enormous obligations. This is a 
difficult job. This budget as it is presented to the Congress 
recognizes a need for debt relief. It also recognizes that we are going 
to have to respond more forthcomingly with the AIDS challenge.
  On the other hand, I think most of us recognize that these principles 
of concern are inadequately attended to because of the budgetary 
constraints we have, and I personally believe this Congress before we 
adjourn is going to have to do much, much more.
  Debt relief is rooted, as the prior speaker, the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Meek) mentioned in the religious concept, the word 
jubilee, which derives from Leviticus, which implies a re-ordering of 
relationships, and one of the great questions in this jubilee 50-year 
reassessment, is whether it is worthy of being reassessed in this debt 
relief context?
  If my colleagues look at the poorest of the poor countries in the 
world, many today have more obligations in terms of debt service than 
they can apply to education or health care.

                              {time}  2000

  In this circumstance, I think that the religious precept of Jubilee 
does compelling come into play, and it is no accident that religious 
leaders from the Pope to Billy Graham to Pat Robertson have endorsed 
debt relief in this Congress.
  As far as health care is concerned, this world is confronted with the 
greatest health crisis in human history. Within a year or 2, more 
deaths will have occurred because of the AIDS virus than because of the 
bubonic plague of the 1300s. We have an obligation to respond and 
respond compassionately.
  In terms of both debt relief and the AIDS crisis, committees of the 
Congress have responded in certain ways. We have authorizing 
legislation that has passed. Now it is the obligation of Congress to 
move forthcomingly to appropriate funds and, frankly, to give 
consideration to appropriating beyond the levels that have already been 
authorized.
  But I would say at this point in time that, what this debate is all 
about, is making it clear to all sides that there is not just 
bipartisan, but American concern for the plight of people in the less 
developed world and an understanding that that plight cannot be 
isolated; it can come here to roost very quickly.
  This happens to be the most compassionate set of initiatives in the 
history of the United States' Congress for the developing world. Debt 
relief and support for AIDS eradication and prevention is something we 
in this Congress simply have to address as the appropriations process 
continues.
  Here, it must be stressed, Mr. Chairman, that debt relief and AIDS 
prevention are intertwined. Intertwined because there is belated but 
growing recognition that a stronger commitment is needed to combat the 
HIV/AIDS pandemic, but that many poor countries--particularly in hard-
hit Sub-Saharan Africa--owe several times more in debt payments than 
what their governments are spending on basic health and education.
  I recognize the extraordinary budgetary constraints that Chairman 
Callahan confronted in trying to fashion an adequate response to both 
issues and remain hopeful that substantial additional funding for debt 
relief and for the

[[Page H5916]]

House-approved World Bank AIDS Trust Fund can be secured as the 
appropriations process moves forward.
  Last year debt relief received strong, bipartisan support in 
Congress, and important strides were made toward achieving debt relief 
for the world's poorest countries. As Members recall, last November 
Congress appropriated $123 million to begin canceling the debts that 
reforming poor countries owe the United States, and agreed that the 
International Monetary Fund (IMF) can use $2.3 billion of its own 
resources to finance its contribution to debt relief. In this regard, 
the Banking Committee fully authorized U.S. participation in 
international debt relief efforts during the first session of the 106th 
Congress (H.R. 1095, Rept. 106-483). The core of that debt relief bill 
was included in last year's consolidated appropriations package.
  The Committee's authorizing language specified a number of conditions 
that countries must meet in order to receive debt relief. Countries 
must perform satisfactorily under an economic reform program, promote 
civil society participation, implement anti-corruption measures and 
transparent policymaking, adopt strategies for poverty reduction, and 
strengthen private sector growth, trade, and investment. Consistent 
with current law, the program excludes from eligibility countries that 
systematically violate human rights, support terrorism, or have 
excessive military spending.
  However, Congress still needs to approve U.S. contributions to help 
defray the costs of regional development banks, such as the Inter-
American Development Bank, to allow them to do their part in the 
international debt relief effort. Crucially, every dollar of the U.S. 
contribution will leverage $20 in multilateral debt relief. In 
addition, Congress also needs to authorize the IMF to fully mobilize 
the interest earnings on the off-market gold sales that occurred last 
year, solely to finance debt relief.
  It is self-evident that debt relief alone cannot solve the problems 
of hunger and poverty. But when debt relief is coupled with credible 
economic and social reforms, it can help be a catalyst for economic 
growth. Sound debt relief programs can help free up resources for 
poverty reduction, basic human needs, HIV/AIDS prevention and 
treatment, child survival and environmental protection. By helping to 
put countries on the path toward sustainable development, debt relief 
can also benefit the U.S. economy through expanded trade and investment 
ties.
  More broadly, securing full funding for debt relief remains a key 
legislative priority for a broad spectrum religious leader--from the 
Pope to Pat Robertson and the Reverend Billy Graham--who have endorsed 
the call for debt relief.
  On the AIDS front, the release of the latest UNAIDS report just last 
month underscores the horrific impact HIV/AIDS is having around the 
globe, particularly in hard-hit sub-Saharan Africa. The stunning 
statistics on the rapid advance of this disease, despite what 
medically-advanced countries know to be effective preventive measures, 
represents a profound indictment of the international community and the 
leaders of nations most severely impacted. Experts predict that HIV/
AIDS will soon become the worst epidemic of infectious disease in 
recorded history, eclipsing both the bubonic plague of the 1300's which 
killed an estimated 20 million and the influenza epidemic of 1918-19 
which killed 18 million.

