[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 89 (Wednesday, July 12, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H5924-H5932]
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 further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 4811.
{time} 2125
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the
amendment by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) had been
disposed of, and the bill was open for amendment from page 2, line 22
to page 3, line 17.
Are there further amendments to this portion of the bill?
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana:
Offered By: Mr. Burton of Indiana
In title I of the bill under the heading ``EXPORT AND
INVESTMENT ASSISTANCE-subsidy appropriation'', after the
first dollar amount insert ``(decreased by $25,000,000)''.
In title II of the bill under the heading ``BILATERAL
ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE-Funds Appropriated to the President-
development assistance'', after the first dollar amount
insert ``(decreased by $49,500,000)''.
In title II of the bill under the heading ``BILATERAL
ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE-Funds Appropriated to the President-
operating expenses of the agency for international
development'', after the first dollar amount insert
``(decreased by $30,000,000)''.
In title II of the bill under the heading ``BILATERAL
ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE-Department of State-international
narcotics control and law enforcement'', after the first
dollar amount insert ``(increased by $99,500,000)''.
{time} 2130
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International
Relations.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join the gentleman from Indiana
(Chairman Burton) in offering this $99.5 million counternarcotics aid
amendment for Colombia.
The gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Burton) and I have long worked
together to aid the nation of Colombia, source of most of the world's
cocaine and more than 70 percent of the heroin sold or seized on our
Nation's streets.
Mr. Chairman, the Colombian National Police, the CNP, has long led
the fight against drugs and has been doing its work effectively,
although with the limited tools that they have had.
We reluctantly went along with the recently-passed Colombian
emergency supplemental because that is what the Colombian government
and the Clinton administration wanted; specifically, more aid to the
Colombian military to fight drugs.
In the end, however, everyone knows that it is going to be the CNP
that is going to have to eradicate the coca leaf and move gasoline from
the helicopters and spray planes along with the herbicide to the
distant and hard-to-reach fronts in places like southern Colombia, to
eliminate the thousands of hectares of coca once the army takes control
of those areas.
Drug fighting is a police function, not a military one, both in our
Nation and in Colombia. Today the CNP lacks any real capacity to move
the massive amounts of fuel that they and the army counternarcotics
battalions may need. In fact, they have but only one workable supply
plane, an old 1950 DC-3.
Last year's foreign ops appropriation bill in the committee
incorporated report language at our request directing
[[Page H5925]]
the State Department to buy a more modern supply plane for the CNP, a
Buffalo, which is a small version of the C-130 suitable for the jungles
and remote runways in Colombia.
Predictably, the State Department ignored congressional advice and
failed to act. In a recent operation near the Venezuelan border they
have had to make so many fuel runs with small aircraft and their one
DC-3 that they alerted the drug traffickers and narco guerillas of
their plans, thereby losing their element of surprise.
Unless we in the Congress rectify this supply line situation, we are
going to have dozens of good helicopters for which Congress has
provided the sorely needed funds sitting idly on the ground in
Colombia. We are going to have to have some of the world's most
expensive flower pots growing weeds under them in Colombia unless we
act appropriately.
Mr. Chairman, the CNP are the best anti-narcotics police in the
Americas. Yesterday they seized three tons of cocaine headed for Mexico
and ultimately toward our Nation. The CNP needs this modest aid
proposed by the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Burton), and we should
be giving it to them, both for the CNP and the future for our
youngsters in America.
This effort to fight drugs at the source is in our Nation's interest.
I urge a yes vote for its adoption.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple in
nature. It moves money from three accounts bloated with bureaucracy and
into an account which helps fight the scourge of drugs which are
devastating our society.
As the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) just said, our
allies, the Colombian National Police, just yesterday seized three
metric tons of cocaine destined for the United States through Mexico.
This is just the latest testament that the Congress has provided aid to
the right people in Colombia.
With the six Black Hawk Helicopters the Congress provided to the CNP
last year, the CNP has eradicated more opium, which is used to make
heroin, than it did in 1998, and nearly as much as it did last year,
and they have only had the Black Hawk Helicopters for 4 months.
Yet in the Colombia supplemental aid package, the Clinton
administration chose to virtually ignore our CNP allies and start a
duplicative Colombian army unit, providing only $100 million to the CNP
while spending nearly $1 billion on an army unit.
Throughout the process, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman)
and I have tried to explain why there needed to be a more equitable
distribution of aid between the two. Yet, despite our long involvement
with Colombia, not to mention our role as authorizers, we were ignored.
To this end, I include for the Record a letter and a request which
the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) and I wrote to have the
needs of the CNP addressed in the supplemental. I wanted to offer
another amendment which would have directed funding to the CNP, but
that amendment would have been subject to a point of order that I am
sure my good friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), would
have raised.
I hope that after I withdraw this amendment, the gentleman from
Alabama (Chairman Callahan) will consider a more equitable distribution
of funds in the conference with the Senate.
The letter referred to is as follows:
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, April 7, 2000.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: We were pleased to support your Colombian
aid proposal last week, and we will continue to provide any
assistance necessary to see that the package is enacted into
law. To that end, senior committee staff members from both
our committees have just returned from a bipartisan staff
delegation to Colombia. They met with many Colombian
officials, including our friend General Serrano, and were
able to gather information about the current situation there,
and about the Clinton Administration's Colombian aid
proposal. Their analysis can help improve the efficiency of
our aid package.
black hawks
On a bright note, the Colombian National Police (CNP) have
finally received all six Black Hawk utility helicopters that
Congress provided for them under your leadership, and the
last three are scheduled to begin missions next week. The
earlier problems with the floor armoring have been resolved,
and the weapons systems seem to be operational. The only
concern remains that FARC terrorists likely have surface-to-
air missiles, and these Black Hawks are not equipped with
inexpensive flares and chaff, which provide the best
protection against such attacks by diverting the missile away
from the helicopter. Finally, the CNP appears to be able to
absorb the two additional Black Hawks we provided to them in
the supplemental appropriations package passed by the House.
