[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18667-18692]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



     FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 263 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2606.

[[Page 18668]]



                              {time}  1640


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2606) making appropriations for foreign operations, export 
financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2000, and for other purposes, with Mr. Thornberry in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to open debate on H.R. 2606, the fiscal 
year 2000 appropriation bill for foreign operations, export financing, 
and other related programs.
  This bill is within the subcommittee allocation. It contains no 
emergency provisions, and it includes no earmarks. This bill reflects 
many priorities requested by Members of both parties, but it gives the 
President and the Secretary of State maximum flexibility to support 
American interests abroad.
  The bill before the House totals $12.624 billion. Like the past four 
foreign operations bills that I have managed, it is less than the bill 
that was enacted into law the previous year. In this instance, if we 
discount the emergency funding for Kosovo and Hurricane Mitch, as well 
as the International Monetary Fund, the bill is still some $200 million 
less than the amount enacted for 1999. If we include all of these 
items, this bill is $21 billion less than last year, a reduction of 
more than 60 percent, which Mr. Chairman, I believe is a record.
  This bill is almost $2 billion less than the President's request, and 
I understand that he may be requesting additional funds later this 
year. The fact is we have to live within our budget caps agreed to by 
the President and the Congress in 1997. Although foreign aid represents 
less than one-half of 1 percent of the Federal budget, $12.6 billion is 
the amount we have been allocated, and this bill reflects the 
committee's best recommendation on how to distribute that amount.
  This bill marks the second year of a 10-year program to phase out 
economic assistance to Israel and Egypt. The committee has rejected the 
administration's proposal to speed up the phaseout by 25 percent. At 
the same time, we are increasing military aid to Israel by a smaller 
amount. I would note that President Clinton and Prime Minister Barak 
now concur with the plan undertaken by this committee and the Congress 
last year.
  In the recent supplemental appropriation bill, Congress appropriated 
$431 million in emergency funds for refugees in the vicinity of Kosovo. 
Congress also made a generous provision in the supplemental for the 
reconstruction of the areas of Honduras and Nicaragua affected by 
Hurricane Mitch.
  While this bill provides for ongoing refugee and humanitarian aid 
programs worldwide, it does not include any funds for the long-term 
reconstruction of Kosovo and Southeastern Europe. We agree with 
President Clinton that Europe is responsible for that task.
  The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and I have written the 
President reminding him that the refugee funds were not appropriated by 
Congress for long-term reconstruction efforts in Kosovo.
  Having funded refugees and hurricane reconstruction in the 
supplemental, this bill has different priorities.

                              {time}  1645

  Significant increases above last year's level are limited to child 
survival and a renewed effort to reduce threats from infectious 
diseases and international narcotics trafficking.
  Further, we are proud to be leaders in the global effort to eradicate 
polio. Our committee, led by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), has led the way to eliminate the global spread of HIV/AIDS, 
and this is especially important to the future of Africa.
  This year, our committee recommends more attention to the threat 
posed by drug-resistant tuberculosis, and we recommend greater focus on 
the needs of orphans and displaced children. Dozens of Members have 
written to us about both matters. And, finally, the committee rejected 
the President's proposal to cut the American donation to UNICEF, the 
International Children's Fund.
  The committee report contains a number of recommendations and 
direction to the agencies that implement the activities funded in this 
bill.
  House Report 106-254 encourages continued economic cooperation with 
Latin America, a prime market for American exports. I will include in 
the Record a table from pages 15 and 16 of the report indicating the 
amount of assistance the bill provides for sub-Saharan Africa, an area 
of interest to many, many Members of Congress. I would also direct 
attention to the report language directed at the management of AID and 
at the Inter-American Foundation.
  One closing note. This is our 10th regular appropriations bill this 
year. In order to complete our work on time, we need to finish this 
bill tonight, however long it takes. I am aware of relatively few 
amendments to the four spending titles of the bill. Most of the known 
amendments are limitations that are taken up at the end of the debate. 
I reserve the right to seek to limit time on such amendments. The 
managers appreciate Members cooperating in moving this bill to 
completion today.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a detailed table 
showing the committee's recommendation.

