[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.
____________________