[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 24, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H4437-H4481]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cantor). Pursuant to House Resolution
199 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 2506.
{time} 1035
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2506) making appropriations for foreign operations,
export financing and related programs for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, with Mr. Thornberry in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, July
19, 2001, the bill had been read through page 1, line 6.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE I--EXPORT AND INVESTMENT ASSISTANCE
export-import bank of the united states
The Export-Import Bank of the United States is authorized
to make such expenditures within the limits of funds and
borrowing authority available to such corporation, and in
accordance with law, and to make such contracts and
commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations, as
provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control
Act, as may be necessary in carrying out the program for the
current fiscal year for such corporation: Provided, That none
of the funds available during the current fiscal year may be
used to make expenditures, contracts, or commitments for the
export of nuclear equipment, fuel, or technology to any
country other than a nuclear-weapon state as defined in
Article IX of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons eligible to receive economic or military assistance
under this Act that has detonated a nuclear explosive after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
subsidy appropriation
For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, insurance,
and tied-aid grants as authorized by section 10 of the
Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended, $753,323,000 to
remain available until September 30, 2005: Provided, That
such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall
be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974: Provided further, That such sums shall remain
available until September 30,
[[Page H4438]]
2020 for the disbursement of direct loans, loan guarantees,
insurance and tied-aid grants obligated in fiscal years 2002,
2003, 2004, and 2005: Provided further, That none of the
funds appropriated by this Act or any prior Act appropriating
funds for foreign operations, export financing, or related
programs for tied-aid credits or grants may be used for any
other purpose except through the regular notification
procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: Provided
further, That funds appropriated by this paragraph are made
available notwithstanding section 2(b)(2) of the Export
Import Bank Act of 1945, in connection with the purchase or
lease of any product by any East European country, any Baltic
State or any agency or national thereof.
Amendment No. 60 Offered by Mr. Visclosky
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 60 offered by Mr. Visclosky:
In title I, in the item relating to ``subsidy
appropriation'', after the aggregate dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
In title I, in the item relating to ``administrative
expenses'', after the aggregate dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.
In title II, in the item relating to ``child survival and
health programs fund''--
(1) after the aggregate dollar amount, insert ``(increased
by $18,000,000)''; and
(2) in the 4th proviso--
(A) after the dollar amount allocated for vulnerable
children, insert ``(increased by $5,000,000)''; and
(B) after the dollar amount allocated for HIV/AIDS, insert
``(increased by $13,000,000)''.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, what does the amendment that I and the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) are offering do today? Our
amendment will cut $3 million from the Ex-Im Bank's administrative
expenses and $15 million for the Bank's subsidy appropriations.
I would, first of all, point out to all of my colleagues that the
remaining subsidies and dollars in this bill for the Ex-Im Bank would
still be $100 million more than the President of the United States
requested in his budget this year. So even given the cut that the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and I seek, we will be over
the President's request by $100 million.
It is my understanding that with the change in how we will score for
loan subsidies, that the range estimated to be provided under this bill
will be between $12 and $12.5 billion compared to about $10.5 this
year.
Why are we offering this amendment? We are offering this amendment
because last year, over the objections of the administration and many
Members of this House, the Ex-Im Bank approved an $18 million loan
guarantee to Benxi Iron and Steel in China.
This loan increases Benxi's hot roll steel capacity by 11.5 million
metric tons at a time when the world capacity is in excess of 280
million tons. Benxi Steel is currently involved in an antidumping case
before the International Trade Commission because the Department of
Commerce has already found that Benxi has dumped steel, and their
margin of dumping on hot roll carbon steel dumping is 67.44 percent.
This is also the highest margin found by the Commerce Department of six
Chinese companies currently being investigated.
The American Iron and Steel Institute in April of last year wrote to
the Ex-Im Bank and explained that China is increasing its government
subsidies to steel in preparation for that country's entry into the
WTO.
What is the consequence of this loan guarantee? This is a bad loan,
and it has put American citizens out of work. Since 1998, 23,000 steel
workers have lost their jobs. We now have 19 steel companies that are
in bankruptcy, interestingly enough, one of whom declared bankruptcy
last Monday when the Ex-Im Bank said they should revise some of their
rules as to how these loan guarantees are made.
Within those companies, 42,556 Americans are now in jeopardy. Over 21
percent of all the steel capacity in the United States today is in
bankruptcy; and, again, I emphasize there is already a 280-million ton
excess capacity on the world market; and the Ex-Im Bank completely
ignored that.
The industry has done everything possible to help itself. They have
modernized. They have invested billions of dollars. They have closed 30
million tons of steel in the United States of America.
Hot roll products today sell for less than they did 20 years ago.
Where are these employees and these bankrupt companies? They are in
States like New York, Georgia, Connecticut, Alabama, Missouri, South
Carolina, Minnesota, Arizona, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania,
Michigan, Tennessee, Georgia, West Virginia, Texas, Utah, and now the
State of California.
I find it interesting that Monday of last week, the week when people
assumed this amendment would be debated in the House of
Representatives, the President of the Ex-Im Bank proposed that they
would sharpen their criteria in consideration of loans such as this.
The President of the Bank said that they should apply to all products
where there could be conceivable oversupply with the potential of
harming domestic industry. What a terrific coincidence.
The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and I and others are
offering an amendment today. Last Monday, the Ex-Im Bank found
religion. The fact is, under their rules and under their policy
handbook, they do not have to change the rules. The rules say they
never should have made that loan guarantee in the first place, and they
ignored their own handbook.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the gentleman has
accomplished his mission here. He has gotten them, the Ex-Im Bank, to
take seriously his point of view here on this particular matter.
It seems to me that to punish the Ex-Im Bank, this is what the
gentleman would be doing, and they would be punishing the exporters of
this country, many of which are small businesses who are struggling to
stay in business, and take $3 million of their funds, which are for
salaries.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's argument is based on if
we could count on the Ex-Im Bank to be serious about their reviews.
In February 9 of 2001, they wrote a letter to me saying that in 1999,
the Ex-Im Bank amended its economic impact procedures to make them more
restrictive in order to minimize any potential negative impacts on
companies.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky)
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Visclosky was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Then they granted this loan guarantee. Then they came
out and said, ``Another review of this policy has already been planned
to begin shortly.''
We are waiting forever for the Ex-Im Bank to review its plans not to
hurt American manufacturers as they finance this overcapacity around
the world.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is an experienced legislator
here. Obviously, if he is going to change the law, he has to change the
substantive law here.
This is an appropriations bill, where we are trying to provide money
to run the agency. What the gentleman needs to do is amend the
legislation.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have to reclaim my time.
I would simply respond to the gentleman that we want to drive home
the point, because it is not a coincidence that the Ex-Im Bank found
religion on Monday of last week. The fact is, and it is not a
coincidence, that today and yesterday and last year the Ex-Im Bank,
under their policy handbook and under the law, were prohibited from
making a loan like that.
It is a fact that the Secretary of Commerce wrote to the Ex-Im Bank
and said, ``Do not make this loan. You have 280 million excess tons.
You have lost 23,000 jobs in this country. You have 18 companies in
bankruptcy, and
[[Page H4439]]
another one went over the cliff last Monday.''
They do not listen. The only thing they are going to understand is
this entire House today voting to cut the recommendation that is
contained in this bill, which I again would emphasize would leave the
Ex-Im Bank at $100 million more than the President of the United States
asked for in his budget request.
I would implore my colleagues to vote for the Mollohan-Visclosky
amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this. I think, as the
gentleman from Washington explained very well, this is an attempt to
try to take a baseball bat and hit Ex-Im Bank over the head. I
understand. We do that a lot around here. But it does not get at the
substance of it. It does not really get at the issue that the gentleman
from Indiana and the gentleman from West Virginia really want to
address, because of course it does not deal with a specific loan to a
specific entity at all.
As the gentleman from Indiana has explained, it would take $18
million from the Export-Import Bank and transfer it to some other very
worthy programs, like HIV/AIDS. It does so in the exact same amount as
the Bank lent to the Benxi Iron and Steel Company in China.
Let me just address for a moment what the impact of this amendment
would be on the work that the Ex-Im Bank does.
{time} 1045
First of all, it needs to be noted that while the gentleman from
Indiana referred to this as being still well above what the President
had requested, this is the area that has taken the biggest decrease
from last year in terms of what the President requested.
The President asked for a 25 percent cut to the Ex-Im Bank, $229
million less than the 2001 level of $927 million. We provided for $118
million more than that, but it is still $107 million less than last
year. So there is no question that this amendment will significantly
cut in to the work that the Ex-Im Bank does.
Fewer funds are in the Ex-Im Bank in their subsidy program this year,
because if there are fewer funds, it relates directly to a lower volume
of bank export financing. In fact, we cannot translate this and say
this is $18 million, because the fact is this would result directly in
$275 million less in Ex-Im Bank loan guarantees for next year. That is
the result of taking this amount of money, $18 million of guarantees
out, and what it translates into in terms of the impact on the Export-
Import Bank.
We already have exporters in this country that are hurting because of
the very strong dollar. A strong dollar is good for us, good for the
economy, but it really hurts when it comes to our exporters, and we are
hurt in that area. Alan Greenspan just last week testified in the
Senate that the U.S. economy still faces a number of weaknesses. The
capital spending is lagging, and unequivocally this demonstrates the
pain we are feeling in today's economy. So this is not the time to be
cutting one of the few tools that we have to help to promote exports
and to help export-related jobs, specifically export-related jobs in
the gentleman's district, and export-related jobs in all the other
districts around this country.
Now, let me also point out the impact a $3 million cut to the Ex-Im
Bank's administrative expenses would have. It disproportionately hurts
small businesses. We have already recommended a level that is $2
million below what the President's request is. So this would cut into
the technological upgrades that Ex-Im Bank is trying to do, and those
are essential if we are going to process small business transactions,
especially insurance transactions.
So let me summarize by saying that the gentleman's amendment is going
to cut the work of the Ex-Im Bank. It is not going to have anything to
do with the particular loan the gentleman is concerned about; but it is
going to cut out jobs in his district, it will cut out jobs in West
Virginia, it will cut out jobs around the rest of the country, because
companies that want to do business overseas will not be able to compete
with the work that other countries are able to do and to subsidize
their companies in those countries.
So this is the wrong amendment at the wrong time, and I would urge we
not do this.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. The gentleman has said this is about export-related
jobs. Indeed, it is about export-related jobs. We have exported 23,000
steel workers' jobs because of the insensitivity of the American
Government, and particularly this institution, over the last 3 years.
This particular loan was egregious, and we should be expressing as
much concern about the export of jobs from this country. That is what
we ought to be interested in. Those are the export jobs we ought to be
interested in.
Mr. KOLBE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, in the brief time that
is remaining, I would just say I would challenge the figure that the
gentleman has used as to whether that kind of job loss is a direct
result of giving loans to the companies in question. But there is no
doubt that cutting out Ex-Im all together, by cutting out the loans
that they do, does result in a loss of sales and that does result in a
loss of jobs.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleague from Indiana (Mr.
Visclosky), who has done such a tremendous job in this area in offering
this amendment. The substance of our amendment is simple: we are
seeking to cut $18 million in funds from the Export-Import Bank. Our
amendment cuts $3 million from the $63 million provided for the
administration expenses of the bank and $15 million from the
approximately $753 million provided for the bank's subsidy.
Now, understand that the President only requested $633 million for
the subsidy account. The committee has appropriated $753. So there is
about a 120 million dollars between what the President requests. We are
only taking $18 million from what the committee has appropriated, far
higher than the President's request is still remaining.
The Visclosky-Mollohan amendment then takes the $18 million and
places it in good places, Mr. Chairman, in the Child Survival and
Health Programs fund, with $13 million targeted to the HIV-AIDS
subaccount and $5 million targeted to the Vulnerable Children's
subaccount that provides money for displaced children, orphans and
blind children.
Mr. Chairman, why $18 million? Why an $18 million cut? The Export-
Import Bank guaranteed an $18 million loan made by the Deutsche Bank of
North America to the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China for
purposes of modernizing the Benxi Iron & Steel Company's hot strip mill
located in China. The Benxi hot strip mill located in China.
A letter from the Secretary of Commerce opposing this loan at the
time it was being considered dated December 13, 2000, says ``Imports of
hot rolled steel from China have increased dramatically over the past
several years from less than 6,000 metric tons in 1997 to possibly more
than 450,000 metric tons by the end of 2000.'' We need to loan money so
that China can increase its capacity in hot rolled steel? I think not,
Mr. Chairman.
I want to offer my colleagues here in the House the following time
line, which explains the climate in which the Export-Import Bank
approved this particular loan guarantee:
November 13 of 2000, nine U.S. companies who produce hot rolled
steel, including five integrated producers, one of whom is in my
congressional district, four mini-mills, the Independent Steelworkers
of America, and the United Steelworkers of America filed antidumping
cases against China and 10 other countries. Benxi was cited in the case
as an exporter of a product dumped in the United States.
December 3, 2000, the U.S. Department of Commerce decided to initiate
the case based on the belief that there was evidence of dumping.
December 19, 13 days later, the Export-Import Bank, in its wisdom,
approved the $18 million loan guarantee in spite of the evidence of
dumping from China, and Benxi was a producer.
[[Page H4440]]
Two days later, December 22, the International Trade Commission made
a preliminary determination that the imports of dumped hot rolled steel
from China were causing injury to the United States industry.
Hello!
A Department of Commerce final determination will be issued in
September, and the ITC will vote by the end of October on whether to
impose duties. As my colleagues can see, the evidence of illegal
dumping was overwhelming; yet nonetheless, the Export-Import Bank
arrogantly ignored the fact that the world does not need any more steel
capacity.
The steel report issued last July by the Department of Commerce
correctly points out that there is significant overcapacity in the
global steel industry. The report further points out that the London-
based Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau estimated world excess capacity
to be 250 and 275 million metric tons in 1997 and 1998. These figures
have not fallen significantly, Mr. Chairman.
All of this information was available to the Export-Import Bank when
they made this loan. We cannot allow an institution that is funded by
American taxpayers' dollars to use that money to guarantee loans to
support projects that put Americans out of work. Mr. Chairman, the 19th
steel company has just declared bankruptcy, as the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) pointed out a few moments ago, at the beginning
of the week; 23,000 steelworkers have lost their jobs as a result of
this crisis.
This loan was egregious, Mr. Chairman. This loan was outrageous, and
we cannot let it stand.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Visclosky-Mollohan amendment to
cut the Export-Import Bank, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise and
to join me in voting against it.
The Export-Import Bank provides crucial support for America's
exporting businesses, especially small businesses and the workers that
those businesses employ. Support for Ex-Im means real jobs for real
people. In fiscal year 2000, Ex-Im Bank financed more than 2,500 U.S.
export sales, supporting $15.5 billion of U.S. exports to markets
worldwide. Eighty-six percent of these transactions directly supported
small business.
In my district alone, since 1996, Ex-Im has supported 76 million in
exports. Eleven of the 15 businesses supported are small businesses.
Without Ex-Im, these transactions simply would not go forward. Ex-Im
only gets involved when the private sector will not. Cutting Ex-Im
means eliminating opportunities for American businesses and their
employees.
Especially with our economy wavering, this is simply the wrong thing
to do. Exports are crucial to the U.S. economy. Exports account for
over one-quarter of U.S. economic growth over the last decade and
support an estimated 12 million American jobs. In order to grow the
U.S. economy and also to increase the number of jobs, export
opportunities need to grow as well.
However, when it comes to international trade, the U.S. is falling
rapidly behind. There are over 130 preferential-treatment trade
agreements in effect in the world today. The European Union has 27, 20
of which they finalized in the last 10 years. Meanwhile, the U.S. is a
party to only two, NAFTA and a free trade agreement with Israel.
Exporting countries and other countries therefore have advantages in
markets around the world that U.S. companies do not. In this
environment, Ex-Im is increasingly important to support exports for
U.S. businesses. Cutting Ex-Im will only push us further behind.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is especially troubling because it cuts
$3 million from Ex-Im's administrative budget. That is a direct blow to
small business. Eighty-five percent of Ex-Im's administrative budget is
comprised of fixed costs. Out of the remainder, Ex-Im uses a
significant portion for seminars and other efforts to reach out to
small business. In reality, transactions involving small businesses are
the most labor intensive. Therefore, cutting Ex-Im's administrative
budget has the real effect of cutting out export opportunities for
small businesses.
I understand the sponsors of this amendment have concerns about a
specific transaction. They want to make sure, and I understand this,
that Ex-Im has appropriate economic impact protections in place.
However, this amendment is clearly not the means to achieve that goal.
First of all, Ex-Im does indeed have economic impact protections in
place. More importantly, Ex-Im has responded to the concerns raised by
the sponsors of this amendment by going through an extensive review of
its economic impact procedures. The methods of evaluating economic
impact are being reformed. In fact, the bank has released new draft
procedures that are currently open for comment. So there is a process
under way to address the concerns being raised by this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, cutting Ex-Im means cutting U.S. exports, and cutting
Ex-Im's administrative budget means squeezing out opportunities for
small businesses. I believe this is the wrong thing to do, is not
necessary, and should be defeated. I urge my colleagues to join me in
voting against it.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me, and I
appreciate the statistics that the gentleman cites, these general
statistics about the benefit of exporting to the American economy.
Obviously, the benefit of exports to the American economy are great and
very important to its well-being. I will stipulate to that.
What does concern me when we have this debate and there are those who
cite the statistics, and stand up and do so so eloquently, is when do
we talk about the downside? When do we talk about concern for the
23,000 steelworkers who have lost their jobs because of this kind of
importing and the outrageous impact of the loan?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just say
to the gentleman that there is a review process in place. They are
looking at the gentleman's concerns.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. They said that in February of this year.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Reclaiming my time, I think it would be out of line
to cut now because that does not do anything for the gentleman's
problem.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment, and I move to strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1100
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the
Visclosky-Mollohan amendment. I believe my colleagues are well
intentioned here today. I would argue that they should take their case
to the authorizing committee, and I would join them in trying to change
the law so we would not be in this position in the future.
I also think that the Department of Commerce in the anti-dumping case
is already directing real attention at this problem. That is what we
should be focusing on.
Mr. Chairman, to come in here today and take $18 million out of the
Export-Import Bank, $3 million of which comes from the administrative
funds which were only increased by $1 million over last year's level,
means an actual cut of 2 percent. This is salaries. This is health
care. This is the fixed cost of the agency. I would say that is a very
brutal cut.
The other money would come out of the money that is used by small
businesses and large businesses to support U.S. exports. My concern
with this amendment is we are punishing America's exporters who are
also creating jobs. I feel for the gentleman for the loss of jobs to
steelworkers. The gentleman has to admit that not all of their losses
are due to the Export-Import Bank.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman gets me additional time, I
will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, my concern is we are punishing another sector of the
economy which is crucial to our economic health. In my State of
Washington, one
[[Page H4441]]
out of every three jobs is an export job. So my State would be punished
by this amendment. In fact, we are $100 million below last year's level
in terms of the loan guarantees. This administration has cut it. I
would also point out that this is a new administration that is not
responsible for what the previous administration did on this particular
loan; and they have said that they are going to review this matter.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman he has won his victory
here today. The gentleman has convinced the new administration that
this is something which should not be done in the future; and so do not
punish the Export-Import Bank where jobs in my State will be lost.
(On request of Mr. Mollohan, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the gentleman speaks in
terms that this cut is going to have a disastrous impact on exporters
who are assisted by the Export-Import Bank and people in his
congressional district, perhaps. Hardly. The President requested $633
million. This committee is appropriating $753 million, which is $120
million more than the President requested. We are simply taking $18
million.
Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, but $100 million less than last year.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, to follow up on the point of the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the word ``cut'' has been
used here a lot. I used it myself.
Mr. Chairman, we are over the President's request; but my
understanding is that the dollars appropriated, and the way it will be
budgeted will provide for about 12 to $12.5 billion worth of subsidies.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if we had gotten last
year's level, we would be at $15 billion in export support, so it is
about a $2.5 billion cut which the gentleman will make worse with this
$18 million cut.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have had, in the last 3 years, 19
steel companies go bankrupt. That is sobering. Nineteen steel companies
in this country. We have had 23,000 steelworkers, real jobs for real
people, laid off. This is here and now.
Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, if I may finish. When the gentleman talks
about going to the authorizing committee, we are not talking about
dealing with an imminent danger. The gentleman serves on the Committee
on Appropriations. The Committee on Appropriations can make a statement
here and now. If we were to go to the authorizing committee, it may be
2 more years and another 19 steel companies going bankrupt.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman makes a
mistake if he does not consider trying to change the law so the Export-
Import Bank has to take into account the impact on the domestic economy
of these exporters.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to joining the gentleman
in that effort.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I told the gentleman I would be glad to help
in that effort. But the point here today is this is a meat-axe
approach. Coming in here and cutting $18 million out of Export-Import
Bank does not make any sense. The new administration says they are
going to take the gentleman's position into account. I would urge the
gentleman to withdraw his amendment, he has made his point, and not
hurt another sector of the economy.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should urge something else
because he knows that is not going to happen. Maybe the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks) should urge his colleagues who might support his
position to vote with him.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I always think my colleagues have good
judgment.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair requests Members follow regular order.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
This is a token amount of money being cut from the Export-Import Bank.
The President asked for a $120 million cut. This is only $18 million.
There was $120 million added over the present request. This is not a
project that is a favorite of the President, and he has referred to
this as a form of corporate welfare.
This is just a small effort to rein in the power of the special
interests, the powerful special interests. It has been mentioned that
jobs could be lost. In the debate, there has been emphasis on jobs, and
the truth is that it may happen. Jobs could be lost. But what Members
fail to realize is that the jobs lost are special interest jobs. If my
colleagues take that same funding, and we never talk about what would
happen to that $75 billion line of credit of the Export-Import Bank if
it were allowed to remain in the economy. Other jobs would be created,
so my colleagues cannot argue half of the case. We have to look at the
whole picture. Special interest jobs would be lost. True market jobs
would be increased.
Mr. Chairman, last week we had a vote on trade with China. I
supported that vote. I believe in free trade and low tariffs. I believe
in the right of people to spend their money where they please, and I
believe it is best for countries to be trading with each other. But the
very same people today arguing for these corporate subsidies claim they
are for free trade. If my colleagues are for free trade, they should
not be for corporate subsidies. They are not one and the same. They are
different.
Free trade means there are low tariffs, but we do not subsidize any
special interests. To me it is rather amazing, the paragraph that we
are dealing with is called Subsidy Authorization. There is no
pretension anymore. We just advertise, this as a subsidies. When did we
get into the business of subsidies? A long time ago, unfortunately. I
do not think that the Congress should be in the business of subsidies.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment has something to do with campaign
finance reform. I am in favor of some reforms, that is, less control.
People have the right to spend their own money the way they want; and
when we have the problem of big corporations coming here and lobbying
us, that is a secondary problem.
If my colleagues look at the corporations that get the biggest
subsidies from the Export-Import Bank, they really lobby us.
Mr. Chairman, what I say is let us have some real campaign finance
reform and let us get rid of the subsidies and the motivation for these
huge corporations to come here and influence our vote. That is what the
problem is. We do not need to get the money out of politics, we need to
get the money out of Washington and out of the business of subsidizing
special interests. That is where our problem is.
Last week we voted to trade with China, and I said I supported that.
But anybody who voted against that bill because they do not like what
is happening in China should vote for this amendment and also my
amendment that is likely to come up.
China gets $6.2 billion, the largest subsidy to any country in the
world from the Export-Import Banks. China gets it. So why do we first
want to trade with China, then subsidize them as well, and then
complain? I would suggest that those who claim they believe in free
trade, they need to support this amendment because we are getting into
the interference and manipulation of trade, the subsidy to big
corporations.
Those who do not like China should vote for this because there is a
suggestion that the Export-Import Bank serves the interest of China. So
to me it should be an easy vote. The only problem with this amendment
is that it is so small. It does not really address the big subject on
whether or not the Congress should be in this business. Obviously they
should not be. Where do you find the authorization to give subsidy
appropriations in the Constitution? It is not there.
[[Page H4442]]
This is a charade. This is fiction when it comes to looking at
constitutional law.
I would strongly urge a yes vote on this amendment and do not support
this effort to benefit the big companies and hurt the little guys. The
little guys are the ones who lose this line of credit and push their
interest rates up.
Who gets the risk under this situation? The taxpayer. There is a lot
of insurance in the Export-Import Bank. The risk goes to the taxpayer,
but the profits go to the corporations. What is fair about that? The
big corporation cannot lose. So why would the banks not loan to the big
special interest corporations?
Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I have not seen such obfuscation in all my life as I
have seen here this morning. Somehow they want us to believe that if we
take $18 million out of their budget, that the whole import/export
budget will collapse. The President's budget has $687 million in it.
The House budget is $805 million.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Visclosky-Mollohan amendment
which cuts $15 million from the Export-Import Bank subsidy
appropriations and $3 million from their administrative expenses. It
troubles me that the Ex-Im Bank approved an $18 million loan guarantee
to modernize and improve production for a Chinese steel company. Yes,
you heard it correctly. We are using American taxpayer dollars to
modernize a Chinese steel company so that it can produce more steel for
import into the United States, thereby, putting more steel workers on
the unemployment line.
To add insult to injury, Benxi, the Chinese steel company, is
currently involved in an anti-dumping case before the International
Trade Commission. Once again, you heard it correctly. We are
guaranteeing a loan for a Chinese steel company which has been charged
with dumping steel on the American market.
Does the Ex-Im Bank not know that our domestic steel industry has
been hurting since the flood of imports began in the late 1990s? In
fact, since December of 1997, 18 steel companies, and I understand one
more steel company with a combined total of 36,000 employees, have
declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy which means 36,000 steel worker jobs
could be in jeopardy. Since 1998 over 20,000 steel workers have lost
their jobs.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize the competitiveness of the international
marketplace, and I know our companies can compete if the playing field
is level. In fact, we have the most efficient and productive steel
workers in the world. However, not only do we lack a level playing
field, but American taxpayers are now being asked to subsidize our
competitors.
As John Stosel says on ABC's 20/20, ``Give me a break.'' This must
stop and Congress needs to send a message that it will not tolerate
these misguided policies. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to support the Visclosky-Mollohan amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MASCARA. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to point out that on December 15,
2000 the board of directors of Ex-Im approved a guarantee for an $18
million credit to support export sales from General Electric in Salem,
Virginia; Carlen Controls in Roanoke, Virginia; and CIC Company in
Glenshaw, Pennsylvania for software control systems and main drive
power supplies and it does go for this project. These are U.S.
companies that got the loan guarantees.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MASCARA. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman just made our point.
The lack of wisdom is in paying off these companies to support
investments of the Benxi steel facility in China in order to enable the
production of tremendous excess capacity in that plant. The gentleman
just made the point.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Pennsylvania will
continue to yield, the point I was trying to make was that the
gentleman said that the guarantee was given to the Chinese company. It
was not given to the Chinese company. It was given to these three
American companies.
{time} 1115
Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Chairman, I think all of us agree that the Ex-Im
Bank is valuable, that it is valuable to small businesses, that it is
important for trade, but we are sick and tired of throwing it in our
face. I represent steelworkers as well as the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Visclosky) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan),
and we are sick and tired of this country in our face, our workers
being put out of work and using our taxpayers' dollars to do it.
Mr. Chairman, I am asking all my colleagues to support the Visclosky-
Mollohan amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Visclosky-
Mollohan amendment as the chairman of the authorizing subcommittee on
the Committee on Financial Services. The ranking member of that
subcommittee is the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). While I have
served for 21 years on the Banking Committee, now the Financial
Services Committee, this is the first year that I have been the
chairman of the authorizing subcommittee that relates to the Export-
Import Bank.
I would say to the gentleman from West Virginia and the gentleman
from Indiana that the authorization for the Export-Import Bank expires
on September 30, 2001 and there is broad and bipartisan concern with
the case that the gentlemen have brought to our attention. It has also
been brought to our attention by all of the members of the Steel
Caucus. In fact, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and I
introduced legislation last week at this time, H.R. 2517 and we have a
section in that legislation specifically related to Benxi Steel and the
transaction approved by the Export-Import Bank in December of 2000.
I would tell the gentlemen that the Export-Import Bank and Treasury,
which has exercised veto authority over the transactions of the Export-
Import Bank, also has this Member's attention, and I want to make
changes. If the Banks think they are going to have a straight, clean
reauthorization bill, they are not going to do it with my approval or
my active involvement. I very much think we need to give some very
specific direction to the Export-Import Bank in many areas, and I will
welcome these gentlemen and other Members' concerns about this specific
transaction and on other issues.
I also think it is crucial that the industries that uses the export
credit guarantee programs of the Bank understand we need to build a
base of support for the Bank within the small business community.
Currently the small business community has about 18 percent of the
transactions in dollars allocated. That is probably only because
Congress pushed the Bank to move ahead in its 1996 authorization
legislation.
Furthermore, the Export-Import Bank has this Member's attention
because the Treasury stepped in earlier this year and vetoed two
transactions, one of which is in my home State, on the use of the tied
aid war chest. An Austrian firm got that contract for $7-9 million; and
we lost $100 million worth of follow-up sales annually in irrigation
equipment--all for no good reason.
So the Export-Import Bank deserves plenty of scrutiny. We need to
give them very specific directions. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders) and I have begun that effort with section 16 in the
legislation we introduced. If after examining it you do not think it is
strong enough, we will listen to your ideas in a further way.
I also would say this, that you have had an impact already--at least
potentially. As already pointed out, the Export-Import Bank is now
going through a process of enlarging and clarifying and getting it
right in terms of the Ex-Im Bank's impact procedures that they will
consider. In short, and this is a quote from the Bank's statement of
objectives, they want to make sure they
[[Page H4443]]
have more information on the following: one, indicators of oversupply
that could impact the long-term economic health of the potentially
affected U.S. industries. They go on to clarify that objective.
Secondly, to consider the broad competitive impact to U.S. industries.
Here they are proposing to consider both direct and indirect impacts.
And, third, to consider the views of interested parties, including the
affected U.S. industry, labor organizations, U.S. manufacturers,
Congress, nongovernment organizations and other U.S. Government
agencies, to allow each group's view to be weighed in Export-Import
Bank's deliberative process.
I cannot under House rules specifically speak about what the other
body is going to do about this steel case, but let me just say it has
their attention as well, and I think it should.
Now, I would like to ask my colleagues to think long and hard about
what you are asking the House to do in addressing what is an
appropriate redress of a very real grievance. Right now, the Export-
Import Bank is dramatically underfunded, under-resourced as compared to
our competitors. The rationale escapes me, but this administration
proposed to further cut the Bank's resources by 25 percent. The
Committee on Appropriations has made up some of that difference.
