[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 135 (Wednesday, October 25, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H10817-H10841]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4811, FOREIGN
OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2001
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 647 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 647
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points of order against the conference report
and against its consideration are waived. The conference
report shall be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
{time} 1100
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
[[Page H10818]]
House Resolution 647 provides for the consideration of the conference
report to accompany H.R. 4811, the Foreign Operations appropriations
bill for fiscal year 2001. The rule waives all points of order against
the conference report and against its consideration and provides that
the conference report shall be considered as read.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan),
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member, for
their hard work. I share the view expressed by the gentleman from
Arizona (Chairman Callahan) that this is a good bill; and as he stated
last night in the Committee on Rules, the funding is too high for some,
too low for others. It strikes an appropriate balance.
The bill contains $14.897 billion in funding, slightly below the
President's request of $15.13 and includes an appropriation of $5
billion to reduce the public debt.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the bill appropriates $1.9
billion for military financing for Israel, as well as $840 million for
economic assistance to Israel.
I also believe it is very important that we are increasing the child
survival and disease program fund and providing $435 million for
heavily indebted poor countries.
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that we are increasing funding for the
agency for international development by $300 million over the prior
fiscal year, bringing next year's funding to $3.08 billion.
I support this rule. The underlying legislation is very important.
Obviously, much work has gone into this legislation. Mr. Speaker,
again, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the
full committee, and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), chairman
of the subcommittee, as well as the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi), the ranking member, for their hard work on this important
legislation. I urge my colleagues to adopt both the rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for
yielding me the time. As the gentleman just explained to my colleagues,
this rule waives all points of order against the conference report on
the foreign operations bill.
I consider these programs funded by this bill to be our first line of
national defense. I believe the goodwill and friendship created by
these programs helps prevent international tensions that, if left
unresolved, might lead to more serious conflict. I think that we have
many, many examples like this.
I think the greatest example before us today is North Korea. Mr.
Speaker, I was saying a little bit about North Korea that it is a great
example of what this bill is all about, because we, over the past 4
years through the world food program, have donated somewhere between 70
percent and 75 percent of all food aid, and humanitarian aid has
brought us a tremendous amount of goodwill in North Korea.
It has really eased tensions, and I think it has, it has brought
peace to a peninsula that has not had peace in a long time. That is an
example of goodwill. That is an example of foreign aid that goes to
save lives, that has really caught the attention of North Korea, South
Korea, and so many countries of the world.
Mr. Speaker, moreover, this bill represents the spirit of American
generosity and our commitment to the welfare of our fellow world
citizens. This bill empowers individuals. It reduces hunger. It fights
disease. It saves lives the world over.
I regret that many Americans do not see it that way. For that reason,
the bill is very difficult to write. I applaud the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, and the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking Democratic member, for the
work on this bill.
It has been difficult, but the result is a compromise that has
support on both sides of the aisle. I am particularly pleased that many
programs, as well as the overall total in the conference report, are
increased over the levels in the original, inadequate House-passed
bill.
One of the most important improvements in the funding is for debt
relief. The conference report fully funds the President's request for
$435 million, including $210 million in emergency supplemental funding.
This is well over the original House bill. This money will help
developing nations that are struggling to overcome crushing debts. This
funding is critically important to allow these countries to get a
fresh, debt-free start.
The bill increases the Child Survival and Disease Programs Fund to
$248 million, more than last year's level, and this is $77 million more
than the original House bill. Included in this figure is $110 million
for UNICEF, the same as last year's level.
These programs give hope to the most vulnerable of the world's
population, the children. These programs are aimed at improving the
health of the children, enabling them to become healthy and productive
adults.
I am also pleased that the bill prohibits foreign aid to any
government which is aiding the rebels in Sierra Leone by providing
military support or by assisting the illicit diamond trade in that
country.
Overall, the bill provides $14.9 million for foreign operations, and
that is $1.8 billion more than the bill we originally passed on the
House floor in July. It is a 14 percent increase, and I am grateful for
that. Still, it represents a 2 percent cut below the President's
request. Also, it is less than the total appropriated last year,
including supplemental and emergency funding.
Our Nation is the wealthiest in the world. We have the resources to
help others and save lives, and I regret that getting the amount we
finally achieved in this bill is such a struggle.
I do believe that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) have done the best they can in
today's political environment. They have crafted this bill with
compassion and understanding of the world's poor and needy people.
My regret over the low funding of the bill in no way diminishes my
esteem for them and their work. In addition, I believe it is
inappropriate to include in this bill the language that raises the
overall spending cap for appropriations bills. This important provision
should be considered separately.
Therefore, I will ask, or somebody on this side will ask, to defeat
the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will ask
to consider a concurrent resolution introduced by the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
This resolution would have the effect of amending the conference
report to drop the language dealing with the spending caps.
Furthermore, the resolution prohibits the House from adjourning until
the spending caps are raised.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, but I
want to commend my colleagues on the subcommittee for their help with
regard to the provisions related to Armenia and specifically the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Callahan), the chairman, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Knollenberg) for the work that they did on these provisions.
We are very happy with the fact that the level of assistance to
Armenia at a minimum will be $90 million, which is more than what the
administration had requested.
We also have the provisions in the bill that the House language
provides funding for confidence-building measures and other activities
in furtherance of the peaceful resolution of regional conflicts,
particularly with regard to Nagorno-Karabagh. As many of my colleagues
know, this is a conflict that has been going on for some time, and we
certainly want to do everything we can to provide for confidence-
building measures in that region.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, section 907 of the Freedom Support
Act, which prohibits direct U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan because of
the continued blockade of Armenia, the language from the previous year
is maintained in that regard. I think that is very important, because
we need to continue
[[Page H10819]]
to send the message that this should not be direct assistance as long
as the blockade of Armenia continues.
Lastly, I wanted to say that there is language in the report,
language that says that in the event that Armenia is selected as the
host site for the SESAME project, which is essentially a physics
project, the Synchrotron Light Source Particle Accelerator Project,
there is report language that says that $15 million of the funds made
available for Armenia should support this or a comparable project.
I mention this, not only because the project itself is very important
for the economic development of Armenia and I think the whole
Caucasus's region, but also because it is an example of the type of
development project that we would like to see more of. We would like to
see more of U.S. assistance in the future, not as much the emphasis on
humanitarian aid, more on development aid, and this is a good example.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear at the onset that
my objection to this rule or to this bill has nothing to do with the
Committee on Appropriations. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young),
the chairman of the Committee, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) have done their work.
The problem that I have was already mentioned and that is raising the
caps on this particular bill. It makes no sense whatsoever. This is
something that we should have done 6 months ago and would have avoided
the problems that we now have.
What are the problems we now have? Eight of the nine appropriations
bills that Congress has passed and sent to the President would spend
more than the President requested. The nine bills that have been sent
to the President would result in $11.4 billion in outlays above the
President's request.
The discretionary spending caps proposed by this rule would allow
Congress to increase discretionary spending above the amount requested
by the President, by $13 billion in budget authority and $8 billion in
outlays. Now, the blame game has been going on and the finger pointing
has been going on for weeks and will continue. But let us be real
clear, and anyone that chooses to challenge me on these numbers, I will
yield to them. This is the fourth year in a row that the Republican-
controlled Congress has passed appropriations bills with higher
discretionary spending outlays than the President has requested.
Mr. Speaker, although the Republican Congress cut discretionary
spending with bipartisan help substantially in 1996, the first year
after gaining the majority, total discretionary spending outlays in the
5 years that Republicans have controlled the Congress have exceeded the
President's request by $4 billion in outlays.
By contrast, the Democratically controlled Congress appropriated less
than Presidents Reagan and Bush requested during 7 years of the 12
years in office. Over the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations,
Congress appropriated $42 billion less than the President requested.
The 106th Congress is on pace to increase discretionary spending by
at least 5.2 percent above the rate of inflation. This is the largest
increase in discretionary spending. Hear me, the largest increase in
discretionary spending since the Budget Act of 1974 was passed.
According to the Bipartisan Concord Coalition, if discretionary
spending continues to increase at the same rate that it has over the
last 3 years under Republican Congress, nearly two-thirds of the
projected $2.3 billion surplus will be wiped out. By approving this
rule, Congress will be voting to increase the discretionary spending
caps for fiscal year 2001 by $96 billion in budget authority and $67
billion in outlays.
The Blue Dogs have proposed that in exchange for increasing
discretionary spending caps for the next year to a more realistic
level, Congress should set new caps to impose meaningful discipline on
discretionary spending for the next 5 years and avoid this problem.
This is not the Committee on Appropriations' problem. This was a
leadership decision.
{time} 1115
This is not an appropriations problem, this is a leadership problem.
By the leadership putting a budget on the floor that everyone knew
could not be sustained, we find ourselves in this position here on
October 25. The same will occur next year if we do not choose to put
some fiscal discipline into how we deal with budgets in this place. The
discretionary caps for fiscal year 2001 provided no discipline in the
appropriation process, none; and that is why we are here.
Now, after fiscal year 2002, the discretionary caps expire. By the
way, the caps next year that Congress will be looking at will be $551
billion in BA, almost $100 billion below what we are talking about
passing for this year.
Now, let me remind everybody again: the President proposed to spend
$624 billion this year in BA and $637 billion in outlays. The
Republicans suggested $600 billion, which was a ridiculous amount; and
they could not find votes on their own side. The Blue Dogs suggested
617 and 733. Now, today, with this vote, everyone that votes for this
rule is voting to increase the caps over and above what the President
requested and over and above what we would have had bipartisan
cooperation for in holding the fiscal discipline in this body.
The Blue Dogs suggested a number. The leadership in this House said
under no circumstances will we do anything other than what we are
wanting. Now this is what they are going to get. They will vote for
increasing these caps, and so stop going out in campaigns all over the
country and blaming Democrats for being the high spenders. It does not
wash. It will not wash. I would be glad to yield to anyone that
suggests that anything that I am saying is not 100 percent the truth.
Quit talking about big-spending Democrats. Let us start talking about a
big-spending Congress. Let us start talking about someone that had a
grand strategy that would bring us almost to the election year in
keeping us here by trying to come up with a false impression of what
the budget will be.
Vote against this rule because of the caps, and then let us do our
job.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. I thank him for his work. I thank the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) of the Committee on Rules on the
Republican side for bringing this bill to the floor. I thank the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi) and certainly the distinguished gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Callahan) for his work.
I wish that we were discussing this weeks ago when we were piling up
a lot of pork all over these bills, particularly roads and bridges
which all of us need, and various other entities, because I consider
this bill a bill that spells relief. And I hope that there will be a
way that we handle our fiscal responsibilities in a proper manner, but
we also realize the importance of this initiative.
First of all, this bill protects and allows us to be the responsible
world leader and promoter of democracy that is so very important. It
also says that we value the needs of women around this world as it
relates to legitimately based family planning. The agreement also
applauds the fact that there is now a sense of freedom in the former
Yugoslavia, Serbia. It authorizes up to $100 million for assistance to
Serbia; and having been in Kosovo and Albania and having seen Milosevic
up close and knowing what he did to those people and that region, this
is good news that we have an opportunity to stabilize that area.
I support the $2.3 billion for development aid, including $963
million for child survival and disease fund. The worst thing that we
can find in developing nations are the number of children that are
dying, the lack of opportunity, the poor health. This will be remedied
in a large degree.
Let me also thank the leaders as well who I worked with of the
Congressional Black Caucus, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Waters); the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank); the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr.
[[Page H10820]]
Leach); and I know there are many others, including the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee) on the Marshall Plan. There is money in here
to begin talking about fighting worldwide AIDS, but there is $435
million in debt relief. This is a jubilee day for all of the religious
denominations from the Jewish community to the Catholic community, the
Muslim community, the Protestant community, if I might cite the general
conference of Seventh-day Adventists who have been missionaries in the
fields in these developing nations for many, many years. This is a fine
day if this bill is passed, because we begin to start telling countries
that we can build schools, we can build hospitals, we can build
housing, we can tend to those who are devastatingly ill, we can begin
nutrition plans, begin agricultural plans, we can do this because we do
not have to pay the enormous amount of debt.