They are grateful!
The Black Hawks have already paid for themselves. On a
recent mission FARC terrorists ambushed a squad of CNP
officers just 30 miles from Bogota in La Pena. A single Black
Hawk was able to land and extract 21 fully armed CNP
officers, lifting them to safety. It is comforting to know
that the Congress' efforts helped save the lives of these
good men.
ammunition
The .50 caliber ammunition supply appears to still be a
problem. As you may remember, the State Department bought 2
million rounds of .50 caliber ammunition for the GAU-19
defensive weapons systems that were manufactured during the
Eisenhower Administration, in 1952 (see photo). Even worse,
the State Department purchased 5 million additional rounds of
this aged and useless ammunition (spending a total of
approximately $10 million). The 50 year-old ammunition was
suitable for the weapons of the Eisenhower era, but according
to the manufacturer, it cannot be safely used in the
defensive rapid-fire weapons systems that we purchased for
the CNP to protect our nearly $100 million U.S. taxpayer-
financed helicopter investment.
The State Department insists it can operate the weapons at
a reduced rate of fire. However the manufacturer has
explicitly warned the State Department not to use this aged
ammunition because of serious risk of endangering the
operator and/or weapon. The manufacturer says only ammunition
manufactured after 1983 is safe to use in this weapon.
Clearly, this situation must be addressed immediately, before
someone is injured or killed and/or an expensive weapon is
damaged or destroyed. The easy answer is to buy new
ammunition, instead of trying to do this on the cheap.
support capacity/supply line
The most disturbing revelation from the trip was the
discovery that there had been little consideration given to
how the push into southern Colombia would be supported. The
only certainty is that increased levels of fuel and herbicide
will have to be flown in due to the remote locations of the
forward operating bases, where often even contracted
commercial planes refuse to land or there is no commercial
source to purchase gasoline. Possibly even more critical than
defending the helicopters themselves is the ability to
support and maintain a supply line to keep the helicopters
flying. Otherwise many if not all, of the helicopters
provided in this package will constantly be waiting for their
next tank of gas or spare part.
Shockingly, the State Department plans to use the CNP's 2
aging DC-3's (their third is being cannibalized to keep the
other two in the air) as the backbone of the support effort.
These planes from the FDR/Truman era are 60 years old (see
photo), do not have a reliable spare parts supply line, and
have some sort of mechanical trouble on nearly every mission.
Almost every flight is flown with the potential of engine
failure on take-offs and landings due to a recurring
malfunction in the electronics system--which has been ongoing
for the last two years.
As you may remember, General Serrano requested a Buffalo
transport plane over a year ago (in his 1999 $51 million
priority list). Congress placed report language directing
the State Department to purchase the Buffalo supply plane
in this year's House Foreign Operations Appropriations
Report. However the State Department chose to ignore the
report language, saying it was non-binding.
In order to sustain the operations tempo necessary to be
the primary supplier of fuel and herbicide for the push into
southern Colombia, the CNP needs to update and increase its
number of supply planes. The Buffalo appears to be the best
platform for the project.
One specific example of the need for increased supply plane
capacity is a recent CNP operation that required 18 staging
flights by inadequate fixed-wing aircraft, like the DC-3, to
supply in advance a supposedly ``secret'' mission in Vichada
to destroy a clandestine cocaine lab. The 18 staging flights
(10 for fuel alone) cost the CNP the critical element of
surprise. Unfortunately, FARC terrorists had already taken
their cocaine and all incriminating evidence, and abandoned
the lab well before the CNP was able to execute its mission.
If the CNP had the Buffalo supply plane Congress directed the
State Department to purchase, the 18 trips could have been
decreased to one or two.
critical needs
Mr. Speaker, we have been pleased to help gain the support
needed to pass the supplemental appropriations bill, however
there are a few things which have been over-looked in the
construction of this package. General Serrano, when asked by
committee staff if he needed anything further to support both
the CNP Black Hawks and the Colombian
[[Page H5926]]
Army's push into southern Colombia, favored the following
modest list of items that he felt were critical to the CNP's
ability to successfully execute the supply mission for Plan
Colombia. It is our hope that the House would push for the
following items in conference, if and when it occurs.
$52 million--to purchase 4 Buffalo transport/supply
aircraft ($13 million each).
$3.5 million--to update the CNP sidearms with Sig-Arms for
the DANTI, DIJIN, COPEZ, and CIP, the key units involved in
the day-to-day struggle against narco-traffickers and their
FARC terrorist allies.
$200,000--to purchase anti-missile defense kits for the 6
CNP Black Hawks to help protect them from surface-to-air
missiles.
$10 million--to purchase new .50 caliber ammunition for CNP
GAU-19 weapons systems.
$1.5 million--to purchase one additional two-seat T-65
Turbo Thrush spraying aircraft for CNP training purposes.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Dan Burton,
Chairman, Government Reform Committee.
Benjamin A. Gilman,
Chairman, International Relations Committee.
Enclosures.