One of the concerns I have is about the limit on the administrative
budget of the Bank, not the transaction budget. The authorizing
limitations are too skimpy. By this amendment you are cutting back the
administrative accounty by $3 million. It should be going the other
way. In fact, in our legislation, I would establish a sub-line item for
funds for the administrative activities and boost such an
authorization.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Bereuter was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this agency also needs more information
technology capabilities. They are obsolete. The past chairman and the
present chairman will admit that is a reality. We need to make changes
in that respect. We need to make sure that they upgrade. That is
particularly important for small business. If small business is going
to take advantage of the opportunities or resources of the Export-
Import Bank, they are the ones that really need to have good
information technology in place in this agency. We push the Bank
directly ahead in that area through the authorization legislation we
have offered.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would simply ask the question that, with the bill
that we have today, is it not true that the subsidies that are going to
be able to be provided with the Ex-Im Bank, even though we have an
amendment to cut $18 million, is going to be increased substantially?
Additionally, I would ask the Member, is it not true that the Ex-Im
Bank is required by law to assess whether its loans and guarantees are
likely to cause substantial, direct injury to U.S. industry today?
I trust the gentleman's intention. I believe what he says. The law
today says they are not supposed to do what they did last year. We need
to drive home that point, and someone at the Ex-Im Bank ought to know
what it is like to lose a job.
Mr. BEREUTER. I think the gentleman is accurately describing the
language that is there. I think it does not go far enough. I think a
clarification or elaboration or additional kind of limitations are
appropriate. Now, they itemize in their proposed review process some of
the things that might be considered. I hope that that gentleman, like
this gentleman, will make his comments known to the Export-Import Bank
during the comment period now underway.
Is there a cut in the resources of the Export-Import Bank? There is a
dramatic cut in the resources proposed for the next fiscal year,
despite the fact that the appropriators have restored some of that cut.
A 25 percent cut was the original figure that came with the
administration's budget. That would dramatically reduce our ability to
compete with the export credit and guarantee agencies of other
countries. It is the wrong direction. I can understand why these
gentlemen want to see a change. I do, too.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter)
has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Bereuter was allowed to proceed for 30
additional seconds.)
Mr. BEREUTER. We have this deadline coming up on the reauthorization
of the Export-Import Bank, September 30. This is an issue that has to
be resolved. It is a time for us to make the kind of changes, not to do
something which punishes the Bank and not some changes which they can
ignore, anyway. We need to give very specific guidelines and make sure
that in fact acting in a fashion which is beneficial to American
industry. We need to assure that the Bank does creates jobs in this
country and that it does not have the opposite effect. We need to
assure that the Bank is particularly attractive for the use of small
business as well as for some of the largest firms in the United States.
I ask my colleagues, therefore, to reject this amendment and work
with us when the authorizing legislation comes to the floor.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, it is always interesting to listen to these discussions
about the Export-Import Bank. Every nation in the world, the
industrialized world, has an equivalent organization. The United States
has the least of that kind of organized support of the business
community through the Export-Import Bank. I hear Members come out here
on the floor and deplore the trade deficit, that the United States
takes everything in and never exports anything.
One of the problems with exporting into the Third World or to even
other parts of the industrialized world is the question of whether or
not they can pay back the debt. Now, if a bank wants to lend money to
General Electric to sell some equipment to whatever country, all the
Export-Import Bank does is guarantee that if the money is not paid
back, they will pay the money. They have not lost any money in this
process. But they need the capital as a backup for all the loans that
go out into the world.
We have changed the Export-Import Bank. When I came to the Congress
back in 1988, it used to be called the Boeing Bank. It is not the
Boeing Bank anymore. It is a whole lot of other things. In fact, as we
heard the list of people in this particular one, Boeing is not in it.
It is General Electric and a lot of other things.
Last year, fiscal year 2000, there were loans to 2,176 small
businesses. If you make one loan for Boeing for $100 million, it only
takes one person, but if you are going to take 2,176 small business
loans and help small business people get into the international
economy, you have got to have people who can help them through that
process. That is why the staff has gotten larger and why taking money
out of the staff simply makes no sense.
I see the reason for the size of this amendment, $18 million. It fits
the $18 million that already went out the door for the Chinese loan
guarantee. But we are not canceling the loan. It is still going to go
ahead. This is not the place to fight the argument that you have here.
If you want to make a change, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Bereuter) has said it more correctly, get in the authorizing bill and
decide which industries you are not going to lend to. ``We are not
going to lend to any foreign steel industry because they compete with
the United States.'' Then General Electric will not bother going out
trying to sell anything to them. They will know at the beginning.
But this coming in afterward and saying to the bank, ``Well, you lent
to the wrong people so we're going to take your money back,'' I do not
know what message they get out of that. I guess the message is, we
should not loan to anybody who makes steel. Maybe we should not loan to
anybody who makes cars. I mean, the Koreans make cars, the Indonesians
make cars and other people. Maybe we should never lend any money to a
country that has carmaking because it competes with Detroit.
[[Page H4444]]
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I think the message is that you do not approve a loan
guarantee that undermines an industry that is being already devastated
by imports.
A point that we made earlier in the debate that Secretary Mineta made
when he was Secretary of Commerce to the Export-Import Bank on this
very subject was that China has gone from 6,000 metric tons in 1997 of
hot-rolled production to 450,000 tons, and they did not need any more
capacity. In that same time period we had nine bankruptcies and 23,000
unemployed steelworkers. That is the message that we are trying to
send.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Reclaiming my time, I understand the gentleman's
point, but the fact is the message has been sent and received. We have
heard the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) already talk about it.
That is going to be dealt with. But taking this money out of the bank
is only going to cripple their ability to aid small businesses.
Big businesses can take risks. They do. It is nice to have the
comfort of the Export-Import Bank. But little businesses who make a
deal in some country, in Africa or Asia, are very much at risk and they
need the capital. I do not see, unless you want to say that the Export-
Import Bank cannot lend to any industry that is in competition with the
United States, anything made in the United States, why pick on steel?
Why should you protect steel? I do not think that you should protect
steel any more than you should protect anybody else. We can do that in
the authorizing bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott) has expired.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman be allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
West Virginia?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I will
not object, I just want to put Members on notice, we have been very
generous here in extending the 5-minute debate continually here. At
some point we are going to have to insist that each Member get their 5
minutes and speak. But I will not object at this point.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott) is recognized for 1 additional minute.
There was no objection.
{time} 1130
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from West
Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we are not trying to protect the steel
industry in the sense the Member has used. I think, to my
understanding, he has used that phrase. We are trying to protect the
steel industry from unfair foreign competition, on the one hand; and we
are definitely trying to protect it from an agency that is funded with
the people's money going out and empowering China, which has a
tremendous excess capacity at this point, from developing greater
excess capacity.
Yes, we are trying to protect them from that kind of conduct and a
major American agency that we fund being instrumental in making that
possible.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Ways and
Means, the gentleman knows that a 201 case has been filed on steel, and
Benxi Steel is one of the companies named in that pending International
Trade Commission case on steel products being imported into the U.S.
from a variety of countries. So I think there is another potential area
where redress can be pursued. A ruling is to be made on August 17,
2001.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Bereuter), we are glad we have the attention of his committee and other
Members of the Congress with regard to the steel industry.
I hail from the great city of Cleveland, the home of LTV Steel. Let
me just give you some statistical information about how important LTV
Steel is to my community and the fact that it, along with 17 other
steel companies in the United States, are currently in bankruptcy.
It is estimated that $2.27 billion of the 2001 gross State production
in Ohio comes from LTV, an impressive amount given the total gross
State product of Ohio is about $400 billion.
LTV employs 5,200 persons in Cuyahoga County and 6,600 Ohioans,
including both organized and exempt positions.
Based upon the 2000 tax rates, LTV has 3,607 employees in local
municipalities and provides tax revenue of $4,474,276 generated from
the workers at LTV.
Based upon estimates, an additional 12,970 Cuyahoga County jobs are
dependent on LTV operations and employees. Statewide, 27,020 jobs are
relying on LTV. These jobs generate an additional $1.1 billion in
wages.
LTV pays $338 million in annual wages and salaries and $68 million in
benefits to current employees in Cuyahoga County, which amounts to
about $406 million annually in the county.
Statewide, LTV represents $430 million in annual wages and $85
million in benefits to employees.
More than 34,000 employees, retirees and dependents across northeast
Ohio rely on LTV for more than $72 million in medical benefits
annually.
There are 15,000 retirees in Greater Cleveland alone receiving
pension benefits.
Annually, LTV purchases $1 billion in goods and services from 1,600
Ohio companies.
The steel industry has about 1.75 percent of all the jobs in
northeast Ohio, with LTV providing nearly 22 percent of the region's
steel jobs, according to the latest information.
Why are we standing in support of the Visclosky-Mollohan amendment?
Because we are standing in support of the steel industry in this
country. The real dilemma is, and I heard someone talk about Alan
Greenspan talking about the fact that the steel industry, or industry,
was not in a dilemma, Alan Greenspan is the one who said last week that
we should get rid of minimum wage.
Why are we talking about this issue right here on the floor of the
House? Because where else do we stand up for workers in the United
States but on the floor of the House of Representatives of the United
States?
There have been a rising tide of layoffs and bankruptcies, driven in
large part by our government's failure to enact trade policies that are
important and support the steel industry.
Why are we after Ex-Im Bank? Because it has in fact supported the
steel industry in another country while the steel industry is dying in
the United States. Steelworkers built our country, and we need to let
the steelworkers continue to work and the steel industry to continue to
prosper. In other countries, they subsidize the steel industry. In our
country, we do not. Therefore, we should not be using public dollars in
these United States, other United States taxpayers, to subsidize a
country, a steel industry in another country like China.
Now, you are arguing to me these dollars go to American companies in
the United States to support a steel company in China. I say to you we
should not subsidize American companies that subsidize steel companies
in foreign countries when we are in fact at a trade deficit in the
steel industry.
Let me give you just a few more statistics. By the end of last year,
the industry was operating at less than 65 percent of its capacity in
the United States, the lowest operating level in more than 15 years.
Steel imports, which totaled less than 16 million tons in 1991, more
than doubled in 10 years to an annual total in 2000 of 39 million tons.
Where are they making the 39 million tons of imported steel? In
companies like Benxi, which is subsidized by money from Ex-Im Bank.
More than 15,000 steelworkers have lost their jobs since January of
1998; 84,000 in the last 6 months.
Mr. Chairman, I say support the Visclosky-Mollohan amendment.
[[Page H4445]]
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking my friend, the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), for the work that he has done as chairman of
the authorizing committee. The problem is that while he has conducted
that subcommittee in a very nonpartisan way, and I think we have done
some very, very good work to fundamentally reform the Export-Import
Bank in terms of making it more responsive to American workers rather
than multinational corporations, it remains to be seen whether the
effort that we have labored for will in fact become law or even be
heard. We were supposed to have a meeting of the subcommittee, which
was canceled, I gather by the chairman of the committee. So we will
learn more about that later.
Having said that, I rise in support of the amendment, because I am
not at all sure that the reforms that need to be happening will in fact
happen. Let me basically talk about the main concern that I have and
why I support this amendment.
This amendment is right unto itself, but it touches on a broader
issue. If American taxpayers are going to be laying out money to create
decent-paying American jobs, then we have a right to expect that the
companies who receive that money in fact are expanding their American
workforce. That is not a very difficult proposition. The truth of the
matter is that many of the major recipients of Export-Import funds have
been some of the major companies in this country who are laying off
American workers. In fact, according to Time Magazine, the top five
recipients of Export-Import subsidies over the last decade have reduced
their workforce by 38 percent.
So you take large corporations who go running to the Export-Import
Bank, and they say, hey, we need this corporate welfare, and they get
the support. And the next day they say, oh, by the way, thank you for
the money; but we are now moving our factories to China or Mexico and
laying off tens of thousands of American workers.
Our current trade policy, in my view, is a disaster. We have over a
$400 billion trade deficit. We have close to a $100 billion trade
deficit with China. To the degree that American taxpayers' money is to
be used to subsidize American companies, the taxpayers of this country
have a right to know that those companies are doing everything they can
to increase jobs in the United States.
If a company like General Electric, and let me be specific about
General Electric, says, and they advertise it to the world, they say,
gee, we wish that we had a barge so that we could take all of our
factories to the cheapest-labor countries in the world and layoff more
American workers, that is what we want to do, that is what they say.
And then they come to the Export-Import Bank and they say, here is a
check for you. Go out, take your jobs to China, take your jobs to
Mexico, use American taxpayer dollars for that purpose. The average
American taxpayer is outraged by this behavior.
What the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and I have attempted
to do is to craft legislation which does two things: it says to
companies that are hell-bent on taking our jobs to China and Mexico,
you can do it; but do not come in and ask taxpayers of this country to
subsidize it.
Second of all, we believe that small businesses are the engines for
job creation in this country, and Export-Import has got to put more
money into small businesses.
The issue of the steel company in China is just one of many examples.
Taxpayer money, American taxpayer money, should not be used to hurt
American workers.
In my view, in terms of the Export-Import Bank, we could do one of
two things: we could kill the whole thing and say we are not giving any
more subsidies, because it is corporate welfare. That would not be an
irrational thing to do. The other thing that we can do, and the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and I are attempting to do that,
is to make the Export-Import Bank work for American workers, to support
those companies that want to grow American jobs.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the only thing I would say to the gentleman, over the
last few years the Export-Import Bank has created $60 billion of
exports from the United States. That means that those were jobs
created.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Let me say, this
has been a spirited debate; and I want to first say that the gentleman
from Indiana, I have great respect for, and I am a member of the Steel
Caucus and I come from a steel State. But I have to tell you, this does
not help the steel industry. It does not help our ability to create
export-related jobs. This is an amendment that would severely cripple
the Export-Import Bank's ability to create jobs, particularly in small
business.
We have to understand that 80 percent of the transactions of the
Export-Import bank deal with small business and help small business
creating export markets all over the world. Every dollar of taxpayer
money that is invested in Export-Import's program has seen historical
returns of some $15 for every $1 in credit support for export
transactions.
So the result of this amendment, whether we like it or not, and it is
great to get up here and waive the bloody shirt about the steel
industry, is it is going to cost us jobs, it is going to shrink our
ability to export in other markets; and while this budget that we are
dealing with is critical to creating export jobs, the amendment does
quite the opposite.
Let us not try to punish the Export-Import Bank or do what we are
trying to do here because of one controversial loan. I would say to my
friend from Vermont, that was an aberration, not certainly something
that is business as usual in regard to the China steel issue.
As the chairman of the authorizing committee, I am here to say that
our committee is working assiduously on Export-Import reauthorization
with the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Bereuter); and I fully expect that we will report a bill that is
balanced and fair and promotes exports all over the world.
Let me just say also to my friend from Vermont, who pointed out
General Electric specifically, let me tell my friend from Vermont about
a plant that I have in my congressional district in Bucyrus, Ohio, that
is a General Electric plant. They make fluorescent lighting tubes. They
currently create and build millions of those that are exported to
Japan. They make a specific kind of smaller tube than that used over
here that fits into the Japanese architecture and their homes and
businesses; and, as a result of using Export-Import facilities, they
are able to increase that market substantially. Those General Electric
jobs in my congressional district are very, very important to me and to
our community.
I would point out before the gentleman from Vermont makes what would
appear to be a bad example of General Electric, I would say that the
General Electric situation certainly that I pointed out is a very
positive one and points out how good the Export-Import Bank can be.
{time} 1145
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I just wanted to mention to my friend that between 1985 and 1995, the
workforce, the American workforce of General Electric went down from
245,000 to 150,000, precisely because it is the policy of General
Electric to take American jobs to China and Mexico in order to get
cheap labor. Does my friend not agree with me that we should use
institutions like the Export-Import Bank to tell General Electric to
reinvest in America so that we can create more good jobs like the one
the gentleman referred to?
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the last thing
the Export-Import Bank needs, and certainly the private sector needs,
is micromanaging on the part of Congress
[[Page H4446]]
dealing with a worldwide global economy.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the point I would like to make is what they
are doing here today with this amendment is punishing the export
segment of the economy that creates thousands of jobs. In the State of
Washington, the Boeing Company is the Nation's largest exporter. We are
in a life and death struggle with Airbus. Airbus is subsidized by
foreign governments. They have all kinds of loan programs to sell their
exports all over the world.
What we are trying to ask for here is a level playing field. Let our
American exporters compete. I want to protect the steel workers, but
not at the expense of the machinists in the State of Washington. That
is what we are talking about here.
Let us protect them both. Let us protect the steel workers and the
machinists.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me thank the
gentleman from Washington for his strong comments. Indeed, we are
trying to expand the pie here. We are not trying to get in a situation,
hopefully, that the gentleman from Vermont wants, which is the Congress
determines what private industry hires and fires and then punishes the
Export-Import Bank or successful exporters as a result.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Mollohan, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Oxley was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Mollohan).
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments.
The gentleman describes the situation, I think, inaccurately; and I
would like to calibrate his comments a little bit. The gentleman
suggests and uses the word ``cripple''; that the gentleman's amendment
would severely cripple the Export-Import Bank.
I would like to point out to the gentleman in the short time we have
that the President requested $120 million in the subsidy account less
than the House appropriated. We are taking $18 million from the House.
So, therefore, there is about $100 million left more in this bill than
the President requested to do the good things that the gentleman is
talking about and that the gentleman from Washington is talking about
so that the government can support Boeing in its efforts against Airbus
around the world.
We are not getting at the good things and the good jobs that are
created by the Export-Import Bank. What we are getting at are the
policies that undermine domestic industries that are extremely
vulnerable at this period of time by financing projects that incredibly
enhances capacity.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I have come to the floor on the abstract, idealogical,
theoretical underpinnings of this debate which others have been
eloquent on. I have just come to a very parochial, prosaic but, in my
district, very meaningful position: this amendment is going to cost
jobs of people who do work and export products around the world if it
passes.
Now, I know that does not sound like a very high-falutin' argument
couched in great economic theory, but the fact of the matter is, we are
truly, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) said, in a life and
death struggle in the aeronautics industry to see whether we are going
to remain dominant internationally, or whether we will lose the
dominant position in the world. It is just real simple. It is meat and
potatoes. The fact of the matter is, if this amendment passes, we are
going to lose the opportunity to export $275 million worth of products
which means thousands of jobs.
Because the fact of the matter is, this is, and since a lot of people
look at the Ex-Im Bank and think, if we just cut the Ex-Im Bank, these
other entities will not have products. People are not going to just
stop buying airplanes if we cut the Ex-Im Bank. They are just going to
buy them someplace else. This is help for the American worker, not the
foreign worker.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from West Virginia has talked
about all the steel companies that are gone. McDonnell Douglas used to
build commercial airplanes; they are gone. Lockheed used to build
commercial airplanes; they are gone. We have suffered in this area. We
have one commercial airplane producer left in America: the Boeing
Company. And they are in a life and death struggle against four
governments that underwrite Airbus. I wish my friend from Vermont were
as passionate in supporting the American companies trying to export as
we are trying to protect the steel companies. I want to protect them as
well.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman suggesting that all of
the money that we are funding in the Export-Import Bank is going to go
to Boeing?
Mr. INSLEE. Well, that would be acceptable, of course.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure how many votes the
gentleman can get for it. Does the gentleman know how much money the
committee is appropriating?
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, clearly, Boeing and
Boeing workers are not the only ones who have a stake in this
controversy.
What I am trying to point out is that this has an immediate, real-
life ramification for people who this morning got up and went to work
in an industry that we are going to have a great chance of losing if we
do not use the one very modest tool in our tool box to compete with
this international conspiracy, if you will, to gain international
dominance in this industry. And this is a very small tool we have. If
we look at this compared to the subsidization of Airbus by the European
community, this is almost nothing. Yes, Boeing is not the only player
in this. But I came here to say that I have people in my district who
care about it.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to answer the gentleman's
question. Twenty-five hundred small businesses last year got Ex-Im Bank
loans, totaling about $2.3 billion. Yes, the Boeing Company is a major
user of this thing, and we finance sales that could not be financed any
other way and the money is paid back. So what is wrong with that? I
want to support the gentleman. I hope some day the American steel
industry can export as well, and then the gentleman will be with me in
supporting the Export-Import Bank.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the other thing I want
to point out is, although Boeing is a significant player in this, there
are small businesses, we are talking 5- and 20-person shops, who can
avail themselves of this benefit. Those jobs are just as important as
the machinist jobs in Seattle. They may not be as visible, but they are
just as important.
I also want to point out that I believe the future of the Ex-Im Bank
is not just manufacturing, it is services. Because when we design
various functions for financial services, insurance and the like, those
are going to be small businesses as well dealing with intellectual
capital. I believe that is more in the future of the Ex-Im Bank.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman describes legitimate
purposes and missions of the Export-Import Bank. What the gentleman may
not understand if he did not hear the very beginning of the debate is
we are going after with this amendment some egregious decisions made by
the Export-Import Bank in subsidizing three of these small companies
that empowers the Chinese.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
[[Page H4447]]
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky)
will be postponed.
amendment no. 56 offered by mr. paul
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 56 offered by Mr. Paul:
Page 2, strike line 21 and all that follows through line 17
on page 3.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the paragraph on page 2,
line 21 entitled ``subsidy appropriation.'' I do not believe this
Congress should be in the business of subsidizing anyone. We should be
protecting the American taxpayer, and we should be protecting the
individual liberty of all American citizens, not dealing in subsidies.
This paragraph is found in the bill which is called ``foreign
operations.'' It is a subsidy to large corporations, and it is a
subsidy to foreign entities and foreign governments. The largest
foreign recipient of the foreign aid from this bill is Red China, $6.2
billion. So if one is for free trade, as I am, and as I voted last week
to trade with China, one should be positively in favor of my amendment,
because this is not free trade. This is subsidized, special interest
trade, and I think that is wrong.
There has been a lot of talk today on the previous amendment dealing
with jobs, and jobs are important. We have an economy now that is
turning downwards and jobs are being lost. In this bill, this
particular paragraph and the Export-Import Bank does deal with jobs.
Those in opposition to my amendment make the point that jobs are
enhanced in the big corporations like Boeing. That is true, to a
degree, but there is a net loss of jobs because the same entity, the
Export-Import Bank, literally exports jobs by subsidizing and loaning
money to foreign entities that compete with us. Not only does some of
this money end up in the hands of our competitors and hurt us here at
home, but it ends up in the hands of our potential enemies. This is the
reason why we should be out of the business of the Export-Import Bank.
It has been said that this is a benefit to so many small
corporations. In the last 2 years, more than half of the Export-Import
Bank money went to Boeing. So it is not surprising that the gentleman
early on mentioned that yes, he would not mind it if all of it went to
Boeing. It is said that 85 percent of the money in the individual loans
goes to smaller corporations. That is true, but 86 percent of the money
goes to the giant corporations. So the big bucks serve the big
interests who lobby us and spend a lot of time influencing Washington.
There is a lot of mal-investment in the economy, misappropriation of
money and investments that generates overcapacity, which is a
consequence of monetary policy. It is a serious problem; and we are
today facing the consequence, because we are now moving into a rather
severe recession. But at the same time, export financing compounds that
problem. It adds on to it because it is an allocation of credit.
This argument that we create jobs is fictitious. We do not create
jobs; we shift jobs, from the weak to the powerful. We do not create a
new job by stealing, taking out $75 billion worth of a line of credit
from the banks and giving it to special interests. Yes, it looks like
they are getting a benefit, but the little guy does not have access to
that amount of money. Why should the banks not loan Export-Import Bank
money to the large corporations. They are protected. They are insured.
Who insures them? The taxpayer. It is a rip-off. The taxpayer suffers
all of the risks.
Now, if the deal is successful and there is no economic calamity in
the country where we go and there is no political crisis, then who
makes the profits? Corporations make the profits. It is the best deal
going for large corporations.
If we oppose corporate welfare and think we ought to address it on
principle and decide whether or not the Congress and the U.S.
Government and the taxpayers should be in this type of business, we
have to vote for my amendment to get us out of this business. This does
not serve the interests of the general welfare of the people. This is
antagonistic toward the general welfare of the people. It costs the
taxpayers money, it puts the risk on the taxpayer, it serves the
interests of the powerful special interests. Why else would they come
with their lobbying funds? Why else would they come with their huge
donations to the political action committees, unless it is a darn good
deal for them?
{time} 1200
They say it is a good deal for Boeing workers, but in 1995 there was
a strike by the machinists against Boeing because Boeing agreed to buy
the tail portion of the 737 from Red China.
We are certainly losing jobs to Red China, Mexico, and other places.
I do not mind it if that is a market consequence, but when it is done
at the expense of the American taxpayer and it hurts us, we should not
do it.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The
Export-Import Bank is a vital tool for helping United States businesses
export United States goods. It should not be eliminated.
In an ideal world, governments around the world would not subsidize
their exports, and the United States would not, as well. However, we
all know that other countries sometimes engage in ruthless trading
practices, and we must give the United States exporters the tools to
compete. As long as exporters in Europe and elsewhere are getting
assistance, the Export-Import Bank will be a vital tool for American
exporters.
Recent trends show that export financing is becoming more, rather
than less common, and major trading nations increased their government-
provided export credit by 30 percent between 1993 and 1998. Total
credit reached $488 billion in 1988 from other nations, while Export-
Import Bank credits totaled just $14 billion.
Given the huge and growing trade deficits we face, it is imperative,
in my judgment, that we give our exporters assistance to remain
competitive in world markets.
I have questioned and will continue to question some of the Bank's
practices and procedures, and the committee will continue to recommend
appropriate funding levels for the Bank based upon our oversight and
review of these practices.
However, eliminating them entirely, as this amendment proposes to do,
would inflict serious harm on United States exporters, and I urge my
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from New York has just given some of
the reasons, with data, to oppose this amendment. This is a draconian
amendment. It eliminates the Export-Import Bank's transaction program
altogether. It ends it. It is abject, total, unilateral disarmament.
Mr. Chairman, the American Export Credit and Guarantee Agency of the
Export-Import Bank is already underfunded as compared to the similar
institutions from other major export countries of Europe, Japan, and
even elsewhere. We are outstripped as it is.
In a perfect world, we would not have to have subsidy, but we are
dependent to a major extent in our economy on our job base, on being
able to export. We have negotiated, with some success, rules for the
use of subsidies by the major export countries through the OECD. We
have not completely tied that down, if I may use that down, on tied
aid. We still have to have a war chest the administration is about to
use.
But this is not a perfect world. If our exporters are to compete, if
we are to build and sustain a job base in this country, we must have an
effective, properly funded Export-Import Bank in this country. This
would totally eliminate it.
I would say that the gentleman is not guilty of doing things halfway.
He goes all the way on a proposal.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
[[Page H4448]]
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
The gentleman makes the point that we fund in our Export-Import Bank
less compared to other nations. That possibly is true.
Mr. BEREUTER. In absolute terms.
Mr. PAUL. The gentleman argues for an increase. But is it not true
that the United States has had a healthier economy in the last 10 years
than most of our competitors, indicating that it probably has not done
us that much harm by not doing the same things that other countries do
by penalizing their people with high taxation and making these
subsidies?
Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, our economic health relies on a lot
of things, but we cannot confuse cause and effect. If we lost our
export sector, we would be in deep trouble.
Take my own home State, for example, agriculture being one of the two
major largest exporters. One-third, maybe even more, of everything we
grow, like the rest of this country, is export. If we lose that base,
if we would write off 95 percent of the world's people, we are in a
hopeless condition.
I would say to the gentleman, I understand his ideological reasons
for offering this. I happen to dramatically disagree. I think American
citizens do not support the unilateral disarmament.
Mr. PAUL. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, why
is it assumed that there would be no export funds available to export
goods if we did not subsidize the exports?
Mr. BEREUTER. I would say to the gentleman, it does not totally cut
off exports, but it does cut off a very significant base if we
unilaterally disarm. Because in many areas, of course, we are competing
for third-country markets where the subsidy from the French or the
Germans or Japanese or some other major export company make the
difference.
Without us being there, we certainly do not have a chance to
effectively compete for those jobs, for those products to be exported
abroad.
Mr. Chairman, I urge strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I will be brief. Let me just say that I think the arguments have been
laid out by my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey)
and by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the arguments
against this.
I have a lot of respect for the gentleman from Texas; and his
position on these matters. He is very consistent on these kinds of
amendments. I do appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I find myself conflicted in the sense that I am a free
trader and I oppose many of the things that many of my colleagues
around here do endorse. However, in this case, the case of the Export-
Import Bank, I do not go as far as the gentleman from Texas. The reason
for not doing so I think is fairly simple.
As the gentleman from Nebraska pointed out, in a perfect world, in a
perfect world we would not have an Export-Import Bank. The Europeans
and the Japanese and all the other countries would not have the kinds
of export subsidies that they have.
But the world is not perfect. The world of trade between countries is
not perfect. There is taxation, there are regulations, there are export
subsidies, there are a whole variety of things that go into making it a
totally imperfect world.
So in this imperfect world, we have to deal with the reality of what
we have. I believe that the Export-Import Bank helps us, helps
particularly our small- and medium-sized businesses, not only the very
large who ones who do get some of the money. They are not the ones who
would not have access. They would have access. But it is the small and
medium businesses that I think are very important to the United States,
and it is very important particularly to smaller communities around the
country that they are able to have access to this export financing
credit that enables them to make a sale overseas, to close the deal.
The final thing that closes the deal is this Export-Import Bank
subsidy. It enables them to do that where they would not otherwise be
able to do it. Many of the other countries in the world use their aid
very much as tied aid, and we have gotten away from that.
But the idea that you would have a specific loan given only if it
buys a product from that country, we have tried to get away from doing
that with our economic assistance, and I am glad to see that we have.
The export financing, however, is absolutely critical for our companies
that try to do this business overseas and are dealing in the imperfect
world out there.
So I think it is very important that we keep that. Abolishing it
completely, as the gentleman from Texas would have us do, abolishing
that completely and taking away all of our ability to do that I think
would simply be the wrong thing for us to do.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and for
us to continue to reform the Export-Import Bank, to continue to reform
the whole process worldwide so we can rely less on these kinds of
subsidies.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to associate myself with the
gentleman's remarks and rise in strong opposition to the Paul
amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) will be
postponed until disposition of all perfecting amendments to this
paragraph.
Amendment No. 48 Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 48 offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas:
Page 2, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $25,000,000)''.
Page 36, line 26, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the amendment
restores $25 million that was cut by the Committee on Appropriations
from the administration's request of $107.5 million for the Global
Environment Facility administered by the World Bank.
In considering this amendment, Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind
my colleagues of the motto ``Think globally, act locally.''