I would say that there is a 20-month delay on this for us to
determine whether this can be implemented. I hope we move this along
rather quickly. I hope we do not put a high bar for these developing
nations so that they can, in fact, do what they need to do. I have
worked very closely; in fact, as a freshman member, I added $1 million
to the African Development Fund Bank. I am delighted that it is now
funded at $100 million.
Mr. Speaker, the reason why there is the old adage, teach them to
fish and they will be able to eat for days and days and years and years
as opposed to giving them a fish. This is what the African Development
Fund Bank does. It, in fact, gives them the ability to build small
enterprises. It is an excellent program, and I support it.
I was a strong supporter of peacekeeping missions and I am gratified
that we are engaged in peace, but I am also gratified on this point,
Mr. Speaker.
The Congo, unfortunately, gets no money. I am hoping that we can find
peace in the Congo in that region based upon African nations coming
together and realizing that this country, the former Zaire, has to be
in the midst of creating its own peace and not war. Then I am delighted
that there is language dealing with prohibiting any country that
provides support to Sierra Leone's Revolutionary United Front for any
other country from helping, to prohibiting any money going to those
countries that would destabilize those regions.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill; and I hope that it passes.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for his hard work on this bill. I know they have
tried to forge an effective compromise.
I do want to touch on a few things that I think are important as we
go through this debate. The gentlewoman from Texas just said that this
was a ``jubilee day'' for people of all religious faiths because of
debt forgiveness, because now we can build schools across the world,
and because children can now get vaccines. But I think it is important
for us to recognize today that this money is not going to build
schools. This money is going to bankers for debt relief.
So let us not sing that jubilee song too loudly.
Secondly, she implored that we not set the bar so high. Let me tell
my colleagues something. Part of the problem is, and part of the reason
that I oppose this bill, is that most of these countries are in debt
today because their economic systems are in chaos and the IMF has not
held them accountable. In fact, when a provision was attempted to be
inserted on the Senate side that would have required these countries
receiving debt forgiveness to open up their markets to world trade, it
was rejected.
I would ask everybody to look at the countries whose debts are being
forgiven today, and compare it to a Heritage Foundation and Wall Street
Journal report on the Index of Economic Freedom. Heritage and the Wall
Street Journal compile this list by judging economic freedom in 161
countries on factors like trade policy, fiscal burden of government,
government intervention in the economy, monetary policy, capital flow
in foreign investment, banking, wages and prices, property rights,
regulation, and the black market.
And, surprise of surprises: the 30 countries whose debts are being
forgiven are the least free economically, restrict trade and have more
centralized, socialistic-type governments that control the economies of
the debtor nations.
Under some circumstances, I might not have a problem forgiving these
debts. But today we are forgiving debt without requiring the type of
reforms that would prevent these countries from coming back to us to
ask for debt forgiveness again in 4 or 5 years. We know they are going
to come back, because we are not requiring economic reform in these
countries. It is a lesson we should have learned over and over again.
I know this bill is going to pass. But after everybody votes for this
debt forgiveness plan, I ask that they go back and look at the Wall
Street Journal's and Heritage's Index of Economic Freedoms.
Again, it is no coincidence that these 30 countries that are going to
be bailed out by American tax dollars today, through their banks, are
the same ones that are the most restrictive economically. Before this
happens again, I hope we demand reforms in the way that the IMF loans
money and the way these countries have the debt forgiven by American
taxpayers.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking minority member on the Committee
on Appropriations and the former chairman. He has also been a great
proponent of humanitarian aid for many years, and he has played a major
part in helping a lot of people all over the world.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Let me say that I think the bill that has been developed, the
underlying bill, the foreign operations appropriations bill is a quite
responsible bill; and I congratulate everyone who is involved,
especially the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
I want to talk, however, about something which has been attached to
this bill in the form of the Stevens amendment, because I think that
amendment brings us face-to-face with what has essentially been the
institutional dishonesty which has plagued this Congress going back to
1981.
What happened in 1981 and in many years since is that after the
passage of the Budget Act, which imposed a new budget organization plan
on the Congress, the Congress, beginning with 1981, began to pass a
series of fictional budget resolutions. They are outlines which the
Congress has to pass of expected budget activities; and after those
outlines are passed, then we can proceed to pass the actual
appropriation bills.
What has happened since 1981 is that the Congress has adopted fixed
targets for spending based on assumptions that are totally false or at
variance with what we really expected to happen down the line. Because
those assumptions about what will happen next in the Congress are so at
variance with the truth, those assumptions have allowed the Congress to
then pretend that it had room in the budget to pass very large tax
cuts, which we did in 1981; to pass very large spending increases,
which we did in 1981. We essentially doubled the military budget on
borrowed money.
The Congress pretended, at the time, that it was not doing it on
borrowed money; it pretended it was paying for it. So for 18 years, we
have been digging out from the deficits caused by the failure of those
initial budget assumptions to really tell Congress ahead of time what
would happen to the deficit if certain actions were taken.
Now we face the same situation again. We had a budget deal in 1997,
and both the administration and the Congress agreed they were going to
jump off the cliff and assume certain things were going to happen over
the next few years; and they did. And as a result, this Congress
proceeded under a budget resolution which, in the end, had to be hugely
amended in order to fit our actions into those budget fixes.
Now we have this situation. The permanent budget ceiling under which
we have been operating for appropriated money is $541 billion.
[[Page H10821]]
{time} 1130
The budget resolution, which sort of bent that original number, the
budget resolution that we have been operating under is about $600
billion. Now the Stevens amendment is an attempt to bring that number
into some relationship to reality. The Stevens amendment requires that
we change that number to $637 billion in discretionary spending for the
next year.
Then guess what happens next year? Next year, the number reverts, and
it goes back down to $551 billion. Is there one person on this floor
who believes that, having raised that cap from $541 billion to $600
billion to $637 billion this year, that the Congress next year is going
to cut enough money to get down to $551 billion in discretionary
spending? Anybody who believes that the Congress is going to do that
needs three straightjackets and a visit to the funny farm. It just is
not going to happen that way.
So my objection to the Stevens amendment is not in what it attempts
to do. It attempts to bring this institution closer to the truth. My
problem is that it contains an implied lie for the next fiscal year.
This is not the fault of the author of the amendment. He is just trying
to get through the day 1 year at a time.
But the problem is that, by keeping that number in place in the out
years, this institution, in effect, continues to lie to the American
people about what we expect to be spent in future years.
So under these circumstances, there is not a Member of this body who
has a right to question the veracity of either candidate for President
so long as we continue to follow these fictions.
So that is why I am going to vote no on the rule. That is why I am
going to vote no on the previous question, so that we can separate out
this question and have an honest discussion of what our expectations
are, not just for this year, but for the years to come.
I also have another concern. This Congress has added billions of
dollars in appropriation bills which have passed above the President's
request in several instances. Some of that spending I voted for and
some of it I voted against. Now this ceiling is being adjusted to take
into account all of that spending and also supposedly to make room for
the other bills which have yet to be passed.
The major bill which has yet to be passed is the Labor, Health and
Education bill. That is the bill that sums up our concern about people
in the shadows of life: the weak, the young, the old, the sick. I am
not at all certain that the assumptions that will be made about this
number will enable us to meet our responsibilities on that bill.
I do not want to be seen as endorsing this number which would, in
essence, bless all of the additional spending that has been approved by
this Congress so far this year, but then put us in a position where
when Education comes before us, we then say, ``Oh, no, no, no, no, no,
no, no, there is not enough room under the budget ceiling.''
Oh, yes, we made enough room for the Energy and Water bill. We made
enough room for the Defense bill. We made enough room for the
Agriculture bill and the Transportation bill. But, oh, no, no, no, no,
no, no, no, no room in the inn to meet our responsibilities on class
size, on teacher training, on after-school centers, on Pell Grants, on
educations for disabled children. That is my concern with this process.
So I want to vote for the foreign aid bill. If there is a responsible
coalition, a majority of people in both caucuses for that bill, I
intend to do so. But I would ask people to vote no on the previous
question on the rule so that we can have a more honest, for once,
discussion with our constituents about what this Congress is really
spending this year and does really intend to spend in the coming years.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida
for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say that I intend to vote for the previous
question, and I intend to vote for the rule. This rule is basically the
same rule that we have adopted for every appropriations bill. There is
nothing unusual in the rule.
So we should do what we have done in all other instances. We ought to
pass the rule so that we can get about the consideration of the bill on
Foreign Operations.
On the previous question, the issue that the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) has indicated he will oppose the previous question so that
he can offer an amendment to the rule which would provide a vehicle for
us to eliminate the language in the bill relative to the budget caps.
Now, I do not have a strong disagreement with the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) on the budget caps, because I think he and I both
agreed earlier in the year that the budget resolution was not
realistic, that it did not really provide for the priorities of the
Congress and for the priorities of the President of the United States.
But, nevertheless, the Congress adopted a budget resolution at a
specific number. Well, obviously, as we took up the bills and as we
passed it through the House, which we have passed all of them through
the House, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot say that often enough, we have
passed all those bills through the House, but then we have to negotiate
with our colleagues in the other body because their priorities very
often are different than our priorities. Once we resolve that, then we
have priorities from the President of the United States whose
priorities are different.
So we have one overall number, but three sets of priorities; and they
do not all fit into that over-all number.
So the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I do not disagree on
that. We have made that fairly clear throughout the year. So now we
come to the point of getting real. It has been suggested on several
occasions in the debates before that these budget numbers are not real.
Well, now we are at the point where we are getting real because the
appropriations bills have all passed the House. We bring today the
next, after the Foreign Operations bill today, there are only two other
appropriations vehicles out there for us to take up and consider, pass
and send to the President. So we are at crunch time.
A lot of those issues were real thorny and controversial, most of
which have nothing at all to do with appropriations, most of which are
something not related at all to appropriations, but appropriations
bills are being used as vehicle just to deal with these philosophical
or these political or these authorizing-type issues.
As the House passed the bills, we knew that we would be exceeding the
caps. So in the House on the appropriation bills, we waived the caps.
But this provision from this bill that the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) objects to, it is a provision that would apply to the
Senate.
The other body needs this language because they have advised us that,
without increasing the budget number, the caps, that they would not be
able to consider any further appropriations bills.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I want to clear up one thing. It is not that I am
objecting to the Stevens amendment. What I am trying to do is raise
concerns about how it is going to be applied, whether it will be
applied evenly to all bills, including Labor-HHS.
Secondly, what I object to is the fiction that, after this cap gets
raised to $637 billion, that somehow this Congress expects next year to
drop back down to $551 billion. I think that the Committee on the
Budget's procedures are forcing this Congress to live under a ludicrous
fiction which, in essence, is a public lie which none of us should be
participating in.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) and I have agreed with each other many times that the budget
process is far from perfect. We attempted to make some changes earlier
this year, but we were not successful with legislation that would have
made some changes. But he and I do not disagree on that.
But the point is, in order for the Senate to continue to proceed with
consideration of further appropriations bills,
[[Page H10822]]
they need this budget cap raised. Because under their rules, they have
to do this. In the House, we do not have to. This does not affect the
House. We have already taken care of that problem in our House. But in
the other body, they need to do this and they need a 60-Member vote in
order to accomplish it.
So if we do not do it on this bill, we are going to have to do it on
the next bill, which hopefully we will have on the floor tomorrow if a
couple of unsettled issues are settled, and that is the Commerce
Justice bill, that would be applied to another bill. The Commerce
Justice bill the Senate has not passed. So it has got to be connected
to another bill, which we expect to be the District of Columbia
appropriations bill, which both Houses have passed.
So we really need to do this. It is not a matter of whether one likes
it or whether one does not like it. But if we are going to conclude our
work, not in the House, but if we are going to conclude our work in the
other body, we have to do this. So we might as well do it now, get it
over with, and get on about our business. Hopefully, before the week is
over, we will conclude the consideration of the District of Columbia
and Commerce State Justice bill and then the Health and Education bill
hopefully before the week is over.