  Already, according to the latest UNAIDS data, the death toll from 
HIV/AIDS stands at 18.8 million, including a heartbreaking 3.8 million 
children under the age of 15. Around the world, another 34.3 million 
are living with this disease. Of that total, 24.5 million live in sub-
Saharan Africa, a disproportionate 70 percent of the world's victims in 
a region with just 10 percent of the world's population. Infection 
rates in some countries are nothing short of shocking: a 35.8 percent 
infection rate among adults in Botswana and a rate in South Africa of 
19.9%. And the disease has left in its wake 13.2 million orphans, the 
vast majority of them in Africa.
  What is also alarming is that even international health experts have 
been wrong about the pace at which this disease would spread. In 1991, 
the WHO estimated that 9 million would be infected and 5 million dead 
from AIDS in Africa by 1999. Eight years later, we find that the 
casualty rates are nearly triple that estimate.
  In parts of Africa where the epicenter currently resides, as well as 
South Asia and the Caribbean where the disease is fast moving, AIDS and 
the precipitating HIV virus have jumped well beyond the population 
groups considered most at risk in America. Millions of women now have 
the HIV virus and it is being transferred in the womb to the unborn. 
Indeed, by virtually any measure, the global HIV/AIDS epidemic may be 
fairly described as a plague of Biblical proportions.
  Experts also warn that the HIV/AIDS epidemic is no longer singularly 
a health issue; it has become a major issue for economic development. 
Assessments by World Bank officials call HIV/AIDS ``the foremost and 
fastest-growing threat to development'' in Africa.
  Yet, as bleak as the global picture is, we know that there are 
effective HIV/AIDS prevention and education strategies. They are being 
successfully implemented in many Western developed countries as well as 
in such countries as Uganda and Senegal in Africa, and in Thailand in 
Asia. Those prevention and education strategies must be replicated many 
times over in a vastly greater number of countries.
  Clearly the United States has a strong national interest in combating 
the HIV/AIDS crisis abroad as well as at home. Infectious diseases, 
like HIV/AIDS, know no borders. The number of Americans travelling 
overseas--often to countries with high risks of infectious diseases--
has doubled in the last ten years, with more than 57 million travelling 
abroad in 1998. Millions of Americans and their families also struggle 
with HIV/AIDS and there are few among us who have not directly or 
indirectly experienced the loss of friends or family to this disease.
  While it remains the paramount responsibility of national and 
community leads in each country to exercise strong leadership and 
commitment in dealing with the HIV/AIDS crisis, the United States, 
other governments, and non-governmental organizations--including 
private business, religious and humanitarian organizations--must be 
partners in providing critical resources and medical knowledge.
  At present, international donors--including the United States--
provide an estimated $350 million a year to address the HIV/AIDS 
problem in Africa. Yet, experts tell us that over eight times that 
amount--or roughly $3 billion--is actually needed to do the job. This 
extraordinary need for resources--and the reality of the budget 
constraints which limit our bilateral assistance efforts--underscore 
the urgent need for a change in U.S. strategy to emphasize a much 
stronger multilateral, ``burden-sharing'' approach to this crisis. It 
is my hope that as the appropriations process unfolds, additional 
resources for HIV/AIDS can be found to fund the innovation approach 
outlined in the World Bank AIDS Marshall Plan Trust Fund, as passed by 
the House, This proposal offers the U.S. the opportunity to catalyze a 
much stronger global response to the AIDS epidemic. Implicit in 
approaches involving Bretton Woods institutions is the possibility of 
attracting additional contributions from other donors including, as 
uniquely authorized in H.R. 3519, the private sector. For a modest $100 
million contribution from the U.S., it is my hope that we can leverage 
enough contributions from other donors--governmental and private--to 
reach a total of $1 billion a year for the trust fund.
  In conclusion, let me stress that America has a particular obligation 
to do everything within its power to prevent and, ultimately, eradicate 
HIV/ADIS, particularly among its most vulnerable victims--children. 
Mortality may be a part of the human condition, but all of us have an 
obligation to put an end to conditions that precipitate premature 
death, particularly at young ages. Clearly, no nation is better 
positioned than the United States, with its wealth and research 
capacity, to lead the world in this cause. For the U.S. to fail to lead 
at this critical juncture in history would be moral dereliction. Out of 
a sense of self-preservation for mankind itself, if not simply 
humanitarian concern for those currently affected, this disease must be 
eradicated, whatever the cost. Before the 106th Congress adjourns, it 
is my hope that we will have the resolve and courage to meet this 
challenge.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the distinguished gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Leach), chairman of the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services. I commend him for his service on this issue and 
many others of concern to people of our country and throughout the 
world. I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget, for his favorably disposed presentation toward 
the thrust of my amendment.
  I want to just state that this must be a bipartisan effort in the 
House of Representatives, and that is what we will all be working 
toward. Hopefully, at the end of the day, our position will prevail in 
a bipartisan way that we will fully fund the President's request for 
fiscal year 2000 and 2001 to meet our obligations to the G-7 and to the 
poorest people in the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Olver), who is a member of the Committee on Appropriations, and 
has long been active in these issues of justice throughout the world.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been, at times, an ugly debate; but then we

[[Page H5917]]