P.S. Just yesterday a newly modified Huey II was shot down by
the FARC, who look 8 CNP officers hostage, including those
wounded in the crash. This only further proves the point that
we need to get the CNP the best equipment possible, including
FLIR and capable defensive weapons systems, as this shows
anything less is dangerous, penny wise and pound foolish.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment No. 27 Offered by Ms. Waters
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 27 offered by Ms. Waters:
Page 2, line 25, after the dollar amount insert
``(decreased by $82,500,000)''.
Page 3, line 25, after the dollar amount insert
``(decreased by $7,000,000)''.
Page 30, line 8, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $155,600,000)''.
Page 33, line 6, after the first dollar amount insert
``(decreased by $5,250,000)''.
Page 34, line 21, after the dollar amount insert
``(decreased by $200,000,000)''.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would increase debt relief
appropriations by $155.6 million to fully fund the administration's
request for $225 million for debt relief for the world's poorest
countries.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard an awful lot this evening about debt
relief. I would like to again thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi) for the wonderful leadership that she has given
in this debate.
I suppose there are many who would be wondering why are we going to
hear more about it. We are going to hear more about it because this
issue is not going to die easily. It is not going to die easily because
we have reneged on our commitment as leaders in this world, and at the
G-8 conference we made a commitment. We made a commitment to debt
relief that has not been honored. We made a commitment to debt relief
for the world's poorest countries, the world's poorest countries that
are being impoverished by their debts.
In Tanzania, Zambia, Niger, Nicaragua, Honduras and Uganda,
government spending on debt service payments is greater than government
spending on health and education combined. These debt payments
constitute a transfer of wealth from the world's poorest countries to
the world's richest countries.
Debt relief 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, a year of the Lord, every 50 years.
During a jubilee year, debts are forgiven.
Supporters of Jubilee 2000 now include a diverse group of Catholic,
Protestant, and Jewish religious groups, developmental specialists,
labor unions, environmental groups, and other nongovernmental
organizations.
These activists know that forgiving the debts of the world's most
impoverished countries is simply the right and Christian thing to do.
Supporters of Jubilee 2000 also know that debt relief is a moral
imperative. Most 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 under the dictatorship of the
Samosa family and the subsequent civil war. It is unjust and immoral to
expect the impoverished people of these countries to pay back these
debts.
From June 18 to June 20, 1999, representatives of the United States
and other creditor countries met at the G-8 summit in Cologne, Germany,
and they knew the Jubilee 2000 movement was watching. These creditor
governments agreed to provide faster and deeper debt relief to heavily-
indebted poor countries, and required these countries to target the
savings from debt relief to HIV-AIDS prevention, health care,
education, child survival, and poverty reduction programs.
On September 24, 1999, Gordon Brown, the chairman of the IMF's
Monetary and Financial Committee, and the chancellor of the United
Kingdom made the following statement about the Cologne debt initiative:
``If we are successful, it will be a matter of not years or months
but weeks before the first country will benefit from debt relief.''
Tragically, the promises of Cologne have not been fulfilled. The
entire Cologne debt initiative is now in jeopardy because the United
States Congress has failed to fund its contribution to the program.
Last year, the administration proposed a multiyear package totalling
$920 million in appropriations for debt relief. For fiscal year 2001,
the administration requested only $225 million.
This relatively small investment could leverage millions more from
other creditor governments and international financial institutions.
However, without American leadership, debt relief will never become a
reality.
Pope John II said, and I quote, ``We have to ask . . . why progress
in resolving the debt problem is still so slow. Why so many
hesitations? Why the difficulty in providing the funds needed even for
the already-agreed initiatives? It is the poor who pay the cost of
indecision and delay.''
Let us declare an end to the indecision and delay.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the
amendment being offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Waters).
While I support the thrust of her amendment in increasing funding
available to the Heavily-Indebted Poor Country Trust Fund, I am
troubled that it calls for a large reduction in our foreign military
funding programs.
The proposed $200 million reduction in this account could end up
hurting some of the very countries we are trying to help in the
important HIPC initiative. For example, there is a proposal for $18
million in FMF funding for African regional stability, an effort which
would be undercut and perhaps even zeroed out by the adoption of the
gentlewoman's amendment.
Israel currently receives close to $2 billion in FMF funding. Do we
want to cut that program, possibly putting that program for Israel in
jeopardy at the same time that the President is playing host to the
leader of both the Palestinian Authority and Israel in an effort to
achieve a comprehensive peace in the Middle East?
{time} 2145
Mr. Chairman, I am certain that many of our colleagues would agree
that the answers should be a resounding no. The cuts being proposed in
this amendment by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) would
also impact the International Military Education Training account
thereby cutting possible funding for many of the same HIPC
beneficiaries.
Do we truly want to cut off support for military education training
for countries such as Sierra Leone and Nigeria and South Africa at the
same time that regional conflicts are threatening to engulf most of
West Africa.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that that is a wise course of action.
This amendment would also cut the administrative budget of the Export-
Import
[[Page H5927]]
Bank thereby putting in jeopardy the small business programs of that
agency and its ability to produce quick turnaround for business
applicants.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly ask for the defeat of
the Waters amendment. The gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan)
has put together a well-balanced bill, and I cannot support this effort
to upset that balance.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) on this debt
relief issue. I think at this period of time in terms of our global
economy when this House has voted so many times before to extend free
trade around the world that it is about time that we also think about
what the consequences of our global economy is on those who are most
impoverished in this world.
Mr. Chairman, the criticism of the amendment of the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters) is that she takes money from military training
and assistance and the hope that the former speaker, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Gilman) was trying to convey in his remarks about the
Waters amendment was the fact that by drawing away from these funds
that we were, in essence, compromising our national security, because
we would be taking away funds that would otherwise be going to the
training and equipping of the military in these various countries.