But we need to move this bill out of the way so we can make room on
our schedule for the next two vehicles. Then, Mr. Speaker, the
appropriations process will have been completed. It has been delayed
this year for a number of reasons. I will not take the time to express
my opinion as to why the delays took place, but there have been delays,
many of which were not under the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Appropriations. But, nevertheless, there have been delays.
We need to move this rule today. We need to move this bill today.
Then we have two other vehicles. Then our colleagues will be able to
return to their districts and spend a few days on the campaign trail.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise on this rule today to let the
American people know of the subterfuge that is going on in these waning
days of the Congress.
If this rule passes, we will have a bill which amends the budget law
to raise the spending limits that now enforce our discretionary budget
to reflect the leadership's wanderlust for spending over the past 2
months. This is the day of reckoning for Republicans to wake up and
admit the budget resolution they set forth earlier this year was based
on a false premise.
But in typical fashion, the leadership has decided to determine
unilaterally the fiscal priorities of this Congress without a
bipartisan agreement on education funding. No money for new teachers,
no money for school repairs or expansion, no money for after-school.
I ask Members to support the Democratic effort to defeat the previous
question so we can appropriately decide the scope of our education
investment and then set the new spending levels accordingly.
I deeply regret that we have reached this point in the larger budget
process. This is no way to run a budget process, a Congress, or a
country. This body does not meet. We do not negotiate. We do not
discuss. Republican leaders take off 5 days at a time; and as a result,
our basic work is undone because we are not here doing our work. The
result is one of the biggest budget disasters that anybody can
remember.
My colleagues on the other side have been so busy throwing money at
projects just to get out of town that we have already spent $11.4
billion over the President's request, $11.4 billion over what the
President asked for, and they still have not spent a dime to hire a new
teacher or build a new school.
They have not spent a dime on quality teaching or after-school
programs because they have refused to make education the priority of
this Congress.
{time} 1145
We now pass a new CR every day because we are so far into the fiscal
year and so far behind in our work. We should be focused on legislation
to lift up every public school. This should be the true focus and
passion of this Congress.
Instead, just yesterday Republican leaders rejected the bipartisan
Johnson-Rangel bill supported by 228 Members, Democrats and
Republicans, to help districts with school construction, and they came
up with their own plan that is a day late and a dollar short. Their
plan creates incentives that delay school construction, and half the
benefit does not even go to school districts but to bond holders.
Private investors. Not children, not principals, not teachers, but bond
holders.
We are calling on the leadership to pass the bipartisan school
construction measure to help modernize our schools. This bill reduces
the burden on local taxpayers struggling to finance new construction
for their communities. We urge Republican leaders to set aside their
opposition and provide enough funding for teachers, emergency school
repairs, after-school programs and teacher training, and to put all
these measures into the education bill so the President can sign a bill
that improves our schools this year.
Let us not block progress on education. Let us impose order on this
irresponsible budget process. Let us do the work of the American people
on education. Stop the delays, stop the foot dragging, stop the
electioneering and accomplish something meaningful for our children. We
can still salvage something important from this budget process. Let us
get it done, and let us get it done this week.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee
that has produced this legislation; and again I want to commend him for
his hard work on it.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I am very surprised to hear the minority leader come before this
body, a man who knows the inner workings of this body probably more
than anyone else, and try to confuse this body with unrelated facts to
what we are talking about.
Let us step back from all this rhetoric that we just heard and look
at where we are. The minority leader ought to be here praising what we
have accomplished by bringing this bill to the floor today. The
minority and the majority worked together. We did not sit in some back
room, like we did last year, and negotiate this with the White House or
the President's representative and to come forth with something in the
middle of the night. We have negotiated this bill for the last 6 months
and without outside interference, which is something that the minority
leader ought to be encouraging. We bring before our colleagues today an
agreed-upon foreign operations bill for the fiscal year 2001.
My colleague can confuse all he wants with his lack of addressing
issues in this bill on educational matters. I am surprised that the
minority leader did not say we do not fix the notch-baby problem
either. There are a lot of things that we do not do, but there are a
lot of things we ought not be doing. What we are doing is bringing
before the Members a bill, a consensus bill of both the minority and
the majority that is a responsible bill to provide for the needs of the
State Department and our foreign affairs for the next fiscal year.
It is not everything I wanted. It is not everything the minority
ranking member wanted. But it is a good bill, and it has been
manufactured in this institution without the involvement of the White
House.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman misheard the
distinguished minority leader. I did not hear a single word of
criticism about the gentleman's work product.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I think we heard a
message, though, that is going out to all our Members over C-SPAN
television confusing the fact about education and all these other
issues which have nothing to do with where we are here today.
[[Page H10823]]
This simply says, as the chairman of our committee brought to the
attention of the membership, that it facilitates the Senate by passing
some rider to our bill that facilitates this bill to come up in the
United States Senate. So I would respectfully not want to argue with
the ranking member of our full committee, but I would say that none of
the things that the minority leader mentioned has anything to do with
this bill.
So I am urging the Members of this House, Republicans and Democrats,
to vote for the previous question and to vote for the rule and let us
get on with the business of the day, doing it like we are supposed to
do it, between and amongst ourselves, without the tremendous pressure
and input in a back-room deal with the President of the United States.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats have been chastised by their own leadership if
they cosponsor bills, especially on Medicare. The whole partisanship in
the direction instead of working together, while the President and our
leadership and our appropriators are setting down with the President
trying to negotiate these bills; and the President is sitting down
trying to work with us, our colleagues on this side, their leadership,
is so far extreme and so intent on taking back the majority that
gridlock is the answer for them.
I would say when the gentleman from Missouri talks about increased
costs going into this bill, I would remind people that the U.S.S. Cole
that just went through a terrorist attack, that incident is going to
cost $150 million to repair the Cole. It is going to take $4.5 million
for a company out of Norway to come and transport the Cole so we can
repair that ship.
The Chief of Naval Operations has put in a report, I have it and I
will submit it for the Record, that says that because of all of the
deployments that this administration has had us go on, $260 billion
worth, which has come out of Defense, we have tired out our equipment
and we have tired out our people. What they have had to do with
equipment is take ship repair money and transfer it over for our
submarine and our carrier refueling, nuclear refueling.
We have 22 ships tied up at the ports both in the Atlantic and
Pacific fleets. They cannot go anywhere because they have had two and
three times deferred maintenance. They cannot go anywhere. Before, they
put them out to sea, hoping that they would not be in a war. Some did
not have Ra-domes, some did not have radars, some did not have crash
control or damage control, but yet they have put them out just to
complete the mission. Well, they are gone.
Right now the CNO, and I am certain that my colleagues on the
Democrat side have some ship repair industry in their districts, is
$283 million short in ship repair because they have had to shift it
over to nuclear refueling for subs and carriers because of all these
deployments. I think that is wrong.
The gentleman from Missouri talked about construction for schools. If
the gentleman from Missouri would waive Davis-Bacon, which costs 35
percent more to build our schools because they have to pay the union
wage, most of us would support it. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Bilbray), in San Diego, has had $5 million by the unions before his
opponent ever put in a nickel. Five million dollars. And they talk
about campaign finance reform. What a joke.
I went to 18 districts over the last month. I went to 18 districts,
and the minimum amount spent by these union bosses was $1 million
against our vulnerable candidates. Would my colleagues waive Davis-
Bacon for their union bosses? Do they care about school construction,
or do they care about the schools?
Alan Bersin, San Diego superintendent, a Clinton appointee, asked me
if I would support a local school bond. I said absolutely. It is the
most Republican thing I could be asked to do, because we do not end up
with only 48 cents out of a dollar going to the classroom. We end up
with a 100 percent or at least 90 percent because we do not have to go
through the bureaucracy of here in Washington, D.C. The leadership on
that side wants to put the money here in Washington and have the
bureaucracy eat up over half of it. We are saying no. Let us waive
Davis-Bacon, let us build school construction, let us put it in school
bonds, and let us get 90 cents out of a dollar and not pay off the
union bosses and make it competitive.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to simply say that I think many of us support the foreign aid
bill, the substance of it. There is no question about it. We do have a
problem with one aspect of the rule itself, and that is what I would
like to address before I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I will urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If
the previous question is defeated, I will offer a substitute rule. The
rule will adopt a concurrent resolution striking the spending caps
sections from the conference report. It will make in order the foreign
affairs conference report after the Senate also adopts the concurrent
resolution. It will require the issue of caps be addressed before we
adjourn sine die.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the text of the amendment that
I would offer along with extraneous material, as follows:
Previous Question Amendment--Conference Report on Foreign Operations
Appropriations Act, FY 2001
Strike out all after the resolving clause, and insert the
following:
``That upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall be
considered to have adopted a concurrent resolution introduced
by Representative Obey on October 25, 2000, directing the
Clerk of the House of Representatives to make corrections in
the enrollment 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.
Sec. 2. Only upon receipt of a message from the Senate
informing the House of the adoption of the concurrent
resolution, it shall be in order to consider the conference
report on 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, and all points of order against the conference
report and against its consideration are hereby waived. The
conference report shall be considered as having been read
when called up for consideration.''
Sec. 3. For the remainder of the 106th Congress, it shall
not be in order in the House of Representatives to consider a
sine die adjournment resolution until the House disposes of a
bill or joint resolution to be introduced by Representative
Obey adjusting the discretionary spending caps for fiscal
year 2001.
____
H. Con. Res. 436
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 4811,
the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the
following corrections:
(1) In section 101(a), insert before ``are hereby enacted
into law'' the following: ``and as modified in accordance
with subsection (c),''.
(2) In section 101(b), insert before the period at the end
the following: ``, modified in accordance with subsection
(c)''.
(3) At the end of section 101, add the following new
subsection:
``(c) The modification referred to in subsections (a) and
(b) to the text of the bill referred to in subsection (a) is
as follows: title VII is modified by striking section 701.''.
____
The Vote On The Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry,
[[Page H10824]]
asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G.
Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been
refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had
asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is
entitled to the first recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
The vote on the previous question on a rule does have
substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his courtesy. I
think we have had a very interesting debate. I want to reiterate that
the underlying legislation is extremely important; the foreign aid
legislation. The rule is fair, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
I thought it was interesting that we heard, during the debate,
criticism of the budget process by our friends on the other side of the
aisle, a budget process that was created when they were in the
majority. Now they criticize it. We heard that we spend too much money,
and yet they say that a number of their priorities are not met; that
they need more money. They have said that we have taken too long, and
yet then we hear that they would be comfortable if they had more time.
So, obviously, that is the essence of debate: Honest disagreement.
I again want to commend the chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Callahan), for what I consider a very good work product and to
reiterate what we heard from the chairman, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young). It is time to pass this legislation and move on to the
other two appropriations conference reports that we need to pass as
well.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the resolution as well as the
conference report, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on ordering the
previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
agreeing to the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 210,
nays 197, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 545]
YEAS--210
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--197
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
[[Page H10825]]
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--25
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Danner
Delahunt
Dickey
Edwards
Engel
Franks (NJ)
Hastings (FL)
John
Klink
Largent
Lazio
McCollum
McGovern
McIntosh
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Peterson (PA)
Shadegg
Stupak
Talent
Watts (OK)
Wise
{time} 1217
Mr. FORBES changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The question is on
the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 647, I call
up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4811) making appropriations
for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 647, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
October 24, 2000, at page H10759.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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).
General Leave
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 4811, and that I may
include tabular and extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the House the
fiscal year 2001 conference report for Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs.
It includes no new taxes. It protects the national security, and it
does nothing to threaten the solvency of the Social Security system.
This is my sixth and final year, under the rules, as chairman of this
subcommittee; and I want to take this opportunity to thank the
subcommittee, the entire subcommittee, including the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), our ranking member, and all of the staff who
have worked so well with me during this last 6 years.