should not expect anything else. This is an ugly bill.
  There are multiple reasons to oppose this legislation, and I do 
oppose it. But the utter callousness of the cuts in what is really a 
very modest debt relief funding that has been asked by the 
administration, by the President of the United States, is reason enough 
to oppose the legislation.
  The President asked for $472 million for debt relief program for this 
year, and that was cut by 82 percent to a total of $82 million. That is 
even more than a one-third cut from what was made available last year 
in the area of debt relief.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, it may be folly to try to find what is common 
ground in a situation like this, but I do think that we can probably 
all agree that there are some, maybe many developing nations that have 
experienced declining economic conditions while accumulating higher 
levels of debt which are largely owed to the international lending 
institutions, the multilateral public lending agencies, the IMF, the 
World Bank, also to foreign governments, and the U.S. Government. I 
think we all would agree that that has happened.
  Since 1989, the G-7 countries, at that time Canada, Japan, the U.S., 
Italy, Britain, Germany, and France, that seven, in recognizing that 
this mounting debt burden for some borrowers had undermined economic 
growth and even their capacity to finance absolutely basic social and 
even health programs started setting policies and extending a series of 
debt relief arrangements.
  The most recent of those arrangements is the HPIC arrangement this 
last year. Now, the 41 nations in the HPIC arrangement, which are the 
nations of the heavily indebted poor countries, those 41 nations 
include four from Latin America, four from Asia, and 33 from Africa. 
Ninety percent of American debt among those 41 nations is in that group 
of 33 from Africa.
  It is interesting that, of all that debt, which the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), one of the previous speakers, had pointed out, 
that the total debt in those nations had increased to $169 billion. 
Only $6 billion of that is debt to the United States, debt to this 
government.
  We are a Nation which has 25 percent of the wealth of this world, of 
this whole planet, and 25 percent of the whole economic base of this 
whole planet; and something like under 4 percent of the debt to these 
poorest of the poor nations is owed to the United States.
  These nations in Africa are the nations in sub-Saharan Africa who are 
suffering the worst of the AIDS epidemic, the worst of HIV/AIDS. There 
are nations there where one-third of all the adults are suffering from 
HIV/AIDS. There are nations there where as many as half of all the 15-
year-old kids can expect to die of AIDS.
  There are nations where, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) 
earlier pointed out, more money is expended on the debt relief, their 
payment of debt in some of those nations than they pay for all of 
health and all of education, all of their social programs. I have 
heard, though I cannot confirm this by any particular report, that in 
cases, it is as much as four times as much as going to attempt to pay 
for that debt that has been built up.
  Yet, in this instance, the 82 percent cut in the program that the 
President asked for, cuts from the President's request, the reduction 
in the President's request from $472 million to $82 million, 
deliberately attacks the very program, the HPIC program which had been 
worked out by the G-8 nations as a way of dealing with the debts in 
these very poorest of countries.
  Now, I just want to remind my colleagues that, and this has been 
alluded to by others as well, in the calendar years 1990 through 1992, 
there were a series of initiatives of debt reduction totalling more 
than $10 billion; actually it is slightly more than $12 billion. They 
included a debt forgiveness for Poland of $2.5 billion. They included a 
debt forgiveness for military aid loans to Egypt of $7 billion, a debt 
forgiveness of some $700 million that went to African and Latin 
American nations, and debt forgiveness that went to a series of African 
and Latin American nations and Bangladesh and Asia totalling more than 
$2 billion, all of them authorized and approved by this Congress under 
President George Bush, the former President George Bush; all of them 
approved at that time totalling $12 billion.
  Here we are, we are now taking the callous position that we should 
cut the effort by the G-8 nations in the HPIC countries, the poorest of 
the poor, cut the President's proposal from $472 million to $82 
million. It is virtually unconscionable, and it is for that reason that 
I support the gentlewoman's amendment that is before us today.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I join with my colleagues in 
support of the Pelosi amendment, and I do so because I have been told 
that to those to whom much is given, much is desired and expected in 
return. In reality, we are given much in this country; and we are 
simply being asked to share some of what we have with some of the most 
needy people in all of the world.
  When we talk about the paltry sum that we are talking about providing 
now for debt relief for Africa and the Latin American countries, it 
reminds me of a system of share cropping, where individuals get just 
enough, where no matter how hard they work, no matter what it is that 
they do, they can never get out of debt, and they just keep working. 
When they do that, they lose hope. They lose the feeling that tomorrow 
is going to be brighter than yesterday.
  So I would hope that we would recognize that the greatest gift that 
we can give to ourselves is the gift of hope to those who are hopeless 
and those who are helpless. I would urge passage of the Pelosi 
amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not think I have any more speakers. 
I reserve the balance of my time and right to close.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has 37\1/
2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has 
32\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time, and I stand in strong support of her amendment and say the 
issue that we are talking about is very, very important. In fact, this 
bill is very important. But somehow it is very difficult for us to 
understand that foreign affairs and foreign relations, the monies we 
spend in aid really enable us as a country to be far more secure.
  The issue we are talking about tonight, about debt relief, is a tool 
we have used to further our relationship with a number of countries 
historically. We do this as a way of enabling the country to be 
responsive. We do that as a way of enabling us to have better 
relationships. We did that with the Soviet Union. We have done that 
with other countries. We do that historically.
  But here we are with a unique opportunity in a unique time, the year 
of the Jubilee 2000, all of the religious groups, and I would say to 
the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), chairman of 
the subcommittee, not only did the poor support this, but the 
Protestant religions support this, the nonprofit groups support this 
because it is the right thing to do. It is right to, indeed, share what 
one has with others.
  But the year of Jubilee is a time, 50-year time that says that we 
reexamine the debt we have as a part of our sharing our wealth with the 
world. I think that, as we consider this, we have to consider when we 
relieve the debt, we are enabling those countries to be responsible in 
self-development of their country, by investing in their education, 
investing in their health; or otherwise we are taking the monies that 
we know they cannot afford to pay, indeed, paying a debt oftentimes 
that has gone in by another regime that was completely irresponsible.
  So I strongly support this amendment. It is the right thing to do. 
Our country owes it to ourselves to make sure we share our wealth, and 
it is in our security to do it.

[[Page H5918]]

                              {time}  2015

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ 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. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member, for yielding me this time.
  As I listened to the debate this afternoon and evening I do say to 
the chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), that we have 
had an opportunity to work together, and I am reminded of the support 
he gave me in increasing the African Development Fund when I first came 
to Congress some one million dollars. So I know that he is a fair 
person and wants to do the right thing. But I think in his debating and 
discussion this evening that he is misdirected in his angst or his 
disappointment.
  This is not the time to utilize the expending of a nation's funds, as 
he spoke of Uganda and President and Mrs. Museveni, who are people that 
I know and have worked with. Uganda is one of the shining stars in the 
fight against HIV/AIDS, and expends a large amount of its budget, which 
can be documented, to fight, treat and prevent AIDS in Uganda. I know 
the ambassador, Ambassador Ssempala, who is a strong leader on these 
issues. And I believe that was the wrong example for it begins to say 
that we dictate to countries what their needs are.
  I support the gentlewoman's amendment of adding some $390 million to 
the paltry $82 million, which is really more than a shame. It does not 
in any way suggest that America is who America should be, and that is a 
world leader and an investor in helping people lift themselves up. I am 
reminded of the phrase ``Do not give them a fish but teach them to 
fish.'' That is what debt relief is all about. It is to ensure that 
countries who faithfully secure funds from their own population are 
able to use those dollars not for long-standing debt relief but for 
food and housing and for health care. That is what this investment 
means.
  How can the chairman, in good conscience, when the administration 
asks for $472 million, put in the budget $82 million? That is punitive, 
that is a shame, and that is not befitting of this body.
  I would simply say when people are dying in droves in Africa of HIV/
AIDS, this is not a time to make an accusation about an airplane. This 
is a time to stand up and support this amendment and to relieve them of 
the burden that is unfair so that they can invest in world peace and 
world calm and we can live together as brothers and sisters.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in support of her very important 
amendment.
  Before we discuss the particulars of the amendment, I think we need 
to look at what the base bill does. The base bill makes deep cuts in 
funds available for loans to the world's neediest countries. That has 
been said rather repeatedly here.
  The 32 percent cut in funding for the International Development 
Association would severely impact the financing of investments in 
health, clean water supplies, education and other infrastructure needed 
to reduce poverty. Additional cuts are made in funding for the African 
Development Bank, the African Development Fund, the Asian Development 
Fund, and the Inter-American Investment Corporation.
  The reality is that what we are doing here is crushing nations that 
have been pretty much crushed to the ground. By allowing the debt to 
continue to run and interest to rise on it, we ultimately affect all 
such particulars that we would not want to as a fair-minded nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic and 
International Monetary Policy of the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, what are we talking about tonight? I want to quote from 
Charles Dickens. ``It was the best of times, it was the worst of times; 
it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness; it was the 
spring of hope, it was the winter of despair. We had everything before 
us, we had nothing before us.''
  In 1859, it was the Tale of Two Cities, today, sadly, it is the tale 
of two worlds, one very rich, one very poor. That is what we are 
talking about. We are talking about two worlds, and we are talking 
about what our world will do to help the other world.
  What is the cost of our world helping the other world? Doing what is 
right, whatever the material cost, should always be the imperative. 
Nevertheless, let us attempt to count the cost, the cost of acting and 
the cost of not acting. When we do, I cannot in good faith fail to 
embrace this unique opportunity to help so many at such a small cost to 
ourselves.
  What is the cost of debt relief? At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would 
like to introduce into the record what that cost would be for each 
citizen this year, and it is $1.20. I would like to submit that for the 
record: $1.20.