The very fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of any
issue more fundamental to our national security as a Nation, moreover
than whatever we do with our national defense budget, which we just
closed hearings on for the benefit of our conference committee, more so
than any of this equipping and training of our military, is the fact
that we are about to see a mass epidemic. In fact, we already have an
epidemic. We have a pandemic.
We are going to see literally half the population of major countries
in Africa die within the next year. We are going to see literally the
life expectancy, the average life expectancy of people living in South
Africa going down to below 30 years of age. My colleagues if we do not
think this is a national security issue, if we think that the Waters
amendment somehow compromises national security because we are taking
away from the military to support debt relief, then I am sorry, the
fact of the matter is, between the short funding of AIDS in this bill,
in addition to the fact that we are not even providing these countries
with the ability to dig themself out of debt, those are two national
security issues.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know how this House could be so narrow-minded
in its perspective that they can honestly think that we can pass a
national security bill and think that we have the national security of
our country protected and yet, on the other hand, cut the kinds of
funds necessary to provide debt relief to the poorest countries of the
world and not think that we are not going to be in there in the next
weeks or months or years in a military capacity trying to bring
stability from a situation that has gone awry because we have not
provided the stability there economically or healthwise.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is pound foolish, pennywise for us to be
talking about national security and what we are going to do to preserve
our national security when we are underfunding our debt relief
obligations. This is what goes around comes around. There is no one who
can convince me that it is not going to save us money tonight to put
money into debt relief, it is going to save us money in our military
accounts tomorrow, no one who can convince me of that.
Mr. Chairman, anybody who sees that we are in 182-plus different
countries today with our military trying to provide stability in every
other place in the world, because there is an eternal conflagration
because of this economic instability, to think that we are somehow
saving money by borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, by borrowing out of
the debt relief monies that the World Bank has said that we need to
provide these countries, is just incredible.
The fact of the matter is, this $82 million in debt relief is a
fraction of what is truly needed. So that is a national security issue.
The other national security issue is the fact that we have an AIDS
epidemic that is literally destroying the continent of Africa, and it
is threatening to destabilize lots of countries there. I might add, the
two are intertwined, not only should we be providing debt relief but we
should be providing the necessary AIDS money so that we also bolster
these countries that are now suffering internally from two epidemics,
one economic and another health.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I
rise tonight in opposition to the proposed amendment by my good friend,
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) but with some explanation.
Also I rise to answer some of the questions that my colleague, the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), just challenged us to
answer.
Debt relief in and of itself is a very positive humane and honest
goal and should be considered by this body, especially debt relief in
Third World countries that are developing and struggling to build new
societies. Yes, if debt relief was the only issue at hand and it was
done correctly, then my colleagues would have my support.
Mr. Chairman, I, in fact, am very supportive of the idea that the
Pope has suggested with the Jubilee 2000 concept reaching out to
developing countries and Third World countries and alleviating that
burden from them, taking it off their shoulders, this debt burden.
However, for this to be successful, and to answer the challenge of my
good friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), for this to
be successful, we have to have more than transferring money from this
pot to that pot.
We have to have more than just saying we are going to give these
underdeveloped countries debt relief and expecting that is going to do
them any good; it will not do them any good. It will do them no good at
all if they are still being run by the same gangsters, the same corrupt
dictators, the same hooligans and monsters that have been repressing
the people in the Third World over the last two decades.
Mr. Chairman, one of my biggest gripes about the financial
institutions, the World Bank and many of the financial institutions
that are funded through this body is the fact that we do give money to
corrupt administrations overseas. For example, the people of Indonesia
right now are burdened with billions of dollars of debt.
The fact is, in Indonesia, they are struggling to create a democracy.
By the way, let me add, our training of the Indonesian military has
been one of the greatest forces for building a democracy in Indonesia.
Let us admit that some of this military training, for example, in
Indonesia permitted an evolution towards democracy and, perhaps, people
like in Indonesia do deserve to have some of that debt relief taken off
of their shoulders, unless there is a requirement saying that these
countries be headed towards democracy or there be a certain amount of
reform, we are just pouring money right down a rat hole.
Mr. Chairman, all the things that have been said here today about the
horrors that are going on in a developing world will get no better if
we simply transfer money to regimes that are controlled by dictators.
This shift that is being proposed by this amendment is, as I say, being
done with the best of motives. It cannot be done in this manner.
It has to be done as part of a reform and a comprehensive
authorization project in which we will look at how monies are dispersed
throughout the Third World, not simply throwing money from one pot to
another, which will result in corrupt dictators getting their hands on
the money and all the problems that we talk about being exacerbated
rather than being solved.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) often advocates that we reduce the
commitment of America in its overseas obligations. The fact of the
matter is the gentleman cannot reduce America's commitments militarily
unless we are prepared to help those countries make it,
[[Page H5928]]
and they cannot make it if you are squeezing every last penny out of
them. In addition to that, we do not support them addressing their
health epidemics.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, none of that makes
any sense at all unless we have a government in that country that is
willing to seek out those goals and try to implement them. Simply by
changing money from this pot to their pot is not going to make those
things better.
Again, I am in favor of debt relief for these Third World countries,
but let us not give money to countries that are not democratizing, not
going through reform. Talk about pouring good money after bad, talk
about pouring money down a rat hole, that is the way to waste more
money.
The money the gentleman is talking about will go straight in Swiss
banks, unless we require a certain amount of reform and democratization
to go forward with this.