[[Page 18669]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY99.002



[[Page 18670]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY99.003



[[Page 18671]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY99.004



[[Page 18672]]



                    ASSISTANCE FOR SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
Development Assistance................................      $460,000,000
Child Survival and Disease Prevention.................       275,000,000
African Development Foundation........................        14,400,000
International Disaster Assistance.....................        90,000,000
Peace Corps...........................................        54,500,000
Refugee and Migration programs........................       135,000,000
Debt forgiveness for Africa \1\.......................       160,000,000
UNICEF \2\............................................        54,000,000
African Development Fund..............................       100,000,000
International Development Association \3\.............       283,000,000
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................     1,625,900,000
 
\1\ $160,000,000 is the total amount of U.S. debt forgiven. The
  appropriation contained in this bill to cover the costs of debt
  forgiveness is $18,000,000.
\2\ UNICEF dedicated approximately 49 percent of its resources to sub-
  Saharan Africa in 1999. UNICEF expects this percentage to continue.
\3\ The IDA-12 replenishment targeted 50 percent of all IDA credits to
  sub-Saharan Africa countries.

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I wish to begin my remarks on the fiscal year 2000 foreign 
operations bill as I always do by complimenting the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for the manner in which he has developed this 
bill.
  Given the constraints of a low 302(b) allocation and the contentious 
policy issues that normally weigh this bill down, he has done an 
excellent job of balancing funding and policy considerations. Both the 
subcommittee and the full committee markups went as smoothly as could 
be expected for this bill, and that is a testament to his fairness and 
his bipartisanship.
  It is also a tribute to the bipartisanship on the Democratic side of 
the aisle, I might add, and I commend my fellow Members on the 
Democratic side. It is a pleasure to work with the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and his Republican colleagues on this bill.
  Having said that, I also want to make it clear that the total level 
of spending in the bill of $12.625 billion is not adequate to meet our 
national security requirements and will, I believe, seriously impair 
the President's ability to carry out an effective foreign policy. That 
is why the administration has put out a veto threat on the bill, that 
is one of the reasons, the underfunding.
  I have indicated my support for the bill on the basis that the 
chairman has been judicious in his distribution of the resources 
available to him. It will be necessary at a later time to provide 
additional resources for this bill to enable the United States to meet 
new challenges and maintain our leadership around the world. If that 
does not happen, I would have to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' at 
some later date in order to sustain a presidential veto.
  And another issue of contention is the Smith amendment. If the Smith 
amendment passes, and the Mexico City language is included in this 
legislation, I would then oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to do 
so also.
  The bill now contains only $100 million of the $1.4 billion requested 
to support the Wye River Accords. I would expect these funds to be 
included at a later stage in the process also when needed to implement 
the accords. There is also a need to address additional resources for 
other needs, such as support for the peace implementation efforts in 
and around Kosovo, and for meeting U.S. commitments on debt 
restructuring to poor countries.
  This is a very high priority for many of us in the Congress. The bill 
is, therefore, in my view, a work in progress. If additional resources 
are not forthcoming at a later time, I will be urging those who support 
this bill at this time to oppose it.
  The total recommendation of $12.625 billion is almost $2 billion 
below the President's request and is $715 million below last year's 
spending level for foreign assistance. The programs in the bill that 
are most severely underfunded include the Independent States of the 
Former Soviet Union; the International Development Association, IDA, 