The GEF was established to forge international cooperation and help
to finance efforts to address four environmental threats that transcend
borders: climate change, degradation of international waters,
biodiversity laws, and ozone depletion. It is administered jointly by
the World Bank, the U.N. Development Program, and the U.N.
Environmental Program, with a mission of bringing together governments,
developing institutions, the scientific community, the private sector,
and the NGOs toward a common goal of bringing about sustainable
economic development.
In the period 1991 to 1999, GEF oversaw more than $2.7 billion in
grants, which helped to leverage billions more in co-financing from
partners, that is, recipient nation NGOs, the private sector, et
cetera. More importantly, these projects are usually small in scale.
However, when we add them altogether, they have a large, cumulative
benefit to the global environment.
The United States is the leading donor to the GEF, and it is
essential that we continue to lead the way in fostering sustainable
development and sound environmental practices in developing countries.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would help to ensure that the U.S. pays
its full 2002 contribution of $107.5 million. GEF funding is especially
critical in the area of global climate change, where we have tended to
focus on alleged flaws in the Kyoto Treaty that place too much of a
burden on industrialized nations, such as the U.S., and not enough on
developing countries.
[[Page H4449]]
Whether one agrees with this proposition or not, we should all be in
agreement when it comes to providing funds to help the developing world
to do their part in reducing the risk of global climate change while
providing the energy that is necessary for vigorous, sustainable
economic development.
The GEF also will play a critical role in the implementation of the
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. So-called POPs include
PCBs, DDT, and dioxins. Most have already been banned or are severely
limited here in the U.S. However, since these chemicals do stay in the
environment for a long time and have a tendency to spread around in the
food chain, our own restrictions will be undermined if we do not also
help developing nations reduce their use of these chemicals.
My amendment is supported by the leading environmental groups and
organizations, including the NRDC, Friends of the Earth, US PIRG, LCV,
Environmental Defense, American Oceans Campaign, and the World Wildlife
Fund.
My proposed increase for the GEF is offset by the cuts to the Export-
Import Bank subsidy appropriation. I am proposing this offset not
because I have any particular animus toward the Export-Import Bank. I
have always supported it. I personally come from a State that relies
heavily on exporting goods to other countries.
However, we are putting more in that budget than the administration
requests, and we are cutting this part of the budget below the
administration request. The administration seems to believe that the
Export-Import Bank can successfully carry out its mission with less
funding, and I am willing to go along with that recommendation.
Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I appreciate the comments that the
gentlewoman from Texas has made and the substance of her amendment. I
know what she is looking for, as she has said, is a full request for
the Global Environment Facility.
Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I think this matter is one that
is going to continue to be discussed between the House and Senate.
Historically, the other body has usually funded this at a higher level,
and I know we are going to be reviewing this in conference.
Certainly the issue is an important one, as recent debate worldwide
and on the Kyoto matter just this last weekend has highlighted the
importance of environmental issues; and having a body that looks at
these issues and also one that helps to fund some of the projects
dealing with the environment, I think that is very important. So I
would just say to the gentlewoman that I believe that we will be
reviewing this matter in the conference. I think she is probably going
to be much happier when the conference report comes back as it relates
to the Global Environment Facility.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in view of that
commitment and interest, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
{time} 1215
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Crowley
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Crowley:
Page 2, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $1)''.
Page 11, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 25, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $10,000,000)''.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment in
conjunction with my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Royce) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). As cochairmen
of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. McDermott) have been leaders in their work with India and the
Indian-American community.
Mr. Chairman, in January of this year, the Indian state of Gujarat
was decimated by a devastating earthquake that killed thousands of
people and turned its infrastructure into rubble. In the aftermath of
this tragedy, there was a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking as to
why so many people were killed and why so much damage was inflicted.
The answer, Mr. Chairman, is simple: the Gujarati Government was not
prepared to deal with a disaster of such magnitude, despite the fact
that this region and the south Asian region as a whole is routinely
subject to such natural disasters.
The Crowley-Royce-McDermott amendment seeks to provide sorely needed
funds to the U.S. Agency for International Development Office of
Foreign Disaster Relief, the Kathmandu office, so that it may work with
the governments and communities of Southeast Asia to develop emergency
response and disaster preparedness capabilities.
There is no FEMA in India, there is no FEMA in Bangladesh, there is
no FEMA in Nepal, there is no FEMA in Sri Lanka. In many Indian states
like Gujarat, there is a serious lack of emergency equipment such as
ambulances and fire trucks; and as a result, many thousands of people
in Gujarat died needlessly because of such shortages in sorely needed
equipment.
The Gujarat earthquake was but one more in a long series of natural
disasters that have plagued South Asia. South Asia is in a geographical
and geological crossroads that makes it very vulnerable to disasters.
Massive cyclones regularly batter not only Gujarat, but also Orissa,
Maharashtra, Andhra, Pradesh, and Sindh. Drought is a periodic way of
life in western India and Pakistan as well. Every season, countless
thousands die in Bangladesh due to flooding. The instability of the
Himalayan Mountains forces Nepal in northern India to constantly dig
out from avalanches and other slides.
Earthquakes have been a fact of life not only in Gujarat but all
across the subcontinent for years. No country in the region fully has
the capability to institute disaster preparedness and response programs
in a manner that will be sufficient to deal with these disasters.
Several countries of the region have approached the United States
Government for technical assistance in order to establish their own
agencies for disaster management. The establishment of FEMA-like
organizations in South Asia would greatly increase the capacity of
nations to deal with such disasters.
USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, OFDA, currently has a
representative based in Kathmandu, Nepal, who is charged with covering
the entire region. Over the past 15 years, OFDA has developed a strong
working relationship with these countries to help them identify the
best response and preparedness system for each of these countries. An
increase to OFDA's funding will allow that representative to expand and
enhance programs in the region to help these nations prepare the
appropriate response and preparedness capability to deal with past and
future natural disasters.
The $10 million for this enhancement would be offset by a $10 million
decrease in the Andean initiative. This is a small price to pay to
enable the people of South Asia to survive natural disasters. The
countless lives that could be saved by enhancing disaster preparedness
in South Asia far outweigh the small amount of arms and military
training that would be sent to South America for the same funds.
The consequences of natural disasters are varied. They may be
considered in terms of human lives, material goods, economic
activities, political impacts, associate or psychological factors.
Societal and economic consequences of such natural disasters are too
countless to mention. The severe cyclone that developed in the Bay of
Bengal in October of 1999 hit the eastern coast of India with
tremendous force, causing floods and wind damage in Orissa, Andhra,
Pradesh, and West Bengal states.
A second, larger cyclone, the worst storm in almost 30 years, struck
India's eastern coastline further impacting those states and the Bengal
states.
[[Page H4450]]
The Indian Ministry of Agriculture's Central Disaster Mitigation
Center reported 9,465 persons killed, 2,260 persons injured as a result
of the two cyclones. Infrastructure destruction was catastrophic. More
than 15 million people were impacted, 1.5 million homes completely
destroyed, and damage to the power grid totaled more than 300 million
rupees. There was a loss of substantial grain storage and limited
access to safe drinking water, as well as damage to sewer systems.
Basically, Mr. Chairman, the country was decimated. If we do not do
this, there will be economies that may never recover.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment; and I
want to thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), and
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who serves with me as
the cochairman of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-
Americans. I want to thank them for their leadership on this amendment.
The three of us have introduced this amendment basically to add $10
million to the international disaster assistance fund for USAID's
Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance. And the reason we have done this
is really in the wake of that earthquake that struck Gujarat. Our
hearts go out to the people of Gujarat. We had a chance to visit
Gujarat and see the devastation caused by a quake of a magnitude of
6.9. There was one town we were in, the town of Bhuj, where literally
every building seemed to have collapsed. In Ahmadabad, apartment
complexes had collapsed like accordions on the people inside.
I think we know of more than 17,000 people that lost their lives in
Gujarat. There are at least 600,000 homeless. I had, as I said, the
opportunity to visit the people there after that quake; and it is hard
to put into words the feeling one gets seeing block after block of
homes collapsed, seeing the fact that the relief work did not get in
early enough to save the people, many of the people whose lives could
have been saved. And the tragic fact is that natural disasters come
often to South Asia, to that subcontinent. And after the disaster, to
add insult to injury, comes the monsoon season. Summer brings those
monsoon rains and the cyclones whipping through the coastal regions.
And so in western India and Pakistan, where this quake occurred,
drought is a constant.
And now in the wake of this earthquake, we have the destruction of
the dams and so thousands now will die from flooding, and thousands
will die from flooding in Bangladesh as well. And, unfortunately, no
country in the region has the capability, Mr. Chairman, to institute
disaster preparedness and response programs in a manner sufficient to
deal with these catastrophes. If they did, if they did, tens of
thousands of human lives would be saved.
Now, we are in a position to help ensure that the nations of South
Asia will be prepared to deal with its next natural disaster, and let
there be no doubt there will be another one, by passing this amendment.
This amendment would enable south Asian nations to establish a FEMA-
type organization that would greatly increase their capacity to deal
with any of the disasters of this type.
When I traveled to India shortly after the earthquake, I heard from
Indian Government officials and relief organizations about the
importance of a long-term disaster management plan. There was great
interest in India in developing a disaster response agency and learning
from FEMA's expertise. Currently, USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster
Assistance has a single representative in South Asia, only one, charged
with covering the entire region of South Asia.
This increase in the budget in OFDA's funding would allow for the
expansion and enhancement of our efforts to help these nations develop
this much-needed program. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment. It honors America's humanitarian interests; it also reflects
America's growing political relations with this area of the world.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise
in support of this amendment, which would help mitigate the effects of
future disasters in South Asia.
We witnessed with horror the devastation caused by the recent
earthquake in Gujarat, India; but this was not the first nor will it be
the last such occurrence in Southeast Asia. As reconstruction from the
earthquake continues, we must look to improve the capacity of countries
in the region to deal with similar events. The central purpose of our
foreign assistance program is to help other countries build the
capacity to help themselves.
We help build vibrant NGO networks in the developing world, we help
ministries of education train teachers and develop curricula to educate
their children, and we help create health care infrastructures to allow
poor countries to deliver medication and care efficiently and
effectively. We should also be helping other countries build their
capacity to handle unavoidable natural disasters.
FEMA does a wonderful job dealing with crises in the United States.
Our friends in India, Bangladesh, and elsewhere in the region require
similar agencies to help them manage the devastation wrought by
earthquakes, cyclones, avalanches and other disasters. Better disaster
management will save lives. It will allow countries that have
experienced tragedies to recover and reconstruct expeditiously. In the
long run, it will lessen the massive need for United States foreign
disaster assistance. I urge my conclusion to support this amendment.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in this discussion of India, and I
appreciate the sensitivities of it and feel great sympathy; but I have
been watching on television this morning the debate that is occurring
on the Ex-Im Bank and I really am very alarmed. So at this moment I
rise in concern over the several amendments, two of which we will be
voting on to cut or eliminate the Export-Import Bank.
Mr. Chairman, it is vital to restore this amount of money that
already has been reduced by $107 million from the 2001's budget
allocation. It is also important for us to think in terms of loans
rather than subsidies. The Ex-Im Bank provides loan guarantees, not
subsidies, to foreign nations. But the Ex-Im Bank support particularly
is critical to the world's developing and emerging markets and nations
that otherwise would not be able to receive private commercial lending
guarantees to finance their sales.
I think anybody who lives in the Pacific Northwest has to be known as
a fan of Boeing, and I am one of those. In fiscal year 2000 alone, the
Export-Import Bank guaranteed aircraft loans for the sale of more than
60 aircraft to airlines in 15 different countries. In the last 2 years,
Ex-Im Bank has guaranteed loans for 185 aircraft that are worth $11
billion. In my corner of the world, that means 17 percent of Boeing's
commercial business.
The Ex-Im Bank is indispensable to the global competitiveness of
United States exporters like Boeing and many other companies. I think
this bank helps in its loan guarantees to level the playing field with
our European competitors in many overseas markets. So I would certainly
hope that the Members of this body, in their great wisdom and with
great thoughtfulness, would maintain our competitive edge by opposing
these amendments when they come to a vote.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the Crowley amendment to the foreign
ops bill that would add $10 million to the Office of Foreign Disaster
Assistance at USAID.
It is my understanding that this amendment is going to be changed
somewhat so that it is $1 million instead of $10 million but that we
will try in conference to get the larger amount. I know that there is
likely to be more money available at that level in conference, so I
commend the author of this amendment for his efforts here.
I think this is very important, and let me stress that those of us
who have been around here for a few years know that there are many
natural disasters that befall the South Asia area, whether it be
cyclones in Bangladesh, or earthquakes in India, or some of the other
natural disasters that we have seen over the years. And, of course, the
U.S. is always there to help out and to provide assistance when those
disasters occur in India and surrounding countries. But the bottom line
is what we are trying to do here today is, I think
[[Page H4451]]
in many ways, much more important than disaster relief, and that is
preparedness.
{time} 1230
The idea of having a FEMA-type organization in place in South Asia to
address a long-term disaster management program is probably the best
idea I have seen around here in years in trying to cope with these
natural disasters.
I can tell you from my experience as I live along the shore in New
Jersey, we have had FEMA many times coming down and helping us with
hurricane or Northeasterner preparedness. It has saved millions of
dollars and so many lives over the years because we have FEMA and we
have preparedness in place.
I have to imagine that in the case of South Asia, this will make a
tremendous difference. That is why I encourage this effort whether it
is $1 million or the $10 million that we hopefully will get eventually.
Let me say South Asia's geographic location makes it very vulnerable
to disaster. The Gujarat earthquake in January was just one in a long
series of natural disasters that has plagued the subcontinent. In fact,
many states in India alone are continually ravaged by massive cyclones;
and drought is a way of life in western India. Bangladesh sees
thousands die in flooding, and the instability of the Himalayan
Mountains force Nepal and Northern India to constantly dig out from
avalanches and other slides.
India, and certainly no other country in this region, fully has the
capability to institute disaster preparedness and response programs in
a manner that will be sufficient to deal with these disasters. Several
countries in the region have approached the U.S. for technical
assistance in order to establish their own agencies for disaster
management. The establishment for a FEMA-like organization in South
Asia would greatly increase the capacity of nations to deal with such
disasters.
USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance currently has a lone
representative based in Kathmandu, Nepal who is charged with covering
the whole region. An increase in that office would allow that
representative to expand in and enhance our programs in the region to
help these nations develop the needed programs.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very important. I cannot stress how
important it is. I offer my full support to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Crowley), the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), and other
Members of our India caucus and encourage all of my colleagues to do
the same.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman's amendment to
increase the amount available for international disaster assistance for
South Asia for earthquake monitoring. While the Crowley initiative is
important and well-intentioned, it is regrettable that he intends to
find the needed resources by reducing the money set aside for the
Andean Counterdrug Initiative. That portion of this initiative I cannot
support.
The Andean Drug Initiative is critical to fighting the movement of
illicit drugs coming into our Nation. Every community in our America
has been touched by the pain and suffering that accompanies illicit
drug usage. Having indicated these concerns, I understand that a
compromise has now been worked out to reduce the $10 million portion to
$1 million; and I will reluctantly support that compromise.
The recent earthquake in India did kill thousands of people and cause
millions of dollars of damage. I would hope an appropriate amount is
found to fund this much needed program.
If our Nation can help develop a monitoring system that will forecast
future quakes, we would be greatly contributing to the safety of
millions of South Asians. This is an important and worthy goal to
achieve. Accordingly, I fully support the Kolbe compromise agreement.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor because I want to tell a tale of
two cities. Seattle and Bhuj in Gujarat had earthquakes of about the
same strength. Seattle lost one life, and a few buildings had some
cracks here and there. There was quite a bit of physical damage but
nothing like what happened to the city of Bhuj, the area in which Bhuj
exists, that is, Gujarat, had somewhere between 25,000 and 100,000
people die. About 100,000 homes were flattened, and it had to do with
the system of preparedness we have in this country for disasters and
the absence of such a system in India.
As you heard from a previous speaker, USAID presently has one person
sitting in Kathmandu to cover all of the subcontinent, and it is
clearly not enough when you are looking at situations like this.
It used to be, the first years I was in Congress, we were out here
every year giving money to some disaster here or there or another
place. Hurricane Mitch or the Mozambican floods or a whole bunch of
things. But this administration has said there will be no disaster
relief for India or for El Salvador, and they are cutting down the use
of money from the Surplus Commodities Program. All of those used to be
programs that were used to deal with human misery.
I originally started with $100 million for earthquake rehabilitation
to help them build homes that would survive this kind of an earthquake.
I am down to $10 million now, and I cannot get it into that. But at
least we can help them establish a system of earthquake preparedness
like our own.
One of problems when you have buildings fall down like that is, how
do you get to the people who are underneath it? What is required is
saws that will cut concrete. One of things we know in the United States
is if we have a disaster anywhere, we can have cement cutting saws
there within a few hours. The ones that went to India came from
Switzerland. You can imagine how long it took them to get organized in
Switzerland, get them on a plane, and fly them. By that time people
have been lying in rubble for 12 to 24 hours.
Mr. Chairman, a person can only survive in most of these situations
for about 72 hours. Occasionally they find somebody after 4 or 5 days;
generally, however, it is a very short window. So the Office of
Disaster Preparedness is really to have a list and a cataloging of
where are the things that we can use for this.
Mr. Chairman, we also need cranes. If workers are going to lift a 20-
ton slab of concrete, they have got to have cranes available. All of
these things in the United States, we do not have them sitting
someplace, but FEMA knows where they are. If there is a problem, the
calls go immediately, and the equipment comes in. That is what we are
talking about here with this money for India.
Mr. Chairman, I hear there is perhaps a compromise in the works for
$1 million. I only have this to say about $1 million. We are the
richest country in the world. For us to look at a country of a billion
people and say hey, we can find $1 million, that is not even a rounding
error in this place today.
In my view, $10 million is a minimal contribution that we should be
able to make to this. I hope the chairman and the ranking member, when
they get to conference, will see if they cannot get the number up.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Crowley, Royce,
McDermott Amendment. This Amendment will add $10 million to the
International Disaster Assistance fund for USAID's Office of Foreign
Disaster Assistance to help six South Asian nations prepare and
increase response capabilities for natural disasters. In turn, a
heightened state of readiness will help the governments of India,
Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Bhutan save much-needed
monetary and natural resources as well as countless lives.
The earthquake that hit India in January was the latest in a long
series of reminders that South Asia is in a geological crossroads,
which makes it especially vulnerable to disasters. The 7.9-magnitude
earthquake in the State of Gujarat shook office buildings 900 miles
away in New Delhi and was felt 2,000 miles away in Calcutta. The deaths
of 15,000 people were a sobering illustration of the lack of disaster
preparedness in India and South Asia.
As the world's two largest democracies, India and the United States
have enjoyed a common commitment to the rule of law and basic freedoms
as well as longstanding cooperation in the economic, commercial, and
agricultural fields. The U.S.-India friendship
[[Page H4452]]
extends to the fight against terrorism, the protection of the
environment, and the expansion of trade.
Furthermore, India's unwavering dedication to democracy; universal
suffrage; freedom of religion, speech, and the press; and a deep-rooted
tradition of nonviolence and tolerance, have demonstrated that nation's
progress on human rights. As a linguistically, religiously, and
ethnically diverse nation--home to more that one billion people--India
presents its leaders with daunting challenges. Nevertheless, India's
leaders have confronted all problems directly and have shown the world
how to live with differences under trying circumstances. They have
demonstrated that tolerance and respect are often the keys to our
mutual survival.
At the dawn of the 21st Century, as India and the United States
continue to grow closer in terms of economic and trade relations, joint
efforts on counter-terrorism, and strategic cooperation, let us extend
our hand of friendship and our commitment to strong relations to all
South Asian nations.
As a member of the Congressional Caucus on India, I ask my colleagues
to join me in supporting the Crowley, Royce, McDermott Amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and I
want to thank my colleagues from the International Relations
Committee--Mr. Crowley and Mr. Royce--as well as Mr. McDermott, the co-
chair of the India Caucus for introducing this amendment to the Foreign
Operations Appropriations bill. This amendment would add $10 million to
the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance at USAID to fund a disaster
preparedness and prevention program in South Asia.
Mr. Chairman, we have seen over the last two years a series of
natural disasters that have wreaked havoc in the countries of South
Asia--everything from the droughts, cyclones and floods that regularly
afflict the subcontinent to the devastating earthquake that hit India
and Pakistan earlier this year.
The South Asia region is one of the most disaster prone parts of the
world has some of the poorest and most densely populated countries.
Experts believe that there is a very high likelihood that an earthquake
similar to the Bhuj earthquake will strike Nepal within the decade.
Pakistan and Afghanistan are even now experiencing a severe drought
that is causing thousands to flee their homes and abandon their farms.
And yet we have first hand experience in how effective response and
early warning systems can save lives and minimize destruction from
natural disasters.
Our Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established a
worldwide reputation for fast and effective disaster response. When
disaster strikes in America, FEMA works with state and local
governments, non-governmental organizations like the Red Cross and the
Salvation Army, military and police authorities, and a myriad other
actors to coordinate an effective disaster response. Such capacity is
clearly needed in South Asia.
By working with each of these countries individually and
collectively, OFDA can help these countries improve their response
capacity and reduce the devastation and loss of life that inevitably
follow natural disasters in South Asia.
Furthermore, by helping to establish greater regional cooperation in
disaster management will help the countries of South Asia access and
deploy much needed assets in a more cost effective way and could lead
to greater cooperation in other areas.
Mr. Chairman, clearly all of the countries of South Asia could
benefit enormously from better emergency preparedness and mitigation
programs.
However, USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA)
currently has a lone representative based in Kathmandu, Nepal who is
charged with covering the whole region. An increase to OFDA's funding
would allow that representative to expand and enhance programs in the
region to help these nations develop the needed programs.
These programs will help save thousands of lives and will ultimately
save U.S. taxpayer money over the long run as the countries of South
Asia improve and build their own disaster management and response
capacity, thereby reducing their need for American assistance when
disaster strikes--as it inevitably will.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support
of the Crowley-Royce-McDermott Amendment. It is difficult for us to
imagine the magnitude of destruction and loss caused by India's
devastating earthquake in Gujarat. With over 30,000 dead, 500,000
homeless, and over $5.5 billion worth of damage, Gujarat desperately
needs the resources to begin rebuilding and recovering from this tragic
event. As India's largest trading partner and investor, the United
States has a duty to help the people of Gujarat and ensure that natural
disasters do not fracture the foundation of the world's largest
democracy.
The key to avoiding the unnecessary deaths of thousands of
individuals is to institute disaster preparedness and response programs
throughout India. Many South Asian countries have asked our government
for technical assistance so that they can develop disaster management
programs. In order to be successful, however, these efforts need
sufficient funds and resources. An additional $10 million in aid, a
relatively modest contribution for the U.S., would not only provide
relief to victims of the recent earthquake, but also help prevent
future deaths should another earthquake strike this geographically
vulnerable region.
With the proper resources, India can harness its manpower to surmount
nature's greatest obstacles including cyclones, droughts, floods, and
earthquakes. We cannot afford to see a repeat of January's tragedy, and
we cannot watch as a nation which accounts for a quarter of the world's
poor experiences needless suffering. I am certain that Congress will
recognize that it would be inhumane not to vote in favor of this highly
cost-effective amendment.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Kolbe as a Substitute for Amendment No. 12
Offered by Mr. Crowley
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kolbe as a substitute for
amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Crowley.
In lieu of the pending amendment:
Page 2, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $1)''.
Page 11, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 25, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $1,000,000)''.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great interest to the
remarks that have been made here on the floor, most notably by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley); and I associate myself fully
with the remarks about the importance of providing disaster relief to
India and South Asia and planning for this kind of thing in advance so
the number of lives lost can be reduced so the damage can be reduced so
that the recovery can be greatly speeded up. I think the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Crowley) has proposed an excellent idea.
Mr. Chairman, let me say why I have my amendment here. First of all,
we have $200 million in the disaster assistance account. Whether we add
$1 million or $10 million more is not going to direct $1 more to India
or South Asia. There are adequate monies in that fund to handle the
disasters that are likely to occur during the course of the year.
My second point is our report has language in it that urges them to
give attention to this problem of disaster mitigation. I think the
discussion we have had here today reinforces that. My substitute
amendment, by adding the $1 million that is included in our report
language into this account, makes it even more abundantly clear.
Mr. Chairman, I think the substitute amendment avoids us getting into
the issues such as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) has pointed
out, all of the issues where this money comes out of, and we will have
those debates shortly, and still makes the point that we expect the
Agency for International Development and the Disaster Assistance
Program to look carefully at this issue of mitigation of disasters.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's bringing this to our
attention and would hope that Members would be able to support our
amendment.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, is it the intention of the gentleman's
amendment to increase the funding for AID from $200 million to $201
million?
Mr. KOLBE. That is correct.
Mr. CROWLEY. And the gentleman has agreed to allocate through the
conference process to work to ensure that $10 million will be allocated
from the AID fund that will be directed to the South Asia region, the
Kathmandu office?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would use the word ``direct'' rather than
``allocate.'' We do not earmark. We have a direction that they make
this money available, and they look carefully at the mitigation issues
in South Asia. I believe it accomplishes exactly what the gentleman is
asking us to do.
[[Page H4453]]
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to accept the gentleman's
substitute. I appreciate my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Crowley) expressing my views on the importance of the ability to
respond to emergencies such as happened in India and Gujarat, and I am
very pleased to work with the chairman to direct AID to direct the
funds of $10 million towards this account. We both acknowledge the very
important work of FEMA and the ability to respond to emergencies such
as occurred in Gujarat, and working with countries to build that
capacity.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this must be a real
affirmation. As the gentleman recalls, we discussed this issue last
week, and I support the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and thank
him for his leadership and thank the gentleman for this amendment.
There are a number of Indo-Americans who have worked so hard on this
disaster in India, among other places, and I think this is a very
important step to help them in their efforts, and I thank the
gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) as a substitute for the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), as amended.
The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
{time} 1245
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
administrative expenses
For administrative expenses to carry out the direct and
guaranteed loan and insurance programs, including hire of
passenger motor vehicles and services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed $30,000 for official reception
and representation expenses for members of the Board of
Directors, $63,000,000: Provided, That necessary expenses
(including special services performed on a contract or fee
basis, but not including other personal services) in
connection with the collection of moneys owed the Export-
Import Bank, repossession or sale of pledged collateral or
other assets acquired by the Export-Import Bank in
satisfaction of moneys owed the Export-Import Bank, or the
investigation or appraisal of any property, or the evaluation
of the legal or technical aspects of any transaction for
which an application for a loan, guarantee or insurance
commitment has been made, shall be considered
nonadministrative expenses for the purposes of this heading:
Provided further, That, notwithstanding subsection (b) of
section 117 of the Export Enhancement Act of 1992, subsection
(a) thereof shall remain in effect until October 1, 2002.
overseas private investment corporation
noncredit account
The Overseas Private Investment Corporation is authorized
to make, without regard to fiscal year limitations, as
provided by 31 U.S.C. 9104, such expenditures and commitments
within the limits of funds available to it and in accordance
with law as may be necessary: Provided, That the amount
available for administrative expenses to carry out the credit
and insurance programs (including an amount for official
reception and representation expenses which shall not exceed
$35,000) shall not exceed $38,608,000: Provided further, That
project-specific transaction costs, including direct and
indirect costs incurred in claims settlements, and other
direct costs associated with services provided to specific
investors or potential investors pursuant to section 234 of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, shall not be considered
administrative expenses for the purposes of this heading.
program account
Such sums as may be necessary for administrative expenses
to carry out the credit program may be derived from amounts
available for administrative expenses to carry out the credit
and insurance programs in the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation noncredit Account and merged with said account.
Funds Appropriated to the President
trade and development agency
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 661 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
$50,024,000, to remain available until September 30, 2003.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order: amendment No. 60 offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky); amendment No. 56 offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 60 Offered by Mr. Visclosky
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 258,
noes 162, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 260]
AYES--258
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Buyer
Cannon
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Chabot
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frost
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Goode
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
King (NY)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOES--162
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Bartlett
Bentsen
Bereuter
Biggert
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chambliss
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Dicks
[[Page H4454]]
Dooley
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Eshoo
Ferguson
Fletcher
Forbes
Frelinghuysen
Ganske
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Greenwood
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hooley
Houghton
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kerns
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McCrery
McDermott
McKeon
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pitts
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Roukema
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Saxton
Schrock
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Watson (CA)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wicker
Wilson
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
DeGette
Delahunt
Gallegly
Hastings (WA)
Horn
Hutchinson
Kilpatrick
Lipinski
Meehan
Reyes
Sabo
Scarborough
Spence
{time} 1310
Messrs. GANSKE, GILCHREST, WELLER and DeMINT changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. SPRATT, RANGEL, SANDLIN, BISHOP, RUSH, BACHUS, EVERETT,
PETERSON of Pennsylvania, JENKINS and WHITFIELD, Mrs. KELLY and Mrs. JO
ANN DAVIS of Virginia changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 260 I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6, rule XVIII, the Chair announces
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on the amendment on
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.
Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Paul
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 47,
noes 375, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 261]
AYES--47
Akin
Armey
Barr
Bartlett
Bass
Burton
Chabot
Coble
Conyers
Cox
Crane
Culberson
DeLay
Doolittle
Duncan
Edwards
Flake
Gibbons
Goode
Hayworth
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Jones (NC)
McInnis
McKinney
Ney
Otter
Paul
Pence
Petri
Platts
Pombo
Rohrabacher
Royce
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Smith (MI)
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Traficant
Wamp
NOES--375
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett
Barton
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefley
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
DeGette
Delahunt
Gallegly
Hastings (WA)
Kilpatrick
Lipinski
Meehan
Reyes
Scarborough
Spence
Stenholm
{time} 1319
Mr. HERGER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE II--BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
Funds Appropriated to the President
For expenses necessary to enable the President to carry out
the provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and for
other purposes, to remain available until September 30, 2002,
unless otherwise specified herein, as follows:
united states agency for international development
child survival and health programs fund
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
chapters 1 and 10 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 and title I of Public Law 106-570, for child survival,
reproductive health, assistance to combat tropical and other
infectious diseases, and
[[Page H4455]]
related activities, in addition to funds otherwise available
for such purposes, $1,387,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That this amount shall be made available
for such activities as: (1) immunization programs; (2) oral
rehydration programs; (3) health, nutrition, water and
sanitation programs, and related education programs, which
directly address the needs of mothers and children; (4)
assistance for displaced and orphaned children; (5) programs
for the prevention, treatment, and control of, and research
on, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, polio, malaria and other
infectious diseases; and (6) reproductive health: Provided
further, That none of the funds appropriated under this
heading may be made available for nonproject assistance,
except that funds may be made available for such assistance
for ongoing health programs: Provided further, That of the
funds appropriated under this heading, not to exceed
$125,000, in addition to funds otherwise available for such
purposes, may be used to monitor and provide oversight of
child survival, maternal health, and infectious disease
programs: Provided further, That the following amounts should
be allocated as follows: $295,000,000 for child survival and
maternal health; $25,000,000 for vulnerable children;
$434,000,000 for HIV/AIDS; $155,000,000 for other infectious
diseases; $120,000,000 for UNICEF; and $358,000,000 for
reproductive health: Provided further, That of the funds
appropriated under this heading, up to $60,000,000 may be
made available for a United States contribution to the The
Vaccine Fund and up to $10,000,000 may be made available for
the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative: Provided further,
That of the funds appropriated under this heading and under
the heading ``Child Survival and Disease Programs Fund'' in
the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 2001, up to $100,000,000 may be
made available for a United States contribution to a
multilateral trust fund to fight HIV/AIDS, malaria, and
tuberculosis: Provided further, That none of the funds made
available in this Act nor any unobligated balances from prior
appropriations may be made available to any organization or
program which, as determined by the President of the United
States, supports or participates in the management of a
program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization:
Provided further, That none of the funds made available under
this heading may be used to pay for the performance of
abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or
coerce any person to practice abortions; and that in order to
reduce reliance on abortion in developing nations, funds
shall be available only to voluntary family planning projects
which offer, either directly or through referral to, or
information about access to, a broad range of family planning
methods and services, and that any such voluntary family
planning project shall meet the following requirements: (1)
service providers or referral agents in the project shall not
implement or be subject to quotas, or other numerical
targets, of total number of births, number of family planning
acceptors, or acceptors of a particular method of family
planning (this provision shall not be construed to include
the use of quantitative estimates or indicators for budgeting
and planning purposes); (2) the project shall not include
payment of incentives, bribes, gratuities, or financial
reward to: (A) an individual in exchange for becoming a
family planning acceptor; or (B) program personnel for
achieving a numerical target or quota of total number of
births, number of family planning acceptors, or acceptors of
a particular method of family planning; (3) the project shall
not deny any right or benefit, including the right of access
to participate in any program of general welfare or the right
of access to health care, as a consequence of any
individual's decision not to accept family planning services;
(4) the project shall provide family planning acceptors
comprehensible information on the health benefits and risks
of the method chosen, including those conditions that might
render the use of the method inadvisable and those adverse
side effects known to be consequent to the use of the method;
and (5) the project shall ensure that experimental
contraceptive drugs and devices and medical procedures are
provided only in the context of a scientific study in which
participants are advised of potential risks and benefits;
and, not less than 60 days after the date on which the
Administrator of the United States Agency for International
Development determines that there has been a violation of the
requirements contained in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (5) of
this proviso, or a pattern or practice of violations of the
requirements contained in paragraph (4) of this proviso, the
Administrator shall submit to the Committee on International
Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations and
the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, a report
containing a description of such violation and the corrective
action taken by the Agency: Provided further, That in
awarding grants for natural family planning under section 104
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 no applicant shall be
discriminated against because of such applicant's religious
or conscientious commitment to offer only natural family
planning; and, additionally, all such applicants shall comply
with the requirements of the previous proviso: Provided
further, That for purposes of this or any other Act
authorizing or appropriating funds for foreign operations,
export financing, and related programs, the term
``motivate'', as it relates to family planning assistance,
shall not be construed to prohibit the provision, consistent
with local law, of information or counseling about all
pregnancy options: Provided further, That nothing in this
paragraph shall be construed to alter any existing statutory
prohibitions against abortion under section 104 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
Amendment No. 26 Offered by Ms. Lee
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 26 offered by Ms. Lee:
In title II of the bill in the item relating to ``child
survival and health programs fund'', after the first dollar
amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $60,000,000)''.
In title II of the bill in the item relating to ``child
survival and health programs fund'', after the third dollar
amount in the fourth proviso, insert the following:
``(increased by $60,000,000)''.
In title II of the bill in the item relating to ``child
survival and health programs fund'', after the dollar amount
in the sixth proviso, insert the following: ``(increased by
$60,000,000)''.
In title II of the bill in the item relating to ``andean
counterdrug initiative'', after the first dollar amount,
insert the following: ``(decreased by $38,000,000)''.
In title III of the bill in the item relating to ``foreign
military financing program'', after the first dollar amount,
insert the following: ``(decreased by $22,000,000)''.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to begin by thanking the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for cosponsoring this amendment which
would increase the United States contribution to the Global AIDS Trust
Fund from $100 million to $160 million in fiscal year 2002. I would
also like to acknowledge and thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member, and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for
their strong leadership in the House Appropriations Subcommittee on
Foreign Operations, and for increasing global HIV and AIDS with this
initial $100 million increase, and by a proposed $100 million in the
Labor-HHS appropriations bill.
Now, the United Nations Secretary General, General Kofi Annan, has
stated that a $10 billion annual war chest is needed to fight HIV/AIDS.
The Harvard AIDS Institute has stated that $10 billion is needed
annually for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. So while these
increases are taking us in the right direction, there still is not
enough money for the Global AIDS Trust Fund.
Last year, the United States spent $490 million on global HIV/AIDS
programs. This amount falls short of the billions required to fight the
global AIDS crisis.
Now, we all know that the global AIDS crisis, particularly as it is
affecting the African continent, is the greatest humanitarian crisis of
our time. Eight thousand people died of AIDS every day last year and
that means six people died every minute. Since the virus was first
recognized 20 years ago, 58 million people have been infected and, at
current rates of spread, the total will exceed $100 million by 2005.
AIDS has orphaned over 10 million children in Africa. By 2010, there
will be more than 40 million AIDS orphans.
I participated in the United Nations General Assembly Special Session
on HIV/AIDS as part of the official United States delegation. World
leaders, international HIV experts, and economists in civil society
called for a $7 billion to $10 billion Global AIDS Trust Fund in order
to address HIV and AIDS prevention, education, care, and treatment in
Africa.
So I want to remind my colleagues that last year, both the House and
Senate passed bipartisan legislation which authorized the establishment
of the World Bank AIDS Trust Fund. This bill was signed into law by
President Clinton.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I will insert for the Record a letter I
received from the Secretary which indicates the importance of this
legislation.
Department of the Treasury,
Washington, DC July 11, 2001.
Hon. Barbara Lee,
Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC
Dear Mrs. Lee: Thank you for your letter of June 22nd on
the negotiations to create a global fund for AIDS,
tuberculosis, and malaria. I appreciate the leadership and
support
[[Page H4456]]
that Congress has demonstrated on this issue, and agree that
the international community should work to reach agreement to
establish the fund as quickly as possible. There has been
considerable progress toward this end, and the United States
is pushing hard to reach agreement on process details and
timetables that will enable the fund to be established and
operational by January 2002.
The United States support a fiduciary role for the World
Bank in the global fund, and we are working with other donors
to achieve consensus on such a role. We have already had
preliminary discussions with the Bank on the substantive
elements of such a function.
It is also the United States' position that the fund should
be donor-controlled and broadly representative of all
stakeholders, with a major operational role for medical and
public health experts. We believe that a consensus is also
beginning to form around these issues.
Thank you again for your continuing interest and concern in
this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Paul H. O'Neill.
Mr. Chairman, in order to remain at the forefront, our leadership,
the United States leadership, must include providing significant
funding to the Global AIDS Trust Fund. Actually, this year our
authorization, which was agreed upon by our Committee on International
Relations under the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde), calls for approximately a $750 million distribution. The trust
fund will provide direct funding for HIV/AIDS prevention, education,
treatment, and care services. These funds are desperately needed.
I believe, and experts support, the fact that the United States must
commit a minimum of $1 billion for the Global AIDS Trust Fund in order
to lead this international effort. This will help leverage the $10
billion requirement, and it will keep the United States in a leadership
position.
Now, I understand the financial constraints which are presented in
this bill. However, I strongly believe that we must do everything that
we can at every opportunity to bring us closer to that $1 billion
level. So our $60 million amendment will do just that.
As discussions about a comprehensive and coordinated global response
to the AIDS crisis has ensued, there have been many questions about
whether or not African countries and HIV/AIDS service providers will be
able to expend large amounts of funding on the pandemic. I want to
remind my colleagues about the authorizing language in H.R. 3519, the
Global AIDS and Tuberculosis Relief Act of 2000. The authorizing
language included language that indicated that we must build the
necessary health care and social infrastructure, while at the same time
providing for care and treatment to ensure long-term success.
There have been reports which claim the developing countries and HIV/
AIDS service providers will not effectively be able to absorb or
distribute large amounts of money for the global pandemic. But
according to a USAID report, there are over 25 countries that have been
identified as high impact countries, yet aid is only scaling up in four
of these countries. According to the USAID missions, capacities for
increases in funding in Africa alone could be doubled and spent
effectively.
As for offsets, I want to state for the record that the offsets for
this amendment will come from an across-the-board cut of the foreign
military financing budget increases from last year. These cuts do not
include funding for Israel, Egypt, or Jordan. Our amendment will also
cut funding from the Andean antinarcotic initiatives specifically,
military spending for Peru only, once again, only from the increase
this year.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman from California and
the leadership that she has shown in this fight against HIV and AIDS,
and I also want to say the same about the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi), the other member of our subcommittee. Both of them have
been true leaders in this and, really, the conscience of the House in
this matter.
I wish I could agree with the amendment, but I think that we have a
carefully balanced bill when it comes to our priorities, so I find
myself in disagreement with this amendment. I think it is worth noting
that the committee has recommended a generous increase for
international health, and it has reduced the President's request for
both of the accounts that this amendment would reduce even further.
The amendment, while it may be well motivated, threatens the balance
among competing interests, competing national interests that are found
in this bill. Arriving at that balance with the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member, has not been easy; and I do not
expect that all of the Members necessarily are going to agree with it.
But once we upset that, once we demolish that balance, I do not think
it is going to be easy to restore.
Unlike last year, we cannot count on the other body to restore
assistance to the Andean nations, nor can we count on the other body to
restore further cuts we make in military assistance to Poland or to the
Baltic States.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment would also cut $22 million from the
foreign military financing program. This is an account that is very
large at $3.627 billion. But 94 percent of those funds in this year's
bill are allocated for Israel, Egypt, and Jordan. Only $177 million is
available to the rest of the world. Let me repeat those two figures.
This amendment cuts $22 million, and that is one-eighth of the military
assistance to countries outside of the Middle East.
Who is going to be affected by that? Will this cut be allocated
against our friends in Poland, in Hungary, or the Czech Republic, those
who have just joined NATO? It is inevitable that they are going to be
affected by this. Last year we had a similar amendment, together with
the Waters amendment, that eliminated all military assistance except to
Israel and Egypt, and even reduced funding for those countries.
{time} 1330
It also eliminated our military assistance to the Baltic States.
Members ignored warnings from the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman
Callahan) in their rush to support popular causes of the day.
I know that many Americans of Baltic and Central European origin were
concerned about the action taken by this body last year, because most
of us heard from them. Those Americans recognized not just the symbolic
importance but the material importance of the assistance we give to the
Baltic States and to Poland and to Hungary.
We should not make the same mistake again, in my view, of ignoring
those concerns and the vital strategic interest we have in that region.
With regard to HIV/AIDS, my own commitment and involvement in this
issue I think is a matter of public record. Just last Friday I chaired
a day-long panel here in the House of Representatives, four panels of
experts and leaders who updated dozens of staff members and other
Members of this body on the current situation with regard to the
pandemic.
That day-long seminar drove home very clearly to me the comments and
remarks and the truth of what the gentlewoman from California has said.
The crisis in HIV/AIDS has not abated. It is getting worse in the
world. It requires more resources, a lot more resources.
Our bill does provide those resources, above and beyond what was
requested by the President, at the expense of other programs. My
chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export
Financing and Related Agencies reflects the priority we are giving in
this global fight against the scourge of AIDS. We have $474 million for
HIV/AIDS, and we just added in a recent amendment another $18 million
to that. Another $80 million was provided by the supplemental
appropriations conference agreement that Congress sent to the President
last Friday.
Taking those two bills together, this bill and the supplemental that
we just sent to the President, the House would increase AIDS funding by
76 percent in this year, from $315 million in fiscal year 2001 to $554
million in 2002, and my mental calculations here are not reflecting the
$18 million we just added in with the adoption of the other amendment a
few minutes ago.
This increase, over 76 percent in HIV/AIDS funding, is what the
committee has concluded that we can afford and effectively use within
the allocation provided for this bill. I am uncertain whether another
$60 million would be
[[Page H4457]]
obligated and effectively used during the fiscal year 2002, but it
would be spent eventually.
I know the gentlewoman has put all of this money into the
International Trust Fund, which I think, as the gentlewoman knows, at
this point is still just on paper. We do not have it organized.
So I would oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues not to adopt
this amendment but to allow the subcommittee and committee's work in
this area to stand.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Leach amendment. This
amendment proposes a smart shifting of funds. It moves foreign military
funds to an HIV/AIDS initiative that will affect positive changes in
people's lives around the world.
HIV/AIDS affects more than 10 million young people around the world,
making it the largest health crisis children face. As bad or worse is
that this horrific virus has made orphans of millions of uninfected
children whose parents have died from HIV/AIDS. How bad does it have to
get before this Congress realizes that we need to take immediate and
effective action against the global AIDS epidemic?
As yet, our response as a nation to this global pandemic has not kept
pace with the enormous growth in this deadly disease. The countries hit
hardest remain ill-equipped and unable to respond adequately.
AIDS is no longer only a health matter. It is a matter of social
stability. It is a matter of economic development. It is a matter of
international security.
Increasing the World Bank's HIV/AIDS Trust Fund by $60 million will
help to reduce the rate of new infections. It will extend the lives of
people living with HIV and provide care and support for children and
families impacted by the disease. The availability of this funding will
make the difference between death and a healthy future.
By passing this amendment, the United States will make a practical
investment and a necessary investment in those across the globe who
need our help, help they need now. I strongly urge my colleagues to
support this amendment.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
First, let me congratulate and thank my good friend, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee), for her leadership in this effort; and I
would also express my deep respect for the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe) for his commitment in this area.
I know it is awkward for the Committee on Appropriations, after
putting substantially more money into this process, to have Members
come to the floor and ask for more. But let me explain why I think this
is important.
If one were sitting on the moon and were to look down at this country
and the world at this time, it is hard not to conclude that the
greatest difficulty we have is disease control, particularly AIDS. Our
Surgeon General has said that this is going to be the largest pandemic
in human history, exceeding that of the bubonic plague of the 1300s and
the epidemic of flu in the early part of the last century which both
killed over 20 million people.
Twenty-two million have now died from AIDS, and in Africa alone 25
million have the HIV virus. Obviously, this is a disease that knows no
borders. Obviously, it cannot be contained in continents. It is rapidly
spreading into the subcontinent of Central Asia, into Southeast Asia,
into the former Soviet Union. Over 1 million American citizens have the
HIV virus.
Mr. Chairman, now with regard to where the resources for this
amendment come from, this is a very modest amendment. It takes about
$60 million from a military interdiction program in Peru and from
foreign military sales.
Intriguingly, from a national security perspective, one of the great
questions is, is the security of the average American citizen going to
be more likely protected with giving guns and bullets to others at the
turn of this century or through dealing with this disease in this kind
of way--expecially when those guns and bullets apply to foreign
military sales, not provisions for the military of the United States of
America?
Finally, let me say why it is with some concern that I rise with the
gentlewoman. In the last Congress, the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services established a World Bank AIDS Trust Fund and
authorized a substantial sum of money. Unfortunately, the
appropriations process did not come forth with the matching obligation.
So what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and I are
attempting to do is to meet the beginning of that obligation in a much
more serious way. This is the will of the Congress in an authorizing
sense, and it is our view it ought to be matched in an appropriations
way.
Finally, let me just say that it is self-evident that we have a
humanitarian crisis, but it also is an economic crisis. It is a
national security crisis. It is a crisis that has to be dealt with on a
worldwide basis. That is precisely what the leaders of the world met
this last week to talk about. It is precisely what this Congress has to
deal with today.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for her
effective work to fight for and provide funding for HIV/AIDS. I know
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) has been an outstanding advocate of
the same program.
Mr. Chairman, I have consistently tried to support that. But I
reluctantly oppose this amendment, as it will cut into our important
Andean antidrug initiatives and reduce some very important military
assistance initiatives, as the chairman pointed out.
With regard to Peru, I just would like my colleagues, as they discuss
assistance for Peru, to bear in mind the case of Lori Berenson, the
case of the American citizen who has been wrongly imprisoned for far
too long in Peru.
Mr. Chairman, while I commend our colleague, the gentlewoman from
California, Ms. Barbara Lee, on her effective work to fight and provide
funding for HIV/AIDS, which I have continually supported, I reluctantly
oppose this amendment as it will cut into our important Andean anti-
drug initiatives and reduce some important military assistance
initiatives.
And with regard to Peru, I urge my colleagues to bear in mind the
case of Lori Berenson, the American citizen who has been wrongly
imprisoned in Peru on charges of terrorism. This case needs to be
closely examined before we consider granting the Peruvian government
U.S. aid. Peru needs to understand that the present status of Lori
Berenson is unacceptable.
While Peru has made great strides in improving its economy and
fighting drugs, the Fujimori regime created a judicial system that is
seriously lacking in independence. Lori Berenson was initially
condemned under a flawed military court system that imprisoned hundreds
of innocent Peruvians. Peru has now conceded that Lori was innocent of
leading or participating in any terrorist organization. Her second
trial should not have been held without a major revision and reform of
Peru's anti-terrorism legislation. Her case will remain a thorny issue
between the United States and Peru until Lori is released from prison.
Lori has been in prison for 5\1/2\ years, it is time for her to be
able to return home.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by thanking again the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who is a stalwart and wonderful
leader on this cause, and her fine staff.
Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lee-Leach amendment
that would increase the United States contribution to the global HIV/
AIDS fund from $1 million to $160 million. World leaders, HIV/AIDS
experts and economists have called for a $7 billion to $10 billion fund
in order to address HIV/AIDS. This amendment is simply a down payment.
Why are such funds needed? Because we are facing a worldwide crisis.
More than 36.1 million people are currently infected and living with
HIV worldwide, and 1.4 million of them, Mr. Chairman, are children. In
the year 2000 alone, 8,000 deaths occurred every day, or nearly six
deaths every minute.
[[Page H4458]]
Experts predict more people will die of AIDS in the next decade than
have died in all of the wars of the 20th century.
Equally devastating, the disease also threatens the health and well-
being of uninfected children by taking the lives of their parents. By
the year 2000, over 42 million children worldwide have been orphaned
due to HIV/AIDS.
In the most severely affected regions of the world, a high proportion
of teachers are too sick to work or are dying of complications due to
AIDS.
Condom distribution is key to a successful HIV/AIDS prevention
campaign. USAID has distributed over 1 billion condoms. In addition,
USAID is supporting the development of female-controlled methods of
prevention, such as microbicides.
If the U.S. Government is committed to supporting efforts that reduce
mother-to-child transmission, we must put our money where our mouth is.
An alarming number of children have acquired HIV/AIDS through MTCT, and
3 million children under the age of 15 have died of AIDS. USAID is also
funding community outreach to pregnant women to make them aware of the
risk for the unborn children.
We must ensure that African governments and development agencies in
Africa receive the funding needed to continue to expand their work to
prevent spread of HIV-AIDS and to treat the victims.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge support of the Lee-Leach
global health amendment increasing contributions to the global HIV/AIDS
fund. It is a pro-life effort, Mr. Chairman. I would encourage support.
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western
Hemisphere of the Committee on International Relations, I have had a
great deal of time and effort spent on the Andean area of this
hemisphere; and if there is a place in this world that deserves some
kind of financial aid, this is it, both in the military and also
because of the fact that we have created a drug problem in this country
and have made people in much weaker areas like the Andes region develop
the idea of growing drugs there.
We need to support those areas. We need to support them in every way
we can. Over half of this money that is involved here is for peaceful
purposes.
Mr. Chairman, I noticed on the amendment that it applies all of this
money to child survival and health programs. I was reading in record of
the bill that, and not everybody talks about this, there is $434
million, and then it is $474 million in the bill. That is $45 million
above the President's request and above $315 million last year. There
is also $100 million in our supplement.
Mr. Chairman, the Child Survival and Health Program funds, and this
is the part that I found interesting, it funds $295 million just for
child survival, maternal health; for vulnerable children, $25 million;
and for HIV-AIDS, $434 million. For other infectious disease, I checked
on that, tuberculosis and others that generally spring up following on
HIV-AIDS, and reproductive health and voluntary family planning, that
also fits the HIV-AIDS program. Then there is a grant to UNICEF. Again,
much of this could be applied to HIV-AIDS.
When we add it all up, there is over $1 billion 387 million that can
be used in this particular area, much more than anybody has been
willing to talk about so far.
I would just like to say that the Andean region deserves every
consideration that we can give it because we have created the problem
that exists there. The use of drugs in this country has created a
monstrous drug problem in all of the Andean region; and it is, in my
considered opinion, very important that we continue to support that
area, especially since the people in Europe and the other parts of the
world who have the same drug problem are doing nothing to assist.
{time} 1345
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words. I thank the sponsors of this legislation,
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Leach), for the outstanding work that they have done continuously,
along with many, many Members who have joined in, including the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and many others who have
joined in on this particular aspect of support of the HIV problem.
Let me simply say that my theme today is that we are our brothers'
keepers. In newspaper reports we find that 95 percent of all AIDS cases
are in the developing world and that this strain of AIDS could cause a
drastic explosion if it jumps to the Western world. More than 70
percent of all people living with the disease, or 25.3 million HIV-
positive individuals, live in Africa. However, this disease is moving
to India. We find that the disease is growing the fastest in places
like Russia and China; and, therefore, this is a world-wide disaster.
Over 10 percent of the population is infected in 16 African nations,
but it is spreading. The U.S. Census Bureau calculates that by 2010
average life expectancy will be reduced by 40 years in Zimbabwe,
Botswana, and in South Africa by 30 years. The disease destabilizes
these nations by decimating their workforce, destroying any economic
prosperity, depleting their military and peacekeeping forces, and
leaving thousands and thousands of orphans. We expect in the years to
come that we will find 40 million children orphaned in sub-Saharan
Africa.
Let me emphasize the crux of this particular amendment. It is a
modest amendment. And I do appreciate the needs of peacekeeping in our
European nations, but I would simply say that there will be no
opportunity for peacekeeping if we do not fight the devastation of
AIDS. AIDS devastates the militaries of these respective countries. It
provides military instability because the military personnel travel
from country to country and take the infection and carry it elsewhere.
It destroys economic development; and certainly because AIDS has no
borders, our children are impacted.
So I simply offer my support for this amendment, and I believe it is
a modest amendment in terms of the funds that it takes from the
respective accounts.
I would lastly say on the drug issue, as would anyone, we want to
diminish or decrease the amount of drug use in this country. But I
believe a key element of that is treatment. No matter how much we try
to fight the supply, if we do not deal with the issue of treatment, we
are fighting almost a losing battle. I believe these funds will be
vitally necessary and useful to be utilized to fight the devastation of
HIV-AIDS.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to extend my strong support for the Lee-Leach
Global AIDS amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.
This amendment would increase the United States contribution to the
global HIV/AIDS fund from $100 million to $160 million.
The Lee-Leach amendment addresses the global HIV/AIDS crisis--the
most urgent humanitarian crisis of our time. More people have died from
HIV/AIDS over the last twenty years than from any other disease in
history--21.8 million people. In this country we have been able to slow
the rate of AIDS' death, but the disease is at crisis proportions in
sub-Saharan Africa, where four-fifths of those deaths have occurred--an
average of one death every eight seconds.
The Houston Chronicle reports that 95 percent of all AIDS cases are
in the developing world, and that this strain of AIDS could cause a
drastic explosion if it jumps to the Western world. More than 70
percent of all people living with the disease, or 25.3 million HIV-
positive individuals, live in Africa. Over 10 percent of the population
is infected in sixteen African nations. The U.S. Census Bureau
calculates that by 2010, average life expectancy will be reduced by 40
years in Zimbabwe and Botswana, and in South Africa by 30 years. The
disease destabilizes these nations by decimating its workforce,
destroying any economic prosperity, depleting its military and
peacekeeping forces and leaving thousands of orphans.
The epidemic is not limited to Africa. Indeed, the fastest growing
front of the epidemic is now in Russia, where the number of new
infections last year exceeded the total from all previous years
combined. In 2000, the number of Russians living with HIV/AIDS
skyrocketed from 130,000 to 300,000.
A multilateral response to the global AIDS crisis is the quickest
mechanism to engage international donors and to initiate a coordinated
international response to the global AIDS pandemic. World leaders,
international
[[Page H4459]]
HIV/AIDS experts and economists and civil society have called for a $7-
$10 billion dollar fund in order to address HIV/AIDS prevention,
education, care and treatment in Africa. A significant contribution to
this goal would be a wise political and national security investment.
The global AIDS trust fund is designed to leverage significant
contributions from the international community to fight this global
killer. The Lee-Leach amendment would send a strong message that the
United States is committed to eradicating HIV/AIDS from the face of the
earth. If the Lee-Leach amendment is made law, it would provide
significant direct grant funding to African governments, NGO's and
civil society in regions of the world that have been hard hit by HIV/
AIDS top turn the tied of HIV/AIDS. The Bush administration has told us
that the trust fund would be ready to disburse funds by the end
December 2001.
I urge all of my colleagues to remember that AIDS knows no borders.
With more than 4 million infections annually, Africa remains the
epicenter of the AIDS epidemic. However, AIDS is truly a problem that
threatens global stability. In India, more than 3.7 million people are
living with the virus. In 1999, the highest increase in reported rates
of HIV transmission were found not in Africa, but in the former states
of the Soviet Union. Keep in mind that stability in those countries
that possess nuclear weaponry has been a goal of our foreign policy
since the early days of the Cold War.
The $60 million we are seeking will be a down payment on a larger
investment in the global AIDS trust fund. I urge my colleagues to
recognize this investment and support those amendment.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. However, I do
want to commend the author for her sincerity and the work that she has
done on the HIV situation.
I oppose this for a number of reasons. First of all, let me reiterate
what the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) just said, that
we have over $1 billion in various appropriation efforts to combat
AIDS. This bill alone, as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has
said, we have a $474 million earmark, and then another $80 million that
was in the supplemental budget, and we just increased this $18 million
with the Visclosky amendment.
Now, compare that over $500 million, just on this bill, Mr. Chairman,
to last year's $315 and the year before about $220 million. Clearly,
this foreign operations committee is moving at a very aggressive pace
to try to help this situation worldwide, but also in coordination with
12 other appropriation committees in their efforts.
This committee is also funding or encouraging the funding of such
products as the Morehouse School of Medicine is doing in Atlanta, and
other nonprofit organizations and research institutes. So we are
clearly committed to fighting the AIDS situation.
I want to also talk about where this money is coming from, because
the author of this amendment is taking money out of some very, very
vital programs, the foreign military financing assistance programs. Let
me just read the names of some of the recipients of this valuable
money: Albania, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech
Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Romania,
Slovakia, and Slovenia. These are all emerging democracies in the
Balkans.
How can we, at this critical point in their most recent history, turn
our backs on them? Why would we cut this money to what are emerging as
not just great democracies but also free people and allies for the
United States of America? That is what is going on in the Balkans. That
is where this money is coming from.
Now, let us look at the Western Hemisphere. This cuts money from
people in Argentina, Belize, El Salvador, Haiti, Jamaica. Certainly,
right now, with all the trouble Jamaica is having, it is not time to
pull the rug out from under their military assistance.
So I would say, as well intended as this amendment is, it is financed
through the wrong mechanisms. And, Mr. Chairman, if that is not bad
enough, I want to talk about the Andean initiative and a lot of the
criticism of that. And I share the criticism when we rush out on a
defense contractor buyer spree, buying helicopters and creating a
cottage industry for people who deal in quasi- military equipment, but
there are some other programs in there that are extremely important.
Judicial training and witness monitoring that NGOs are doing for some
of these countries. Now, I had a constituent several years ago who was
jailed in Ecuador. And under the Ecuadoran system of government, an
individual has to prove that they are innocent. The state does not have
to prove that they are guilty. It is completely different than America.
People are put in jail, and they have to build their own case. The
government does not even have to tell the person jailed what they are
charged for.
One of the great disservices we could inadvertently do for our
constituents in America is to put them at further risk when they go to
some of these countries in South America. They do need judicial reform,
and this money cuts that very needed judicial reform.
So for these reasons I oppose this amendment. Again, I appreciate the
sincerity of the authors and the supporters of it, by I think we need
to look again at where they are taking the money and the track record
of this committee, what it has done, and what its commitment remains to
be on HIV.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words, and I rise in support of the Lee-Leach global AIDS
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Leach) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for their
leadership on this issue. My second term in the House of
Representatives, and last year, through my work with the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee), I became more and more aware of the need for
this country to step up to the plate and take its leadership role in
addressing the pandemic of AIDS.
In reality, as we nickel and dime our way towards paying for the AIDS
pandemic in our country and across the world, we ought to be anteing up
$1 billion from the United States that would allow us to leverage
another $8 to $9 billion across the world to support this AIDS, to get
rid of this AIDS pandemic.
The prior speaker specifically said that we were cutting funds. But
in fact we are looking at funds to leverage to the trust fund, and we
are not cutting USAID funds. We are not talking about bilateral funds,
and we are not talking about decreasing the income of the various
countries that are being dealt with. We are talking about decreasing an
increase for these countries, because some of the dollars have actually
sat being unused. For example, in the country of Peru, military funds
for the Andean initiative sat unused for a number of years. In
addition, funds in Colombia would not be affected. Additionally, cuts
to this initiative are budget cuts only to budget increases over the
next few years.
Let me for a moment, Mr. Chairman, tell my colleagues some of the 24
organizations that are supporting this piece of legislation, and these
are organizations that are religious, health, hunger and research
oriented groups.
They include ACT UP out of Philadelphia, AIDS Action, AIDS Alliance
for Children Youth and Families, AIDS Nutrition Services Alliance, AIDS
Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, Advocates for Youth, the American Public
Health Association, Catholic Relief Services, Church World Service,
Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, Gay Men's Health Crisis,
Global Campaign for Microbicides, Global Health Council, Health GAP
Coalition, HIV Medicine Association, the Human Rights Campaign,
Infectious Diseases Society of America, Maryknoll AIDS Task Force, the
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, the National
AIDS Fund, PLAN International, the Presbyterian Church USA, Washington
Office, the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, Student Global AIDS
Campaign, and the Washington Office on Africa.
All of these organizations get it. All of these organizations
understand the importance of our addressing the AIDS pandemic across
the world.