Mr. Speaker, I am especially proud that we reached our compromise
agreement within the Congress as required by the Constitution and
without participation at the White House. As some may recall at this
very moment last year, we were negotiating with the White House on the
year 2000 appropriation bill for foreign operations. In the middle of
the night, a document was brought to me that I totally disagreed with
that was negotiated by Jack Lew, the President's representative to the
Congress on these issues. So incensed was I, Mr. Speaker, that I
refused to handle the bill and voted against my own bill.
This year we did it right. Even though there are some things in this
bill that I do not totally agree with, there are some things and most
things I do agree with.
What I am especially proud of is that we were able to work with the
minority and that we worked out, as the Constitution says, an agreement
between the House and the Senate minority and the majority; and we
bring before this House today a bill that was handled by the House of
Representatives and the United States Senate and not consummated in
some back room negotiating with some bureaucrat from the White House. I
am especially pleased with that.
Mr. Speaker, this bill totals $14.9 billion in discretionary budget
authority. It includes $14.4 billion in regular funding and just under
$500 million in supplemental funding. These supplements were originally
requested for the fiscal year 2000, but have been included in this
conference report to meet urgent needs in Southern Africa and Eastern
Europe and to provide part of the debt relief package for heavily
indebted poor countries.
If we include the President's regular budget request for fiscal year
2001, plus the request for the fiscal year 2000 supplementals that are
included in the conference agreement, the President's total request was
$15.8 billion. This conference report is almost $900 million below the
President's request. We are also at $1.5 billion below the fiscal 2000
enacted level.
While we did cut funding significantly below the President's request,
we were able to provide full funding for debt relief and provide $42
million more than he requested for overseas refugees. This bill
contains $435 million for debt relief, as well as important reforms
affecting the International Monetary Fund. I remain skeptical but
hopeful that the HIPC program will actually help poor people as
intended. I ask all of the religious leaders who supported HIPC to work
with the committee to make sure that it lives up to the promises that
were made.
The conference agreement also includes $315 million in funding to
combat HIV/AIDS and $60 million to limit tuberculosis, both of which
are very important priorities for Members on both sides of the aisle.
I am especially proud of the $295 million provided for the child
survival and maternal health, the program that has helped Rotary
International help eliminate polio. It is the best thing this Congress
has done in the last 5 years since I have been chairman.
The conference report continues to phase out economic assistance to
Israel, while providing an increase of $60 million to meet Israel's
current military needs. Of the total funding in this bill, over $5.2
billion, or 35 percent of it, is dedicated to the Middle East. As
usual, we prohibit funding for the PLO and the Palestinian Authority.
While funds are available for the West Bank/Gaza program of AID, they
are subject to the overall Middle East spending cap. Based on a freeze
on Middle East spending, with the exception of the increase in military
assistance for Israel, the administration's request for this program is
cut by approximately 25 percent.
The conference report also restores funding for foreign military
financing grants for our allies and friends around the world. The
Waters and Lee amendments that were adopted on the House floor would
have resulted in the elimination of our military assistance to the
countries of Eastern Europe and to the Baltic States. Those amendments
also cut funding for Israel. Given what is going on in the Middle East,
we could not accept cuts in Israel's military assistance that were
approved by the House and have to have provided full funding.
{time} 1230
We have provided up to $100 million in assistance for Serbia. While
that aid is conditioned upon Serbian cooperation with the prosecution
of war criminals and other matters, we suspend the application of these
provisions until March 31, 2001, in order to give the new democratic
government in Serbia time to consolidate its gains. Until that time, we
expect the Department of State will use existing authority under the
appropriations accounts for Eastern Europe to weigh provisions of law
that could unduly complicate the provision of assistance to Serbia,
such as section 564 of the conference report.
[[Page H10826]]
We also provide $89 million in assistance for Montenegro and $65
million in assistance for Croatia and urge support for Macedonia based
on its cooperation during the Kosovo air campaign.
The conference agreement also provides $25 million for the
International Fund for Ireland in support of the Good Friday peace
agreement. This is a $5.4 million appropriation above the President's
request, but I believe it is important that we continue to provide as
much support as possible to bring peace to Ireland.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members support the passage of this
conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:
[[Page H10827]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.001
[[Page H10828]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.002
[[Page H10829]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.003
[[Page H10830]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.004
[[Page H10831]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to join in presenting our
Foreign Operations conference report. I do not use this word often
around here about legislation that is being brought to the floor, but I
really am genuinely proud of the priorities that are in this bill.
Would I like to see more money in some of the areas, for example, in
the AIDS account? Yes. As I said last night to the Committee on Rules,
this is not a bill I would have written; but it is a bill I can
support, because, while I would have liked more, the priorities are
definitely in order.
Before I begin my remarks about the bill, Mr. Speaker, I want to
acknowledge that our distinguished chairman will be managing this bill
as chairman for the last time. I want to thank him for his leadership.
I also want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the
gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), who will be leaving the
Congress, who are two distinguished members of the committee.
I want to also point out to our colleagues that since the bill came
to the floor in its original form and today, we have lost our former
colleague, Congressman Sid Yates. I bring up Sid because Sid served on
the Foreign Operations Committee since the day it was formed. It was
the Marshall Plan committee, imagine in those days, and, except for a
brief hiatus when he left to run for Senate and came back, Sid served
on the committee from then, the late 1940s, until he left Congress
nearly 2 years ago. So I want to acknowledge all of the work that he
did to promote democratic values and the compassion of the American
people, and also as a tough budgeter on the committee. We will
acknowledge the staff as we go on, but I did want to commend the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the gentleman from California
(Mr. Packard), and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for their
fine work.
Mr. Speaker, the chairman pointed out some of the aspects of the bill
to our colleagues so they know what they are voting on; and I want to
revisit some of those issues. In doing so, I want to recall to our
colleagues' minds a quote from President Kennedy that I am fond of
bringing up when we do this bill. Every person in America, practically,
or certainly of a certain age, is familiar with President Kennedy's
inaugural address when he said to the citizens of America, ``Ask not
what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your
country.'' But not many people know that the very next line in that
speech is, 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.''
It is in that spirit that I ask my colleagues to support this
important legislation that is here today, because in demonstrating the
compassion of the American people, in recognizing that it is in our
national interest to promote the global environmental health and stop
the spread of AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and helping countries
develop so we develop markets for our products, this is all in our
interest, but it is all in furtherance of the freedom of mankind as
well.
The total funding bill, as has been mentioned, is $14.9 billion and
is just almost near the President's request, a couple hundred million
dollars short of that. The bill fully funds the President's request for
$435 million for international debt relief. This is a very important
accomplishment of this Congress, and it could not have happened without
bipartisan cooperation. I think it never would have happened without
the outside mobilization of the religious community throughout our
country in this Jubilee Year to ask for forgiveness, including debt
forgiveness.
This means the United States will be finally able to live up to the
pledges made 2 years ago to the international community to engage in
meaningful debt relief for the world's poorest countries. That language
has been included to require the U.S. to oppose any loan from the
international banks or IMF when it imposes user fees for a condition.
More on that later.
The bill also contains on the subject of AIDS, which is a very high
priority here.
Before I leave debt relief, I want to recognize the work of the
authorizers, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from
New York (Mr. LaFalce); the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus); the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters); the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank); and also the great work of the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Ohio, on this. This has
really been a bipartisan cooperative effort.
On the subject of AIDS, we are all familiar with the dramatic
increase that this body voted on, the amendment of the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee), on the day she came back from the AIDS conference
in Africa, and the bill includes $315 million for HIV-AIDS and which
includes $20 million for the World Bank HIV-AIDS trust fund, which was
the good work of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the chairman of the Committee on
Banking.
I hoped for more funding, as I mentioned at the beginning of my
remarks, for HIV-AIDS and the trust fund, but the increases provided in
this bill, along with the increased funding anticipated in the Labor-
HHS bill, will bring about real advances in the fight against HIV-AIDS.
I want to talk for a moment about the international family funding,
which has gone from 372 to 425 million dollars. No funding can be
obligated until February 15. However, no Mexico City language has been
included. I want to commend the President of the United States for his
steadfastness on this, excluding this language from the bill; and I
want to also commend Democrats and Republicans for working together on
this, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), in terms of the Mexico City
language, and, of course, the very distinguished members of our
subcommittee on the Democratic side, the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Lowey), the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Sabo) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who all helped
to make this bill a success.
The bill contains a total of $693 million for the Child Survival
Account, part of which we are going to call the Callahan Child Survival
Maternal Health Account, in tribute to the fine work he has done on
this. This account funds the HIV programs, as well as providing $50
million for global alliance for vaccines and immunizations and $60
million for tuberculosis.
The overall funding includes funding for the African Development
Bank, for increased funding for the Inter-American Development Bank.
I just want to say on Serbia, because that is a question that has
been asked, the language in the bill, the agreement allows up to $100
million in assistance for what I would characterize as an appropriate
degree of flexibility. It is a compromise. More on that as the debate
continues.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished chairman
for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman might find this somewhat of a surprise
when I rise in support of his bill, because the gentleman has known for
years that I was one of the leading opponents of our foreign aid
programs. I did so because I did not think they worked. I did not think
that the claims of helping poor people were actually authentic. I would
be here on the floor, and I had the privilege of being the ranking
member on this subcommittee some years ago, and I remember being
berated by others who would say this money is for the poorest of the
poor.
Well, I am willing to help the poorest of the poor, but in those days
the money was not going to help the poor, it was going to help the
people who ran the countries where the poorest of the poor lived. Under
the dynamic leadership of the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman
Callahan), things have changed. Reforms have been put into
[[Page H10832]]
effect by his leadership that make it possible for me to stand here and
support this bill.
The gentleman has done a good job in facing up to the tough issues in
the foreign workplace. He has dealt with foreign leaders in a very
professional and dignified, but tough, way.
I also want to compliment the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi). She has been very aggressive in making her own viewpoint
known, but she has cooperated completely with the gentleman from
Alabama (Chairman Callahan). They have been a good team.
I would say as an aside, Mr. Speaker, that I really wish that we did
not have the rule that the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan)
could not continue to be chairman of this subcommittee, but under the
term limits that we imposed on ourselves for committee chairmen and
subcommittee chairmen, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has to
give up the leadership of this subcommittee. I think that is a mistake.
I think the Congress will be worse off because of that, because of the
ability that he has to deal with these international issues and to deal
with international leaders, and also because of his ability in a no-
nonsense way to bring together many divergent viewpoints that are held
by many of our Members.
So the gentleman has done a really good job, and I just want to
commend the gentleman as strongly as I possibly can for the good job
that he has done, and tell him that I will continue to seek a way to
keep him as chairman of the subcommittee when the time comes.
This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. He and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi) have done a really good job in identifying real
needs and putting in safeguards that, in fact, will guarantee for the
most part that the poorest of the poor that need the help are going to
get the help.
Is it a perfect bill? Is it one that I read every word of it and read
every section and say, gee, I agree with everything? No. To the
contrary, there are still some things in this bill that I would prefer
not be here. But, for the most part, I do agree with what is in the
bill.
Again, I commend the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for the good job they have
done. I hope we can proceed to complete that action on this bill today,
because we have two other conference reports that we need to get to
quickly so the House and the Congress can complete its appropriations
mission for this year.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the very
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), a member of the
committee.
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference
report, and I want to thank our distinguished chairman, the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and our ranking member, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi), who have worked so hard to craft this
fair, bipartisan foreign operations bill. Of course, also our staff on
both sides, who have done superb work on this bill. It goes a long way
toward adequately funding United States foreign policy priorities, and
it really has been a pleasure to work with the chairman and our ranking
member. I thank them for their efforts and their superb work.
There are a lot of good things in this bill, and I would like to
highlight just a few. First and foremost, this conference report
removes the anti-democratic global gag rule restrictions that have
threatened our international family planning programs throughout the
past year. The language jeopardizes the lives of women around the world
and undermines a key objective of United States foreign policy, the
promotion of democracy around the world.
I am also pleased that this bill fully funds our yearly aid package
for Israel. As recent events have shown, helping Israel, our ally in
the Middle East, maintain its qualitative military edge in the region,
remains an urgent United States national security objective.