which does so much to assist the poorest of the poor in Africa and 
other places in the world; AID's operating expenses; Debt 
Restructuring; the Global Environmental facility; and the Non-
proliferation, Anti-terrorism, and Demining account.
  On the positive side, the bill includes $680 million for the Child 
Survival and Diseases Program fund, known by us affectionately within 
the committee as the Callahan Account, which will enable the 
expenditure of $145 million to combat HIV/AIDS, as well as fund 
increased efforts against tuberculosis and other childhood diseases, 
such as measles and malaria. Of course, we would like to be doing more, 
and that is why we want the funding levels up.
  In addition, the bill includes $30 million for displaced children, 
orphans and blind children, which is an increase over last year, and I 
thank the chairman for that.
  The bill also includes funding for vitamin deficiency programs, polio 
eradication, and basic education. Poll after poll, Mr. Chairman, shows 
that the American people support well-directed humanitarian aid 
programs that assist poor children and the poor countries with basic 
human needs.
  While the bill does not contain a separate account for African 
development assistance, and I wish that it would, it does maintain last 
year's funding level for Africa. Maintaining last year's level is not a 
victory, but at least it did not get cut, as other programs have; and I 
would hope that as we go forward with the bill we will have an increase 
for Africa. The total, of all accounts, the bill provides $1.6 billion 
in assistance to Africa.
  With respect to the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union, 
the bill contains $725 million. This is far too low, well below last 
year's level, and $307 million below the President's request. This 
means serious cuts in the Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative and cuts 
to emerging republics, such as Armenia and Georgia, and reductions in 
programs that support small businesses, exchanges, and regional 
initiatives, which are also designed to develop a new generation of 
pro-reform leaders and institutional partnerships.
  Mr. Chairman, the cut to AID's operating expenses will scale back 
necessary security improvements. The cuts in the nonproliferation 
account will limit new initiatives for anti-terrorism, export controls, 
and demining.
  I mention all these, Mr. Chairman, so that our colleagues will know 
what the impact is of the underfunding of this bill.
  It provides only $50 million of the $143 million for the Global 
Environmental Facility. In addition, the cuts in the Development 
Assistance account will mean cuts to bilateral and environmental 
programs.
  The bill includes only $33 million of the $120 million requested for 
debt restructuring, and prohibits funding for the trust fund for the 
Highly Indebted Poor Countries, HIPC. This request was made before the 
recent historic agreement among the G-7 in Cologne, Germany, which has 
broad support from governments, multilateral institutions, and 
religious groups. Granting generous debt restructuring to the world's 
poorest countries, as called for in these new agreements, will be the 
most significant poverty alleviation action we can take in a 
generation. The amounts currently in the bill do not even put us on the 
playing field.
  I would hope that we could get it to a level where we could honor the 
Jubilee 2000 initiative goal of debt forgiveness in the months ahead.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been pointing out some of the deficiencies and 
some of the pluses in the bill. In the interest of time, I will submit 
the rest of my statement for the Record and just close by saying that 
this House takes pride in providing ample resources to the defense bill 
to protect our national security. The importance of an engaged foreign 
policy with the resources to back it up also protects our national 
security.
  In that interest, Mr. Chairman, I did want to just take a moment to 
acknowledge the tragedy of the plane that went down in Colombia and ask 
for just a moment of recognition for those brave young men who lost 
their lives. I respect their dedication to a dangerous task and would 
ask the House to take a moment to acknowledge their ultimate sacrifice.
  Mr. Chairman, President Kennedy said in his inaugural address in 
1961, and everybody in America knows this quote, President Kennedy 
said, ``My fellow Americans, ask not what our country can do for you, 
but what you can do for your country.'' But everybody does not know 
that the very next

[[Page 18673]]

