[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.

                          ____________________