The measure also provides $435 million for international debt relief,
a hard-fought victory for our efforts to help the poorest of the poor
throughout the world. One of the guiding principles of United States
foreign policy is that, whenever possible, we should use our assistance
to enable developing countries to stand on their own two feet. Because
of this historic funding, many of the countries benefiting from these
funds will, for the first time, be able to spend the necessary
resources on health care and education for their citizens, rather than
spending large percentages of their budget servicing debt. I am proud
that the United States will be a partner in this international
initiative.
The conference report also demonstrates a strong commitment to
combatting HIV-AIDS, and it also supports a high United States
contribution to the global alliance for vaccines and immunizations and
supports the international AIDS vaccine initiative, two multilateral
efforts to combat the infectious diseases that cause widespread human
devastation and cripple developing economies.
{time} 1245
Mr. Speaker, I stood up here many times before to share with my
colleagues why I think our investment in foreign aid is so important.
In my judgment, the single most important argument for this investment
is that in times of great prosperity and burgeoning budget surpluses,
we have a responsibility to help those who have been left behind.
As a fortunate Nation, we have the moral obligation to alleviate some
of the terrible, heartbreaking suffering in the world. But there is
also another reason why our foreign assistance is so important. And
that is because in the long run, we in the United States will reap the
benefits from the stability shown by our aid.
Countries that are now top candidates for foreign assistance can use
our aid to strengthen their democracies, stabilize their economies, and
improve the health and well-being of their citizens. I strongly support
the bill and again thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a member of our Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong
support for this conference report, and I urge all of my colleagues to
vote for this effective and responsible bill.
The gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) deserves extraordinary
praise, I think, for his accessibility, his leadership, his
thoughtfulness, his patience, his effectiveness, last of all, but most
importantly.
I would also like to extend congratulations to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
I think the two of them, although it was difficult on some of the
issues, work together very well. I do not want to forget the staff, and
I am not going to start naming them, but the work that they have done
is something that we should all be cheering about and saluting.
There are many things in this bill that deserve to be highlighted.
First, this bill provides important funding for countries in the Middle
East to help support peace in that region. Now, at this most difficult
time, this funding is as important as it has ever been.
The United States has reiterated its support for Israel, Egypt and
Jordan, countries which have successfully negotiated peace agreements,
by providing significant economic and security assistance.
I am pleased also that we have provided $35 million to help the
people of Lebanon. I must point out that this money will not be sent to
the Lebanese government; rather, this money will be used to expand the
USAID program in Southern Lebanon, so that American NGOs, nongovernment
organizations, will be able to directly provide services to the
Lebanese people while monitoring the results of our efforts.
The bill also provides important funding for countries of the former
Soviet Union, including $90 million for our ally, Armenia. In addition,
we are financing confidence-building measures for the countries of the
Southern Caucasus to help build a foundation for peace among Armenia,
Nagorno-Karabagh and Azerbaijan.
[[Page H10833]]
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that the cuts made to foreign military
financing during consideration on the House floor have been restored.
This funding is essential for our allies, such as the Baltic countries,
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.
Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to support this bill, and the
gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member, should again be commended
for accommodating the Members of this body while crafting a very
effective and responsible piece of legislation. I urge all Members to
vote in favor of this bill.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
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. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to thank
the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) for his leadership over
these last several years that I have had a chance to work with the
gentleman. I want to thank the gentleman for allowing me to participate
and also including some of the projects. I thank the gentleman very
much for his leadership.
I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our
ranking member, for her undying efforts to work to get the job done. I
want to thank the two of them. They certainly have brought a great deal
to the floor. We would all hope for more money, at least on our side;
but it certainly is a good bill. And I would urge my colleagues to
support it.
I want to say special thanks to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman
Young) and the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) for being
persistent, to see that Mozambique, one of the most stable countries on
the African continent, is able to continue in their prosperity.
I know without their leadership, we would not have seen the early
release of the dollars and then the final effort here in this bill. I
want to thank both the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the
gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan).
We live in a global economy. When America deals well as the leading
country in the world, it is our obligation to be a partner in the rest
of the world, and this bill begins that effort. And I certainly want to
add my voice to those who say that when we live in a global economy,
and as the richest country in the world that God has blessed us to be
born and raised in, that responsibility is beginning to be met with
this foreign operations bill in front of us.
With the international family planning language set, with the $420
million appropriation there to help family planning for women all over
the world, it is a major effort. I commend the gentleman from Alabama
(Chairman Callahan) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi),
the ranking member, for working closely and hard on that.
Debt relief for some of the poorest countries in the world,
understanding that this country only has a small fraction of that debt
relief, that much of it is from other countries, by us being the
leaders in the world, our effort in this bill will certainly help those
poor countries and send a signal to those other countries where much of
that debt is held; Africa, the continent, the largest in the world,
from funding the African Development Bank, the African Development
Fund, helping in reaching out.
This is a bill that we can support. Thanks again to the gentleman
from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi), our ranking member, for their support of our projects.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the gentleman who supported the previous question
just a few minutes ago.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, there are probably a lot of our staff that
are watching this bill, and they come to Washington fundamentally to
hope that they can be involved in changing the world.
I think in a lot of ways this bill is a breakthrough, a historic
precedent, an effort to really bring about great change in the world. I
am referring to the section of this bill that provides debt relief for
the poorest countries.
America has unprecedented economic and political and military power.
And I do not think countries are much different than people. When
people are successful, very successful, there is a tendency in human
beings for resentment to build, and the person who is successful has it
incumbent on them to try to work to share some of their bounty and to
exercise humility as they carry on with their success.
The same is true with nations. When nations experience unprecedented
economic success and political success and military success, great
resentment begins to build, in fact some anger and hatred; some of
which we have seen exhibited across this world in the last few weeks.
But in this bill is an effort to share our bounty, the wonderful
American bounty, not only to share that bounty with the poorest of the
poor, but then as a Nation to become a model and a leader among all the
other free nations of the world to pitch in and do their share to share
with the poorest of the poor. The Congress of the United States
deserves great credit for the aid and the forgiveness of debt to the
poorest countries in the world.
The President of the United States has shown great leadership in a
meeting that was just held several weeks ago, and his staff deserves to
be commended for their effort to carry through on this project.
Religious leaders all over this country of all faiths, Jews and
Christians, who got together to assert that this is the jubilee year,
the year to give a fresh start to the poorest of the poor, have pitched
in and have been relentless in their efforts to try to make sure that
we share our bounty in a responsible way.
My good friend, my good friend Bono from the rock band U2, who set
aside musical scores and concerts and albums and CDs in an effort to
try to give something back to humanity. This has gone as high as the
Pope, to the President of the United States, to religious leaders
across this country to political leaders.
This program in forgiving debt is not to give relief to dictators and
thieves and other countries. In fact, the reform language in this bill
was written by Senator Jesse Helms, one of the greatest reformers of
the international institutions. I, myself, have chased the World Bank
and the IMF to bring about needed reforms.
The debt relief in this bill is designed to make sure that these
countries act responsibly; that, in fact, that the money that is
forgiven by these countries will be used to deal with the health
problems and the economic development problems of the poorest of the
poor.
The jubilee year is special. The jubilee year is special because it
is recognized in our great Old Testament, and it means that those who
have bounty will forgive the debts of those who have little.
This is not just forgiveness. This is a down payment to give these
countries a new start, to move towards free markets, to move to clean
up the corrupt systems all over this world, but particularly the
corrupt systems in Africa.
What the Congress engages in today is what can only be called a
historic act of grace, and a historic act of grace is proper in the
jubilee year. The United States provides the leadership, but so many of
our other allies and friends around the world must join in. This is a
time when we have provided that leadership, and we should be encouraged
that we are all part of changing this world in which we live.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
Mr. BARRETT of Nebreska. Although remarks in debate may identify
Senate sponsorship of particular propositions, debate may not
characterize Senators.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our distinguished ranking member
of the full Committee on Appropriations, the long-time chair of the
Foreign Operations Committee.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I think there are many good things in this bill, and I
especially
[[Page H10834]]
want to say that I think that the debt relief provisions in this bill
are long overdue. They will not cost the American taxpayers, because
this is debt on the part of destitute countries that would never be
repaid anyway. This is simply fessing up to the fact.
I would simply like to take one moment to make a comment on one
region of the world that is funded heavily in this bill.
I do not believe that any Member of this House has been more
supportive of the peace process or more insistent that the legitimate
concerns of the Palestinians or the Arab world be brought into account
in dealing with our problems in the Middle East, but I cannot begin to
describe how dismayed I am at the way Mr. Arafat, and I believe even
more so, a number of Arab governments have refused to recognize the
opportunity presented to them by the extended hand of Mr. Barak, the
leader of the State of Israel.
This was the greatest opportunity for peace that that region has seen
in the over 30 years that I have been following events in that region.
I do not excuse the actions of Mr. Sharon in clumsily provoking
antagonism in that region, and I recognize the concerns about the level
of violence that has been inflicted by both sides in that region. But I
believe that the Arab refusal to take Mr. Barak's hand is profoundly
and tragically short-sighted, and I would hope that both sides,
regardless of injustices perceived to be created by the other, I would
hope that both sides recognize that it is not just they, but all of us
who are at a precipice, and that is a precipice that we do not want to
leap from.
It is going to be virtually impossible to put together a civilized
policy in that part of the world, unless both sides recognize that the
overall imperative that they both have is to bring peace to the people
that they are supposed to represent. With that, I want to congratulate
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and I want to
congratulate the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for doing their
usual, fine work.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida, (Ms. Lehtinen-Ros).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy
with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman, on an
important project addressed in both the House and the Senate committee
reports, which originally accompanied this bill for the purpose of
securing a clear understanding of the conferees' intent. I am speaking
about the Cuban transition project.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, I would be
most pleased to enter into a colloquy with the gentlewoman from
Florida.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for a fine bill.
The Senate committee report states clearly that it supports the $3.5
million be provided through USAID for the important initiative to
provide policymakers, analysts and others with accurate information and
practical policy recommendations that will be needed over a multiyear
basis to assist this country in preparing for the next stage of our
interaction with the Cuban community and nation.
{time} 1300
The gentleman's House committee report similarly supported this
project, and it is my understanding that the gentleman does support
this project, and indeed, that it receive support from USAID.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, the
gentlewoman's understanding is indeed correct. Inasmuch as support for
this project was clearly stated in both the House and Senate reports,
we did not restate it in this statement of managers. However, the
legislative history is clear. It is the committee's intention that the
Cuban Transition Project be supported by USAID in fiscal year 2001 as
indicated.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for reiterating
his support and clarifying the intent of this subcommittee. It is true
that this project has the strong support of the chairman of the House
Committee on International Relations, and I know that this committee
will also be expressing its support to the agency.
I would like to ask if the gentleman would be willing to further
advise the agency formally of his position on this matter. I would be
most appreciative of his assistance in this regard. Indeed, it would be
very invaluable.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would again yield, I
assure the gentlewoman that the subcommittee will continue to work with
her to ensure that USAID funds on these important programs are spent.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Jackson), a very distinguished member of our
subcommittee.
(Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this
conference report. This conference report is not a perfect product, but
I think it is a good compromise and one that we can all live with.
Passing this conference report is important to demonstrate America's
leadership abroad. The aid provided in this bill can significantly
improve the lives of hundreds of millions of people around the world.
Too much is at stake in this conference report; and despite some of its
shortcomings, I urge Members' support for this conference report.
I want to start my remarks by commending the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member, and the other members
of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and the subcommittee staff
for the work that they have done to get us here today. I want to
especially thank the chairman and the ranking member for working with
me in the subcommittee to improve some sections of this conference
report with respect to Africa and those countries that are not as
fortunate as the United States.
If the United States is to maintain its position as a global leader,
we must act like one and assist those countries most in need. This
conference report goes a long way in doing just that. There may be some
Members of this body who disagree, but it is in our national interests
to create opportunities and spread stability throughout the world by
combating infectious diseases, poverty, working for conflict
resolution, enhancing democratization, and fostering the conditions for
economic growth. This conference report, Mr. Speaker, moves us in that
direction.