sentence, the very next sentence the President said, and I was there to 
hear him when I was a college student in Washington, D.C., the very 
next sentence is, ``My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what 
America will do for you, but what we can do working together for the 
freedom of man.''
  Mr. Chairman, that is what we do in this bill and, hopefully, what we 
do in this Congress is to reach out to help promote the freedom of man 
throughout the world. This embodies what the bill is about or should be 
about.
  My colleagues, we have an obligation to move forward together to 
provide for a robust foreign assistance program that enhances our 
national security. This bill is a start and it should be supported, of 
course, unless the Smith amendment succeeds. However, we have a long 
way to go before the end of the year to finish the job.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the 
gentlewoman from California regarding her opening comments, and I would 
just say to her that I thank her very much for her very gracious 
comments. If I did not know better, Mr. Chairman, I would swear she was 
from Alabama, she is so gracious.
  The gentlewoman pointed out many of the good aspects of the bill. She 
noted a couple of things she did not agree with, but primarily they 
revolve around the fact that we cut President's Clinton's request by $2 
billion. I would remind the gentlewoman from California that we have to 
live within budget constraints, and that President Clinton wants to 
bust the budget. He can send such a message up here when we finish the 
appropriations process, but we are trying to save Social Security, we 
are trying to make sure Medicare is adequately funded, and we are 
trying to maintain a balanced budget at the same time. And I think to 
come from the original $10.4 billion to the $12.6 billion, where we are 
today, is right in the middle of compromise, which is what this body is 
all about.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
  I am not from Alabama, Mr. Chairman, but if I were, I know my 
colleague's fellow Alabamans would love to hear me say that we are not 
spending enough money on foreign policy, and we certainly want to 
prevent another Kosovo and prevent spending billions of dollars, and we 
want to save lives instead of spending money on defense.
  This is about our national security. And, also, we do not need a tax 
cut.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Porter), who is a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama 
for yielding me this time and for his excellent work in developing this 
bill. He and his staff have worked very hard to meet the numerous 
concerns of many Members, including this Member.
  I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this is the first time in my 19-year 
tenure in Congress where I have not sought to amend the foreign 
operations bill at any point in the process. Since the gentleman from 
Alabama took over the helm of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, 
Export Financing and Related Programs, he and his staff have shown 
great patience in addressing my concerns, and I truly appreciate this.
  I am pleased with the language of this bill and report supporting the 
furtherance of the peace process among Armenia, Nagorno-Karabagh and 
Azerbaijan. I remain, however, deeply disappointed in the 
administration's role in furthering this peace process.
  I also support the committee's recommendation of $15 million for 
Cyprus and the condemnation of the remarks made by the leader of the 
Turkish Cypriots.
  I am also very pleased with the committee's continued assistance on 
limiting Guatemala and Indonesia to expanded IMET as well as the 
committee's attention and support of environmental and women's issues 
within the development assistance account.

                              {time}  1700

  Finally, and I will expand on each of these areas in the remarks I 
submit for the Record, I strongly support the committee's funding for 
aid to Israel. We are at a critical and, hopefully, promising point in 
the Middle East peace process. I am hopeful that we will ultimately be 
able to fund the Wye agreement and support Prime Minister Barak as he 
actively works toward implementing this agreement and making new 
agreements in the peace process.
  However, while I support these items and others in the bill, I remain 
concerned about the overall funding level. The United States continues 
to enjoy the strongest economy ever, and yet the money we spend on 
foreign assistance continues to shrink. We are the strongest, most 
economically productive Nation on Earth; and yet we are shunning 
leadership in promoting and supporting the values we cherish most: 
democracy, human rights, and the rule of law and free markets in other 
parts of the world.
  Continuing to reduce our support for foreign assistance activities, 
in my judgment, not only wastes previous U.S. investment but 
effectively pulls the rug out from under nongovernmental organizations 
that have worked for years to build trust and to promote important 
programs in the developing world that have saved lives and improved 
countless lives.
  If we want to encourage others to respect human rights, protect their 
environment, and promote democracy, we must be engaged. Among bilateral 
donor countries, the U.S. provides among the least in foreign 
assistance in comparison to gross domestic product. This, in my 
judgment, is deplorable and only shows ignorance towards the increasing 
impact that the rest of the world has on health and productivity in the 
United States.
  I hope that that trend can be reversed as we plan our leadership role 
in the world for the next century.
  Again, on the whole, I support this bill and the excellent work of my 
colleague from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). He was presented with a very 
difficult task and has succeeded in rising to the challenge.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama for his 
excellent work in developing this bill. He and his staff have worked 
very hard to meet the numerous concerns of many Members, including this 
Member.
  I think that this is the first time, in my nineteen-year tenure in 
Congress, where I have not sought to amend the Foreign Operations bill 
at any point in the process. Since the Gentleman from Alabama took over 
the helm of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, he and his staff have 
shown great patience in addressing my concerns and I truly appreciate 
this.
  In particular, I am pleased with language in this Bill and Report 
supporting the furtherance of the peace process among Armenia, Nagorno-
Karabagh and Azerbaijan. Although it appeared that forward movement of 
process was at a standstill earlier in the year, limited talks have 
resumed among the parties and I hold out hope for a peace agreement.
  I remain extremely disappointed in the Administration's role in 
furthering this peace process. As indicated in the Committee's Report, 
I am appalled that the State Department would transfer their Special 
Negotiator to another desk without announcing a replacement. As 
Presidents Kocharian and Aliyev hopefully continue discussions, I hope 
that the U.S. will do everything possible to facilitate a lasting 
peace.
  I also support the Committee's recommendation of fifteen million 
dollars for Cyprus and condemnation of the remarks made by leader of 
the Turkish Cypriots. This is another serious conflict that Turkey must 
recognize and the U.S. should work to facilitate peace on this island.
  I am also very pleased with the Committee's continued insistence on 
limiting Guatemala and Indonesia to expanded-IMET as well as the 
Committee's attention and support of environmental and women's issues 
within the development assistance account.
  Finally, I strongly support the Committee's funding for aid to 
Israel. We are at a critical and hopefully promising point in the 
Middle East peace process. It is imperative that the U.S. continue to 
support the peace process