Now, I am knowledgeable to the point that I have seen and I have read
that there are grandparents across sub-Saharan Africa that are raising
35 and 40 grandchildren, and they are raising 35 and 40 grandchildren
as a result of the fact that AIDS has wiped out generations across sub-
Saharan Africa. We should not continue to let that happen.
It would be different if we could not make an impact. It would be
different if we had to say to the world, World, we
[[Page H4460]]
cannot help you, we can let this AIDS pandemic continue to spread. But
we can make a difference, the big United States of America, the one
that comes to the plate for everybody else.
Step up, America. Step up, United States, and fund this AIDS pandemic
program at its maximum.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words. This amendment has the right heart but the wrong idea.
We all support increased efforts to address the world's HIV-AIDS
crisis and the chairman of this committee is to be commended for his
efforts to fund such programs. But the solution to AIDS is not to
reduce the funding to combat illegal drugs on the streets of the United
States or to reduce assistance to our allies.
This amendment reduces military assistance to many of our allies.
Approximately half of this budget is dedicated to Israel and another
large percent to Egypt. It is earmarked. That leaves only $177 million
for the rest of the world, of which this amendment would strike $22
million, putting pressure both on Israel and Egypt as well as the rest
of the countries of the world.
I represent a large Macedonian population. The country of Macedonia
allowed our troops to be based there. They were drawn into the Balkan
wars. A unified government that represented all different parts of
Macedonia has come under duress because of their willingness to support
America. Now we would turn around with this amendment and reduce aid to
them.
I particularly rise as chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources to discuss the importance of
fully funding the Andean Regional Initiative, to ensure we continue
effective efforts to reduce the supply of drugs to the United States.
Of our total narcotics control budget, and I believe in a balanced
approach, we spend just 17 percent on interdiction and all
international aid programs, including our past support of Plan Colombia
at $1.3 billion. We spend almost twice as much, 31 percent, on demand-
reduction programs as well as other issues.
Although I strongly believe we must pursue a national strategy evenly
balanced between supply and demand reduction, it is clear that our
funding for international programs is not only extremely reasonable in
proportion to overall drug control spending, but dollar for dollar has
a disproportionate impact on our strategy. Moreover, it is a critical
time to our allies in Central and South America.
In Colombia, opium growing in the north has continued unchecked and
now provides the vast majority of the heroin that is on the streets of
America and in our neighborhoods. In south Colombia, we are at the
start of an aggressive program to eradicate the primary source of the
world's cocaine. It is important for my colleagues to understand that
we are still at the start of Plan Colombia. We are likely to falsely
hear over and over today that it somehow has not worked. How can the
plan have worked when the first helicopters are just arriving at the
end of this month and in the next month? Last year's funding is just
reaching there now.
{time} 1400
Yet we already see the coca growers and the poppy growers starting to
move to other countries which is why we now have an Andean initiative.
The political situation continues to be unstable and politically
volatile. The consequences of a lack of resolve on the part of the
United States to maintain stability and democracy in Colombia will be
monumental. Many of those consequences will be felt almost as harshly
on the streets in our hometowns and in our neighborhoods in America.
To ensure that our efforts are effective, it is equally critical to
support a regional strategy to maintain stability and democracy
throughout the Andean region. Almost half of the money requested for
the Andean initiative is for countries other than Colombia. Without
military aid to help restore order, terrorism and conflict funded by
American and European drug habits have exported terrorism and an
unbelievable mess in each of these countries.
When you look at this, we talk about rebuilding their legal systems,
we talk about alternative economic development, but when the judges are
being killed, when families and children are being kidnapped, we first
need to get order. As we work towards order, then we help to rebuild
their countries. These countries need our help to ensure that narco-
traffic does not simply spread from Colombia to destabilize and corrupt
other nations, especially those who have made a concerted effort to
eliminate the drug trade from their countries.
We need to battle the AIDS virus but we also need to battle the drug
crisis.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a couple of points
quickly in response to what has been said here today.
There is $38 million that comes out of the economic assistance for
the Andean countries. Forty-seven percent of the money that we have in
that account goes to economic assistance. Half of it goes to economic
assistance. So you are cutting the money from that.
You cannot just say you are cutting it from military. You are cutting
it from the justice programs. You are cutting it from the poverty
programs. You are cutting it from the alternative economic assistance
programs.
Most of our programs have been consolidated to the Andean initiative,
those in Latin America. If you take those out, there is only $146
million total for the entire region that is left in all other programs
of assistance. So you are cutting drastically into those programs.
Lastly let me say a few words with regard to the trust fund. In this
bill, we have $100 million in the trust fund. There is $100 million
that we appropriated the other day that is in the supplemental. And,
there is $100 million that will be included in the Labor HHS. In total,
for the trust fund, we have $300 million. This amendment would increase
it to $360 million. I say we are doing everything we can in the area of
the international trust fund for AIDS and the other diseases.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise not only as ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources of
the Committee on Government Reform that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Souder), who just spoke, is chairman of, so I am very familiar with our
efforts to fight drugs all over the world, but at the same time I stand
here as one who was just informed by my health commissioner that in the
City of Baltimore, which is only 45 miles away from here, in my
district and three ZIP Codes, we have a level of AIDS that is
approaching very rapidly the levels found in Africa and third world
countries. That is 45 miles from here, less than an hour's drive.
So when the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) spoke a little bit
earlier about his concerns about making sure that we provide a proper
defense for this country, that not only affects the third world but it
also affects these very United States.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Lee amendment
which seeks to add the $60 million to the U.S. contribution to the
Global AIDS and Health Fund, and I compliment her on her efforts and
those associated with it.
I would also like to state for the record that I am disturbed by some
of the comments made about this amendment. I am disturbed because I
cannot believe that Members of this great House have questioned the
integrity of the amendment. Last week I read in the CQ Daily Monitor a
quote from a Member on the other side of the aisle when he said, ``Are
they really trying to add money to HIV/AIDS or trying to cut money from
the other side?''
While our efforts in fighting international narcotics are a very
serious issue and concern, there are many valid issues that must be
addressed regarding our role in the Andean region.
Although I am a supporter of Plan Colombia, some of the concerns you
have heard about today are valid and need further scrutiny. What is
important at this juncture is finding a cure and stopping the spread of
a deadly pandemic. AIDS is an all inclusive, nondiscriminatory disease
that transcends country boundaries, age, gender, and race.
[[Page H4461]]
Experts predict that more people will die of AIDS in the next decade
than have died in all the wars of the 20th century. It is estimated
that $7 to $10 billion are needed to fight this global AIDS pandemic.
Further, I recently read a statement that and I quote, ``It is a
dramatic paradox that the same continent that saw the appearance of a
man 6 million years ago is starting to witness our disappearance this
millennium.'' Yet we continue to quibble over $60 million.
Listen to the statistics. Worldwide, more than 36 million people are
living with HIV/AIDS. That is more than the entire population of the
great State of California. There are more than five million new
infections each year; 600,000 of those are in children under the age of
15. By 2010, AIDS will orphan 44 million children. More than a fifth of
all adults in at least four African countries are infected with the
HIV/AIDS virus. According to the joint United Nations program on HIV/
AIDS, if the crisis is not addressed, 100 million people will be
infected worldwide by 2005.
I believe that the Congress and the President's demonstrated
unwillingness to increase international family planning funds and the
crushing debt burden these countries face leave many developing
countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa, with limited
options, thereby exacerbating this devastating health crisis.
Of the 22 countries who have received debt relief under the Highly
Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, two-thirds will spend more on
servicing their debt than they spend on basic health care. As such,
those who are suffering from HIV/AIDS and its related illnesses are
left untreated and unaccounted for.
Mr. Chairman, we have the means and the moral obligation to maintain
a commitment to be leaders and fighters on this issue. As such, I urge
my colleagues to support the amendment of the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee). The funding is critical to sustaining the role
that the Global AIDS Health Fund can play in eradicating the deadly
effects of HIV/AIDS. Let us remain steadfast in our commitment.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Lee-Leach amendment which would
increase the funding for the United States contribution to the Global
AIDS Fund from $100 million to $160 million. I thank the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for
all of their leadership that they have provided on this issue.
Last year I recall that they came to this floor and they asked for a
bit more assistance; and the Members of Congress saw the wisdom in
their words and work, and they supported them. I hope that the House
will give support to this amendment that is being placed before Members
today.
The global HIV/AIDS pandemic is the most severe health crisis of our
time. Over 36 million people are currently living with HIV/AIDS, and 95
percent of them live in developing countries. The impact of the
pandemic on sub-Saharan Africa defies description. Seventeen million
Africans have already died of AIDS since the beginning of the pandemic,
and 25 million Africans are living with HIV/AIDS. Over 6,000 people die
from AIDS-related diseases every day in sub-Saharan Africa.
The pandemic has been especially devastating for children.
Approximately 1 million children are living with HIV/AIDS in sub-
Saharan Africa, and an estimated 600,000 African infants become
infected with HIV each year through mother-to-child transmission either
at birth or through breast feeding. The Joint United Nations Program on
HIV/AIDS, U.N. AIDS, projects that at least half of all 15-year-olds
will eventually die of AIDS in the worst-affected countries such as
Zambia, Botswana, and South Africa.
Furthermore, over 12 million African children have lost their mother
to AIDS and are considered AIDS orphans. The HIV/AIDS pandemic has
curtailed the economic development of many African countries. AIDS is
believed responsible for shortages of skilled workers and teachers,
high rates of absenteeism, labor turnover, and the deaths of Africans
at upper levels of management in business and government in many areas
of sub-Saharan Africa.
USAID has estimated that Kenya's GNP will be 14.4 percent smaller in
the year 2005 than it would have been without AIDS. In the Ivory Coast,
five teachers reportedly die from AIDS during each week of the school
year. Teachers and other skilled workers can be very difficult to
replace. In some parts of Africa, employers find it necessary to hire
two workers for each job opening because they expect one out of every
two workers to die from HIV/AIDS.
The HIV/AIDS pandemic has disrupted the lives of farm communities and
reduced agricultural production. When adult members of farm families
become ill, they become unable to continue farming. Farm tools and
animals may be sold to pay for their care. Children are forced to leave
school and care for their parents. Sharp reduction in crops such as
maize and cotton and other crops in Zimbabwe have been attributed to
widespread illness and death from AIDS among farm families and
agricultural workers.
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has asked for the
establishment of a Global AIDS Fund to address this devastating
pandemic. He estimated that it will take $7 billion to $10 billion per
year to mount a successful effort to treat HIV-infected people and stop
the spread of AIDS.
The Global AIDS Alliance estimates that it will take $15 billion per
year, yet current spending on HIV/AIDS is only $1 billion per year from
all sources combined. This bill provides a paltry $474 million in
funding for international HIV/AIDS programs. The United States
certainly can do better. The United States should be a leader in global
AIDS funding.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Lee-Leach amendment
and demonstrate the commitment of Congress to worldwide efforts to stop
the spread of this deadly disease.
Mr. Chairman, I know that some of us are beginning to sound like a
broken record. But we will be on this floor day in and day out at every
point that we can join this issue. We will be here. We will not sit
silently by and watch the devastation that we are witnessing in the
world, and particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, and be quiet.
One of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said, What more
do they expect? We are putting money in the budget. We keep putting
money in the budget. Members heard what the estimates are. $1 billion
from all sources when we need $10 billion to 15 billion. We have a long
way to go.
Mr. Chairman, Members will be hearing from us often. Members will be
hearing from us in the most profound way we can put forth this issue.
We have got to have more money to stop the pandemic.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lee-Leach amendment. I thank
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Leach) for introducing this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard about the severity of the AIDS pandemic.
It has at this point exceeded in damage to human life the flu pandemic
of 1918; and before it is stopped, it probably will exceed the damage
to human beings of the Black Death of the 14th century.
There are some countries where one out of every four people is
already affected. We still do not have a cure. We have some
ameliorative treatments, and those treatments are not affordable to
people in most of the developing world. It is the greatest single
threat that humanity faces today.
The amounts of money we are spending on it, frankly, put us to shame
when we consider the priorities. Any budget is a set of priorities. The
Global AIDS Trust Fund in this budget will get $100 million in this
bill; another $100 million in the Labor-HHS bill; bilateral aid from
AID adds another $247 million, for a total of $447 million proposed in
the United States budget.
Mr. Chairman, we are spending about $6 billion a year on missile
defense research. Some people think we ought to spend more, some think
we ought to spend less. $6 billion for a possible threat; $447 million
for an existing mortal threat that is in front of our eyes.
[[Page H4462]]
{time} 1415
The U.N. has estimated that we should be spending 7 to $10 billion a
year, the world, not just the United States, seven to 10 times the $1
billion the world is spending on this now. This modest amendment would
add $60 million. The total U.S. commitment would go from $447 million
to $507 million in a budget of roughly $1.8 trillion.
Again, look what we spend money on: $6 billion on missile defense.
This money, $60 million, is minimal. It is taken from foreign military
aid, mostly to Latin American countries which, frankly, is not all that
necessary, I do not know about the great military threats faced by
Latin American countries, and from drug initiatives abroad which have
not cut down the flow of drugs into this country. The threat of AIDS is
a heck of a lot more threatening to us than any drug problem could ever
conceivably be.
Mr. Chairman, I urge that we adopt this amendment. $60 million is a
pittance. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) should have added
another zero. It should have been $600 million. But then we would not
seriously consider it. But the pittance that is added here is the very,
very least we can do so that we can say to our children, we did not
ignore the AIDS crisis, the worst crisis to humanity in at least 600
years.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I just briefly wanted to rise to commend the makers of
this motion, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), and commend them for their leadership.
I also want to acknowledge the great job that the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) did
in the bill in increasing the funds for HIV/AIDS because the number has
increased. As one who has worked on this issue over the years, I can
only say that this problem of HIV/AIDS has been exacerbated by poverty
in the world. AIDS and poverty are a terrible combination. They exist
side by side in the developing world.
But it is the poverty of our language that I wanted to address right
now. We must have some poverty because we have not been able to
convince the Congress of the need for us to have more funds into the
global fund for AIDS and other infectious diseases.
My colleagues have spoken eloquently to the numbers of people with
HIV/AIDS, and I want to repeat one of those numbers. That is, that left
at the pace that we are going now, the UNAIDS program reports that, by
the year 2005, 100 million people will be infected with HIV/AIDS. How
much more staggering would the numbers have to become for us to respond
in a way that is commensurate with the leadership of our country, that
is commensurate with the need that is out there?
The HIV/AIDS issue internationally and at home challenges the
conscience of the world. The United States must lead the way in meeting
that challenge.
I will submit the rest of my statement for the record, but I commend
once again the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee) for their leadership on this.
Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to speak today in support of the Lee-Leach
amendment to dedicate resources to the fight against the global HIV/
AIDS crisis. The scope and severity of this crisis are not just a
global health challenge but one of economics as well. The crisis has
been felt harshly by less developed countries, the very countries whose
governments are least equipped to handle this scourge.
Critics of this amendment are concerned that it would reduce foreign
military spending. But the global HIV/AIDS crisis poses as direct a
threat to the security of many nations and the safety of their citizens
as a more conventional military challenge would. The global fight
against HIV/AIDS requires at least the same commitment that this Nation
has made to training foreign militaries or fighting our war on drugs.
If we do not take part in funding the research and the treatment, it
could wipe out our forces, not only abroad but here in this country,
too.
Let us shift our priorities. Let us train an army of doctors to fight
the global HIV/AIDS crisis. Let us declare war on this dreaded disease.
And, most importantly, let us vote for the Lee-Leach amendment which
will take a strong first step at addressing the economic challenge of
the global HIV/AIDS crisis.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise in support of the Lee amendment. It is not a matter of debate
that the HIV/AIDS crisis is devastating Africa. More than 25 million
people in sub-Saharan Africa are living with HIV/AIDS. Nearly 4 million
were infected during 2000 alone. AIDS has deprived children of their
parents, robbed schools of their best teachers, and stripped businesses
of their most able employees. It is devastating the military forces of
many African countries, posing a serious threat to United States
national security interests in the region, and AIDS will cut life
expectancy in some African countries in half in the next decade. That
is just Africa. HIV infections are growing exponentially in the Russian
Federation, 3.7 million are already infected in India, and there is an
emerging crisis in China.
HIV/AIDS is both a national security issue and a moral one. Our
response must reflect the massive humanitarian and national security
implications of the crisis. I am very pleased that this bill provides a
total of $474 million to address the HIV/AIDS crisis. I am also pleased
that our subcommittee has established a pattern in recent years of
providing increasingly higher funding levels for this purpose. But I do
believe we can do more. Our efforts to address this pandemic must be
bilateral and multilateral and must encompass everything from care and
treatment to prevention and education. The United States through USAID
has taken a leadership role in the fight against HIV/AIDS. We should
play a similar role in multilateral efforts as well.
I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for her
amendment.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I commend my friends on both sides of the aisle who
have brought to the attention of the House and the American people the
pandemic problem of AIDS. I salute them in their efforts.
Unfortunately, I believe that their efforts here may be well-intended,
but in fact this amendment is somewhat misplaced.
Anyone who has held a dying African child in their arms, or witnessed
someone suffering from AIDS, shares their well-intended compassion. I
think this Congress has demonstrated, both in this bill and by the
action of the Congress last week to increase the AIDS contribution by
some 76 percent. I have held one of those dying African AIDS children
in my arms. Unfortunately, at this time, to be honest, the only thing
we can do is give them some comfort. Most of them will unfortunately
die, and your heart does ache when you see the rows of graves across
the African landscape and now across the horizon of many other
countries.
The key to success in this area is research. We should be devoting
our resources to research. I am pleased under the Republican Congress
we have doubled the amount of money for medical research, and I think
we are well targeted to finding a cure.
What we do not want to do here today in misguided compassion is to
turn the clock back, though, on our efforts to stem illegal narcotics.
This is a headline from my newspaper: Drug Deaths Top Homicides. For
the first time, in 1999, drug-related deaths in this country exceeded
homicides.
We knew that some years ago when we took over the House of
Representatives as a new majority the seriousness of the threat we were
facing with illegal narcotics. They made the same decision some time
ago in the Clinton administration to start cutting some of these
programs. On this chart is where the cuts started in 1993, the same
kind of cut that is proposed here today. Unfortunately back then they
started dismantling the Andean strategy and assistance. When this
occurred we saw a skyrocketing of drug abuse in this country and drug
deaths in this country. Only after we restarted this effort, and the
chart here clearly points it
[[Page H4463]]
out, have we made a dent in this problem.
Now would be the worst time to turn the clock back. Where is the
heroin and the cocaine and the other drugs coming from that are killing
our youth and our population in unprecedented numbers? They are coming
from Colombia. That is why we targeted Colombia.
Does the plan work to stop illegal narcotics? With the Speaker and
others involved in the subcommittee on drug efforts which the Speaker
chaired before me, and we targeted the places where our drugs are
coming from, Peru, Bolivia and Colombia. Unfortunately, the Clinton
administration cut assistance to Colombia; and we were able just
recently to start that with Plan Colombia. But we see in Peru almost a
complete eradication of cocaine production. In Bolivia, I can announce
that our task is complete and accomplished with few dollars.
The problem we have in Colombia is that terrorism, which is killing
thousands and thousands of people, is financed by illegal narcotics
traffic. Colombia is now the source of deadly heroin. Look at this
chart. In 1993, zero amount of heroin was produced there. Now, 75
percent of the heroin killing men and women and children in our streets
comes from Colombia. That is why we are targeting this country.
This is not a pretty picture. This is one of my constituents. His
mother gave me this picture to show the Members of the House. This
young man was one of my constituents. He died of a heroin overdose.
That heroin is coming from Colombia. It came from this route that we
would now eliminate and destroy a program that we have started and that
we have begun anew to curtail these deadly drugs from coming into our
country.
What is worse about the drug epidemic, and we will hear more
testimony about this in the coming weeks, is the heroin use and hard
drug use is hitting our teens. It is hitting our minorities, but it is
also hitting those most vulnerable in our society, our young people,
both minority and others.
To make a mistake here with misplaced compassion, I urge my
colleagues not to do it. Do not make that mistake. We can address both
the problems of AIDS and we can also fight the war on illegal
narcotics.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Lee-
Leach Global AIDS Amendment for the Foreign Operations Appropriations
Bill.
The HIV/AIDS pandemic is the most devastating human disaster our
world has ever known, with more people having died from AIDS-related
complications than any disease, war, or natural human disaster ever
recorded. Since the beginning of the fight against HIV/AIDS in the
early 80's, more than 22 million people have died, with Sub-Saharan
Africa bearing the brunt of the devastation.
At the present time, more than 70 percent of the 35 million people
infected with HIV live in Sub-Saharan Africa, with the nation of South
Africa having the world's largest number of HIV infected individuals,
more than 4 million people, living with AIDS.
My area of the world, the Caribbean, though much smaller in size and
population, has an HIV infection rates second only to those in Africa.
AIDS is already the leading cause of death in the Caribbean for those
aged 15 to 45 and as in many other areas of the world, the number of
cases is growing at an exponential rate according to the Caribbean
Epidemiology Center.
I am alarmed, as I am sure we all are, by the fact that left un-
addressed, more than 100 million people, well more than \1/3\ the
population of the United States, will be infected with HIV by the year
2005. Something must be done!
Although the loss of life presents the most tragic consequences of
HIV/AIDS, additional consequences include resulting military, social,
and economic instability. AIDS, unlike many diseases, takes those in
the most productive yeas of live, resulting in a significant decline in
the number of individuals in affected countries that are available to
serve as educators, health care providers, and other skilled laborers.
In addition, it has resulted in more than 13 million orphans, 95
percent of whom live in African nations. As a result of the significant
losses of life, some developing democracies have begun to recruit these
orphans, many of whom have no completed adolescence, into armies used
to fight regional wars.
Although we still wish it were more, the Lee-Leach Amendment provides
the opportunity for the United States to do its part in the global
fight against HIV/AIDS, increasing the U.S. contribution to the global
HIV/AIDS funds by $60 million dollars, to a total of $160 million. Our
contribution will be used to leverage additional funds from our
international partners in the public and private sector, with the hope
of raising the $10-15 billion dollars per year requested by United
Nations.
It would send a strong signal that the United States is committed to
eradicating HIV/AIDS from the face of the earth and also provide
significant direct grant funding to African and Caribbean governments,
NGO's and civil society in regions of the world that have been hard hit
by HIV/AIDS so that we can finally begin to turn the tide of the
disease.
I urge my colleagues to support this worthwhile amendment, which will
help save the lives of millions of people infected with HIV.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan Lee-
Leach amendment to increase the United States contribution' the global
HIV/AIDS fund $100 million to $160 million.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished Chairman of the
Foreign Operations Subcommittee Mr. Kolbe and the Ranking Democrat,
Nita Lowey for their hard work on this bill. I am grateful that they
were able to find additional money for the bilateral HIV/AIDs program
over the Administration request.
However, this amendment seeks additional funds for the Multilateral
efforts. Mr. Chairman, a multilateral response to the global AIDS
crisis is clearly the quickest mechanism to engage international donors
and to initiate a coordinated international response to the global AIDS
pandemic. World leaders including UN Secretary General Kofi Anan and
international HIV/AIDS experts and economists have called for a $7-$10
billion dollar fund in order to address HIV/AIDS prevention, education,
care and treatment in Africa.
The global AIDS trust fund is designed to leverage significant
contributions from the international community to fight this global
killer. The Lee-Leach amendment would send a strong message that the
United States is committee to eradicating HIV/AIDS from the face of the
earth. If the Lee-Leach Amendment is passed, it would provide
significant direct grant funding to African countries, NGO's and civil
society in regions of the world that have been hard hit by HIV/AIDS to
turn the tide of HIV/AIDS.
Furthermore, the Bush Administration has briefed us that the trust
fund is making strong progress and should be ready to disburse funds by
the end of this year.
A few weeks ago, my committee, under the leadership of our
distinguished chairman, Henry Hyde, passed a bipartisan, ground-
breaking bill authorizing $750 million dollars for a multilateral fund
to combat HIV/AIDS.
So far, the Bush administration has offered $200 million--100 million
from Foreign Ops and 100 million from Health and Human Services.
While this was a good start, it is by no means a good end. I urge my
colleagues to support an increase to this fund by supporting the Lee-
Leach amendment.
I know it is not easy to cut other programs and I wish it were not
necessary. However, the Administration, in all its wisdom, has decided
that a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut is more important than funding these
global priorities.
Well, that being the case, we cannot afford to wait around until the
Administration gets its priorities straight. We must act now.
The Global AIDS fight must be joined now. The consequences if we wait
are too terrible to contemplate.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Lee-Leach amendment will increase the United States contribution to
the global HIV/AIDS fund from $100 million to $160 million. This
increase--albeit not enough to curb the pandemic, will be of enormous
help in the short run because HIV/AIDS continues to devastate every
corner of the globe. Mr. Chairman, it is incomprehensible to think that
the increase called for in this amendment possibly cannot be adopted
tonight because of the cynical few in this chamber who believe that
Congress has more pressing needs right now than to further increase
appropriations to control this epidemic. To them I say it is our duty
and responsibility to not turn away now.
This year marks the 20th year since the Centers for Disease Control
published its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report with a small
segment dedicated to a rare pneumocystis pneumonia present in five gay
men in Los Angeles. It was the first published account of what we would
come to know as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, commonly known as
AIDS.
Now, twenty years later, thirty-six million people presently live
with HIV/AIDs worldwide and 22 million have died of the disease. In
sub-Saharan Africa, 25 million people are living with HIV/AIDS and in
India, South-east Asia and the Caribbean; the numbers of infections are
rising at alarming rates.
[[Page H4464]]
Mr. Chairman, two-thirds of the world's 36 million AIDS victims live
on the African continent--and women are the largest segment of victims
and continue to be at the greatest risk.
This year, over six hundred thousand children will be born HIV-
positive, or become infected after their birth and during
breastfeeding. Few will survive childhood. Equally disturbing is the
fact that the disease threatens the health and well being of uninfected
children by taking the lives of their parents. By the year 2010, over
42 million children worldwide will become orphans due to HIV/AIDS.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Lee-Leach Amendment
to increase our contribution to the global HIV/AIDS fund from $100
million to $160 million. It will be a wise humanitarian and national
security investment.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lee
amendment to increase United States funds to fight the global HIV/AIDS
pandemic and also in support of the McGovern amendment which will
improve the health of mothers and children and combat the spread of
infectious diseases around the world. I commend the authors and
cosponsors of these amendments for bringing them before us today.
These two necessary and complementary amendments will enhance our
efforts to help stop the spread of many terrible diseases, including
polio, tuberculosis, and AIDS, and help children and their mothers
around the world survive. The terrifying statistics about the HIV/AIDS
pandemic, which is ravaging sub-Saharan Africa and threatens to do the
same in many other regions around the world, are becoming all too
familiar. Twenty-two million people world wide have died from AIDS,
nearly double that number are living with HIV/AIDS, and if we don't
take effective action 100 million people could be infected with HIV
within the next four years. And a staggering number of orphaned
children have been left by parents who have died because of AIDS.
But this pandemic is taking its toll not just in these personal
terms. It is wreaking havoc on the economic and social fabric of many
nations. In addition, this pandemic presents us with an international
security problem as it fuels military instability, as well.
But we cannot allow the enormity of the problem to numb us or
convince us that this pandemic is beyond our ability to fight it.
Instead, the scope of what we face must serve as a siren calling us to
take even stronger action than we have to date. I remain convinced that
winning this battle is the moral imperative of our time. So let us
marshal the resources we need and let us make sure we are using those
resources wisely. We should pass these amendments to help us mount a
comprehensive fight against HIV/AIDS and other deadly diseases.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee)
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Mc Govern
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 27 offered by Mr. McGovern:
Page 6, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
Page 7, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
Page 7, line 5, after the second dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
Page 25, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $100,000,000)''.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by first thanking the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Lowey) for their incredible work on this bill.
Today, I rise to urge my colleagues to support this amendment that I
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella)
and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) are offering together.
Mr. Chairman, this is a relatively simple amendment. First, it will
add $50 million to the infectious diseases account specifically for
international tuberculosis programs. We need to invest more in programs
that combat the spread of TB. Funding for international TB control was
virtually nonexistent in 1997. While funding has modestly improved in
recent years, we still have a long way to go to make up for the long-
running neglect.
{time} 1430
Current funding levels are not sufficient to address the scope of the
disease and to protect the health of Americans. TB kills 2 million
people each year, and more than one-third of the world's population is
infected with TB. It is the leading killer of women and creates more
orphan children than any other infectious disease. As the New York
Times editorialized last week, a little money now can control this
neglected killer before we face a global epidemic.
The amendment will also add $50 million for the Child Survival and
Maternal Health account. Eleven million children die every year from
preventable causes. Child survival programs are critical to saving the
lives of children and have been one of the most effective U.S.
investments for the last decade and a half. The polio eradication
programs in particular have been highly successful; and since 1998,
polio has been reduced worldwide by 90 percent.
According to the World Health Organization, maternal health is the
largest disparity between the developed and developing countries.
Maternal mortality is on average 18 times higher in developing
countries, and children are much more likely to die within 2 years of a
maternal death.
The increase funding provided by this amendment for these global
health programs will literally make the difference between life and
death for billions of people. This is a modest investment that will
yield critical returns.
The offset for these programs will reduce the $676 million Andean
Counter-Drug Initiative by $100 million in military aid for the
Colombian Armed Forces. Here, too, the choice is simple. This House has
a chance to send a straightforward message to the Colombian military:
sever all ties with the paramilitary groups and sever them now. As my
colleagues know, over 70 percent of the human rights crimes committed
against the civilian population in Colombia, massacres, torture and the
destruction of communities and the displacements of the population, are
perpetrated by the paramilitaries, and the Colombian military works in
collusion with those groups. In fact, just recently Amnesty
International issued a report on the persistence of ties between the
Colombian military and their paramilitary cohorts.
The last Congress, the previous administration, and, to date, the
current administration, have failed, in my opinion, to act seriously
about human rights in Colombia. We have attached human rights
conditions to our aid package that are essentially meaningless. If the
Colombian military behaves badly, and it has, we have been content to
waive our conditions and to keep writing checks. What kind of message
did this send?
Today, we have an opportunity to send a different message, to show
that we do care about human rights, that we are serious when we demand
that the Colombian military stop collaborating with paramilitary
forces. Congress should not be an apologist for bad behavior. We should
not look the other way or rationalize what continues to be a disturbing
alliance that threatens the future of civilian institutions in
Colombia.