The budget authority for the Foreign Operations Conference Report was
$14.8 billion. Even though this amount is just shy of the President's
request, I think it does tremendous good. Consider this: this
conference report fully funds the President's request for $435 million
in international debt relief, it contains $315 million to combat HIV/
AIDS worldwide. In July of this year, this conference report was
insufficient regarding the African Development Bank and the African
Development Fund. I worked with the subcommittee markup, the full
committee markup and floor consideration to ensure that these accounts
were increased. I am pleased to say that this conference report
includes $6.1 million for the African Development Bank and $100 million
for the African Development Fund.
This conference report includes $425 million for international family
planning, and under the chairman's leadership, the conference report
contains large increases for the child survival and disease account,
more than $248 million over fiscal year 2000. Within this account, $60
million is included for tuberculosis, $45 million for malaria, $50
million for the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations.
Many nations on the continent of Africa are making unprecedented
progress towards democratic rule and open markets. This is why I had
hoped and continue to hope that the development fund for Africa would
be included as a separate account. As a separate account, DFA funding
would be assured to remain focused on the long-term problems and
development priorities of our African partners.
In July, when this bill was first being considered on the House
Floor, I said, ``In turning our attention to some important regions of
the world, we should not turn our back on others.'' This conference
report demonstrates that the
[[Page H10835]]
U.S. has not turned its back on the world.
Again, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the ranking
member, and their staffs for all of the work that they have done and
for listening to and addressing my concerns. Again, I want to reiterate
my support for this conference report.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee
on International Relations, I am convinced that foreign assistance is a
good investment for America in two cases, where it strengthens our
national security and where it exports our values of freedom,
democracy, free enterprise, freedom of speech and religion, all of our
exports.
Foreign assistance, when it hits the mark, can make a real difference
for America; and I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the ranking member on this issue when we
have hit that mark.
One area of the bill, though, I am terribly disappointed in and it
deals with heavily indebted poor countries but probably not an area
that we are thinking of. I think in addition to providing them a fresh
start, I had hoped that we would also get in return a measure of
justice for America and for American families of violent crime. Here is
the problem. It used to be in past days that criminals would flee
justice by running to the county line or to the State line. Today,
criminals run to another country or to another continent. As a result,
Americans are victims of violent crime, child abduction, terrorism,
money laundering, drug trafficking; and we have very little hope of
returning these criminals to face American justice.
That is because many of our treaties with other countries are
outdated, but most importantly because 40 percent of the world is a
safe haven for these criminals. They have no agreement with America to
return them for justice here. Mr. Speaker, 35 of those countries happen
to be heavily indebted poor countries; and I was hopeful that in this
bill, we would have a provision that said in return for this fresh
start, work with us to begin negotiations on extradition treaties. Not
that they have to have one in place, because those take time, they have
to be negotiated, they have to be thoughtful; but only that they
responsibly sit down with America to discuss, to start negotiations so
we can close safe havens.
I do not think it is fair that we subsidize any country anywhere that
would harbor the terrorists that attacked the U.S.S. Cole recently.
This issue will not be going away, and I am hopeful that we can work in
a bipartisan manner to address this in the future.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the very distinguished ranking
member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and
recognize him for the extraordinary work he did in the international
debt relief provision.
(Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, 40,000 people died of starvation
and inadequate medical care. Today, 40,000 people will die. Tomorrow, I
believe we will significantly reduce those numbers because of the debt
relief provisions within this bill.
About 2 weeks ago, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi); the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters); the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Leach); and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus); and myself met
with President Clinton and a representative of the National Catholic
Bishops Conference, the president of Bread for The World, the Reverend
Andy Young, and the Reverend Pat Robertson, and the White House; and we
said that the most important foreign policy initiative for the new
millennium would be the full funding of debt relief for the highly
impoverished countries of the world.
Mr. Speaker, everyone should support this, the most important foreign
policy initiative for the new millennium.
Nothing that Congress has done this year has the potential to do so
much good so quickly as passage of debt relief funding. This week,
Congress and the President reached an agreement to provide $435 million
in funding for a multi-country initiative that will relieve the world's
poorest countries of their international debt burdens. The agreement
will also authorize the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to conduct a
revaluation of its gold holdings in order to make even more resources
available for debt relief. Our success in this area is in large part
due to the consistent and effective efforts of the NGOs and the multi-
faith coalition involved in the Jubilee 2000 effort, who have seen this
as a highly appropriate way to celebrate Jubilee 2000. I fully concur.
This week's victory for debt relief is a fitting victory for them and a
tribute to the Jubilee year.
In 1999, the House Banking Committee approved H.R. 1095, which I co-
sponsored with Chairman Jim Leach. This bipartisan effort laid the
groundwork for this week's agreement. H.R. 1095 authorized a multi-year
initiative that will substantially reduce the debt owed by the poorest
countries, provided they agree to use the resources to invest in their
own citizens in the form of better education, health services, and
serving other critical needs.
Forty-thousand people, half of them children, die each day as a
result of starvation or inadequate medical care in poor countries. Debt
relief will have a direct impact on this tragic situation. By freeing
these countries of the burden of financing their debt, much of it
incurred many years ago by corrupt regimes and dictatorships, we will
help them make new funds available for anti-poverty programs. Debt
burdens effectively hold hostage the public budgets of poor countries,
with debt payments often accounting for 20 percent or more of the
budget. With little room in their discretionary budgets to make basic
social and economic investments or even to maintain a minimal level of
services, these countries are forced to rely on outside sources of
support in the form of grants and concessional loans, which are
themselves too often in short supply. Only substantial debt relief will
help to break this cycle of dependency.
Debt relief granted by the U.S. and other creditors in recent years
is already bearing fruit. In Mozambique, the government has committed
debt savings to an expansion of basic medicines in government clinics.
In Bolivia, spending on health care, education, and other social
programs increased by $119 million last year, a direct result of
savings for debt relief. Not only do the poverty reduction strategies
address critical short-term needs such as medicine and provision of
food, these countries are also using their debt relief savings to make
important long-term investments in their people and their economies.
Uganda, for example, has used debt relief savings to eliminate the fees
charged to grade school students. As a result, enrollment rates have
nearly doubled since the introduction of the debt relief initiative,
and Uganda is fast approaching universal enrollment in primary
education with 94 percent of the primary school age population now in
school.
These reforms are working because the debt relief initiative approved
by Congress requires accountability, transparency in decision-making,
and a responsible use of resources targeted on poverty alleviation. For
example, Uganda's Poverty Action Fund has a transparent and accountable
structure of management, with reports on financial allocations released
quarterly at meetings of donors and NGO's. Working with officials at
the World Bank and IMF, and with oversight from our own Treasury
Department, all countries approved for debt relief will have comparable
systems of accountability.
But let's be clear about the magnitude of the challenge before us,
which goes far beyond sound fiscal management. Nearly half of the
world's population lives on less than $2 a day. And of the 2 billion
people that will be added to the world's population over the next 25
years, 97 percent will be in developing countries where poverty is most
prevalent. We are facing a poverty time bomb. Our $435 million
commitment is an important step toward improving this situation, but it
will not single-handedly turn it around. I hope that this year's
funding demonstrates a resolve to remain fully engaged in efforts to
address the crises of poverty around the world.
Unfortunately, the tremendous political struggle associated with
securing the $435 million this year, as well as a steadily declining
development assistance budget, should give us pause in this respect.
From Washington's perspective, these are too often seen as the problems
of remote countries lacking strategic geopolitical significance for the
United States. The U.S. spends less in real terms on development aid
today than we did during the 1980's, and we spend less as a share of
our economy than any of the other 20 OECD countries.
My greatest hope for the debt relief initiative does not rest in the
dollars we've made available this year. It is in the bipartisan, multi-
faith coalition that has formed around the issue and
[[Page H10836]]
around the broader goal of sustained development in the world's poor
countries. This coalition has given voice to a problem that has no
political consistency within the United States. We must work hard on
both sides of the aisle in the coming months and years to strengthen
the coalition and strengthen the U.S. resolve to make a lasting
commitment to alleviating global poverty.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the very distinguished
ranking member of the subcommittee that oversees international debt
relief, and a real leader and fighter who was successful on this floor
in increasing the funding for debt relief.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the conference
report for H.R. 4811, the foreign operations appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2001. This conference report has broad bipartisan support
and is a substantial improvement over the bill that passed the House on
July 13, 2000.
I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi)
who has been the real driving force behind this legislation to craft a
bill that we could all support. But I would also like to thank the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and the CBC and
particularly the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for her work,
particularly as it relates to AIDS.
There are many substantial items in this bill, but I would like to
make special mention of debt relief and AIDS. I am especially pleased
that the conference report provides a total of $435 million to forgive
the debts of the world's poorest countries. This appropriation fully
funds the President's request and when leveraged with contributions
from other creditor countries, will forgive $27 billion in debt owed by
these impoverished countries. The conference report also includes
language to permit the International Monetary Fund to use the earnings
from the reevaluation of its gold reserves to fund its share of the
international debt relief program.
Throughout this Congress, I have been working on this issue, and I
have been inspired by the breadth and depth of the commitment to the
forgiveness of poor country debts. I have worked with debt relief
supporters from both sides of the aisle, as well as officials
representing the administration and the Treasury Department, to ensure
that the debt relief program will benefit the world's poorest people. I
have also met with church leaders, development advocates, civil society
leaders from poor countries, and many other members of the worldwide
Jubilee 2000 movement which has been working to make debt relief a
reality. The success of our efforts proves that we can overcome our
differences.
Again, the money that is afforded for AIDS in this bill will help to
deal with the problem of the epidemic that could not be dealt with
because of the burden of the debt.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney), a leader in the fight for protecting
reproductive rights throughout the world.
(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time and for her great leadership on this bill.
We are 25 days late and $11 billion over the President's request. The
bill does many good things, funding for Israel and other countries in
the Middle East. It has funding for debt relief, relief for the AIDS
epidemic. But I object to the fact that the bill also raises the cap on
the total amount of discretionary spending on this and other fiscal
year 2001 appropriations bills by $37 billion.
The conference report is the first step toward restoring the U.S.'s
commitment to saving women's lives through international family
planning without the onerous gag rule. The antidemocratic gag rule
would have silenced women around the world by barring them from using
their own funds to lobby for or against abortions or perform abortions.
This is a short-term solution as it removes the gag rule until February
15, 2001, when the next President would have the ability to support or
gag women's voices around the world. This is another reason why the
choice for President on November 7 is so important.
Last year, President Clinton pledged to women Members of Congress
that he would not sign any legislation that included the gag rule
again. We thank him for standing firm and removing the gag rule that
would be unconstitutional in our own country and it is unconscionable
to force it on some of the world's poorest women.
{time} 1315
This conference report is the first time in 5 years that this body
has increased funding for international family planning. Just 5 years
ago, we spent $200 million more a year to save women's lives.
With the increase in this bill today, raising USAID funding to $425
million from $385 million last year, we are taking the first step to
restoring our commitment to the life-saving resources international
family planning provides to some of the world's poorest women.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who, as I said before, coming
back from Durban, South Africa, was successful on the floor increasing
funds for HIV/AIDS, and with this bill taking a very major first step
for the World Bank Trust Fund.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Foreign
Operations conference report. I want to thank the gentleman from
Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi), ranking member, for their tireless and dedicated work really
on behalf of our human family.
The funding in this bill signifies our Nation's commitment to peace
and stability and to progress around the world. I am also pleased that
the conference report includes funding for the flood victims of
Mozambique and Madagascar and appeals the global gag rule so important
to women in developing countries. It also includes debt relief funding,
which is long overdue.
I want to express a special thanks to Jubilee 2000, our faith-based
organization, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Frank), the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Leach) for their
successful efforts.