Mr. Chairman, in terms of military training, again, I would agree we
need to put restrictions on our military training as well. The Waters
amendment which I would like to address at this point, the lady from
California (Ms. Waters) has the right idea, we should not be spending
money just like we should not be spending money without democratic
reform.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, we have spent a long time discussing this issue and I
hope that we will soon be able to move on. But before we do, I would
simply like to make one observation about the comments of the last
speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), we had some
talk in the House tonight about the position of the Pope and the
Catholic Church and various other churches. To me, what we ought to be
asking ourselves is what we really believe our individual duties are
both to our own citizens and to citizens of the world who do not reside
next door.
{time} 2200
Mr. Chairman, let me say that this debt relief that we are talking
about tonight is not meant to aid a single illegitimate government. It
is meant primarily to help the victims of previous illegitimate
governments who have brought economic havoc on to countries and who in
the process have ruined those countries' abilities to provide a decent
future.
If they cannot provide a decent future for their citizens, they
become very dangerous neighbors to us, not just politically and
economically, but from the simple standpoint of public health. All one
has to do is to look at the AIDS epidemic to understand that.
Before we get too arrogant about the other parts of the world, I
think we ought to remember one simple thing. We are not in this Chamber
tonight because we have any special value. We were not born Americans
because we were of special worth. We were lucky enough to be born in
this country simply because God was good enough to put our soul in a
body that was born in this part of the planet rather than some other.
Given the fact that we have won the luck of the draw, we owe it to
our fellow creatures around the world to provide an element of justice
for a people who had probably not had one whit of it from all of their
own lives from their own governments.
So we can sit here and chuckle and make snide remarks and use an
example of one foolish leader or even a handful of them as an excuse to
avoid our moral responsibilities; but in the end, all we are being
asked to do is to write off the books debt that will never be repaid
anyway.
We have the concept of individual bankruptcy in every civilized
country in the world. We have also had the concept of collective
national bankruptcy for a number of countries throughout history. We
have provided debt relief to many East European countries and Middle
Eastern countries. This time we are being asked, at very little, at
minuscule costs to our Treasury in comparison to some of the things we
have had on this floor, we are being asked to take the one action that
might enable some of these countries to edge their way just a bit out
of misery. That is what these amendments are meant to development.
We are not permitted under the rules of the House to have a real
debate on this or to prepare a real amendment. But before this bill is
finished, that is exactly what we ought to do.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud this body because tonight we are
talking about some issues that we ought to all address. We ought to
address the issue, are we committed to the principles of liberty and
justice? Do we stand against slavery? Do we stand against involuntary
servitude? If we are against these things, if we are for justice, if we
are for liberty, does our commitment stop at the shoreline, or does it
extend beyond our country?
In dealing with other countries, should we extend those principles to
them? Or should we be against involuntary servitude only in our
country, but it is fine for us to impose it on the rest of the world?
That is a question we should ask.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) said these countries
are ruled by monsters, by hooligans. He had it half right. They were.
It is those monsters and those hooligans that we loaned this money to.
It actually was not money we loaned them. We financed the defense
industry and allowed them to sell these monsters and these hooligans
weapons. These monsters and these hooligans bombed their people. They
napalmed their people as their people fought for democracy like we did
2 centuries ago.
At the end of the Revolutionary War, what if Britain had required us
to pay them the cost of the war? What would we have said to Britain?
These people that we are not imposing this debt on and requiring them
to repay, they are the very people that were beaten down by the
dictators and the monsters with arms and weapons that we sold them as
``foreign aid.'' It is immoral to require them to repay this money.
Let me close by saying this: debt relief is not an end in itself; it
is a means to an end. It is not a total solution to poverty, to hunger,
to disease; but it is the first step. It is a necessary step. It is
where the journey should begin to free these countries of the burden of
debt, the chains of poverty, the shackles of despair, to enable them to
minister to the economic and social needs of their people, of their
children. It is the first step in raising the standard of living of
those living in these impoverished nations, those in most need, those
most vulnerable, the most helpless.
Without debt relief, these nations and their citizens are overwhelmed
by debt, far exceeding their ability to pay. These nations do not have
the ability to pay, to repay the debt and, at the same time, to offer
necessary social and economic support to their people.
Here is the choice. We can continue to require the debt to be paid,
and as long as we require the debt to be paid, children will not be
fed. Require the debt to be paid and children will not be clothed.
Continue to require the debt to be paid, and children will not go to
school.
It is our decision. Let us make the decision. Let us not withhold
from these poor children clothes on their backs, food in their
stomachs, the right to attend school. The decision is ours.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes, but I rise to support the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters). The
world community is crying out for help. The people of the world all
over this little planet that we call spaceship Earth are not crying out
for bombs, for missiles, for more guns. They are crying out for food,
for shelter, for medical assistance, for economic assistance. They are
crying out tonight for debt relief.
This is the year of Jubilee. This is the year to help, to help our
brothers and sisters in need. We have a moral obligation to help. We
shall respond to the Macedonian call of old. There are people in need.
They are hurting. They are suffering.
In Africa, a modern day Holocaust is in the making. Five thousand
people will die every single day. We cannot stand solemnly by. If we
fail to act and we fail to stand up and help, in the end, we are not
worthy of a great people or great nation. The spirit of history will
not be kind to us.
[[Page H5929]]
So, Mr. Chairman, we have a moral obligation, a mandate to do what we
can to bring relief to our sisters and to our brothers in other lands.
We do not live on this little island, on this little piece of real
estate alone.
Just maybe, just maybe our foremothers and our forefathers all came
to this great country in different ships. But we all are in the same
boat now. If we want to live in a world at peace with itself, we must
reach out and help those in need. It is Africa. It is a Third World
today. We do not know who it will be tomorrow.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we had a 3-hour debate on this issue. The gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Waters), the sponsor of this amendment, made very
eloquent statements, and her compassion was evident; and I support, I
think, her cause.