Now, let me point out to my colleagues that nearly $300 million
remains in this bill to help Colombia and the Pastrana government with
development, moving the peace process forward, strengthening civil and
judicial institutions and supporting the police. In the defense
appropriations bill, which we will debate later this year, there will
be at least $80 million for the Colombian Armed Forces. In addition,
approximately $158 million in military aid remains in the pipeline from
last year's package.
This amendment is not about walking away from Colombia; rather, it is
about saying very clearly that human rights do matter and that the way
to promote stability in the region is for the Colombian military to end
its collaboration with paramilitaries.
[[Page H4465]]
Now, even if some of my colleagues are ambivalent about the Colombian
offset, I hope you will not be ambivalent about supporting increased
funding for these critical women's, children and health programs. The
Andean Counter-Drug Initiative is $226 million more than the amount in
this bill for our worldwide programs to combat infectious diseases and
for child survival and maternal health; $226 million more.
This amendment is truly about choices, about priorities, about saving
lives. I urge my colleagues to support the McGovern-Hoekstra-Pelosi-
Morella-Jackson-Lee amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the McGovern
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this amendment. I am
reminded just a couple of days ago when we first took up this bill,
last Thursday, that several Members came to the House floor to praise
the bill. The manager on the other side of the aisle and I appreciated
the compliments about bipartisanship and the balance that is reflected
in the committee's recommendations. But approval of this amendment
would weaken that hard-to-achieve bipartisanship. It would destroy the
balance that is found in our bill. Let me explain why I think this is
the case.
First, as a Member who comes from southern Arizona and represents a
border State and a border district, I know the importance of Latin
America to the United States. I am sure the gentleman from
Massachusetts is also personally familiar with Latin America and parts
of it. I am sure he does not intend to shortchange development in Latin
America, but that is what this amendment would do.
Let me state a very simple fact: this amendment cuts development and
humanitarian assistance for Latin America by $50 million, or more than
10 percent of the amount in this bill. Let me repeat and elaborate on
what I just said: the McGovern amendment cuts development assistance to
Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador and Brazil. The McGovern amendment cuts human
rights and humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons in
Colombia. Yes, it would also cut some military assistance for Colombia.
Read the last part of the amendment; page 25, line 7: ``After the
dollar amount insert the following, reduce by $100 million.''
It does not read cut military assistance to Colombia by $100 million;
it does not exempt economic assistance for the Andean region,
assistance for Peru or Bolivia or funding for the Colombian National
Police. Now, I have seen a ``Dear Colleague'' letter that makes those
claims. In fact, it says, ``The amendment does not cut any economic
assistance for the Andean region, assistance for Peru, Bolivia or
funding for the Colombian National Police.'' This is incorrect. This is
not true. This is a misstatement. This is not a fact. It is not
correct. It simply is wrong.
My conclusions reflect the text of the amendment that is before us.
My assumption is that the executive branch will allocate reductions
mandated by this amendment across all programs in the Andean Regional
Initiative. It would be equally reasonable it assume that the executive
branch would give priority to eradication and security assistance and
make cuts in development and humanitarian assistance beyond what I
assume.
It is not reasonable to assume, I think, that the executive branch
under this, the previous President or any President, is going to take
all the money out of the Colombian Army. So it is reasonable it assume
this money is going to come out of economic assistance. As much as the
gentleman from Massachusetts may wish that it would come all out of the
military assistance, the amendment does not say that. So it is
incorrect for us to assume that that would be the case. In fact, we can
assume quite correctly that it would come out of all of those.
Of course, some support this amendment because they seek more funds
to combat tuberculosis, and that is a noble cause. More deaths among
women under 45 are caused by TB than by AIDS. It is the major immediate
cause of death of those living with HIV-AIDS.
The question is how rapidly can the Agency for International
Development and its cooperating organizations ramp up what had been a
relatively small program for TB. Only 3 years ago, AID was spending
less than $15 million for TB. This year, we recommend $70 million. That
is an almost five-fold increase. It is difficult to implement that in
the short-term.
This amendment would add another $50 million to that, bringing it to
$120 million, or an eight-fold increase, 800 percent increase, over 4
years. Yes, the needs are there, but how quickly can we absorb that?
How quickly can the infrastructure around the world absorb that?
I am reminded of the efforts of Queen Elizabeth I to cure her
subjects of tuberculosis, of those people who were within the Queen's
touch. In the 17th century, a form of glandular TB known as the King's
Evil caused horrific swelling from infected glands in the neck.
Eventually it led to death. So wherever Queen Elizabeth went around her
kingdom, persons infected with this form of TB would crowd around her,
hoping the royal touch would cure them. Some days she touched hundreds
of people, and was exhausted by the effort.
I wish, I wish that the $50 million here for tuberculosis could make
the difference hoped for by the sponsors of this amendment. However,
like the royal touch of Queen Elizabeth, another $50 million for
tuberculosis may raise indeed our spirits and make us feel good, but it
is not going to affect tuberculosis for the current year.
Unlike Queen Elizabeth's touch, however, this amendment will have
adverse effects. It will cut development assistance in Latin America.
It will signal to our neighbors that this country is disinterested in
their security and in their development.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one point. The reason
why our amendment does not specify military aid is because the
amendment would have been ruled out of order. I am sure somebody on
that side would have called a point of order against it. We would have
been legislating on an appropriations bill.
Under the gentleman's argument, the entire $676 million Andean
counter-drug package could be utilized for military aid in Colombia.
Our legislative intent is being made clear by this debate. We do not
want $100 million to go to the military of Colombia, because we are
sick and tired of their continued collaborations with paramilitary
groups.
The reason why we are moving this amendment forward, quite frankly,
is because this Congress has not been clear, this administration, and,
to be fair, the previous administration, has not been clear, about
standing up for human rights. If we do not make it clear now by sending
a strong signal to the military of Colombia that we want them to sever
all ties with the paramilitaries now, then I do not know what we can do
to make that case.
So that is what the intent of this amendment is, and that is why we
did not specify the word ``military'' in this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I include the following in the Record:
[From Amnesty International, July 2001]
Colombia: Military Links to Paramilitary Groups Persist
In early 2001, Colombia's human rights crisis has continued
to deepen against a background of a spiraling armed conflict.
The parties to the conflict are intensifying their military
actions throughout the country in campaigns characterized by
gross and systematic violations of human rights and
international humanitarian law. The principal victims of
political violence continue to be civilians, in particular
peasant farmers living in disputed areas, human rights
defenders, journalists, judicial officials, teachers, trade
unionists and leaders of Afro-Colombian and Indigenous
communities. Violations of international humanitarian law by
armed opposition groups increased significantly in 2000.
These groups deliberately and arbitrarily killed several
hundred people, including judicial officials, local
politicians and journalists. In 2000, more than 4,000
individuals were victims of political killings, over 300
``disappeared'', and an estimated 300,000 civilians were
internally displaced. Armed opposition groups and
paramilitary organizations kidnapped at least 1,500 people.
Illegal paramilitary groups--operating with the tacit or
active support of the Colombian armed forces--carry out the
majority of Colombia's political killings, many
[[Page H4466]]
through massacres of four or more people. In contrast to
their declared aim to combat guerrilla forces, paramilitary
groups continued to target the civilian population through
massacres, torture, the destruction of communities and the
displacement of the population. The government has taken
little effective action to curtail, much less to end,
widespread and systematic paramilitary atrocities, despite
repeated promises to dismantle paramilitary forces. The armed
forces have failed to attack or dismantle paramilitary bases,
the majority of which are located in close proximity to army
and police bases. Collusion between the Colombian security
forces--particularly the army--and paramilitary groups
continues and, indeed, strengthened in 2000. Instances of
collaboration include the sharing of intelligence
information, the transfer of prisoners, the provision of
ammunition by the armed forces to the paramilitary, and joint
patrols and military operations in which serious human rights
violations are committed.
Given the Colombian security forces' poor human rights
record and their on-going collaboration with illegal
paramilitary groups, Amnesty International opposes military
aid to Colombia. Our opposition will continue until concrete
steps are taken to systematically address these issues. Until
then, military aid will only contribute to a deteriorating
human rights situation and could strengthen specific units
which collaborate with paramilitary groups.
Amnesty International USA recommends that
The House of Representatives pass an amendment to cut
military aid to Colombia from the Foreign Operations
Appropriations bill;
Congress include strong human rights conditions excluding a
national security waiver on any aid approved for Colombia;
Congress and the Administration urge the Government of
Colombia to sever ties between the Colombian military and
illegal paramilitary groups, capture and prosecute
paramilitary leaders, and dismantle paramilitary bases; and
Congress and the Administration urge the Colombian State to
carry out all human rights investigations and trials under
civilian jurisdiction, with the full cooperation of the
security forces.
____
[From the New York Times, July 19, 2001]
The Tuberculosis Threat
The London neighborhood of Newham is a good illustration of
the perils of complacency about tuberculosis. That East End
borough now has 108 cases of tuberculosis per 100,000
inhabitants--double that of India and on a par with Russia.
Many of those sick are immigrants from Asia and Africa, a
reminder that tuberculosis anywhere can mean tuberculosis
everywhere. But Newham is also suffering because London needs
to spend more on public health. There are not enough nurses
and specialists in the worst-hit areas to control the
disease.
The House of Representatives will consider funding for
international tuberculosis programs as part of the foreign
operations appropriations bill this week. The bill currently
provides only $70 million for global tuberculosis programs,
just $10 million more than last year. Far more is needed to
stop the global resurgence of the disease, which kills two to
three million people a year.
The task is urgent in part because of the rise of
tuberculosis resistant to the usual antibiotics. Dr. Lee
Reichman, director of the New Jersey Medical School's
National Tuberculosis Center in Newark, gives a chilling
account of the threat in his new book, ``Timebomb,'' written
with Janice Hopkins Tanne. The epicenter is Russia, where the
prison system is churning out resistant tuberculosis, Dr.
Reichman says. But resistant forms of the disease have been
found in virtually every part of the United States. Unlike
standard tuberculosis, which can cost as little as $10 to
cure, the resistant version costs upwards of $20,000 to treat
over several years, and some patients cannot be cured.
The other reason more people are dying of tuberculosis
today than ever in history is AIDS. One-third of the people
in the world are infected with bacillus that causes TB.
Ninety percent, however, will never get the disease--unless
their immune systems are compromised by AIDS. Forty percent
of Africans with AIDS have tuberculosis, which is the leading
killer of people with AIDS.
That suggests a simple and cheap way of prolonging the
lives of millions of AIDS sufferers--cure their TB. Once
their buterculosis is gone, many AIDS patients will enjoy
years more of relatively good health before they get another
opportunistic infection.
Tuberculosis kills more people around the world each year
than any other infectious disease and is more easily
transmitted than AIDS. But unlike AIDS, most forms are easily
curable. The World Health Organization has just created a
global drug fund that will supply countries with an
uninterrupted flow of medicine if they can use it properly. A
little money now can control this neglected killer before we
face a global epidemic of a version that has outrun our
ability to treat it.
____
Excerpts From the Colombia Section, ``2000 Country Reports on Human
Rights Practices''--U.S. Department of State, February 2001
Members of the security forces collaborated with
paramilitary groups that committed abuses, in some instances
allowing such groups to pass through roadblocks, sharing
information, or providing them with supplies or ammunition.
Despite increased government efforts to combat and capture
members of paramilitary groups, often security forces failed
to take action to prevent paramilitary attacks. Paramilitary
forces find a ready support base within the military and
police, as well as among local civilian elites in many areas.
Throughout the country, paramilitary groups killed,
tortured, and threatened civilians suspected of sympathizing
with guerrillas in an orchestrated campaign to terrorize them
into fleeing their homes. . . . Paramilitary forces were
responsible for an increasing number of massacres and other
politically motivated killings. They also fought guerrillas
for control of some lucrative coca-growing regions and
engaged directly in narcotics production and trafficking. The
AUC paramilitary umbrella organization, whose membership
totaled approximately 8,150 armed combatants, exercised
increasing influence during the year and fought to extend its
presence through violence and intimidation into areas
previously under guerrilla control while conducting selective
killings of civilians it alleged collaborated with
guerrillas. The AUC increasingly tried to depict itself as an
autonomous organization with a political agenda, although in
practice it remained a mercenary vigilante force, financed by
criminal activities and sectors of society that are targeted
by guerrillas.
Credible reports persisted of paramilitary installations
and roadblocks near military bases; of contacts between
paramilitary and military members; of paramilitary roadblocks
unchallenged by military forces; and of military failure to
respond to warnings of impending paramilitary massacres or
selective killings. Military entities often cited lack of
information or resources to explain this situation. Impunity
for military personnel who collaborated with members of
paramilitary groups remained common.
(Prepared by the Washington Office on Latin America, 202-
797-2171. Emphases added)
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Report on the Human
Rights Situation in Colombia, March 20, 2001
The paramilitary phenomenon continues to expand and
consolidate. The government's commitment to confronting these
groups has been weak and inconsistent. Evidence of this can
be seen in the responses to the [UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights] Office's communications with the authorities
about imminent attacks or about the existence of bases,
roadblocks and paramilitary movements. The instruments
adopted by the Government to combat paramilitary groups have
proven ineffective in containing their expansion and
dismantling them. In other cases those instruments have not
been applied. There is still great concern about the
persistent links between public servants and members of
paramilitary organizations, as well as the lack of
punishment. (Paragraph 254)
The paramilitary groups continue to be the principal
perpetrators of collective killings. The Ministry of Defense
reports that paramilitary groups are responsible for 75
massacres, which is 76% of all massacres committed between
January and October. The practice of collective killings of
defenseless civilians is their principal method of operation
and war strategy. (Paragraph 88)
The fact that some of the military personnel dismissed this
year have joined the paramilitary groups a few days after
their removal from active service is an additional cause for
deep concern and serious reflection . . . There is a well-
known paramilitary roadblock at the entrance of the village
of El Placer, just fifteen minutes from a battalion of the
Army's 24th Brigade. The roadblock continued to operate eight
months after the Office reported directly observing it. The
military authorities denied in writing the existence of this
paramilitary post. The Office also observed ongoing
paramilitary operations at the ``Villa Sandra'' ranch,
between Puerto Asis and Santa Ana. Putumayo, a few minutes
away from the Army's 24th Brigade. Later there was a report
of two raids by the public forces, though they apparently did
not produce any results. The existence and operation of the
paramilitary base is public knowledge. In fact, international
journalists repeatedly visited the base and published
interviews with the paramilitary commander. (Paragraph 134)
The Ministry of Defense has not made public the total
number of internally displaced people registered during the
year, but according to numbers published by the Ministry,
between January and June 2000, 71% of displacement was
presumably caused by paramilitary groups. 14% by guerrilla
groups, 15% by combined guerrilla and paramilitary actions,
and 0.04% by armed agents of the State. (Paragraph 141)
(Unofficial translation prepared by the Washington Office
on Latin America, 202-797-2171. Emphases added.)
Mr. TIERNEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), as well as the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi), and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for their
[[Page H4467]]
leadership and hard work on this issue. Would that we could legislate
on this, because certainly we would move in the direction that the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has set forth.
I am pleased to support this important amendment. It is important to
the millions of people who die from tuberculosis each year; it is
important to the mothers in developing countries who have maternal
mortality rates 18 times that of people in developed countries; and,
Mr. Chairman, it is important to the people of Colombia who live in
fear because our past efforts have failed them.
Last year, the Congress agreed to a $1.3 billion supplemental
appropriation for a 2-year package for Colombia and surrounding
countries. Now, between this appropriation and the defense
appropriation, we are being asked for another $1 billion.
Last year we were told that our taxpayer dollars would be used to
increase protection for human rights, expand the rule of law, and
promote the peace process in Colombia. We were told it would be used to
eradicate coca crops across Colombia. We were told it would be used to
promote alternative crops and jobs in Colombia. That is what we were
told.
After close examination of the evidence, we simply have to ask, where
did the money go? The human rights situation in Colombia has gotten
worse, the peace process is no closer than it was, and many of the
crops eradicated were actually food crops. And now we are being asked
to buy the same set of broken promises as last year, and this is not
progress.
We all know that the Colombian military has close ties with the
paramilitary organizations responsible for large scale massacres of
civilians. Our own State Department has documented that the Colombian
Armed Forces aid paramilitaries by providing them with intelligence,
supplies, ammunition, and that they often fail to protect civilians
from attacks.
The military funding we give in the hopes of helping the Colombian
people is, to some degree, having the opposite effect. In the first 18
days of this year, 170 people were killed in 26 massacres. Data shows
that as of April, deaths due to political violence roughly doubled
those from previous years. These are innocent people trying to make
Colombia a safer and more prosperous place, like Cristobol Uribe
Beltran of the Association of Workers and Employees in Hospitals,
Clinics and Organizations, who was kidnapped on June 27th and
assassinated the very next day, innocent lives brought to an end for no
legitimate reason. This is not progress.
We have seen the human rights abuses in Colombia continue to escalate
since last year's aid package. More than 300,000 people were forcibly
displaced from their home by political violence. There continues to be
hostage-taking, torture, killing of civilians. Our aid is being used
against people who have been mislabeled as guerrillas and are often
students, professors and priests. They are taken captive by the
paramilitaries and oftentimes never heard from or seen again. Our aid
has been used to destroy food crops and put harmful herbicides in the
rivers and ponds in Colombian villages. It has displaced people from
their land and homes and forced them to relocate, and this is not
progress.
We need to take a hard look at the situation we are dealing with in
Colombia and make the sound judgment that our military aid efforts are
simply not working. The aid we are providing is being misplaced, and I
believe there is a role for the United States to play in this situation
that is entirely different.
We can provide resources to build infrastructure, so crops can get to
markets profitably; we can provide assistance to help build a court
system to the point where it is effective, fair and respected; or we
can build schools and roads and community support; or we can build a
competent, efficient, respected police force and a military force that
does not favor the paramilitaries or ignore paramilitary atrocities.
{time} 1445
With all of these options at our disposal, we are being asked to
choose the one we know will not work because it has not worked in the
past.
This amendment recognizes that act and, instead, diverts some of this
money from this wasteful program to one that saves lives. That is the
intent of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, we ask that this money be used for tuberculosis aid and
not for military purposes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in
support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, Congress's record in handling this issue is a sorry one
indeed, and I think it institutionally ought to be ashamed of itself
for its total lack of guts in defending our obligations under the
Constitution and our prerogatives under the Constitution. Basically, we
are engaged in a war a long ways away in Colombia, rather than engaging
in that war on our own streets here at home. We cannot do much about
that today under the rules under which we are being forced to debate
this bill.
But I want to be very blunt about what I think is happening. We are
right now engaged in this war, even though this Congress never had an
intelligent, thoughtful debate through the normal processes of this
House. We are not operating under an authorization produced by the
authorizing committee. We are operating under a political compromise
fashioned by the former President of the United States, Bill Clinton,
and the present Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hastert), and rammed through this House on both sides of the aisle with
no real ability of the authorizing committee to effect in any way the
outcome.
With all due respect to the Committee on Appropriations on which I
have served for over 30 years, that is not the job of the Committee on
Appropriations. The job of the Committee on Appropriations is to fund
programs previously authorized, and certainly it is not the job of the
Committee on Appropriations to get this country in a position where we
could inadvertently be sucked into a conflict that could keep us there
for years.
The question is not whether we like the rebels in Colombia and the
question is not whether we like the President of Colombia; the question
is whether or not we believe that that society, as presently
constituted and constructed and organized, has the ability to make what
we are doing in this program work and, in my view, based on long
observations of that society, I do not believe that that is the case.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote something said by Jim Hoagland,
who I think can accurately be described as a moderate conservative
columnist in The Washington Post. This is what he wrote a year ago.
``In Colombia, the United States pursues unattainable goals, largely
for domestic political reasons with inappropriate tools.'' Then he
says, ``Now in the rush to the quagmire, we see the following:'' and
then he goes on to talk about what happens when it becomes clear that
in the considered judgment of the U.S., air force officers in the
Colombian military will not be able to maintain the Blackhawks under
the conditions in which they will be flying has shown to be correct. He
asked what will happen then. Then he simply goes on to make the point
that the Congress is slipping us into this war little by little the way
that Kennedy and Johnson did in Vietnam, and we all know what the
disastrous results were of that operation.
I am also frankly mystified by the views of our new Drug Czar, John
Walters. Walters was quoted a year ago as attacking the idea that we
ought to focus on drug treatment. When he was discussing the value of
that idea he said this: ``This is an ineffectual policy, the latest
manifestation of the liberals' commitment to a `therapeutic state' in
which government serves as the agent of personal rehabilitation.''
I find that comment to be condescending and arrogant and, most of
all, misguided. The fact is that if we take a look at the research done
by SAMHSA, the agency charged with knowing what we are doing on drug
treatment and rehabilitation, if we take a look at studies done by
RAND, financed, in part, by the U.S. Army, they estimate that a dollar
spent on treatment here at home is 23 times as effective as fighting a
war or trying to interdict drugs internationally.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
expired.
[[Page H4468]]
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am for doing both, but I am not for
spending over $1 billion last year and almost that amount this year
over 1,000 miles away from home when we still have drug addict after
drug addict roaming the streets of our cities untreated and unable to
get into the drug treatment programs that we have provided in this
country, simply because this Congress is too misguided and does not
provide the money.
It seems to me that this amendment is a token effort at what we ought
to do on this program, and I, for one, intend to support it. I have no
illusion that it is going to pass, but it is what we ought to do and,
most of all, this Congress ought to have a full-blown, detailed debate
on this issue after we have had briefings from the administration and
others so that we know what the facts are on the ground and we are
operating on the basis of facts, not ideology, or operating on the
basis of substance, not politics. I think the leadership of both
parties has been disgracefully negligent in getting us to drift into
this war without any real thought about what the outcome is going to
be.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Andean
regional initiative in the bill is already $55 million below the
President's request. At the same time, this bill has already provided
$1.39 billion for child survival and disease programs, which has
significantly increased.
Let us talk about health programs in particular. I want to talk about
the public health effects of illegal drugs in the United States. The
cocaine and heroin which comes to the United States from the Andean
region, and almost all of our cocaine and heroin comes from the Andean
region, seriously impact our hospital emergency departments. Heroin
visits are rising and cocaine visits are holding steady. In 1999, more
than half a million drug-related emergency room visits were reported,
over 196,000 related to Andean cocaine and over 84,000 in American
hospitals related to Andean heroin. Every year, our Nation spends $12.9
billion to cover the health costs of illegal drugs, which have
predominantly come in from the Andean region.
I support the bill's generous funding level for international health
programs. I believe it is extremely ill-advised to further increase
this spending at the expense of a significant portion of our
international narcotics control program, which is fundamentally
designed to protect the health of American citizens by keeping illegal
drugs out of the United States. These programs account for just 5
percent of our overall drug budget. In fact, the $100 million at stake
in this amendment is 11 percent of the entire U.S. budget for
international narcotics control. We cannot and should not trade the
health of American citizens simply to make a political statement.
Now, I would like to respond to a number of false allegations that
have occurred regarding what is going on in Colombia. Colombia is not
Vietnam. It is a longtime democracy. It is one of the oldest
democracies in this hemisphere. Vietnam was not.
The Colombians themselves are fighting and dying. They are not
fighting and dying because of their political problems, they are
fighting and dying because of our narcotics addictions in the United
States. This is not a civil war, this is a war funded, whether they be
the ultra-rightist groups or whether they be the FARC, whether they be
the ELN, through narco-protection and narco-dollars. We have caused
their conflict. We have moral obligations to help them address their
conflicts. They have had the equivalent of 30,000 American police
officers killed in the line of combat trying to eradicate drugs that
are being grown for our neighborhoods and our streets. It is not like
Vietnam. It is a country that was a democracy where now, people have
fled because they are kidnapped, because they are terrorized, because
of our addictions. We are not engaged in a war in Colombia. We are
trying to assist them fight a war that was driven by us.
Furthermore, we heard about the peace process in Colombia. President
Pastrana, whether we agreed with it or not, and I had some
reservations, he gave a demilitarized zone. He bent over backwards to
work with the FARC. What he got was slapped in the face. He turned his
other cheek. They continued to grow drugs and they expanded their
operations, and what he got when he turned his cheek was they slapped
him in the face. The failure of the peace process is not with the
Colombian government. They have turned their cheek and turned their
cheek and turned their cheek.
We have also heard that many crops were eradicated that were food
crops. That is simply a false allegation on fumigation, and I am sure
we are going to debate that further today.
Furthermore, there have been smears on the Colombian military. We
have worked to improve the human rights division. A number of us on the
Republican side have been criticized in the past for being too oriented
towards the Colombian National Police which had a great human rights
record. With the last administration and with the support of the House,
we expanded our aid to the military in return for commitments on human
rights. It is not an easy process, as we have tried to educate other
countries where we provide military aid around the world in addition to
our military when they are overseas and our police forces, so
occasionally there are human rights violations.
It has not been proven that they have gotten worse, nor is it proven
that they have ties to the ultra-rightists in that country and where
there are, we ought to rout them out. That is why some of us have been
more oriented towards giving the money to the Colombian national police
rather than the military. Their elected government in Colombia asked us
for help for their military, rather than just the Colombian national
police. We responded to an elected government unlike Vietnam, and then
we get criticized because some of the funds went to the military.
Furthermore, some of the blame in Colombia being placed on the
government or on our anti-narcotics efforts is like blaming police
officers for the fact that crime has increased. It is like blaming
judges and the citizens for the fact that terrorism has increased. What
they have is a rampant problem in their country that is indeed
threatening democracy, and what we seem to want to do at times is stick
our head in the sand and say, well, this does not have anything to do
with us. In 1992 to 1994 this House, along with the newly elected
President, cut the interdiction budget. What we saw was a supply coming
into America soar. We saw the prices on the street drop. We saw the
purities come up. To get back to where we were in 1992, we would have
to have a 50 percent reduction in drug abuse in America.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Souder was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, it is critical, not because of what is
happening in Colombia, but because 67 to 80 percent of all the crime in
every Member's district is drug-related. We should not cut back our
efforts when we know where the coca is being grown; we know where the
heroin poppy is being grown. When it spreads into the oceans and then
crosses our borders, from the Canadian border, the Mexican border, the
East and West Coast and starts to moving into our streets, it becomes
more expensive to find it, it becomes more expensive to treat it, it
becomes more expensive to lock people up, than if we can help the
Colombians and the Peruvians and the Equadorians and the Bolivians
fight the battle in their homelands.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McGovern amendment; and
I commend the gentleman for his leadership in bringing it to the floor.
I want to follow up on some of the remarks made by the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member, on the need for
us to have this debate.
We are talking about, between last year and this year, a $2 billion
expenditure on this initiative that has seen very little light of day
in terms of what it contains and what its effectiveness
[[Page H4469]]
is. What the McGovern amendment would do is to take $100 million from
that funding for the Andean initiative and spend it on child survival
and maternal health and to fight infectious diseases, polio
tuberculosis and malaria.
{time} 1500
Where that money would come from is a line in the bill that simply
says, ``for necessary expenses to carry out section 480 of the Foreign
Assistance Act solely to support counterdrug activities in the Andean
region of South America, $676 million, to remain available until
expended.'' It does not say anything about economic assistance, human
rights, humanitarian assistance, or anything like that. It says, ``$676
million.''
We would have liked for this amendment to be a match for the one I
offered in committee, where we could say that the $100 million came
from the military assistance, but the Committee on Rules would not have
put that in order.
So in responding to the comment of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe) that it takes from these other areas, no, it does not. The goal
is to take it from the military assistance. If the administration
chooses to take it from humanitarian and economic assistance, that is
the choice of the administration. It is not the wish of the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) or the cosponsors of his amendment.
Why is this important? The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said
earlier that the Rand organization presented a report that said that
treatment on demand in the United States is 23 times more effective
than eradication of the coca leaf in the country of origin. Think of
it. It is estimated to cost about $32 million to reduce demand in the
United States 1 percent by treatment on demand.
If instead we try to reduce demand 1 percent in the United States by
eradication of the coca leaf in Latin America, it will cost over $700
million. Do the math. That is 1 percent for a 1 percent reduction.
In our country, there are about 5\1/2\ million substance abusers.
About 2 million of them receive treatment, and 3\1/2\ million do not.
Why are we not spending the money, which is 23 times more effective, on
treatment on demand to reduce demand in our country, rather than
sending all of this money, to the tune of $2 billion, and it will grow
next year, for a policy that has been ineffective?
I am very respectful of President Pastrana and his good intentions
and hard work and, again, in recognition of the fine work that my
colleagues, the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member, have done
on this bill, but this part of the bill must be debated more fully and
the Andean Initiative must be reduced.
What does the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) spend the
money on? He spends it on tuberculosis. Few diseases are as devastating
and widespread as TB. TB kills 2 million people each year and is only
second to AIDS as the biggest infectious killer of adults in the world.
Although there is a very cost-effective cure for this disease, only
one in five who are sick receive adequate treatment. The good news is
that effective treatment does exist. It is called DOTS, the Directly-
Observed Treatment Short course, and it is effective. It costs between
$20 to $100 to save a life.
According to the international TB experts, a worldwide investment of
$1 billion is needed to make DOTS available to all of those ill with
TB, and an appropriate U.S. share would be $200 million. The money
would go to the foreign operations bill, to increase its funding for
polio eradication.
While the bill has $25 million in it, Rotary International, which has
been a leader in the eradication of polio, says we need a minimum of
$30 million for that eradication. We are in a race to reach every last
child with polio. We can do it.
We need the resources to do so. It seems to me that is money much
better spent than in the unknown, slow-to-come, trickling-through-the-
pipeline humanitarian or economic assistance that was promised to
Colombia but where they have seen more on the military side and hardly
anything on the humanitarian and economic side.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to follow the leadership of the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and all the other makers in
this amendment. I have failed in the subcommittee and in the full
committee, but I am more hopeful on the floor of the House that if we
want to reduce demand of drugs in the United States, we will do it in a
cost-effective way.
If the burden of proof of this is, have we helped the Colombian
people and reduced drugs in the U.S., we have failed on both counts.
Support the McGovern amendment.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, lest our friends on the other side of the aisle forget
that the Plan Colombia concept was a Clinton administration proposal to
help save Colombia from becoming a failed narco-state on the Clinton
watch, we need to stay the course. We have not even delivered most of
the equipment we promised to Plan Colombia, the helicopters that were
provided for. In fact, they just started arriving this month. So how
can we attest to the fact that this is a failure? It has not even
started in full. Let us be fair and accurate in this debate.
With what we in the Congress previously gave to the Colombian
National Police ahead of Plan Colombia, their antidrug units are
already about to totally eliminate opium this year, the source of more
than 70 percent of the heroin coming to the United States. We also
eradicated 30,000 hectares of coca in southern Colombia with Plan
Colombia, all since mid-December of 2000, far ahead of schedule.