Debt relief is so important to poverty alleviation and to fighting
the HIV/AIDS pandemic. As we all know this pandemic is wreaking havoc
in Africa like no other disease in the history of humankind. But Africa
is only the epicenter of this pandemic. It is a ticking time bomb in
India, Asia and the Caribbean. So that is why the gentleman from Iowa
(Chairman Leach) and myself offered the World Bank AIDS Trust Fund.
I want to just thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi),
the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson),
and all of those Members on the conference committee for reporting out
$20 million for the trust fund, an excellent first start.
But we must do more. We must continue to fight until we make sure
that we eradicate AIDS from the face of the globe. Six thousand people
are dying in Africa every day now of AIDS. There are 12 million
children who are orphans in Africa.
We must enlist our international partners in the private sector in a
global international effort led by the United States, and we also must
enhance the United States contribution to our joint U.N. program on
AIDS.
In closing, I would just like to once again thank the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi), ranking member, for her support, her
commitment and her hard work. I want to encourage her to keep up the
good fight.
I want to also once again thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman
Leach), the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. LaFalce), ranking member, and former Congressman Ron
Dellums for all of their hard work and their leadership.
[[Page H10837]]
I remind this Congress that fighting international AIDS is not a
Democratic or Republican issue. It is a moral issue that demands a
moral response.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and in recognizing him,
acknowledge the work that he did along with the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Blagojevich) in helping to shape the flexible compromise that we
have in here, enabling us to go forward with assistance to Serbia while
respecting the work of the War Crimes Tribunal.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi) for the work she has done on this bill. This is
a conference report very much worth supporting. I congratulate her and
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), chairman of the
subcommittee.
I have had the honor of representing this body on the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe with some of our other
colleagues, the Helsinki Commission. I just really want to compliment
the language we have in aid to Serbia, because I believe it is
consistent with the position that we have taken on the Helsinki
Commission.
We welcome Serbia's change of leadership of Mr. Milosevic being
removed from power. It is appropriate that we now participate with
Serbia on foreign assistance. I support the provisions in the bill that
does that.
I also think it is important that we make it clear, and we do, that,
for ongoing assistance, Serbia must cooperate with the international
Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, that it must take steps to comply
with the Dayton Accords, and it must take steps to implement the rule
of law and protection for minority rights.
My colleagues spelled that out in their conference report, and I
applaud them for it. It is a good compromise. I support it. I urge my
colleagues to support the conference report.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), a very valued member of the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, who from day one has been
very involved in helping us shape this debt relief package.
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, first let me commend the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), chairman, and the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi), ranking member of the subcommittee, on the compromise.
I support this bill. In particular, on the debt relief, I would like
to make two points. One is, even though the United States is the
smallest creditor among the industrialized nations in this, the debt
relief package would not go forward without the participation and the
leadership of the United States. So it is critical that we take a role
in this.
I would say to the critics of the IMF, the World Bank, the last thing
one wants is for the U.S. not to be involved in this because they will
then take a leadership role. I think it is very important Members
understand that.
Second of all, I want to commend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Callahan) for his language providing for the moratorium, the 2-year
moratorium, on new debt to HPIC countries. This is something I proposed
in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services when we were working
on the authorization.
I think it makes a great deal of sense, even countries going to the
soft loan window, that when we relieve their debt, that we do not get
them back into the red again. We ought to let them build out of it. I
commend my colleagues for that. I think it makes a great deal of sense.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), who has been a very important
part of our challenge to shape language on family planning. He has been
doing that ongoing. He is a very valued member of this effort.
(Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for the
fiscal year 2001 Foreign Operations appropriations bill.
I sincerely thank the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), ranking member, for their
tireless efforts on behalf of this bill.
From the explosion of violence in the Middle East to the historic
democratic transition in Yugoslavia, the funding included in this
package will have a tremendous impact throughout our world.
The scope of this bill is not limited to bilateral aid and debt
relief. It takes into account important health issues as well.
It gives me great pleasure to vote for a Foreign Operations bill that
does not contain the global gag rule.
The $425 million for international family planning will allow
agencies around the world to do their job, to protect the lives of
women and children.
I want to thank the President for his dedication to eliminating this
harmful provision in this Foreign Operations bill.
This bill provides $435 million in debt relief to regional banks in
Africa and Latin America.
I would like to mention two projects of particular importance to me,
and the strengthening of the peace process in Northern Ireland.
I would be remiss if I did not thank the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Lowey) in seeing that this money is provided in this bill.
The bill provides for $25 million for the International Fund for
Ireland and $250,000 for Project Children. Both projects promote
tolerance, understanding and cooperation in the north of Ireland.
The International Fund for Ireland is a wonderful program which
bridges sectarian and political divides by bringing people in both the
North and the Republic of Ireland together to build stronger
communities. With contributions from the United States, the European
Union, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, IFI has established the
objectives of promoting economic and social advancement, and encourages
contact, dialogue, and reconciliation between Unionists and
Nationalists throughout Ireland.
Project Children was created in 1995 to bring outstanding students
from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to the United States
for the summer.
This provides students with the opportunity to develop leadership
skills, gain valuable work experience at the highest levels in the U.S.
political system, and offers a new perspective on the politics and
culture of Northern Ireland, Ireland and the United States. Most
importantly, this program allows the future leaders of Ireland to work
in an environment of mutual respect, to demonstrate the progress that
can be made by implementing a strategy, of tolerance and cooperation.
Tolerance and Cooperation. These are two things that seem to be quite
elusive these days.
The latest eruption of violence in the Middle East has been cause for
concern by many nations around the world.
The United States has been a firm and active supporter of the Middle
East peace process for many years. We have sought to negotiate a peace
that would be acceptable to all parties involved. Unfortunately,
negotiating a lasting peace is impossible when all parties are not
acting in good faith. Mr. Arafat has chosen the path of violence over
the path of peace. The United States cannot condone such a decision.
The provisions and funding included in this bill appropriately reflect
the position of the United States on this matter. I encourage Mr. Barak
and Mr. Arafat to return to the bargaining table as soon as possible.
Nothing is gained when life is lost.
Clearly, this bill covers a wide spectrum of issues that are crucial
to U.S. interests throughout the world. With that in mind, I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), a great advocate for peace in the
Middle East.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I wish that this bill literally had tens of
billions of dollars of more aid for peace in the Middle East, because I
think all of us know that, had there been a closure at the Camp David
meeting, that we would have been asked to do that. I for one would have
been ready to step up to the plate and vote and support that type of
concept.
But I stand in front of my colleagues today as someone who has been
supporting legislation to actually cut back and eliminate all aid, both
direct and
[[Page H10838]]
indirect aid, to the Palestinian Authority. The reason that I have done
that is, unfortunately, what we have seen over the last several weeks
is either one of two situations.
Either, one, Chairman Arafat has purposely, consciously chosen not to
stop the violence, or the second is that he cannot stop the violence.
Either one of those outcomes, either one of those explanations is
reason enough to stop literally hundreds of millions of American
taxpayer dollars funneling to the Palestinian Authority.
I urge my colleagues, even in the short time that we have left, to
support this legislation and add it as one of our final acts before the
end of this Congress.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the
very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), another
champion for peace in the Middle East.
(Mr. WEINER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal to commend this bill,
and I commend the authors and sponsors of it: $435 million for debt
relief, funds for peace in Northern Ireland, $2.9 billion for Israel,
but not a penny for the Palestinian Authority.
I, like the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), believe that this is
an opportunity to use this bill as an opportunity to pass along a
message.
For virtually the entire existence of Israel, Chairman Arafat has had
at his desk two buttons, one button that read ``peace'' and one button
that read ``war.'' At every major crossroads in our history, we have
seen Mr. Arafat press the war button.
When it was time to consider the partition plan at the very beginning
of the creation of the State of Israel, a plan that, frankly, hurt
Israel, did not allow her to control Jerusalem, it was the Palestinians
that said no. Ever since then, Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians have
chosen war over peace. Today he is waging war.
Let us not be romantic about what goes on there. Let us not allow the
image of people throwing stones change the fact that Israel is
surrounded by nations that are at war with her.
We have to make the message clear from this House that enough is
enough. Until Arafat is prepared to press the button that stands for
peace, we will stand four square with our ally, Israel, in the Middle
East.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi) has 30 seconds remaining. The gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Callahan) be agreeable to yielding 1 minute of his time?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, in responding to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), this is my swan song. In order to yield her
time, I am going to have to leave out an entire verse.
Ms. PELOSI. Is that the part about me, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of cooperation such as has
existed for the last year, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes of my time to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Alabama be more
agreeable to a unanimous consent to add 2 minutes on each side?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I would rather not do that, but I yield
1\1/2\ minutes of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am most grateful for the time. The
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) is, as always, a gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this debate today I think points to the quality of the
bill that the committee has brought before the full House. I think it
is clear from the participation of so many Members that they have been
participating every step of the way.
We are blessed in this House by a very active Congressional Black
Caucus, Hispanic Caucus, Congressional Women's Caucus, all of whom have
taken a very particular interest in this bill and different provisions
in it. Their involvement has helped us produce a better bill.
The involvement of the outside community, particularly the Jubilee
2000 initiative of the ecumenical movement for debt forgiveness in this
jubilee year has helped us produce good policy that will help people
throughout the world, helped us produce a better bill.
We have commended each other variously and severally and individually
as to our participation in various parts of the bill. I want to also
recognize the Clinton administration. We are very proud of the debt
relief provisions in this bill. The President has been a leader on this
issue, has made it a very high priority as has Secretary Summers, Gene
Sperling, his advisor, and others in the administration. They have
helped us get where we are today on that score.
I also want to again commend the President for his commitment to
reproductive freedom by staying with us with the promise of not signing
a bill that would have the restrictive language that was contained in
the bill last year.
Very important to all of this, though, Mr. Speaker, are our staff:
Charlie Flickner, John Shank, Chris Walker, Gloria Maes, Nancy Tippins
on the Republican side; Mark Murray and Jon Stivers on the Democratic
side. I want to commend them for all of their hard work in bringing us
to where we are today.
Then I would like to once again say good-bye to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard),
two valued members of the committee, and commend the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), our distinguished chairman. It is a pleasure to
work with him, Mr. Speaker. We do have our differences.
As I said last night, this is not a bill I would have written. It is
a compromise. It has good priorities in it. We still have a long way to
go. On HIV/AIDS, a disease that challenges the conscience of this world
and certainly of our country with all of our tremendous resources, we
have increased the funding; and with the World Bank Trust Fund, we have
taken a major first step. But we must recognize that much more needs to
be done.
{time} 1330
We must all recognize that all of this is in our national interest,
in our national interest to help the poorest of the poor in the world,
to spread Democratic values, to make the world a more peaceful and safe
place, to expand our own economy by promoting our exports. All of this
is contained in this bill. This is a better bill because of the active
involvement of our colleagues, the outside groups and the President of
the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and commend our
distinguished chairman once again for his extraordinary service.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and
I echo the sentiments of my colleague from California with respect to
our staff people who have helped us, assisted us, during these last 6
years: Mr. Flickner, Mr. Shank, Mr. Walker, Ms. Maes, along with Nancy
Tippins, my legislative director, have been invaluable to me. When I
came to foreign operations, I will assure my colleagues that I thought
foreign was spelled F-O-R-N operations. They have educated me, they
have worked with me, they have schooled me with respect to this great
world that we live in. It has been tremendous that we have been able to
achieve the successes that we have, which could not have been done
without them.
Also Mark Murray on the Democratic side has been extremely
cooperative, as has the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). Jim
Dyer, Mr. Parkinson, Mr. Mikel in our full committee office, as well as
the chairman of our full committee, Mr. Young, have been extremely
cooperative during these past 6 years. What a glorious past 6 years it
has been and how fast it has gone by. How rapidly we have been able to
learn about the world.
Mr. Speaker, we have had the opportunity to visit in bipartisan
delegations countries that some of us did not know existed before we
became involved in this committee. We have traversed the jungles of
South America
[[Page H10839]]
and Central America. We have visited countries that used to be the
Soviet nation that are now independent states and listened to the
leaders of those new nations strive for democracy and plead with us to
send them additional technical assistance. Not cash, assistance in
establishing a democracy and market economy.