  It is a nominal amount, it is a minimal amount, but it is not an 
insignificant amount or an inconsequential amount when we realize what 
it can do for that other world. It is the cost of an ice cream cone. It 
is the cost of a gallon of gas. In fact, a half gallon of gas. It is 
the cost of a Sunday paper.
  Against this minuscule sacrifice for our world, what is the cost of 
not acting? Today, in dozens of poor countries all over the world, 
little boys and girls are born into poverty, disease and hunger. We in 
America are fond of saying, ``I had a bad day.'' We should realize that 
even on our worst days we are blessed with so much more; more food, 
more shelter, more clothes, more security, more than our poor brothers 
and sisters are on their best days.
  We truly cannot comprehend what their day is like. However, I am 
going to attempt to do so with one quote from Sister Rebecca Trujillo 
of the Sisters of Notre Dame in Nicaragua. Here is what she writes 
about the plight of the poor.
  ``Often in my life,'' she says, ``when I talk about the needs of the 
poor with whom I work, people say, how do they survive? How do they 
survive? Since being in Nicaragua, I have taken to answer in a matter 
of fact way, `Often they do not.' '' That is what we are here tonight 
to decide, whether they survive or whether they do not.
  Let me illustrate, in closing, the cost of not acting as it applies 
to 15 baby girls and baby boys born today into the poorest of 
countries. Of those 15, without debt relief, three will die before his 
or her fifth birthday. Of the remaining 12, four will suffer the 
scourge of malnutrition, with permanent consequences to their physical 
and mental development. Of the remaining eight, they are in no way 
fortunate. Their chances of graduating from high school, of drinking 
clean water, of suffering disease and deprivation, of being orphaned 
are great, sometimes as much as 50-50. Their burdens are day-to-day, 
they are painful, they are heavy.
  We in America have been blessed with a period of almost unparalleled 
economic prosperity. Never in our history has one country had so much 
progress, wealth and luxury. Now, with the start of a new millennium, 
we can do so much for a billion of the poorest citizens of the world. I 
believe they are our brothers and sisters. At such a small cost to each 
of us, what a shame if history should look back on us today and say 
that we passed up so great an opportunity.
  The responsibility is ours and ours alone. Our moral imperative is 
not qualified by the rest of the world failing to do what is right. We 
cannot use other countries' inaction as an excuse for our inaction. The 
decision is ours.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would say the decision is three 
things: First, it is a decision that will follow us. For the people 
living in these poor countries, their suffering is temporal. It will 
end with their lives. For us, the decision will follow us. We will not 
only live with this in this life, but we will live with it in the next.
  Second, the decision will define us. It will define us as either a 
loving people,

[[Page H5919]]

a people filled with grace and compassion, or it will define us as a 
people focused on the monetary, the temporal.
  And third, and I think this is most important, this is not a decision 
that the poor countries of the world will make, it is our decision. We 
have the responsibility, we have the obligation, and we have the 
direction as to what is the right thing to do. For this decision, 
whether we are a follower of the Islam religion, whether we are a 
Muslim, whether we are Christian, or whether we are Jewish, all those 
religions give us a moral imperative in such a case, and that 
imperative is to act.
  To me, there is really only one decision.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
in thanksgiving for the beautiful testimony of our previous speaker, 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), and thank him for that 
statement and for his incredible leadership on this issue of 
international debt forgiveness.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Jackson), a member of the subcommittee and an active champion for 
debt relief.
  (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, a few months ago this Congress 
was filled with ambassadors who proclaimed that they wanted trade not 
aid. Why is that? Because, I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the economic 
elite of every country are really the primary beneficiaries of the 
global economy.
  But it is not trade that is ravaging the people of sub-Saharan Africa 
and South America, HIV and AIDS are. More than 60 percent of the export 
earning potential of these countries associated with trade is being 
used for debt service. It is not being used for health care or for 
education. My colleague from Massachusetts made that very clear.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear what we believe the problem to 
be, because we heard a number of our colleagues from the other side 
come to the floor and talk about responsible governments in sub-Saharan 
Africa. We spent billions here in America educating people in English 
and in Spanish about HIV and AIDS.
  There are 1,500 languages in sub-Saharan Africa, and they cannot 
possibly educate their people about the devastating disease and 
maintain these debt payments. We spend billions to educate 280 million 
people in America. There are 750 million sub-Saharan Africans, and they 
cannot educate themselves and make these payments.
  There are 5,000 sub-Saharan Africans who are dying a day in the 
villages, in the cities. The disease to many of them is not HIV or 
AIDS, it is surrounded by myth and superstition. Why? Because there are 
hundreds of religions in sub-Saharan Africa. And so every time, Mr. 
Chairman, that my colleagues argue that at some point in time in the 
near future we will address debt relief and we will condition that debt 
relief upon no future loans, we are actually making it more and more 
difficult for sub-Saharan Africans to educate their own people about 
the nature of the problem.
  That is why some of us have called for unconditional debt 
forgiveness. But even if the Congress of the United States, Mr. 
Chairman, does not support unconditional debt forgiveness, the 
conditions should be placed upon that debt forgiveness on the use of 
those resources for the education, the health care, and the housing of 
their people.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) 
may control the time at this point controlled by the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), and the gentleman yields 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  There was no objection.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I do not expect to use the 
entire amount of time. But I simply want to, first of all, associate 
myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), who 
gave a very moving and stirring speech a few moments ago and pointed 
out that what we are talking about is providing an appropriate amount 
of relief for a cost of only a little over a dollar per citizen in the 
United States, something which I believe almost all of us can afford 
quite readily. In fact, I would be willing to pay quite a bit more than 
that in order to cover the payment for those who cannot do so.
  I would just also comment, I am aware that this issue is likely to be 
ruled out of order and, therefore, not to be voted on today. I would 
also add that I am a cosponsor of the authorizing bill which will deal 
with this issue. I believe it is very important that we address it.
  There are many issues to be raised regarding this as to how to handle 
it appropriately, how to ensure that the relief that is given will be 
used in a meaningful way to aid the people for whom it is intended and 
a whole host of other issues. But the key point is simply that we are 
dealing with nations that are struggling for breath, that are dealing 
with huge amounts not just of poverty but of illness, that are almost 
immobilized by AIDS and other diseases; and it is incumbent upon us, as 
the wealthiest Nation in the world, to share some of our abundance with 
them.
  I would also note, Mr. Chairman, that of the developed nations which 
are sharing their abundance with the poorer nations, the United States 
still, to the best of my knowledge, contributes the least per capita of 
any of the developed nations. This is not a record of which I am proud, 
and I hope we can improve that.
  The key, however, is to make certain that the aid we provide does in 
fact alleviate the situation, does help those in need, and does improve 
the situation in those nations which need help.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished Democratic Whip 
of the House.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) for her leadership on this issue. I would like 
to also congratulate the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for 
her leadership on this issue.
  There are so many people who have been active on this and who have 
shown leadership. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), my 
colleague, for his comments and, as he pointed out, a beautiful 
statement by our friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. Chairman, I have seldom been prouder of the House of 
Representatives than I am tonight listening to this debate. It is an 
extraordinary outpouring of concern and love and care for people who 
need our love and our concern and certainly our care in a very critical 
time.
  St. Augustine once said that charity is no substitute for justice 
withheld. And I think today we face the question of justice. Clearly it 
is before us.
  It has been estimated that the nations of sub-Saharan Africa now owe 
foreign creditors an average of almost $400 for every man, woman, and 
child. That is more than most Africans earn in a year. And that is why 
these nations now spend more to repay debt than they do on primary 
education or on health care.
  In Tanzania, a nation where 40 percent of the population dies before 
the age of 35, the government today is forced to spend nine times more 
on debt repayment than it spends on health care. Debt relief is not 
about charity. It is about justice. And in this case, Mr. Chairman, it 
is about human survival. It is about helping to save millions of 
children from hunger and disease and helping prevent whole nations from 
falling even deeper into an abyss of poverty and neglect.
  It has been said that justice is so subtle a thing that to interpret 
it, one has only the need of a heart. It is up to us today to look into 
our heart, and it is up to us to remember that the true measure of 
America's strength is not only our wealth, it is our compassion. I urge 
support of the Pelosi and Waters effort to provide lasting debt relief 
to save human lives and to effect justice.
  I would daresay, Mr. Chairman, no matter what the outcome of this is 
today or this evening, that I sense from this Chamber that there is a 
majority of Members in this body who want to do something and do 
something substantial on this issue. And I hope we address this issue. 
I think we will address this issue before we adjourn for the year.