All the above was accomplished in the year 2000 by the anti-narcotics
police without one credible allegation of human rights abuse against
its antidrug units. In April, 2000, the Institute for Defense Analysis,
the IDA, reports that our efforts with the anti-narcotics police in
Colombia, both in eradication as well as hitting labs and breaking up
major trafficking organizations, have produced the lowest purity and
the highest prices here for cocaine since early 1985, the lowest purity
and the highest prices since 1985.
This low purity and high prices for cocaine in 15 years here at home
means less and less young people are going to become addicted to
cocaine, and they will not require the expensive treatment and
incarceration in our Nation.
So I repeat, Mr. Chairman, less and less American kids are going to
be addicted to cocaine because of what we are doing under Plan Colombia
today, despite the uninformed critics, who offer no real workable
alternatives.
So let us stay the course. Fighting drugs at their source is still
the best and most cost-effective way, before they arrive on our
shorelines, destroying our young people, increasing crime in our
communities, and producing even more costs in treatment and
incarceration.
Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to defeat the McGovern amendment
and make certain that we are not going to surrender in this war on
drugs.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the McGovern, Hoekstra, Pelosi,
Morella, Jackson-Lee amendment.
Mr. Chairman, if I might have the attention of the House, this is an
important debate because I think the American people are trying to
understand just where the tension is between those of us who are
interested in maternal-child health and immunization and the opponents
of the bill.
First of all, let me say, Mr. Chairman, that just a couple of days
ago the White House had Youth Day on Saturday, opening up the White
House to thousands of youth who came to the United States Capitol,
including Boy Scouts, who many of us see walking throughout the
Capitol, who are here for the Jamboree to be held in Virginia.
I mention that because we in America are interested in promoting
healthy children. Therefore, we have emphasized in preventative health
millions of dollars to immunize our children. With that in mind, this
is what this legislation is about. It is the capability worldwide to
ensure that there are
[[Page H4470]]
healthy children and healthy mothers, to ensure that there is prenatal
care as it relates to nutrition, and to ensure that there is
immunization.
Let me juxtapose those needs of saving lives of children, of
providing the nutritional needs through the foreign operations bill, to
what this amendment does. This amendment takes only $100 million out of
a $2 billion pot.
This does not label those of us who support this amendment as
antidrug enforcement or not understanding the drug issue. What we do
understand is that America has been fighting drugs in Mexico and in
Colombia and places throughout the world without a lot of success. We
realize that we have not placed as much emphasis on treatment and
bringing down the desire.
This is all about supply. I heard a good friend and colleague mention
that we are trying to take money out of police operations and other
operations as it relates to drug enforcement. That is absolutely a
misinterpretation of our amendment. All we are doing is taking $100
million, which may be taken out of the foreign military aspect of this
drug effort, out of a $2 billion line item.
So, Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize what we have been able to
accomplish with assistance on the idea of child nutrition.
If a child is not killed by measles, it may cause blindness,
malnutrition, deafness or pneumonia. It is possible to save millions of
children per year just by increasing immunization rates from 75 percent
to 90 percent and by assuring access to essential nutrients, such as
vitamin A, which increase resistance to disease and infection.
In developing nations we are finding that children are dying of the
normal childhood diseases which here in America children do get but
they survive because of immunization. Annually, immunizations avert 2
million childhood deaths from measles, neonatal tetanus, and whooping
coughs, which if we travel to the developing nations we will find those
diseases devastating to children.
The success of these programs in the world's poorest regions is even
more striking when one considers that the vaccination rate in the
United States only reached 78 percent, 78 percent in 1998.
Unfortunately, immunization rates are not improving everywhere.
Coverage in sub-Saharan Africa has decreased. Thirty percent of
children still do not receive their routine vaccinations, and 30
million infants; and measle infection rates have improved in the last
10 years, but there are still 30 million cases of measles.
We must reduce hunger and malnutrition, which contributes to over
one-half of the childhood deaths throughout the world. We can do so
through these child and maternal health programs. Almost 150 million
children are malnourished. We have watched the stories in Sudan, in
Ethiopia, in other war-torn countries.
I believe the most important aspect of this debate is for us not to
be considering that we are killing the drug enforcement program in
parts around the world, including Colombia. That is not the case. We
are asking for a small, minute number of dollars to be able to save
millions and millions of children.
I believe this is a fight worthy of its name. I am delighted to be on
this amendment. I have an amendment that I had intended to offer, but I
believe this debate is so important that we need to focus on the
juxtaposing of what we are standing for here today, saving lives, as
opposed to the depleting of a $2 billion pot.
Mr. Chairman, I am a cosponsor of this amendment. I ask support for
this amendment. I will consider whether or not I will withdraw my
amendment that will come subsequently. This is an important issue.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McGovern-Hoekstra-
Pelosi-Morella-Jackson-Lee global health amendment to H.R. 2506, the
fiscal year 2002 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.
I want to commend my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), for taking the lead in bringing this important amendment to
the House floor.
What the amendment does is it shifts $100 million from military aid,
and this is the intent, to Colombia to the Child Survival and Health
Programs Fund. It would add $50 million for child survival and maternal
health programs that improve maternal and child health and nutrition,
reduce infant and child mortality, and support polio eradication
programs.
Additionally, this amendment would add $50 million for infectious
disease, and that is specifically for international tuberculosis
programs. While TB overall is on the decline in this country, it
continues unabated globally. An estimated 8 million people worldwide
develop active TB each year. There are 2 million TB-related deaths
worldwide each year, and TB causes more deaths among women worldwide
than all cases of maternal mortality combined.
TB is the leading cause of death among people who are HIV-infected,
accounting for one-third of AIDS deaths worldwide. The global TB
epidemic could impact declines that have been made in the United
States.
Mr. Chairman, it is impossible to control TB in the United States
until we control it internationally. According to experts, an
additional $1 billion is needed to adequately address this killer. The
United States must take a leadership role in supporting and
substantially increasing spending programs to eliminate the spread of
TB worldwide. Passage of this amendment would translate into $120
million for international TB eradication efforts for fiscal year 2002.
Equally as important is increased funding for the child survival and
maternal health programs. Each year, more than 10 million children die
before reaching their fifth birthday due to preventable infectious
diseases such as pneumonia, measles, and diarrhea.
{time} 1515
Nearly 500,000 women die of pregnancy-related causes each year; and
every minute around the world 380 women become pregnant, 110 women
experience pregnancy-related complications, and one woman dies.
Mr. Chairman, the $100 million this amendment seeks to shift is
offset strictly by military aid to the Colombian Armed Forces. I want
to emphasize the fact that it does not, despite what we have heard, it
does not touch any police aid, which would be $152 million, and it
certainly does not touch any of the $146 million for social and
economic investment in Colombia. Neither does it affect the remaining
$277 million of the military economic or development aid for Peru,
Bolivia, Ecuador, or Venezuela that is contained within the $676
million Andean Counterdrug Initiative.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment should pass by voice vote on its merits
alone. However, if there is a recorded vote, I urge passage of the
McGovern-Hoekstra - Pelosi - Morella - Jackson-
Lee global health amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, much is in dispute about this whole issue of what to do
in Colombia, but I do not think anyone can dispute that there is no
visible evidence that the human rights situation in Colombia has
improved since Congress approved last year's mostly military aid
package, and I think that should indicate to us that we ought to think
about what we are doing.
With the indulgence of the chairman of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), I had an opportunity to visit
Colombia about 4 months ago with a number of Members of this body, and
we had an opportunity to talk with a number of different people in the
government in Bogota, but then also visited as much as we could in the
short period of time on the front lines of the areas in the Colombian
civil war, particularly in Putumayo Province, and a couple of other
provinces in the south of the country.
Now, I believe that President Pastrana and the defense minister are
genuinely looking for an acceptable way to end this long conflict. Some
elements of the military certainly are in collaboration with the right-
wing paramilitaries, and I suspect doing so in defiance of President
Pastrana. I really do not believe that he is in any way encouraging
them. In fact, the tensions are clearly obvious within the military in
Colombia, from what I could see of the visit. The Department of Defense
has discharged whole units where there is evidence of collaboration;
and that, of course, is part of the tension.
[[Page H4471]]
But I think that our heavy use of military aid to the suspect
Colombian military drives the United States' policy into the pattern of
the El Salvador example from a decade and more ago, a period of time
when year after year we were spending on an average of $400 million or
more year to the Salvadoran military, which was directly involved in
the worst civil and human rights abuses in El Salvador, including the
infamous killing of Catholic nuns, who, of course, were in sympathy
with the plight of the Salvadoran people.
Now, in my view, the Salvadoran example provides some example for the
sides in Colombia to use. Ten years ago, the two sides in the civil war
in El Salvador realized that they were simply killing the very best
young people from both sides and that it was disastrous for everyone
there, and so they sat down together to create a new future for El
Salvador. And a version of that, it seems to me, is the way that this
craziness in Colombia has got to end.
I think the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Hoekstra) provides a message. It would send a message that the purely
military solution, in this case in Colombia, is a dead-end solution for
Colombia and that it is really time to try something else.
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the
subcommittee, suggested, or pointed out, that this message is a blunt
message; and it is, because it cuts $100 from the $676 million assigned
for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. But the administration can take
that money from the military side, from the military side in Colombia,
not from the civil police, not from economic aid there or in the other
nations of Ecuador and Peru and Brazil, if that is where it is
otherwise intended to go.
There must be a better way to do this. It is time to try something
else than the failing effort to impose a purely military solution on
the long-standing, nearly 30-year civil war that is going on in
Colombia. Therefore, with a slight bit of ambivalence, I started here
ambivalently, therefore I am supporting and commending the gentlemen
from Massachusetts and Michigan for their leadership on this issue.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment, but I
do want to salute the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for
his work on behalf of Mr. Moakley's long work in support of human
rights in El Salvador and in support of human rights in Colombia; but I
reluctantly oppose this amendment.
Recently, I accompanied the Waukegan Police Department on a raid of a
crack house. There we found the crack addicts in the basement, but then
I found that this was actually a home with three little bitty babies in
it and a 12-year-old smoking crack cocaine. We cannot surrender the
drug war. We need to make sure that we protect those who cannot protect
themselves.
But there are two purposes of the drug war. The first purpose of a
U.S. drug war is to reduce the narcotics flow into the United States,
and on that we have not done well. But there is a second purpose; and
that second purpose, Mr. Chairman, is to prevent narcogovernments from
taking power. We saw it once already in our history when the government
of Panama fell and a narcogovernment took control there.
Manuel Noriega turned the Immigration Ministry in Panama into an
enormous drug lab. And two things happen once a narcogovernment takes
control: first, economies of scale; and, secondly, research and
development. The research and development in the narcotics industry
created crack cocaine, a $5 single hit, that was an enormous boost to
the illegal drug industry. And we cannot let that happen in Colombia.
The United States has an important and positive role to play in
supporting civil society in Colombia. Colombia, our neighbor, is in the
middle of a nationwide crisis which threatens the entire region, and
they have asked for our help. So the question is not should we become
engaged, but how we should become engaged and to what end. Had this
amendment redirected funds to support civil society in Colombia,
especially judicial reform, I would have strongly supported it.
However, simply pulling support from Colombia and its fight against
drugs and its fight against narcoterrorism is not the solution.
I believe it is vitally important to support Colombian institutions
that are working in an effective fashion to bring criminals to justice,
whether these criminals wear the uniform of rebels who profit from drug
trafficking or are right-wing paramilitaries who fill their war chests
with cash culled from the same dirty source. I would even mention that
some of these lawbreakers wear the Colombian uniform of the armed
services and support illegal activities of paramilitary groups that are
responsible for most human rights violations in Colombia.
But I would note that all aid under this bill passes through the
Leahy amendment, vetting people to ensure respect for human rights.
There are institutions in Colombia that do a truly exceptional job
fighting injustices engulfing the country; and among them is the
attorney general, known as the Fiscalia, and the Colombian National
Police. Most of the recent high-level captures of paramilitary leaders
and rebel chieftains are the result of the dedicated work of the
attorney general's office, where hundreds of prosecutors are working
against tremendous odds to transform the written word of Colombia's
laws into real-life consequences for criminals.
For instance, it is the attorney general's office that has done the
painstaking investigations that have resulted in arrest warrants for
top paramilitary leaders recently. They hit at the heart of the
paramilitary structure, their drug profits; and they need our help. For
their part, the leadership of the Colombian National Police has
literally turned an institution around over the past decade, from one
stained by human rights violations into a professional force. They have
done what so far the Colombian military has not, sending a clear and
pointed message that rank-and-file human rights violators will not be
tolerated.
Since 1994, when General Jose Serrano took over, over 11,000 officers
have been dismissed for crimes that vary from corruption to
extrajudicial execution. In their place are officers who know their
first duty is to obey the laws themselves before they bring criminals
to justice. General Gilibert continues to uphold this tradition and
needs our support to continue to enforce the law, particularly in
regards to human rights.
Mr. Chairman, we should not surrender Colombia to drug lords of the
right or the left. Defeat in this instance of civil society would mean
at least 10 percent of Colombia would attempt to move to the United
States. I would hope in the future we could work together in a
bipartisan fashion to craft an aid package that supports the Democrat
center, civil society, prosecutors, police officers, judges to create a
Democrat forum in Colombia where we could win the war against the
tyranny of the right or left.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KIRK. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out one thing. First
of all, this bill contains $152 million of police aid. There is $72
million in police aid from last year that is still in the pipeline.
Nobody here is advocating that we surrender. What we are saying is send
a signal to the military that we want them to sever ties with the
paramilitary. That is what this is about.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make clear a couple of
points here. First of all, we are not abandoning Colombia. This foreign
aid package still includes $299 million in aid for Colombia for
alternative development, the police, and judicial reform. It includes
another $276 million in economic and security assistance for the other
countries in the Andean region. It does not affect any of the military
aid that will be coming before us in the defense appropriations bill.
We are emphasizing the funding in our amendment that supports peace,
development and an end to poverty that leads to drug cultivation. We
are eliminating funding that further militarizes the conflict. That is
the purpose of our amendment. We are eliminating
[[Page H4472]]
the aid for a strategy in southern Colombia that has failed in every
country where it has been tried and which is opposed by all 13 mayors
of Putumayo and all six governors of southern states of Colombia.
What we are trying to do is send a strong, clear signal at last that
the Colombian military must cut its ties to the paramilitaries. My
concern, and the concern of a lot of us who are supporting this
amendment, has been that we talk the talk when it comes to human rights
but we do not walk the walk. We put in language in our Colombia aid
package, conditionality language on human rights; and yet when the
Colombian military does not abide by those guidelines, we simply waive
those guidelines. That is the wrong signal to send.
I do not know how continuing to support a military, continuing to
send a signal that we are going to turn a blind eye to human rights
violations does anything to deal effectively with the drug problem in
our country or deal with illegal growth of coca plants in Colombia, or
deal with strengthening civilian institutions. The fact of the matter
is, continuing to support the Colombian military without insisting they
abide by human rights criteria, I think sends the wrong signal and it
adds instability, not stability, to the region.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of the McGovern amendment to shift the $100 million from aid to
Colombia's military to global health programs.
Since Plan Colombia began last year, the human rights situation has
worsened. There are reports of atrocities both by right-wing
paramilitary groups and left-wing guerrillas.
{time} 1530
The AUC paramilitary group has gone on a bloody rampage across
Colombia, massacring hundreds of civilians.
In the Naya River Valley and other places throughout Colombia, the
military has failed to take sufficient steps to prevent paramilitary
massacres, despite ample public warnings about the attacks.
Our own State Department has documented the ongoing links between the
Colombia military and the paramilitaries. According to the State
Department, impunity for military personnel who collaborate with
members of paramilitary groups is all too common.
Mr. Chairman, we have a great opportunity on the floor of the House.
We have an opportunity to cut $100 million out of $2 billion, but $100
million which will, on the one hand, curb human rights abuses and, on
the other hand, take that $100 million and spend it on maternal health
and on polio and on tuberculosis control.
When we look at what the world has done in the last 20 years when we
have the resources, it is clear that $100 million can be spent very,
very well. In one state in India a couple years ago because of
government and public health authorities involvement in a tuberculosis
pilot project, they reduced the death rate by 94 percent from
tuberculosis in that one state in India.
Polio was eradicated in the Western Hemisphere in 1991. The last case
was in Peru because of government health authorities and NGOs and
others making that commitment. Since then we have almost eradicated
polio around the world and should have eradicated it by 2005.
In one day in 1999, in the country of India, where NGOs from around
the world and public health authorities from around the world and the
government of India concentrated on vaccinations that day and
immunized, in one day in India in December, 1999, 134 million children.
The point, Mr. Chairman, is when we use these public health resources
well, we can make a big difference. The McGovern amendment does that.
It is a small but important step in our efforts to eradicate infectious
disease, to curb human rights abuses and to make this world a more
healthy place.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite numbers of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern)
for allowing me to work with him on this amendment.
Regrettably, I come to the floor to talk about this issue on an
appropriations bill. This discussion would be much better if we were
going through an authorization process, but this is the only place we
can talk about a very critical issue.
I think there is a great degree of uncertainty of how this program is
working. We know that on this appropriations bill there is significant
legislation that will further militarize this situation. I think we
need to be nervous about that. That is why I looked favorably on this
amendment when it was proposed to me and why I chose to co-sponsor it.
In the last few months, I have had the opportunity to travel to
Africa. Investing in health care around the world is an important
investment. We were in Lagos, Nigeria. We had the opportunity to
witness the effects of polio and recognize that polio is still a
disease that faces way too many children around the world. Investing in
child survival and health programs is a good investment.
In contrast to that, I think there is a sincere concern about our
efforts in the drug war. As I listen to the debate today, I hear terms
such as we have to reduce the drug flow, narco-governments, surrender
to drug lords. I sometimes wonder if we are willing to sacrifice all
U.S. values in this fight on drugs.
We know that in certain cases, and we will be talking about one of
those later on today in another amendment that I will be proposing,
when we tried to work out some protections that would embody basic
human values and basic U.S. values and rights that we cherish in this
country, we are not willing to extend those basic rights to the people
in South America. We are willing to do other legislation in this
appropriations bill but carrying basic rights that we treasure in this
country and that we afford to our own citizens, we are not willing to
extend to our colleagues south of the border.
Are we willing to sacrifice all decency and basic human rights so
that we can benefit here in the U.S. while others suffer in other parts
of the world? I am not sure that is the direction that we want to go.
The U.S. values that we cherish here are the same values that we
should share and export to other parts of the world. We need in this
bill, since it is the only vehicle that we will have an opportunity to
express our values on and our feelings and opinions, we need to use
this bill to say we are going to defend U.S. values and U.S. rights in
this country and we are going to ensure that those values and those
rights are extended into other countries where we are engaged and where
we are invested.
The greatest export that we have around the world is not dollars, but
it is a vision of freedom and it is a vision that says freedom and
human rights are a basic right that people around the planet should
share. We are the model. That model should not change when we leave our
borders.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe) will be recognized for an additional 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make some observations
on the amendment and the speakers that we have had.
I want to remind my colleagues what the issue really is here. We are
not talking about whether or not we should be putting more money into
HIV/AIDS and child survival fund. We recognize the importance of doing
that. We have money that is going into those funds. We are increasing
the amount for tuberculosis rapidly. We believe, in fact, that we are
increasing it as rapidly as we can be. Some might argue that it is
faster than the absorption. We are not even sure exactly how those
program dollars are going to get spent, but the need is tremendous.
We are facing a pandemic in this world in HIV/AIDS unlike anything
that any of us in our lifetimes have experienced, unlike any kind of
plague that has beset this world in the last several hundred years. We
need to be focused on that. We need to understand that it is a global
issue. It is not just one here in the United States. It is not just one
in Africa. We are now seeing it in Haiti and the Caribbean. We are
seeing it in South Asia. We are seeing it in
[[Page H4473]]
the Central Asian republics. We are seeing it in the Caucasuses and we
are beginning to see it in Southern China.
This epidemic is spreading around the world, and we need to apply the
proper resources to it. Mr. Chairman, our bill does do that. We make
every attempt to get money into the international trust fund as well as
money into our bilateral programs.
Mr. Chairman, let me repeat again where we are with this trust fund,
a trust fund which, I might add, has not yet been established, a trust
fund that under the umbrella of the United Nations would provide
funding for programs around the world, but we still do not know how the
governance of that trust fund will be done.
Nonetheless, we have $100 million in our bill for that. Last Friday,
this House approved a supplemental appropriation which is now on the
desk of the President for $100 million; the Labor-HHS bill will have
another $100 million. That is $300 million in 1 year from this country
alone towards the trust fund.
I realize that one can always argue that more is needed, but we have
to balance our bill with the requirements of our other national
security requirements, including those in South America, the need to
make sure that the needs of the battle against drugs in Latin America
continues, as well as the economic assistance in those countries.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues when they consider this amendment
that they realize that we have a balance in this bill, and I would hope
that my colleagues would consider it carefully and that they would
reject this amendment.
Moment of Silence in Memory of Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective
John M. Gibson
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the Chair's announcement of earlier today,
the Committee will now observe a moment of silence in memory of Officer
Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson.
Will all present in the Chamber please rise for a moment of silence.
Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair for appreciating the work of the
officers here and around the world.
I speak on behalf of the McGovern-Hoekstra-Pelosi-Morella amendment
that adds $50 million to infectious disease programs to combat
tuberculosis and $50 million to the Child Survival and Maternal Health
Program.
This money will be taken from the Andean Counterdrug Initiative that
would provide $100 million in additional U.S. funding for Plan
Colombia. The current administration asked for a 1-year $1 billion
military aid package to continue funding Plan Colombia and other
antidrug initiatives in surrounding countries.
While I respect that initiative, I prefer to support this global
health amendment because I believe that additional funding for the
Colombian military will only draw the United States further into
Colombia's brutal 4-decade old civil war.
Furthermore, I cannot in good conscience support funding for a
military in Colombia that has close connections to paramilitaries
responsible for some 70 percent of the most severe human rights
violations in the world. Seventy-one percent of the 319,000 people
internally displaced last year were driven from their homes by
paramilitaries, according to the Colombian President's office. The $1.3
billion aid package that we sent Colombia last year has not improved
the Colombian military human rights record. Hardly any high ranking
military officials implicated in connection to paramilitaries have been
dismissed since the United States aid began to be implemented last
August.
Mr. Chairman, as reported in last Thursday's issue of The New York
Times, 40 percent of Africans with AIDS have tuberculosis, which is the
leading killer of people with AIDS. Tuberculosis kills 2 million people
each year, and is on the rise globally. Tuberculosis is the greatest
killer of people with HIV-AIDS and young women worldwide. Tuberculosis
treatment in the form of directly observed treatment, DOTS, is one of
the most cost-effective treatments available today.
And to combat high infant mortality rates, a small investment in
programs such as measles, diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus, and
polio will greatly impact many children's lives.
We can save billions of dollars in the future if polio and other
preventable diseases are no longer a threat to children, and countries
no longer need to vaccinate their children. The change in children's
health worldwide is priceless. The funding needed to achieve this goal
is invaluable by comparison.
Mr. Chairman, I urge strong support of this amendment.
{time} 1545
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) to reduce funding for the Andean
Initiative by $100 million. During the consideration of Plan Colombia,
I had some serious concerns regarding the manner in which the $1.3
billion would be distributed. I believed that the concentration of
those funds on military rather than on economic and social assistance
was a grave miscalculation. The assistance provided to the Colombian
military has been used to support and intensify the long tradition of
human rights abuses in Colombia in my opinion. Plan Colombia has
bloodied the hands of this Congress.
I believe that this reduction of $100 million should be taken from
the account directed to the Colombian military to send a message that
these abuses of basic human rights will not be tolerated any longer. I
cannot stand idly by while this body attempts to make the same mistake
once again. Though I believe that the Andean Initiative takes steps
toward a broader regional strategy and addresses the shortcomings of
Plan Colombia, the President's request for the distribution of this
account is incredibly deficient.
The most glaring deficiency is the lack of support for the country of
Ecuador. We are talking about a country that has struggled for years
with high inflation, a high rate of unemployment and a low per capita
income. We are talking about a country that provides the United States
a forward operating location at the Manta Air base to conduct drug
surveillance missions free of charge.
Under the administration of President Noboa, Ecuador has done nothing
but demonstrate acts of loyalty and friendship toward the United
States. How do we repay them? By providing only $39 million, $39
million when Peru and Bolivia are receiving well over $100 million
each. This is not providing support for a friend in need. This is a
slap in a friend's face.
Ecuador is dealing with the daunting task of keeping the coca
production beyond its borders. With the increasing activity by
Colombian paramilitaries in the Putumayo region, this is becoming more
and more difficult every day.
If the Colombian military and paramilitaries are successful in
driving the guerillas out of southern Colombia, the problem will not be
solved. The guerillas will simply move elsewhere to resume their
business. This funding will not allow Ecuador to secure its borders or
resist the movement of the guerillas into the Sucumbios region of
Ecuador.
Just last month, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia crossed
the Rio Putumayo into Ecuador and set up roadblocks on a main highway.
This is the beginning of the terror for Ecuador. We can take steps in
this Chamber to nip this in the bud.
Ecuador once shared a 367-mile border with Colombia. It now today
shares a 367-mile border with rebel forces. Something must be done
before this situation gets out of hand. No Member wants to be down on
this floor next year voting for an aid package called Plan Ecuador.
I sincerely believe that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) are committed to improving
the situation in Ecuador. As this bill goes to conference, I would like
to offer my assistance to ensure that the underfunding of Ecuador be
addressed and rectified.
I also note that this money that will be redirected to child survival
and maternal health as well as combating the spread of infectious
disease. With so much suffering in this world today, why must we
contribute to more of it? Let us take this opportunity to promote the
welfare of both Colombia, the
[[Page H4474]]
Andean region and global health entirely.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McGovern-Hoekstra-
Pelosi-Morella-Jackson-Lee amendment which adds $50 million to the
infectious diseases account to combat tuberculosis and $50 million to
the child survival and maternal health account. The offset comes from a
$100 million cut in funding for the Colombian military.
As a relatively new Member of this august body, the most important
parliamentary body in the entire world, what has struck me is the
capacity of the United States for relatively small amounts of money,
relative to the amount of money that we have and the amount of money
that we spend, to do good in the world and to end the suffering of
millions of people. That is what this amendment allows us to do.
I had the experience of going to Colombia with one of the sponsors of
this amendment, the gentleman from Massachusetts. One of the things
that we did was go to Barrios Kennedy, a place for displaced people,
people who have been displaced by the multi-decade war that we are
helping to fuel in Colombia. When we went to this crowded community and
we met with families there, it was so sad because many of the families
would put forward their children who were so sick and who were getting
no help from the government, who were not getting the kind of help they
needed or wanted from the United States. When they saw Members of the
United States House of Representatives, they thought, can you help us?
They showed us their health care bills that they could not pay. They
held up their sick children. They were pleading for help.
This amendment gives us the opportunity to do two things for those
people: one, to help their children with their health care needs; and,
two, to end the continued problem of displacement.
How do we do that? Cutting funds from the Colombian military makes
sense. This is a military that has repeatedly been implicated in the
brutalization and murder of the very people that it is supposed to
protect. Last year, there was an average of at least one massacre a day
in Colombia, leaving thousands murdered and millions displaced. They
flock to cities like Bogota where we met with some of them.
While many of the attacks were carried out by guerillas and
paramilitary, these illegal armed groups operate with impunity from the
military. In fact, they are often aided in their efforts by the
Colombian armed forces personnel.
This amendment sends two clear messages: one, that we care about the
children and the poor and the sick in this world, that we want to
eradicate polio, that we want to get rid of tuberculosis; and, two, we
send an important message to the Colombian military that we will not
tolerate nor support the kinds of human rights violations that continue
to devastate the people of Colombia that we say we are there to help.
I urge all my colleagues to join in strong support of this well-
thought-out amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McGovern amendment, reducing
the amount of military assistance for Colombia and increasing funding
for child survival maternal health, tuberculosis and malaria.
Regardless of whether you support the huge U.S. investment in arming
and training the Colombian military and police, the facts are clear.
The acceleration of military activity in southern Colombia as a result
of Plan Colombia funding has led to less government control, more
violence, and no reduction in drug cultivation processing or
transshipment. As a result of these and other developments, President
Pastrana is now considering signing a law which would provide the
Colombian military with extraordinary power and exemptions from
judicial review.
During debate on Plan Colombia last year, Members were assured that
alternative economic development was as much a priority as military and
police aid. We were also told that our European allies would compensate
on the economic assistance side for the imbalance in our own program.
What actually happened? A massive fumigation campaign commenced last
December in southern Colombia before any alternative economic
development programs were in place. By last March, no alternative crop
assistance had been delivered to communities which had agreed to
voluntary eradication. Today, as we speak, assistance is being
delivered in only two of the 29 communities that have signed pacts. In
fact, only 1,800 of the 29,000 people in the affected area are actually
receiving assistance today. Military assistance programs have proceeded
rapidly, while economic assistance from Europe never materialized, and
United States assistance has been slow in arriving. We are adept at
wielding the stick of Plan Colombia, but the carrot is nowhere to be
found.
The McGovern amendment would reduce military assistance to give
alternative development programs more time to be implemented. We owe
the poorest of Colombia's poor who have been terrorized by the ongoing
conflict the opportunity to eradicate their illegal crops voluntarily.
And when they agree, we must have the capacity to deliver on our
promises immediately. That is not the case today.
Congress provided over $1 billion for Plan Colombia, of which only
about half has been spent. The majority of the military equipment
funded in that package has not even been delivered to Colombia.
Spending this $100 million on infectious diseases is good policy and
will not slow our progress in the war on drugs in Colombia. In fact, it
will actually help, by demonstrating that our policy is balanced. It
will also increase the likelihood that the alternative development
pacts will be sustainable over time.
The examples of successful voluntary eradication programs in Bolivia
and Peru show that manual/voluntary eradication is the most effective
and sustainable method of achieving long-term change. In order to bring
that about, poor farmers must receive some actual benefits and gain
confidence in their government. This has not yet happened in southern
Colombia. The McGovern amendment will help solidify these alternative
programs by slowing the pace of military assistance. I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment really is not about allocation of child
survival and health programs funding. Because if you just take a moment
to look at the history here, we have $1.4 billion, nearly $1.5 billion
allocated this year. Some 4 years ago, it was half the amount. It took
a Republican Congress to increase this program, and it is an important
program, and it is a targeted program which will aid in child survival
worldwide.
But that is not the debate here. The debate is to really declare war
on Plan Colombia. Some of the same opponents, Mr. Chairman, that we had
toward giving any assistance to the Colombian military are the same
opponents that we have here today.