But we have differences on whether or not there ought to be some
restrictions on future borrowing, and that is to be expected. There
will always be differences. But the difference between that debate and
this debate is that, under the amendment of the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), she was declaring an emergency and thus
getting new money to provide for HPIC assistance.
Under the proposal of the gentlewoman of California (Ms. Waters), as
advocated by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) just a few minutes
ago, she is advocating that they take the money away, or a great
portion of it, from the FMF fund, the military financing fund that goes
to Israel and to Egypt and to even Africa, $15 million for countries
south of Egypt.
So the question here that we have on the gentlewoman's amendment is
do we want to take the money away from Israel and Egypt? Maybe there is
some logic to that. Do we want to take it away from Africa?
But I am just surprised that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus)
is standing up and telling us that he supports the gentlewoman from
California, yet he is such a strong advocate of assistance to Israel,
that he would be supporting an amendment that takes money away from
Israel. I just am surprised at that.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama. Does he know
where this money comes from?
Mr. BACHUS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Let me say this to the gentleman, the
bill that reached this floor should have had this money in it.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time.
Mr. BACHUS. It is not we that had chosen one or the other.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am not yielding to the gentleman for
that type of conversation.
The CHAIRMAN. Both gentlemen will suspend. The time is controlled by
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. No, I will not yield.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Waters) because it is her amendment. I am rising simply to say that, if
we are going to do it, we ought to do it at a time when there is an
opportunity to either increase the budget allocations or have it
declared an emergency.
I had a conversation with the gentlewoman earlier before this
discussion. I think there is going to be an opportunity before we leave
this session, as a result of the debates taking place at Camp David, to
discuss emergency supplemental appropriations; and that would be the
appropriate time, I think, for her to bring this message to the House.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that, certainly, if the
amendment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for an
emergency appropriation had been honored, and maybe that is the
appropriate way or the better way to do it, I would not have come with
this amendment that would have to find offsets in other places. But
given that it was not, I have come with this amendment.
However, we have had a conversation where the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Callahan) has indicated a sincere desire to work with us and to
find money in light of the fact there will be some continuing
negotiations about money as the whole peace agreement is being
discussed.
But what I would like to say is this, I would not like to have my
amendment cast as an amendment that is for or against Israel.
{time} 2215
I do not think that gets us anywhere in doing that.
And I want to say something to my colleague about the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bachus). The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and I
serve on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and we
disagree on a lot of things and over the years we have disagreed. I
believe that debt relief was our finest moment. I think it was a superb
moment for the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and the leadership
that he provided in the most honest and sincere way. And I want to tell
my colleague that it softened my real concerns about what and who I
thought the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) was.
This has been a learning experience for all of us, and so he is not
opposed to Israel and I do not want it cast that way.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would tell the
gentlewoman that of a total $3.5 billion in the bill for FMF, such a
huge percentage, right or wrong, goes to Egypt and Israel that the only
way we could get the money would be to take it from those funds. So
maybe it all could come from Egypt. That might be the best way to do
it. Maybe it all could come from Israel. Maybe there would be no need.
Maybe they could use the balance of the $200 million and not give
financing to anyone else in the world.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I have spoken at length on support for international
debt relief earlier and was not going to seek time now, but I do want
to set the record straight. My distinguished chairman represents that
support for the legislation of the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Waters), and implied in that that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Bachus) in his support of that amendment, is taking money from Israel
or the Middle East peace, and that is not so. The offset in the Waters
bill is $200 million. The non-Middle East foreign military financing
money in the bill is $230 million.
So it is possible to take this $200 million from FMF without touching
the Middle East peace money, and it is really, I am sad to say,
disingenuous to say that if we support this bill the money is coming
out of the Middle East. It is coming out of the FMF account which has
$230 million beyond the Middle East peace money and $200 of that is
what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is drawing upon.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BACHUS. Well, I would like to approach it in a different way, and
I think a consensus has been built on the floor of this House from
everyone.
I have heard no one stand up and say that this is something that
should not be done. I have heard the gentleman from California, and the
gentleman from California obviously has not read the legislation
because he says that it will go to monsters in countries who abuse
human rights. In the legislation it restricts money for those
countries. So I would simply say to you, when you speak on this
legislation, have some understanding of it. Do not claim that we need
things in the legislation which are already there and have been since
the beginning of this legislation.
But despite that, let me simply say this. A consensus is building
here tonight, and whether it is on the floor of this House tonight or
it is 2 weeks from tonight, if everyone has spoken the truth on the
floor of this House tonight, with some exception, some are not
supporting debt relief, some do not believe that it is a good idea, and
I applaud their honesty, I applaud their honesty to say $1.20 is too
much to
[[Page H5930]]
spend to save 40,000 people a day. If my colleagues believe that, say
it and we will have a vote. But sometime before we go home this year,
we should fund this, if we believe that we should do something about
40,000 people a day, that we could save a number of those people. No
one that has looked at this issue believes that it will not help. There
is no one that has looked at this issue that has said it is not the
first step.
If we are not concerned enough for children, half the children in
these countries who never go to school, not attend one day in school;
if we are not concerned that children in these countries are not
vaccinated, a 50 cent shot, and as a result they are dying every day;
if $1.20 a year is too much, then vote against debt relief. But I would
say that the majority of this body recognizes that it is not only in
their interest, it is in our interest, it is in our best interest.