What an interesting trip it has been. And I certainly would never,
never regret for a moment that this opportunity to chair this
subcommittee was given to me. With respect to the distinguished offer
of our chairman of our full committee to consider the possibility of
making me the chairman of this committee again next year, before he
does that, I think I should advise him that I have had about all the
fun I can stand. So I will want to talk to him before that decision is
made. Yes, I want to be chairman. Yes, I have enjoyed foreign
operations. Yes, I think we have accomplished a great deal. But before
this final decision is made, let us sit down and have a cup of coffee
and decide what might be best for me for the next 6 years.
With respect to foreign operations, when I first became chairman of
this committee, I read a report about the attitude of the American
people, a poll that was taken about their attitude toward foreign
policy and foreign aid. The American people thought that 20 percent of
the money that we appropriate went to foreign aid. In reality, this
bill that we pass today represents 2 percent of the total
appropriations that we will make this year. So our contribution is not
anywhere near what the American people think.
In explaining foreign operations and foreign aid to the people of
south Alabama, and indeed the people of the entire country, not one
person that I have met during this entire 6 years has given any
indication that they do not support direct aid to people who need it,
to starving children, to sick people, to uneducated people.
No one objects to that. They object to years past when all of this
money was given to the leaders of corrupt nations. No longer, because
of the cooperation I have received from the minority and this House and
the Senate, do we provide much of this direct aid outside of the Middle
East. All of our efforts are concentrated in a manner that will ensure
that the monies that we appropriate today go for the intended purposes,
and that is to provide for the needy throughout the world, the less
fortunate than those here in the United States.
Many comments have been made today about debt forgiveness. Not one
individual on the Republican or Democratic side of this body disagrees
with the intended purpose of debt forgiveness. There are some of us who
question whether or not this entire $435 million will actually get to
its intended purpose because the United States of America has already
forgiven its bilateral debt to all these nations, and a lot of this
money will go to these nations and just be channeled through to a bank
that has made a bad loan. But no one disagrees with the Jubilee Year
intentions of providing for those of us that are not so fortunate. So,
yes, the $435 million is there, and I challenge those supporters of
debt forgiveness to make absolutely certain that this money goes for
its intended purpose.
It has been a great year. I will admit that we have had some trying
times. The chairman of this committee has given me the opportunity to
sit with some of my colleagues at the White House and to discuss the
possibilities of the occupation that we went into in Kosovo. I sat with
some of my colleagues, like the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Murtha), and worried about our troops going into Bosnia. And even
though, for instance, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and
I both disagreed about the involvement of our troops in Bosnia,
nevertheless the Commander in Chief said that that was what he was
going to do, and so we both came back and supported it.
So it has given me the opportunity to be involved in a process even
though I disagreed at times with the President. I have disagreed with
the Secretary of State. I have disagreed with the minority side of this
House. But it has been a tremendous experience for me to have played a
part in these historical events that have taken place during the last 6
years.
So I suppose my swan song on this particular bill, I say to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), would be patterned after one
of her former residents of California, although ultimately he wised up
and moved to the south, to Florida, but Frank Sinatra had that song
that he sang, his theme song, ``I Did It My Way.''
This year, we did it our way. The gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi) and I and our committee members and our chairman of our full
committee sat down together and negotiated a bill that is not exactly
what I would like in its entirety, nor is it exactly what the
gentlewoman would like in its entirety, but it is a bill that
originated in this House, that was compromised within the body of the
legislative branch of government and which did not involve negotiations
at some late-night hour with the President of the United States.
This is a bill, Mr. Speaker, that was formulated by this body. It is
a bill that deserves the support of this entire body, and I urge a
``yes'' vote on passage of this bill.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the gentleman from
Alabama for bringing this conference report to the floor. While this
subcommittee works with one of the smaller allocations, this bill is
usually one of the most contentious. The Chairman and his staff have
done an outstanding job of trying to address numerous concerns while
working within the constraints of, what I consider, too small a budget
for the important programs that this bill supports.
I am pleased that the conference committee continues to recognize the
needs of areas of conflict, such as Armenia, and Cyprus, and I hope
that a peaceful settlement will soon be reached in both of these
regions. I am also pleased that the committee recognizes areas of the
world where unfortunately people have to flight for democracy and the
rule of law such as Burma and Tibet.
Further, I strongly support the committee's continued suspension of
military aid to and engagement with Indonesia until the East Timorese
refugees are safely returned home and until there is accountability for
the perpetrators of the violence which is occurring throughout
Indonesia not only on Timor island, but also in the Moluccas, Aceh and
West Papua.
I am pleased that the Migration and Refugee Assistance account is
funded above the President's request. This is money which is critically
needed in areas throughout the world to aid the most desperate peoples,
the refugees who have been forced out of their homes. The increase is
especially needed today in light of the increasing danger faced by
refugees assistance workers as seen in the recent murders of UNHCR
workers in West Timor and Guinea.
Also, I support the final funding level of the Global Environment
Facility and the funding provided for biodiversity programs implemented
through USAID. As indicated in the House Report and the Statement of
Managers, the Congress supports increased funding for important
biodiversity programs as protection of natural resources around the
world becomes more critical as populations increase and economies
expand.
Finally, I am pleased that agreements were reached on the two most
contentious issues--debt relief for the world's poorest countries and
international family planning. I support full funding for the U.S.
contribution to the global initiative to alleviate the debt of the most
impoverished countries and I am pleased that the Mexico City language
was not included in this year's bill. The small increase in funding for
international voluntary family planning program is at least a step in
the right direction and will help to improve the health of countless
women and children around the world, but a great deal more is needed.
While I support most aspects of this bill, I raise one concern
regarding the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI). As an
early, strong and constant supporter of efforts to combat the global
AIDS epidemic, I support the overall goal of this initiative. However,
I raise concerns with the process. In the appropriations bill funding
the National Institutes of Health (NIH), we do not earmark by disease
or provide any funds for specific private research organizations. We
believe that this should be determined by the scientists and
researchers who know what is ripe for funding. Echoing concerns raised
by Dr. Harold Varmus, Nobel Prize recipient for research and former
Director of NIH, I believe that explicit support for IAVI sets a
dangerous precedent for funding of medical research.
Finally, I remain concerned with the continued under funding in U.S.
foreign assistance. As I have said before, the U.S. is now the sole
superpower and world leader. Yet, we are not leading. As our role in
the world becomes
[[Page H10840]]
more important, our budget for foreign operations continues to lag
behind our level of responsibility, thereby, limiting the impact we can
have on global development.
Again, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Alabama and his
staff for their hard work and ultimate success in bringing a free-
standing Foreign Operations Conference Report to the floor.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report
on H.R. 4811, 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 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--since 1950, half of the world's
tropical forests have been lost. The groups that have the most
experience preserving tropical forests--including the Nature
Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International and
others--agree with this approach, and the Administration strongly
supports it as well. It is an excellent example of the kind of
bipartisan approach we should have on environmental issues.
The Tropical Forest Conservation Act gives the President authority to
reduce or cancel U.S. AID and/or P.L. 480 debt owed by an eligible
country to the United States. In return, the country creates a fund in
its local currency to preserve, maintain, and restore its tropical
forests.
I am delighted that on September 12, 2000 the United States and
Bangladesh signed the first Tropical Forest Conservation Act agreement.
This agreement will allow Bangladesh to save $10 million in debt
payments to the U.S. over 18 years. In return, Bangladesh is setting
aside $8.5 million in its local currency to endow a Tropical Forest
Conservation Fund.
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, the debt-for-forest arrangement with
Bangladesh will play an important role in preserving endangered species
and protecting biodiversity, as well as help that struggling nation's
economy.
On another front, our government is actively involved in debt
treatment discussions with the government of Belize, including a
possible debt swap option with non-government organizations. This is an
excellent example of a public-private partnership to protect tropical
forests.
Several other countries have expressed interest in participating in
Tropical Forest Conservation agreements including El Salvador, Peru,
Thailand, Paraguay, Ecuador, Indonesia, Costa Rica, and the
Philippines.
The Tropical Forest Conservation Act preserves and protects important
tropical forests worldwide in a fiscally responsible fashion, and I
call upon my colleagues to support the conference report which provides
the funds necessary to implement this important program.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4811, the
Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. Although this legislation
contains some important and worthwhile provisions, it unfortunately
contains more provisions that I oppose.
I applaud the appropriators and the administration for including
Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) debt relief funding. For decades
many poor countries have been forced to spend large portions of their
income to pay down debts incurred in an attempt to restructure their
economies. In some cases this money was lost to fraud and abuse by
leaders in these countries. For other countries this money failed to
reform the economy. In other cases the money successfully transformed
the economy, but they have been unable to provide health services and
education because of the burdens of this debt. This initiative of debt
relief is a good first step in helping the poorest in our world begin
to receive the education and public health services they need by
reducing their country's debt burden.
This bill also includes no restrictions on international family
planning activities for non-profit organizations. I'm not sure why my
anti-abortion colleagues have allowed this bill to proceed, but I'm
thankful that this body has begun to realize that we cannot force our
own personal morality on other people. I hope that in the future this
body will continue on this path and support a woman's right to choose.
The funding for international HIV/AIDS programs and tuberculosis
control programs will also provide much needed relief to those
countries who are experiencing unprecedented outbreaks in these
diseases. Most of this suffering is occurring in Africa, where these
diseases threaten not only to kill millions of people, but also
threaten the very stability of these countries. By providing this
funding we will help alleviate the suffering of families around the
world.
Unfortunately, I have several objections to this bill. Primarily, the
continued American taxpayer subsidy of foreign militaries and U.S.
defense contractors. This bill contains over $3 billion in aid to a
handful of countries to purchase missiles, tanks, guns, attack
helicopters, and fighter planes. In a time of increased tension and
conflict this body should be working to reduce the number of guns in
this world rather than wasting taxpayer money increasing the killing
potential of foreign militaries.
Through this appropriation bill we also fail to protect human rights
by continuing to provide anti-narcotics funding to countries with well-
documented violations of human rights. It also does not include
requirements that the School of Americas include human rights training
in its course work. These failures will encourage human rights
violators to continue their actions.
Finally this bill includes an increase in the spending caps for this
year's budget. While Members on the other side of the aisle, claim to
be fiscally conservative, their actions continue to spend billions of
dollars that fail to protect future programs. If we approve this
increase my Republican colleagues will push to spend more money on
irresponsible tax cuts to benefit the wealthy and push through their
BBRA give-back bill which will provide billions of dollars to HMO's
which continue to drop seniors from their Medicare programs. This
spending will not benefit the majority of Americans while at the same
time kowtowing to the wealthy and special interests.
It is with these considerations that I vote against this
appropriations bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). All time has
expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference
report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and the nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the
conference report on H.R. 4811 will be followed by 5-minute votes on
each of the following motions to suspend the rules on which the yeas
and nays were ordered yesterday: H.R. 782, H.R. 5375, H. Con. Res. 426,
and S. 2547.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 307,
nays 101, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 546]
YEAS--307
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hastings (WA)
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Maloney (CT)
[[Page H10841]]
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Strickland
Sununu
Sweeney
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--101
Aderholt
Archer
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barton
Berry
Blunt
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cox
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
Everett
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kind (WI)
Kucinich
Lewis (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Manzullo
McDermott
McInnis
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Norwood
Oberstar
Paul
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Rahall
Riley
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Shows
Smith (MI)
Spence
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Vitter
Walden
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield
NOT VOTING--24
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Conyers
Danner
Delahunt
Engel
Franks (NJ)
Gephardt
Hastings (FL)
John
Klink
Largent
Lazio
McCollum
McGovern
McIntosh
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Peterson (PA)
Shadegg
Stupak
Talent
Wise
{time} 1358
Messrs. HERGER, McINNIS, CANADY, GOODLATTE and WHITFIELD changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I mistakenly voted in favor of the Conference
Report to 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. My vote should have been
recorded as a vote in opposition to the passage of the Conference
Report.
____________________