We have heard that this is a purely military solution. Mr. Chairman,
we have not had the military involved in Colombia really until this
Plan Colombia came about. The Clinton administration blocked all of the
military assistance to Colombia. Time and time again the Congress
appropriated funds for helicopters. What do we need helicopters and
transport vehicles to get to the Colombian military for? To get to the
violence and get to the drugs. It does not take rocket science to
figure this out. The drugs, the heroin, the cocaine are in the hills
and distant lands in Colombia; and you need a way to get there.
Just a few minutes ago we dedicated a moment of silence to two
Capitol police officers to whom as Members we will always be indebted
because they sacrificed their lives to protect us. Do you know how many
Colombian police have died to date? Over 5,000. There will be no moment
of silence for those 5,000 Colombian police.
We have been to Colombia, many times. The Speaker helped develop this
program. The administration for years blocked military assistance, and
we got a huge increase in the production of heroin. From zero in 1993
to 70 percent of all the heroin coming into the United States is now
coming in from Colombia because they blocked the military from stopping
it.
[[Page H4475]]
Yes, there is violence out on the right side. You hear them talk
about the military and how they are committing crimes. They did not
tell you about the left wing, the FARC. They did not tell you about the
ELN who cut people's throats, who use people in the most abusive ways
you can ever imagine in human rights violations; and the terror is
equally divided on both sides.
{time} 1600
But they do not tell you that in order to stop the violence, to even
get the police there without being slaughtered in Colombia, that you
need some way to get them there. The key to that is our military
assistance, the military, which we are training three battalions,
providing helicopters and assistance to get them there. They encircle
an area, and the police come in, arrest the terrorists and drug
dealers, all of whom are financing the terrorism that has killed 35,000
people.
Do you want to care about human rights? Then allow Plan Colombia to
at least go forward for 1 year. The aid is not even there. The
helicopters that we begged and pleaded with the Congress and this
administration to send there 3 and 4 years ago, are still not there.
The last time I was there, they had four helicopters that were
operating part of the time, and one was being cannibalized for parts.
Now, how do you run an effective anti-illegal narcotics campaign like
that?
Over one-half of the package is for assistance. If the assistance is
not there, then get after the Department of State to get the assistance
for alternative crop development and other programs to help people. But
you will not build roads, you will not build schools, you will not save
people's lives in Colombia until you have a comprehensive plan to make
it all work.
So do not pull the guts out of the plan. Do not destroy a well-
balanced plan that has protections against human rights abuses, that
has a targeted approach and balance between a small amount of military
delivering troops who are trained to an area to protect police.
You have heard about sacrifice of U.S. values. Well, the U.S. values
our freedom.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Mica was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, sacrifice of U.S. values, I heard that.
Freedom and human rights. Well, there will not be freedom in Colombia
while they are killing each other.
It is in the United States' interests, it is in our interests as a
neighbor not to let our friends continue killing our friends, just as
it was in any other country in South America or around the world where
we sent our assistance. But, in this case, there are no troops
involved, only training and assistance and close supervision.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to respond to the points
the gentleman made that we are trying to take the guts out of this
package. Let me remind the gentleman that $152 million in police aid is
in this package; $72 million in police aid is in the pipeline, and an
estimated $80 million in military aid.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, you can take that police
aid and dump it in the Potomac River, because the police will never be
effective unless they are protected to go in there. You will have
another 5,000 police lose their lives in Colombia.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, if I am the last speaker, let me just say: this
amendment is the equivalent of burning down a house because one of the
rooms is messy and it needs cleaning. In our Child Survival Account in
this bill, we are spending $1.387 billion on child survival, maternal
health, vulnerable children, HIV-AIDS, other infectious diseases,
reproductive health and voluntary family planning and a grant to
UNICEF.
Included in this very, very important expenditure of $1.3 billion is
five primary childhood killers: a focus on diarrhea, acute respiratory
infections, malnutrition, malaria, directed primarily at children, and
vaccine-preventible diseases. We are also looking at contaminated
water. We are working to improve maternal health to protect the outcome
of pregnancy, neonatal and young infants, to save the lives of the
mothers by improving maternal nutrition, promoting birth preparedness,
improving safe delivery and postpartum care, and managing and treating
life-threatening complications of pregnancy and childhood.
I keep hearing about values. This committee is already weighing in at
$1.3 billion, and we believe that we can work to continue to support
the war on childhood diseases.
Now, Mr. Chairman, why do I say they are just burning down the whole
house? The author of this amendment a few minutes or hours ago said
that this amendment does not direct a cut towards military. Now, I
understand that they are angry at the military, but this amendment does
not stop there. It is not earmarked. Therefore, it does go after human
rights; it does go after judicial reform. It goes after all the good
parts of Plan Colombia, which I think they would support.
But I want to address why is their military involved. Maybe it would
be better to send down the Boy Scouts. Maybe we could send AmeriCorps
in there. Maybe we could send the Peace Corps. Maybe we could send my
church Sunday school group down there, and they could interface with
these drug dealers and say, you really do not want to kill people, do
you? Maybe that would work better. But I think not.
Let me read to you a part of the Andean counter-drug initiative
report. It talks about Bolivia's 5-year plan to eliminate illegal coca
cultivation. Why do we have seven countries involved in this? Just keep
in mind that the drug dealers and drug problems are kind of like fire
ants in neighborhoods. You treat fire ants in your yard, they go to
your neighbor's yard. And drugs work the same way.
This talks about the eradication operation in the Yungas Mountains.
It says coca is located in remote areas that are well guarded by
resistance and militant coca growers, making it difficult, dangerous
and costly to remove. The international narcotics elimination plans to
go in there with aircraft, C-130Bs, and supply personnel.
It talks about one road where there are violent ambushes and attacks
from coca growers and traffickers. It talks about this one road in the
Yungas being the world's most dangerous road, that aside from tricky
hairpin turns, the rocky and gutted road is seldom wider than 11 feet,
necessitating its closure by soldiers to allow one-way traffic during
various times of the day.
Eradicating coca is very, very dangerous business, and that is why
you have paramilitary in there. I wish there was another way to fight
drugs, but the money is too great.
Think about what we are faced with here in the United States of
America. This is a product that if you work for the drug dealer, you do
not have business cards, you do not advertise, you do not have
brochures; and yet this insidious product is so bad that it can be
obtained nearly on every school yard in the United States of America. I
would challenge my 434 colleagues, if you do not believe me, go ask
schools, particularly high schools in your districts, to the kids, can
you get illegal drugs by the end of the day? And at most high school
seniors' classes, about half the hands go up and say yes, they can.
This is a threat to society, not just in America, but all over the
world. That is why you have to get tough with it. That is why you have
to use the military.
But, again, Mr. Chairman, very, very importantly, this amendment does
not stop at military. This cuts into judicial training; it cuts into
efforts to assist displaced people and other human rights violations.
This is a reckless and sloppy amendment, and it should be voted down. I
would hope that the author of it would just withdraw it.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of maintaining our commitment
to the Republic of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. While I support the
language on the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process and direct aid
allocation, I am disappointed that aid to Armenia is somewhat less than
the fiscal year 2001
[[Page H4476]]
level of $90 million. Nonetheless, I am hopeful that the Senate and the
conferees will correct this oversight in the coming weeks.
The United States has a long history of extending a helping hand to
those people overseas struggling to make a better life, recover from a
disaster or striving to live in a free and democratic country. It is
this caring that stands as a hallmark of the United States around the
world and shows the world our true character as a Nation.
Armenia alone among the New Independent States faces the unique
challenge of developing its economy in the face of devastating
blockades. The dual Turkish and Azerbaijani blockades have cut off
Armenia's traditional trade routes and severely limited Armenia's
access to the outside world.
As long as Armenia suffers from blockades on its east and west
borders, continued and robust U.S. assistance to Armenia is necessary.
It is alarming that aid to Armenia has been decreased by 8 percent,
while the administration has increased aid to Azerbaijan by 46 percent.
Why are we rewarding a government that blockades its neighbor and was
recently cited among the most corrupt nations in the world? Reducing
aid to Armenia, while increasing aid to Azerbaijan, would send the
wrong message about American priorities in the region.
Mr. Chairman, Azerbaijan continues to violate section 907 of the
Freedom Support Act, a U.S. law enacted with bipartisan support in
Congress and with the support of the Bush administration in 1992 in
response to Azerbaijan's blockade of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.
It is vital that the fiscal year 2002 foreign operations
appropriations bill maintains section 907 of the Freedom Support Act
without any weakening amendments or additional exemption being carved
out. The reasonable and clear condition for lifting section 907 has not
been met; and given the sensitive, ongoing Nagorno-Karabakh peace
negotiations, section 907 must remain in place.
Mr. Chairman, let us not reward the Azerbaijani government, which is
in violation of U.S. law. That same government, Mr. Chairman, has
consistently been cited by our own State Department for its grim human
rights efforts, as well as its flagrant violation of the most basic
principles of democracy, free and fair elections.
We must apply a consistent set of conditions on foreign assistance
recipients regarding their commitment to democratic principles,
standards of international conduct, economic reform, and respect for
human rights.
According to the State Department's 2000 Country Report on Human
Rights Practices in Azerbaijan, Heydar Aliyev, who assumed presidential
powers after the overthrow of his democratically elected predecessor in
1993, was reelected in October of 1998 in an election marred by serious
irregularities, violations of election law and lack of transparency in
vote counting at the district and national levels.
President Aliyev and his supporters continue to dominate the
government and multiparty 125-member parliament. There were numerous
serious flaws in the elections held in 2000. Serious irregularities
included disqualifications of candidates, a flawed appeals process,
ballot box stuffing, manipulated turnout results, premarked ballots,
severe restrictions on domestic nonpartisan observers, and a completely
flawed vote-counting process.
The constitution, which laudably establishes a system based on a
division of powers among the presidency, legislature and the judiciary,
unfortunately has been undermined by a judiciary which does not
function independently of the executive branch and has proven itself
corrupt and inefficient.
Severe disparities of income have emerged that contribute to
patronage and corruption. In contrast, Mr. Chairman, the report by the
State Department on Armenia says the following: ``The Armenian
government demonstrated the strength of its constitutional system
following the tragic events of October of 1999. In the wake of the
assassination of the Prime Minister and other top leaders, Armenia
followed constitutional procedures and continued the normal business of
government. Exchanges and training and partnership programs provide
opportunities for current leaders and the next generation of Armenians
to learn about the U.S. society and institutions firsthand and to forge
personal ties with individual Americans and U.S. institutions. Armenia
continues efforts to improve its business climate, increase investment
and create jobs. The government is implementing final measures
necessary for entry into the World Trade Organization.''
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the government has demonstrated a willingness
to cooperate with the U.S. in preventing weapons of mass destruction,
proliferation, and in fighting international terrorism. We must
continue the pressure on both Turkey and Azerbaijan and increase our
support to Armenia.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to use this time, if I may, or some of it
at least, to talk about the amendment that has been offered to us by
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
This amendment would shift $100 million dollars of U.S. aid from the
Colombian military to maternal health and child survival programs, as
well as a fund to fight tuberculosis. Over the past year, we must be
aware that the situation in Colombia has deteriorated. Since August of
2000, when our government began delivering the new aid package, up to
this moment, there has been a severe escalation of human rights
violations in Colombia.
{time} 1615
The number of massacres by paramilitary and guerilla forces in the
first 4 months of this year is nearly double the number in the first 4
months of the year 2000. Despite an increase in U.S. aid, the military
rarely acted to protect innocent civilians, and there are numerous
instances of collaboration between the Colombia military and right-wing
paramilitary groups.
A disturbing example of this took place in the City of
Barrancabermeja. On July 6 of this year, a group of heavily armed
paramilitary reportedly tried to assassinate trade union leader
Hernando Hernandez. Mr. Hernandez, however, narrowly escaped after
being warned by friends. The case in this particular city, the case of
Mr. Hernandez, is one of the lucky ones. In the first 45 days of this
year, 145 people have been killed in this small city, Barrancabermeja.
These killings take place in spite of the fact that this is one of
the most militarized cities in all of Colombia. The Colombian Army's
Fifth Brigade maintains a military presence, and that includes the
U.S.-funded 61st Advanced Riverine Battalion. These units have made
absolutely no serious efforts to restrain the paramilitaries from
committing these atrocities.
Mr. Chairman, U.S. funding of the Colombian military has led to more
human rights abuses, an increased number of political killings while,
at the same time, not at all reducing drug use or violence in our own
country. This amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern) takes money away from a failing program and shifts it to
important and grossly underfunded global health initiatives.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise, along with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Green), my Republican friend and colleague, to express at this point in
the debate on this bill our bipartisan appreciation for the leadership
of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the
subcommittee, and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the
ranking member, for the substantial increase they commit in this budget
to basic education.
Basic education in particular is about girls' education, because they
are the ones most likely to be held out of school. The data shows
tremendous return for the investment made in this area for each year
past fourth grade: a 10 percent reduction in family size, a 10 percent
reduction in infant and maternal mortality, and 15 to 20 percent
increases in wages. This increase is precisely in line with the
leadership of President Bush who has said recently, ``Literacy and
learning are the foundation of democracy and development. I am
directing the Secretary of State
[[Page H4477]]
and Administrator of the Agency of International Development to develop
an initiative to improve basic education and teacher training in
Africa.''
Under the leadership of the President, the G-8 communique issued just
this past weekend said, ``Education, in particular, universal primary
education and equal access to education at all levels for girls, must
be given high priority in our development programs.''
Former Secretary Treasury Larry Summers has said, ``Educating girls
quite possibly yields a higher rate of return than any other investment
available in the developing world.'' Present Secretary of the Treasury
Paul O'Neil said in a recent op-ed in The New York Times, ``Education
is inextricably linked to improving living standards.''
Perhaps the most eloquent quote I have heard regarding the imperative
of girls' education was issued by the chairman of the board of a
community school in Bamako, Mali. This gentleman said, ``Bringing girls
education is like bringing light into a dark room.''
That is why I am so proud of the work of the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Kolbe) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). I had a
chance to see with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) the effects
of this funding and work on expanding girls' education in Africa.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), a
true leader in advancing the cause of basic education around the world.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I know the hour is late, I know
the day is long, but I think it is important for us to show
appreciation, so I commend both the chairman of the subcommittee and
the ranking member for their tremendous commitment here.
What we are doing is not just about education and education reform;
it goes much beyond that. As the gentleman from North Dakota has
alluded to, we know that an educated child who becomes an educated
parent is truly the key to solving many of the health care challenges
in the developing world. We know that an educated community breeds
democracy. We know that as expectations rise, as people learn about
what is taking place beyond the border, those forms of tyranny and
government control that are in many places of the world cannot survive.
They will fall to democracy. Of course, education, as we all know,
fosters economic development.
So what we have done and what we are doing today is truly a wonderful
thing. I do want to show my personal appreciation and on behalf of many
of the villages that the gentleman and I visited together, we thank our
colleagues.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond very briefly to my good
colleagues with appreciation for their important work in this area. It
has been a privilege for me and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe),
for us to feel we have had some part in making sure that young girls
around the world will get educated so they can play an important role
in their community and raise their families and raise their communities
and hopefully lead to a more peaceful world. I thank the gentleman from
North Dakota and the gentleman from Wisconsin for their important work.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my
colleagues in offering an amendment to this bill that will permit the
United States Agency for International Development to provide valuable
support for global child and maternal health programs and to combat
global infectious diseases.
This amendment will provide $50 million additional funding for Child
and maternal health programs and $50 million additional funding for the
USAID's valuable infectious disease program. We are not asking for new
funding, but merely funds from the State Department's Andean
Counterdrug initiative.
We know firsthand that the health and survival of a child is directly
linked to the health of his or her mother. Infectious diseases continue
to take a toll on the developing world. Ten million children will die
before their fifth birthday this year due to preventable diseases, such
as diarrhea, pneumonia and measles. In addition, infectious diseases,
such as tuberculosis and malaria, take the lives of millions of people
living with HIV/AIDS. All of these deaths are preventable and by
strengthening the basic health and nutrition services in developing
countries, we can make a difference.
We must recognize that the U.S. federal budget allocation to foreign
aid has hit a record low, and is now less as a proportion of our
national income than in any other industrialized nation. Foreign aid is
not only one percent of our federal budget.
In September, we will mark the ten-year anniversary of the 1990 World
Summit for Children. At that summit, the U.S. joined with over 70 other
nations in committing to the reduction of child and maternal deaths.
Substantial progress has been made since 1990, but many goals have not
yet been met. We need to redouble our efforts to expand programs that
can sharply reduce the millions of preventable deaths.
Despite the good work of many organizations and individuals
worldwide, each year more than ten million children die before reaching
their fifth birthday due to preventable infectious diseases, such as
pneumonia, measles, and diarrhea. This is equivalent to every child
living in the eastern half of the United States. While diarrhea remains
one of the leading causes of death in the developing world, at present
one million childhood deaths are averted every year due to diarrheal
prevention and appropriate treatment programs.
Clean water and sanitation prevent infections, and oral rehydration
therapy (a simple salt sugar mixture taken by mouth, which costs only
pennies and was developed through U.S. research efforts overseas) has
been proven to be among the most effective public health interventions
ever developed.
Global immunization coverage has soared from less than 10 percent of
the world's children in the 1970s to almost 75 percent today. Annually,
immunizations avert two million childhood deaths from measles, neonatal
tetanus, and whooping cough. The success of these programs in the
world's poorest regions is even more striking when one considers that
the vaccination rate in the United States only reached 78 percent in
1998.
Unfortunately, immunization rates are not improving everywhere.
Coverage in sub-Saharan Africa has decreased. 30 percent of children
still do not receive their routine vaccinations--30 million infants.
Measles immunization rates have improved in the past ten years but
there are still 30 million cases of measles every year.
If a child is not killed by measles, it may cause blindness,
malnutrition, deafness or pneumonia. It is possible to save millions of
children per year just by increasing immunization rates from 75 percent
to 90 percent, and by assuring access to essential nutrients such as
Vitamin A, which increases resistance to disease and infection. Vitamin
A supplementation is protective and will protect a child from the most
serious consequences of measles, such as blindness and death, and costs
only four cents per year per child. Deficiencies of both iron and
iodine are among the most harmful types of malnutrition with regard to
cognition. Iodine deficiency disorder is the leading preventable cause
of mental retardation in children and it renders children listless,
inattentive and uninterested in learning.
We must reduce hunger and malnutrition, which contribute to over one-
half of childhood deaths around the world. We can do so through these
Child and Maternal Health programs. As estimated 150 million children
are malnourished, which puts them at even greater risk for infections.
Protecting children from disease and malnutrition increases their
ability to learn and thrive. The issue of hunger and nutrition was so
important to my predecessor, Mickey Leland, that along with Congressmen
Tony Hall and Ben Gilman, he founded the House Select Committee on
Hunger in 1983. The bi-partisan non-profit Congressional Hunger Center
grew out of this effort in 1993 and fights national and global hunger.
It is important that we in Congress continue these efforts.
According to the United Nations, approximately 828 million people are
chronically undernourished in the world today. Approximately 300
million are children. UNICEF reports that 32 percent of the worlds'
children under five years of age, about 193 million, have stunted
growth, which is the key indicator for undernutrition.
Weak health and poor nutrition among school age children diminish
their cognitive development either through physiological changes or by
reducing their ability to participate in the learning experience, or
both. The extra demand on school age children to perform chores, for
example, or walk long distances to school, creates a need for energy
that is much greater than that of younger children. Available data
indicate high levels of protein energy malnutrition and short-term
hunger among school age children, and deficiencies of critical
nutrients are pervasive.
Poor nutrition and health among school children contribute to the
inefficiency of the educational system. Children with diminished
cognitive abilities and sensory impairments perform less well and are
more likely to repeat
[[Page H4478]]
grades or drop out of school. The irregular school attendance of
malnourished and unhealthy children is one of the key factors in poor
performance. Even temporary hunger, common in children who are not
being fed before going to school, can have an adverse effect on
learning.
For those of you who worry that their home districts will not support
such additional aid, I offer that polls consistently show that
Americans support putting a high priority on addressing world hunger
and poverty. In a recent survey by the Program on International Policy
Attitudes at the University of Maryland, 87 percent polled support
foreign food and medical assistance. Only 20 percent surveyed supports
cuts in efforts to reduce hunger. 62 percent said that combating world
hunger should be a very important goal for the United States. 76
percent positively rated giving child survival programs more money.
Only about one fourth positively viewed giving military aid to
countries friendly to the United States.
U.S. food aid alleviates poverty and promotes economic growth in
recipient countries. As incomes in developing countries rise,
consumption patterns change, and food and other imports of US goods and
services can increase. Hence, supporting child nutrition programs is an
effort that we can and must all support.
This amendment will benefit families in many other important ways.
Nearly 500,000 women die of pregnancy-related causes each year. Every
minute, around the world, 380 women become pregnant, 110 women
experience pregnancy-related complications, 1 woman dies. Each year, an
additional 15 million women suffer pregnancy-related health problems
that can be permanently debilitating, and over 4 million newborns die
from poorly managed pregnancies and deliveries.
Ninety five percent of maternal deaths occur in the developing world.
In some sub-Saharan African countries, the risk jumps still further:
one in every 14 girls entering adolescence will die from maternal
causes before completing her child-bearing years--compared to 1 in
1,800 girls in developing countries.
According to the World Health Organization, maternal health is the
largest disparity between the developed and developing countries. While
infant mortality (death to infants less than one year), for example, is
almost 7 times higher in the developing world than in the developed,
maternal mortality is on average 18 times higher. Beyond the
consequences for women, the health of their children is also put at
risk. Children are much more likely to die within two years of a
maternal death. The chances of death are 10 times greater for the
newborn and 3 times greater for children 1 to 5 years.
Reducing maternal deaths is to be an effective investment in healthy
families--and therefore in sustainable development--around the world.
These deaths can be averted through services that include skilled
attendants at birth with necessary equipment and supplies, community
education on safe motherhood, improvement of rural and urban health
care facilities. Most of these interventions are low-tech and low cost.
Maternal deaths affect women in their most productive years, and as a
result the impact reverberates through their families, their
communities, and the societies in which they live. The diminished
potential productivity of the women who die is $7.5 billion annually
and $8 billion for the newborns who do not survive.
Ninety-nine percent of maternal deaths can be prevented with improved
pregnancy care, nutrition, immediate postnatal care as well as
appropriate treatment for the complications of incomplete abortions.
The WHO Mother-Baby program has identified a package of health
interventions that, for a cost of $1-3 per mother, can save the lives
of countless women and will begin to do so immediately upon
implementation.
U.S. funding for maternal health programs has remained level at $50
million for the past 3 years. While other global health and development
programs have received increased attention, women continue to die
needlessly of preventable causes.
Through this amendment, we also seek additional funding to prevent
infectious diseases. Almost 2 million people die each year from
tuberculosis (TB). It is estimated that one-third of the world's
population is infected with tuberculosis, although it lies dormant in
most people. Deadlier and more resistant forms of TB have emerged and
have spread to Europe and the U.S., re-introducing the possibility of
TB becoming a global killer. Moreover, since HIV/AIDS reduces one's
resistance to infectious diseases, TB is easily transmitted to an
infected individual. It is regarded as the most common HIV-related
opportunistic infection in developing countries.
Many advances have been made to reduce the prevalence of these
diseases by the USAID, in collaboration with other international
agencies. For example, the World Health Organization's Roll Back
Malaria campaign had decreased the death rate from malaria by 97
percent in some countries. WHO has also started a ``directly observed
treatment strategy,'' or DOTS, to fight tuberculosis. Under this
strategy, patients are given second-line drugs when they become
resistant to first-line drugs.
Similarly, tuberculosis (TB) has re-emerged on the world stage in
deadlier and more resistant forms. With the appearance of multi-drug
resistant TB, and its spread to Europe and the U.S., we face the
possibility that this could again become a leading killer of the rich
as well as the poor.
Infectious diseases account for 8 percent of all deaths in the
richest 20 percent of the world and 56 percent in the poorest 20
percent. This poorest fifth of the world's population is seven times
more likely to die as a result of infectious diseases, accounting for
56 percent of deaths within this population segment. Children are
particularly susceptible to infectious diseases, which tend to be
exacerbated by malnutrition, and all-too common condition in developing
countries.
Finally, this amendment does not seek to cut any economic assistance
for the Andean region, assistance for Peru or Bolivia, or funding for
the Colombian National Police. It only seeks to cut some military aid
to Colombia, aid that does not help the Colombian people, as will these
valuable heath programs.
The human rights situation in Colombia has deteriorated since
Congress approved last year's aid package. The Colombian military
continues to collaborate with right-wing paramilitaries that commit
over 70 percent of human rights abuses, such as the paramilitary
massacres of civilians that have nearly doubled in 2001 compared to
last year.
The U.S. is engaged in a costly military endeavor with no clear exit
strategy. The high level of military aid threatens to draw the U.S.
further into Colombia's civil war. The amendment leaves intact $152
million in police aid, and estimated $80 million in the Defense
Appropriations bill, $30 million in expected drawdowns and IMET, and
$158 million in military aid in the pipeline from FY 2001. Security
assistance accounts for 71 percent of expected U.S. aid to Colombia
this year.
Military aid escalates the conflict and weakens the fragile peace
process by emboldening those who hope to solve the conflict on the
battlefield and undermining government and civilian leaders seeking a
peaceful resolution to the conflict.
President Bush himself said this Tuesday that ``A world where some
live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less
than $2 a day, is neither just, nor stable.''
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) will be postponed.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise, Mr. Chairman, to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations of the Committee on Appropriations.
Specifically, I would like to discuss with him the excellent effort
Bolivia has made on the war on drugs. We have heard a lot of talk about
the nonsuccesses with some of our drug programs in South America and
Central America, but the success story in Bolivia is unparalleled.
As the distinguished chairman knows, as a part of a cooperative
effort with the United States and other nations of the Andean region,
in 1997, Bolivia instituted its 5-year antidrug plan, the so-called
``Dignity Plan.'' When the plan was initiated, Bolivia was the second
major producer of coca in the world. There were 45,800 hectares of coca
plants in Bolivia. But in the 3 years the plan has been in existence,
the Bolivian government has conducted more than 16,900 drug
interdiction operations. It has destroyed more than 4,000 cocaine labs;
it has arrested some 14,400 individuals implicated in narco-
trafficking; it has seized more than 50,000 kilos of cocaine. From 1997
to August 2000, 43 tons of drugs have been seized in Bolivia, including
1.4 million tons of liquid substances and 1 ton of solid chemical
substances.
In short, Bolivia has been a full partner to the United States in its
war on drugs. It has focused both on eradication and interdiction, even
though
[[Page H4479]]
the effort has caused severe problems for the Bolivian economy and for
the Bolivian people. Therefore, I hope the chairman will do all he can
to see that Bolivia is fully funded in fiscal year 2002. It is critical
that Bolivia be provided the necessary resources to sustain its
progress and not to become a victim of its success. It must have the
ability to make the necessary investments to enable its economy to
handle the effects of illegal drug traffic.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Callahan), the former chairman of this subcommittee, for bringing
this matter to our attention. No one has been more involved in helping
to bring this problem in Bolivia to a conclusion, or to the successful
plan that we have today. I want to thank him for bringing this to our
attention.
I agree completely with what he has said here today. Bolivia does
deserve our support and I intend to do all I can to be helpful with
this country and I know that I can count on the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Callahan) for his full support in this effort.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman certainly can.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment No. 26
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and amendment No.
27 offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic
vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 26 Offered by Ms. Lee
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 26 offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188,
noes 240, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 262]
AYES--188
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank
Ganske
Gephardt
Gordon
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--240
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastert
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Mascara
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roukema
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--6
Delahunt
Hastings (WA)
Kilpatrick
Lipinski
Scarborough
Spence
{time} 1650
Mr. HOLDEN, Mrs. MYRICK, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. ROSS and Mr. BERRY changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair announces
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on the remaining
amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.
Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. McGovern
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 27 offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179,
noes 249, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 263]
AYES--179
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
[[Page H4480]]
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank
Ganske
Gephardt
Gordon
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--249
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Everett
Ferguson
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grucci
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastert
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Mascara
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Traficant
Turner
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--6
Delahunt
Hastings (WA)
Kilpatrick
Lipinski
Scarborough
Spence
{time} 1659
Mr. DICKS and Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, due to official business in my
District, I respectfully request a leave of absence for part of the day
today, Tuesday, July 24, 2001. As a result of my absence, I missed
recorded votes earlier today. Had I been present to vote I would have
voted as follows on the following amendments to H.R. 2506, the fiscal
year 2002 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill: ``Aye'' on rollcall
No. 260, the Visclosky amendment; ``no'' on rollcall No. 261, the Paul
amendment; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 262, the Lee amendment; and ``aye''
on rollcall No. 263, the McGovern amendment.
{time} 1700
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise for the purposes of entering into a colloquy with the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), and for that purpose I would
yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for yielding to me, and I thank him for his
leadership on this bill along with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Lowey).
Mr. Chairman, after the tragic war in Bosnia, there are many children
who have lost their parents, been deserted, and have been left to fend
for themselves. These are children who need and deserve a stable, safe
environment where they can grow up and enjoy the support of a loving
family. I strongly believe that we should support and work to help
these children.
We must direct USAID to work with the Bosnian government to address
the special needs of children at risk, especially orphans. These funds
would be designed to support the Bosnian government to set up systems,
mechanisms and/or institutions to, first, identify urgently homeless
children and provide for their immediate care and protection; two,
pursue reunification with other family members if possible; three,
establish foster care and/or adoption arrangements; and, four, where
appropriate, establish procedures that permit legitimate international
adoption.
Like the Pearl S. Buck Initiative after the Korean War, we must work
to establish an institutional structure to help our governments work in
a cooperative manner for the good and well-being of the children.
Between now and conference, I hope that we will work together with
the administrator at USAID in order to assess the scope of the problem
of orphaned children of Bosnia. I strongly urge that this matter be
considered in conference in order to ensure that USAID addresses the
problem and work towards finding a solution. I urge USAID and other
appropriate organizations such as UNICEF to address this really
horrible stressful condition of many, many orphaned children in Bosnia.
I also would like to compliment the work of the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young) and his wife, Beverly, in working to help these children.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the
gentlewoman from New York for her comments and for bringing this matter
to our attention and to say that I am in complete agreement with what
she has said. I believe that Congress has to work with USAID to help
assess the problem in Bosnia and Herzegovina and work to develop a
solution.
I also just want to say that our full committee chairman, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and his wife, Beverly, as was noted,
have been working on this issue for many years. They have met with
heads of state. They have met with other high officials in Bosnia and
elsewhere in the region in attempts to get infants eligible for
adoption, and I think they have had some very notable success. I will
continue to work very closely with Chairman Young and his wife on this
matter as well and work with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Maloney) and other Members who have this interest.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
[[Page H4481]]
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2506)
making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and
related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________