If my colleagues have looked at this, if they have looked at this
issue, far more than anything else they are convinced that this is in
our national interest. We have diseases that were thought to be extinct
that are now spreading across the globe because of conditions in these
countries. They are reaching our shores. They are killing our people.
We cannot turn our backs on these conditions without them spilling over
our shores. We spend $400 billion and $500 billion making the world
safe through arms, yet we turn our back on $1 billion for food, for
security and peace.
Why can we not do as Eisenhower did with the Marshall Plan? Why can
we not give peace a chance? Do we have to change the world only through
shipping arms around the world? And if we do it and it is necessary, is
it necessary to the tune of $400 billion, yet we cannot find a billion
for this? Those are questions we will all have to answer.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, whereas my name has been used several
times and I was not paid the courtesy of being yielded to by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); yet, when I was on the floor I was
very happy to yield for a question, even when I had not used another
Member's name, I think we should reexamine the courtesies that we are
trying to pay to each other to maintain a debate on a very important
issue. And I am very pleased and thank the gentleman from North
Carolina very much for yielding to me.
There have been some very, very heartfelt points made here tonight.
And this, of course, is an issue that tugs at our heart strings. But if
we do not use our heads, none of the things that were just talked about
that were so important, immunizations, schooling for children, food for
people who are starving, not one of those goals will be achieved.
Because although the gentleman may think that I do not know about this
bill, the gentleman may not know about this bill if he claims that
there is a demand in this bill for democracy, for freedom of the press,
for opposition parties, for everything that ensures that the countries
that receive this type of debt relief will use the money honestly that
they get and the resources that they have available; that they will use
them honestly or for immunization or for these benevolent purposes.
No, the only thing in the bill that even touches on that says the
money is not going to go to countries that have egregious human rights
violations. All right, that is a step in the first direction, but that
does not even go 10 percent of the way.
All the speeches we have heard tonight that have tugged at our heart
strings, yes, the benevolent souls, and the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Waters), who has a wonderful motive in proposing this today, I
will say that this does not achieve any of the ends that we heard about
on the floor today because it ignores the central requirement that will
achieve those ends, and that is that the countries that we are giving
debt relief to have to be under the control of democratically elected
governments, governments that have opposition parties, and freedom of
the press, or all the resources that the gentlewoman is talking about
that will be used for immunization will not go to those noble purposes.
They will go, instead, to Swiss bank accounts, they will instead go to
arms to repress their own people.
Because, yes, believe it or not there are gangsters in this world
that control countries. Believe it or not there are monsters that are
murdering people throughout this world. And the last thing we should do
is give debt relief to regimes that are controlled by those kind of
people. If my colleague wants the votes of people like myself, please
add this into the bill.
I am on the Committee on International Relations. The gentleman from
New York (Mr. Gilman) and I, and the rest of the members of the
committee, can work out an authorization bill that accomplishes the
ends that we are talking about. Just like the gentlewoman from Georgia
(Ms. McKinney), who 3 years ago challenged us as to why we were sending
so many weapons to all these countries in the developing world. And I
said to her that I would support her, let us not send any weapons to
dictatorships, and we came up with a code of conduct.
I challenge those of my colleagues who are speaking with their hearts
tonight to work with us on this side of the aisle to put together
legislation that will prevent money from going to these vicious
dictatorships, prevent these loans to these vicious dictatorships, so
that when they have democratic peoples on the ascendancy, they will not
be burdened with these burdens like the people of Indonesia. We can do
that.
I, in fact, have tried to propose that to Export-Import Bank loans
and to other World Bank financial dealings. But, no, we have not gotten
any support from this side of the aisle or that side of the aisle for
something like that. Let us help the decent people of the world who are
struggling to have the inoculations of their children, to teach their
children. Let us make sure that the money is going to those regimes
that have a chance.
What good would it have been to the people of Eastern Europe, for
example, had we provided debt relief, which we did by the way to those
countries, when they were still Communist dictatorships? That makes no
sense at all. So let us make sure that we include the one element in
the gentlewoman's proposal that will make it work rather than make it
achieve just the opposite, and that is to put those type of
requirements that we are dealing with countries that have democratic
institutions in place.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, let me quickly make two points. Twenty-two
nations under this legislation are eligible for debt relief. Not one of
them is a dictatorship. Let me repeat that. Twenty-two nations are
eligible for relief under this legislation. Not a one of them is a
dictatorship.
Number two. Yes, we loaned much of this money, most of this money, to
dictatorships. We never should have done it. We have loaned it to these
monsters, and they did take it and they put it in Swiss bank accounts
and that is where it went.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I also think that it is an abomination that out of the $472 million
requested that $82 million has been approved. I heard earlier the
chairman of the subcommittee talk about a person that bought a plane in
Uganda. He said that it was really a horrible thing that was done.
Well, let me just say a few things about Uganda.
First of all, the President of Uganda reduced the military budget by
75 percent, and he put the money into working with the people. The
President of Uganda has had the first country in Africa where the AIDS
pandemic has been leveled off and is in the possibility of being
decreased. The President of Uganda has started elementary education for
girls in that country. The President of Uganda had to pay back money to
Asians expelled on December 4 of 1972 by Idi Amin, and those people
have been able to come back to Uganda and the World Bank said that
President Museveni had to restore their property and pay them back the
land,
[[Page H5931]]
which he did. President Museveni reduced the civil service by 50
percent in his country.
President Museveni of Uganda, the one that the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Callahan) castigated earlier, went to Sudan on the border and
fought the Lord's Resistance movement, who are people who were dealing
with the terrorism in Sudan that went ahead to blow up U.S. embassies
in Kenya and Tanzania.