[[Page H5920]]

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the international AIDS conference 
is happening right now in South Africa with countries around the world 
coming together to address the issue of AIDS.
  I ask my colleagues, what is the position of the United States on 
this issue? We are ready to fight off the boogeyman with a $60 billion 
defense system. But the real boogeyman is AIDS, and we are standing by 
while it wipes out millions of people in Africa. And, folks, we are not 
excluded.
  AIDS in Africa is a direct threat to our country, especially in 
today's interconnected world. It is no coincidence that recent reports 
show that just as AIDS cases in Africa are on the rise, AIDS in the 
United States is on the increase again. In fact, experts are predicting 
that 40,000 new infections will occur this year.
  The boogeyman is here, folks; and we are going to be in serious 
trouble if we do not stop him. Debt relief is something that is 
desperately needed by the world's poorest countries. There are 
countries that have been forced to make major cuts in health and 
educational spending in order to pay their debt. I do not understand 
how we can debate $20 million for debt relief, and yet in the weeks to 
come my colleagues will come to this floor to support $60 billion on a 
cartoon defense plan.
  Even though our heads may be in the sand, the boogeyman is already 
here. It is wiping out communities in this country, too.
  Debt relief is something that is desperately needed by the world's 
poorest countries. These are countries that have been forced to make 
drastic cuts in health and education spending in order to make payments 
on their debts. I don't understand how we can debate $200 million for 
debt relief, and yet in the weeks to come my colleagues will be on this 
floor supporting $60 billion on a cartoon defense plan.
  Even though our heads seem to be in the sand, the boogeyman is 
already here. It's wiping out communities in this country too. The only 
way we can stop him is through stopping the AIDS virus, and one of the 
best ways to do that is through debt relief. I rise in opposition to 
this bill because it fails to address some of the most critical issues 
in the world--debt relief and the international AIDS crisis that is 
wiping out the continent of Africa.
  In Zambia, Niger, Nicaragua, Honduras and Uganda, government spending 
on debt service payments is greater than government spending on health 
and education combined! 4.2 million South Africans are currently 
infected with HIV. If these countries were granted debt relief, they 
would be better equipped to pay for health services for AIDS, which is 
ravaging the continent.
  Almost half of all 15 year olds in the African countries worst 
affected by AIDS will eventually die. AIDS has wiped out households, 
destroyed families emotionally and economically, severely damaged 
entire economies, and in some countries, has killed so many teachers 
that it is beginning to affect basic education. Life expectancy in 
southern Africa is expected to drop to 30.
  This disease has created 8 million ``AIDS orphans,'' who face 
increased risk of malnutrition and will have very little opportunity to 
get an education.
  Was debt relief really ever given serious consideration in this 
Congress? No. Even though it was stated on the floor during this same 
debate in 1998 that ``AIDS had the potential for undermining all 
development efforts to date,'' many here in Washington still believe 
that assisting Africa is not in the interests of the United States. We 
do not live in a vacuum. AIDS in Africa is a direct threat to our 
country, especially in today's interconnected world.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Pelosi amendment and treat the 
situation in Africa for what it is, a crisis.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the many Members on both sides of the 
aisle who are participating in this evening's debate. I am especially 
pleased that the last four or five speakers on the Republican side give 
us hope that we will be able to reach a bipartisan resolution to the 
question that is before us this evening.
  I was, of course, inspired by the statement of the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus), encouraged by the statement of the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), always taught by the statement of the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the chairman of the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services, and so pleased to have expressions of support from 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the chair of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  So I am hopeful that when we go down this path the funding will be 
sufficient and the policy will match the need that we have for debt 
relief.
  Mr. Chairman, our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic and 
International Monetary Policy of the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services, in his beautiful remarks of support of international debt 
relief commented that something like $1.20 for every American would 
cover what we are trying to do here tonight and spoke very poignantly 
about that being the cost of an ice cream or Sunday paper. I could not 
help but think of some other statistics.
  The World Bank estimates that sub-Saharan African countries owe 
foreign creditors an average of almost $400 for every man, woman and 
child, more than most Africans make in a year. More than $400 for every 
person is owed. This can be resolved by $1.20 for every American, a 
small price to pay to unleash an enormous amount of money relatively 
speaking to the economies of those countries that would solve the 
problem of $400. One dollar solves the problem of $400 for every person 
in sub-Saharan Africa.
  Some of my colleagues have referenced the statistics. The writer 
George Bernard Shaw once wrote that the true sign of an intelligent 
person was that he or she was swayed and persuaded by statistics. I do 
not know if that is true, but the statistics here are staggering and I 
think very compelling and bear repeating if they have already been 
stated.
  In Mozambique, one of every four children dies before the age of five 
due to infectious disease. Yet the government spends four times more on 
debt servicing than on health care.
  In Tanzania, where 40 percent of the population dies before the age 
of 35, the government spends nine times more on foreign debt payments 
than on health care, according to Oxfam. We have heard these 
statistics, and they go on and on.
  But I am really quite taken by the spirit of how this debate evolved 
this evening. And in that spirit, I wanted to quote from Bernard 
Cardinal Law, the Archbishop of Boston, and chairman of the 
International Policy Committee of the United States Catholic 
Conference.
  He says, ``I am particularly disturbed by the woefully inadequate 
allocation for poor country debt relief. Last year's legislation 
supporting the new, more generous debt relief program agreed that the 
Cologne summit gave promise of a Jubilee Year 2000 that would bring 
hope to millions of impoverished children, women, and men around the 
world.''