{time} 2230
President Museveni has reduced crime in his area. President Museveni
is looked at as a leader in the country. And I am not defending buying
a plane. But we have ECOWAS, which is a West African group of
countries, we have the OAU, we have SADAK in the south, we have other
kinds of North African countries, we have people that have to get
around.
They do not have commercial airlines like we have here. And so the
worst thing that I have heard is that a president who has done
magnificent things in his country bought a plane. Now, perhaps he
should have bought maybe one of our used planes perhaps. But right now
we have the former president of Botswana stuck in Istanbul trying to
get to an OAU meeting because a meeting in Algiers was canceled.
I think that we take an issue where Russia, hundreds of millions of
dollars have gone down into the Mediterranean where Russian people are
very wealthy at this time. We have heard the reports of Bosnia,
hundreds of millions of dollars. We have seen what is happening in
Kosovo. But no one talks about that. I think it is racist to pick out
one simple issue and put it in an appropriations bill because someone
decided that they had to get a plane to move around the continent and,
therefore, debt relief should not go on.
It is absolutely absurd. We take one simple issue and make that a
magna issue. If people knew what was going on in some of these
countries where debt relief takes 50 percent of the budget, where they
have reduced the whole question of the military, where they have gone
and fought AIDS, where they support the United States by fighting
terrorism in Sudan, then we turn around and have people say, well,
somebody bought a plane; and, therefore, our debt relief is being
wasted. I think it is obscene; it does not make any sense.
When we look at what is going on in the Cold War, we gave Mobutu
money, we said go and deal with South Africa with P.T. Bolton and the
white regime in South Africa because they were against communism. We
went to UNITA in Angola and said, here is all the money you need to
fight against the Communists. We do not care how much you steal. And we
supported them. We took President Doe who killed the first family in
Liberia and sent him all the money in the world for 10 years because he
was against Communism.
I was against Communism, too. But all those debts that we have is
because the blood was shed in Africa for the Cold War. Nowhere else was
there blood shed other than a country or two in South America. It was
all on the continent of Africa where Communism was going to have its
line in the sand.
What we did was we should not have supported Mobutu. That is why they
need money to do away with the debt in the Congo. We should not have
supported the people in UNITA that we said give them all the guns they
want, we do not care what they do to their people, we know they are
stealing the money, but you know what, they do like a Communist. Well,
I do not like Communism either, but now we are going to sit back and
pontificate about how we have this money that was owed. It was a
disgrace that we gave the money in the first place.
It is absolutely wrong to sit back and talk about we are not putting
the money in the right place. It is wrong. This money should be
restored. I think it is absolutely unconscionable to think that with
AIDS and all the other problems going on that we could sit around
talking about we do not have a need for debt relief.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am a new member of the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services; and over this past session, I have had an
opportunity to hear us debate the issue of debt relief.
More recently in Banking, we have had a discussion of a bill called
Prohibiting Predatory Lending, where lenders have preyed upon low-
income mostly inner-city minority senior women and caused them to put
themselves deeper in debt than they were before the lending was had.
Tonight we have the opportunity to step up to get rid of the
predatory lenders, to not be predatory lenders any more for the African
nations. We have the right and the opportunity to make it right, to let
these nations step away from these predatory loans and allow them the
opportunity to begin anew, to provide relief so that African growth and
opportunity can be had, so that African people can have jobs, so that
African people can be relieved of unnecessary debt.
We want and we should as a country be prepared to step up to the
plate because we all want to get into Africa and do business. We know
how rich Africa is, what opportunities there are for growth not only
for that country but for our country as well. So why not give them the
opportunity to be relieved of debt?
And do not think that we can run through Africa and do business and
not get AIDS. AIDS is a serious issue. It is an economic security issue
that will affect us all. So it is time now for us to in fact do the
right thing and give debt relief.
And, see, I am not talking about heartstrings. The gentleman from
California kept talking about my heartstrings are tugged, I feel sorry
for the African people. It is not about heart. It is about money. We
need money to relieve the African countries of the debt. Let us stop
talking about heart. Let us stop talking about morality. Get them from
under the debt.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
Let me say I rise in support of the amendment by the gentlewoman from
California. Let me say that the camera of history is now rolling on us
and the camera of history will judge us and we will be judged by how we
treat the least among us. We will be judged by how we treat the least
among us.
This is a question about motivation. For sure, as my colleague, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), indicated, we had motivation to
find some money when the Cold War existed. Where is the motivation to
find money for humanitarian interests? Five thousand people are dying a
day. Where is the motivation to find money?
Now, sometimes we forget our own history right here in this country.
I hear my colleagues talking about all the things that are going wrong
in Africa. Do we have to remember the history of this country, the wild
wild West and all the crazy things that were going on here? Do we have
to remember that many of the individuals who now are the upper echelon
in this country, their families were crooks and did illegal activities?
It was an evolving thing.
Many of the countries that we want to help, as my colleague from New
Jersey so poignantly said, we, in order to fight against Communism, we
financed it, we did not care what they did, and we gave them money; and
now we have this debt.
We live in the greatest fiscal times of our lives; yet we are going
to turn our back on people who have blood like we do, on people who
have needs like we do. How can we turn our backs in this time and in
this day and in this age?
We must never forget who we are and where we came from. This was not
just given to us here in America. As I indicated earlier, those to whom
much is given, much is required. Much is required of us now. We must
not turn our backs on the least of us. We must support, we must pass
this amendment by the gentlewoman from California.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 546, further proceedings
on
[[Page H5932]]
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters)
will be postponed.
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.
LaTourette) 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.
____________________