                              {time}  2045

  I hope that we will take the hope that Cardinal Bernard Law 
references here and make it tangible in terms of the appropriation that 
we need at the end of the day.
  I just want to say, though, in the larger context of assistance to 
other countries, what we do for other countries is largely what is in 
our national interest to do. It is a part of a vision of who we think 
we are as a country, and we think we are great, and we are great. And 
as other Members have indicated tonight, it would be a sign of our 
greatness for us to recognize the responsibilities that we have 
internationally.
  It is about the knowledge that we have and, as I have said before, 
the diversity that we have in this body empowers us but gives us also 
the responsibility to do something about the issues that are before us. 
Our members of the Congressional Black Caucus, of the Hispanic Caucus, 
of the Asian-Pacific American Caucus know the cultures, the economies, 
the opportunities and the needs and the urgency in the countries of 
their knowledge. We should build a plan on that knowledge, and we have. 
The President has agreed to it, he has to return next week to the G7 
meeting to answer for it. Unfortunately, we will not have the 
opportunity to give him the funding he needs to go there. But hopefully 
he can take a message that all signs are hopeful that Congress will 
meet the President's request of $472 million for international debt 
relief to meet the fiscal

[[Page H5921]]

year 2000 obligation and the fiscal year 2001, both of which I hope 
will be contained in this bill.
  It is not about doing anybody a favor. It is about the recognition 
that this is in our national interest. It is about the idea that 
infectious disease knows no boundary. I would hope that a spirit of 
compassion would be enough to compel us to do this, but it has a 
pragmatic aspect of it, and, that is, as I said, infectious disease 
knows no boundary. And we know that as we see AIDS raging through 
Africa, Asia and spreading to the rest of the world, even the increase 
in the United States when we are so enlightened about the subject. And 
it is again about the spirit of who we are as a country. I think the 
American people expect and the American people deserve that we do our 
best to represent us not only as a great country but as a good country.
  As I have been talking, Mr. Chairman, I was hoping that some of our 
colleagues who had requested time would return to the floor. May I ask 
of the Chair, are we going to have a motion to rise, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has not heard such a motion. The Chair will 
entertain such a motion when offered.
  Ms. PELOSI. I had been told that there might be an intervention into 
our debate.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. We are waiting for the gentlewoman to consume her time 
and once she does there very possibly could be a temporary motion to 
rise.
  Ms. PELOSI. I appreciate the gentleman saying that, but that was my 
point exactly. If there is going to be a motion to rise, I would 
reserve my time and use it for other colleagues.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Before we do that, we would like for you to either 
finish your discussion on this issue or I will ask for my point of 
order.
  Ms. PELOSI. I see. The gentleman is clear.
  Mr. Chairman, in that case I may have another speaker available.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. We have no more speakers.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time. I want to thank her for her eloquence and 
commitment, and I certainly want to thank the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Bachus) raising the question as to whether we have a moral 
imperative to act, and that we do.
  Might I put into the Record, Mr. Chairman, the very points that the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) was making, and I simply want to 
say to the gentlewoman, you realize that Honduras had a terrible, 
terrible hurricane in 1998. Right now a Honduran makes $838 a year, and 
similar to the $1.20, that is a television set, and they owe some $3 
billion in debt. If we were to help the Honduran government, this is 
what they could do. They could improve basic health services for at 
least 100,000 people, and they could hire 1,000 new teachers among 
other projects.
  To the gentlewoman, I simply believe this goes to my point of not 
giving a fish but teaching people to fish. How can they pay $3.3 
billion in debt and how can other nations around the world fighting off 
AIDS be able to do so with the enormous debt?
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Since the gentlewoman ended on the word AIDS, I just wanted to pick 
up on that for a moment and say that if you compound AIDS with poverty, 
you have a very, very deadly formula. These subjects are very 
definitely related. In the course of the evening we will have an 
amendment on AIDS, but we will not have as much time to debate that 
issue. But this issue of the debt forgiveness is not unrelated to the 
spread of AIDS in these countries which have inadequate access to 
quality health care and to education and, therefore, prevention.
  I also wanted to make the point that it is in our national interest 
because disease knows no boundary, nor does environmental degradation. 
So I am very pleased that the American Lands Alliance, the Friends of 
the Earth, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the 
International Rivers Network, Environmental Defense, Rain Forests 
International, and World Wildlife Fund have all written in support of 
our amendment, indicating that when poor countries place their 
environment in jeopardy, they will frequently have to liquidate their 
natural resources as a quick way to service their debt. We do not want 
that to happen. That is why it is very important for us for personal, 
environmental, health, economic, cultural, political, for every reason 
to do the right thing by supporting the President's request on debt 
forgiveness.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the vice 
chair of the Democratic Caucus.
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time. I am glad to be on the floor to strongly support her 
amendment. This is a question not only of moral imperative but of 
national importance. The question is not a question of charity towards 
other countries. The question is what is in the national interest of 
the United States in the context of debt relief.
  This bill contains only $69 million of the $472 million of the 
administration's request for debt relief, and that amount of aid will 
not even provide enough resources to enable two countries, Bolivia and 
Mozambique, for example, who have met all the necessary conditions to 
obtain debt relief, to actually get it. The bill already shortchanges 
our friends and neighbors in Africa and Latin America and elsewhere and 
most significantly in that part which is the most significant program 
that offers highly indebted peoples the greatest hope for digging 
themselves out of the pits of poverty.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard many of my colleagues here speak over the 
course of the last several years about illegal immigration. When people 
flee their countries, they flee because of civil wars or they flee 
because of poverty. We spent in Latin America, for example, in the 
decade of the 1980s well over a billion dollars to promote democracy. 
And once we believed that we achieved that, we abandoned those 
countries, and overwhelmingly in the hemisphere where 40 percent of the 
people live below the poverty level, what do we do? We have basically 
said that we no longer have a commitment to you. Yet when people cross 
that border, they are crossing because they are fleeing poverty or 
because they are fleeing oppression in their own countries.
  When people, in fact, are ill, that knows no borders. The diseases 
that have now begun to spring up here within the hemisphere know no 
borders. We are not immune as a country in that regard. When we talk 
about biodiversity issues and we are concerned about the quality of air 
here and we are concerned about the diminution of the rain forests 
throughout Central America, the Caribbean and into the rest of Latin 
America and we say, ``Don't cut down your rain forests,'' but by the 
same token we give them no relief so that in fact they will not face a 
mountain of debt in which they will seek to do whatever they need to do 
in order to meet their national needs.
  So this is not about them. This is about us. The gentlewoman's 
amendment is not a question of charity. It is not even in the context 
of the spirit of the religious orders of this country about the golden 
jubilee. It is about the national interest of the United States, 
whether you talk about in the context of immigration, whether you talk 
about in the context of disease, whether you talk about in the context 
of the environment, and how much more are we willing to spend for the 
meager amount that the debt relief would provide in terms of a 
beneficial consequence to those countries, how much more are we willing 
to spend when those countries turn, as we are seeing serious questions 
within the hemisphere, turn away from democracy and open markets and 
turn into a renewal of totalitarian governments? Then we will spend 
billions of dollars to defend democracy. But when we could spend just 
millions to preserve and promote democracy, we will not. It is not only 
shortsighted, it does not meet the moral imperative that we clearly 
have, it does not meet the national interest that we have.
  I urge my colleagues to join in support of the gentlewoman's 
amendment.

[[Page H5922]]

It is an amendment that pursues the national interest of the United 
States, and I would venture to say within this hemisphere even the 
national security of the United States.
  And, lastly, our friends have spoken eloquently here about the 
pandemic that we see in the question of AIDS. That also knows no 
borders. It knows no color. It knows no gender. And in fact we have a 
serious consequence if we do not respond. We cannot silently sit by 
with our eyes closed believing that this major international health 
consequence will not ultimately come upon the shores of the United 
States and that there will be no consequence to us. Those who believe 
that despite all of their claims of internationalism in terms of trade 
are myopic when they are unwilling to give the type of debt relief as 
simple and as meager as it might be here but which is significant to 
these countries.
  I urge the support of the gentlewoman's amendment, in our interest, 
in average Americans' interest, in the national interest of the United 
States and ultimately so that we can meet the moral imperative and be 
the beacon of light to the rest of the world that we should be.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. PELOSI. Then I will have to yield the gentleman from Virginia 
1\1/2\ minutes to close for our side.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for her 
attempted generosity. I will do what I can.
  Ms. PELOSI. Perhaps the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) would 
like to yield some time to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, after he hears what I have to 
say probably not, because I support the Pelosi amendment very strongly 
and I do not support this bill. It is the wrong bill from a diplomatic 
standpoint, from an economic standpoint and perhaps most importantly 
from a moral standpoint. In many ways it is like walking down the 
street seeing a starving kid with his hand out in front of a store 
front, putting your hand on a couple of bucks and then decide, no, and 
walking in the store and buying yourself a cigar instead.
  Why are we doing this? Why are we so dramatically cutting debt 
relief, family planning, the assistance that starving people in Asia 
and particularly in Africa need, the health care, the educational 
assistance? We are doing it to give ourselves a trillion dollar tax 
cut. That is the only reason we got such stringent allocations to our 
appropriations subcommittees, so we can afford a trillion dollar tax 
cut.
  We are the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. In fact, 
one-earner families making $40,000 are paying 5 percent on average in 
Federal income taxes. Two-earner families making $70,000 on average pay 
10 percent. We have never been better off. We have never had more 
capacity to do what is right for the rest of the world. And so here 
when we are confronted with the opportunity to do what is right, to 
change the lives of millions of people, one-quarter of the population 
in many of these African countries are dying of AIDS. Think of the 
suffering. We can relieve that suffering. Instead we decide to give 
ourselves a trillion dollar tax cut. It is wrong and it is immoral.


                  status and most recent developments

  On June 27, the House Appropriations Committee ordered reported its 
version of the FY2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations (H.R. 4811), 
providing $13.3 billion, about $200 million less than the FY2000 Act 
(after adjusting for Wye River aid package), and $1.8 billion, or 12%, 
below the President's $15.1 billion FY2001 request.
  The House bill increases the President's request for child survival 
and infectious disease programs ($815 million) and international fund 
for Ireland ($25 million). Like the Senate measure, the House bill 
reduces the President's proposed budget in many areas: aid to the 
former Soviet Union ($740 million; -$90 million), debt reduction ($82.4 
million; -$180 million), the World Bank's International Development 
Association ($576.6 million; -$260 million), and the Global Environment 
Facility ($35.8 million; -$140 million). The House measure further 
continues current abortion restrictions applied to USAID population 
aid.
  H.R. 4811 dramatically cuts funding for the poorest countries in the 
world, disproportionately hurting African and Latin American countries. 
The bill contains only $82 million of the $472 million (requested for 
multilateral debt relief assistance--in complete disregard of the 
commitment made by the G-7 countries more than 2 years ago to provide 
urgent debt relief. Overall cuts to programs that assist Africa and 
Latin America total 15%. The bill cuts funding for international 
financial institutions that provide loans to poor countries by one-
third.
  Cuts of this magnitude will make it impossible to halt the spread of 
infectious disease, alleviate poverty, and provide access to family 
planning. The countries of sub-Saharan Africa are forced to spend more 
each year repaying debt than they are able to spend on primary 
education and health care. According to the World Bank, sub-Saharan 
African governments owe foreign creditors an average of almost $400 for 
every man, woman, and child--more than most Africans make in a year.
  H.R. 4811 cuts funding to fight AIDS by nearly 20%, providing only 
$202 million of the $244 million requested. In many countries, up to 
one-fourth of the adult population is infected with this horrible 
disease and funds are desperately needed to combat its spread. In 
addition, H.R. 4811 cuts funds requested for family planning 29% below 
the amount requested. The bill codifies the ``Mexico City'' 
restrictions on international funds for family planning and extends 
those restrictions to all forms of lobbying.
  The President's senior advisors are recommending that he veto the 
bill.


                      debt relief and h. res. 546

  A group of Democratic House members urged colleagues today to vote 
down the rule (H. Res. 546) governing floor debate on a fiscal 2001 
foreign operations appropriations bill because it would not permit 
amendments to boost funding for debt relief to the world's poorest 
nations.
  The rule would not protect an amendment by Representative Pelosi, to 
provide an extra $390 million on top of the bill's $82 million 
allocation to match the amount President Clinton requested for debt 
relief over fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
  Treasury Secretary Summers and AFL-CIO President John Sweeney joined 
lawmakers at a press conference criticizing GOP leaders for not 
supporting Clinton's request. ``It is imperative for our country 
morally, economically and diplomatically to provide this debt relief,'' 
Summers said.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) has expired.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concerns over 
the level of funding for international financial institutions. 
Specifically, I want to talk about this nation's debt relief efforts. 
Unfortunately, this bill reduces debt relief efforts by $40 million 
from last year. I fully understand the budgetary environment that 
Chairman Callahan is working under and it is my hope that when this 
bill becomes its final product, that we increase the amount we 
appropriate to debt relief.
  I would also acknowledge the thoughtful and inciteful statement of 
our colleague from Alabama, Representative Bachus.
  Last year with bipartisan support, Congress made important steps in 
addressing the problem of debt relief for poor countries. Congress 
appropriated $123 million to begin canceling the debts that reforming 
poor countries owe the United States, and agreed that the International 
Monetary Fund (IMF) can use $2.3 billion of its own resources to 
finance its contribution to debt relief.
  The Banking Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, authorized U.S. 
participation in international debt relief efforts when it passed H.R. 
1095. Many important elements of H.R. 1095 were included in last year's 
Omnibus appropriations package.
  These elements included that:
  Poor countries must engage in an economic reform program,
  Poor countries must promote civil society participation,
  Poor countries must implement anti-corruption measures,
  Poor countries must create programs for poverty reduction, and
  Poor countries must strengthen private sector growth, trade, and 
investment.
  Our bill excluded poor countries that violated human rights, 
supported terrorism, or spend too much of their resources on their 
military.
  Much of the effort to provide for debt relief came from the work of 
so many people of different faiths during Jubilee 2000. Jubilee 2000 
drew its inspiration from the Book of Leviticus in Hebrew Scriptures. 
In the Jubilee year, social inequities are rectified, slaves are freed, 
and debts are forgiven. I know that it is the Committee's position that 
it supports the efforts of Jubilee 2000. That is not in question here.
  The question is how best to proceed. I want to work with the Chairman 
on this important issue and work to find more funding for debt relief.

[[Page H5923]]

  I know that debt relief alone cannot solve the problems of the 
world's poorest countries. But it is an important start and a start 
that we must make.
  I look forward to working with the distinguished chairman on this 
issue. I also want to thank Chairman Callahan for his service on this 
subcommittee. It has not always been an easy job. But his knowledge, 
graciousness, and willingness to reach across the aisle to do what is 
right is a hallmark of his service. I look forward to continue to work 
with him in his next capacity.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, AIDS--such an ugly 
disease to think about. This ugly disease which emerged from the 
shadows 2 decades ago, has devastated whole regions, knocked decades 
off national development, widened the gulf between rich and poor 
nations and pushed already-stigmatized groups closer to the margins of 
society.
  Well, shouldn't we do more to extinguish such an ugly disease at home 
and abroad? The time to act is now. AIDS is one of the most critical 
development issues confronting our world.
  A decade ago, HIV/AIDS was regarded primarily as a serious health 
crisis. During that time, estimates in 1991 predicted that in sub-
Saharan Africa, by the end of the decade, 9 million people would be 
infected and 5 million would die. Well, that was a threefold 
underestimation. Today, it is clear that AIDS is a development crisis, 
and in some parts of the world is rapidly becoming a security crisis 
too.
  The cumulative effect of millions of AIDS deaths is causing havoc in 
households, communities and economies in countries where HIV started 
spreading 2 decades ago. Altogether, 95% of the global epidemic is 
concentrated in the developing world, which has inadequate resources 
for halting the HIV spread and alleviating its devastating 
consequences. It is a fact that AIDS is unique in its devastating 
impact on the social, economic and demographic underpinnings of 
development.
  The time to act is now. Support our colleague's amendment to include 
an additional $42 million, per the President's request, to the $202 
million provided for the USAID global HIV/AIDS program.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, does the gentlewoman withdraw her 
amendment?
  Ms. PELOSI. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I am going to, if the gentlewoman does not withdraw it.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman for his course of 
action.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 
of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) 
desire to be heard on the point of order?
  Ms. PELOSI. Only to make two points, Mr. Chairman: A, this is an 
emergency; and, B, there is precedent in the legislation with the 
funding for flooding in Mozambique and southern Africa.
  So it would be consistent with what is in the bill already for the 
majority to withdraw the point of order and give the body a chance to 
work its will on the legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. With the emergency 
designations in the amendment, the amendment constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI, and therefore the point of order 
is sustained.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to announce to the 
membership that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) will make a 
motion to rise. The Committee will not be rising for the evening, it 
will be for the purpose of appointing conferees on the defense 
appropriations bill. Then we will go back into the committee and go 
back to the consideration of the foreign operations bill.
  The intent is to work as late as we can this evening. The gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I have been working diligently to come to 
an agreement that we will be able to get the House adjourned at least 
no later than 5 o'clock tomorrow, having completed the foreign 
operations bill.
  So we will tend to this business, then come back to the foreign 
operations bill, get through as much of it as we can this evening, and 
try to finish it tomorrow before 5 o'clock so Members can make their 
plans for the weekend.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Blunt) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4811) 
making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and 
related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________