[[Page 18674]]

and remain solid in its support of the parties. I am hopeful that we 
will ultimately be able to fund the Wye Agreement and support Prime 
Minister Barak as he actively works towards implementing this 
agreement.
  However, while I support these and other items in this bill, I remain 
very concerned about the overall funding level. The United States 
continues to enjoy the strongest economy ever, yet the money we spend 
on foreign assistance continues to shrink.
  Throughout the history of our country, we have waged wars and 
defended other nations to protect the values we cherish: democracy, 
human rights, the rule of law and free markets. Now, we have arrived at 
the point of being the strongest, most economically productive nation 
on Earth--and we are shunning leadership in promoting and supporting 
our values in other parts of the world.
  Some may argue that the U.S. has already invested enough in the 
developing world, especially now, after the conflict in Kosovo. That is 
just the point. We have already invested a great deal which should not 
be squandered at this critical time.
  The extensive network of international and community-based non-
governmental organizations that utilize funds from the U.S. Agency for 
International Development have finally established roots and are making 
great progress in improving the lives of millions.
  Continuing to reduce our support for these activities will not only 
waste previous U.S. investment but effectively pull the rug out from 
under organizations that have worked for years to build trust and 
promote important programs in the developing world. If we want to 
encourage others to respect human rights, protect their environment and 
promote democracy, we must be engaged.
  Among bilateral donor countries, the U.S. provides among the least in 
foreign assistance in comparison to GDP. This is deplorable and only 
show ignorance towards the increasing impact that the rest of the world 
has on the health and productivity of the United States. I hope that 
this trend can be reversed as we plan our leadership role in the world 
for the next century.
  Again, on the whole, I support this bill and the excellent work for 
my colleague from Alabama. He was presented with a very difficult task 
and has succeeded in rising to the challenge.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the leader on the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2606.
  I want to commend both our chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan), and our ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), for the hard work they have put into crafting this bill. I 
believe they have done the best they could with a very bad situation.
  Very simply, the allocation handed down to our subcommittee by the 
leadership was just too low. In fact, when we started this process, our 
allocation was only $10.3 billion, about $3.4 billion lower than last 
year's enacted level.
  The members of our committee, Republican and Democrat alike, made 
very clear that a foreign aid bill with that low an allocation was just 
not sufficient. And today we are working with a number that is a full 
20 percent higher than the original allocation. In fact, it is $100 
million higher than the foreign aid bill that passed the House last 
year. But by no means does that make this a great bill. It is still 
woefully underfunded.
  I just want to highlight a few of the bill's biggest problems that I 
hope we can address in conference. During full committee markup of this 
bill, the leadership pushed through a $200 million cut in IDA, the arm 
of the World Bank that provides loans to the poorest of the poor around 
the world.
  IDA, which is now funded at $226 million below the administration's 
requested level, provides the World Bank's lending on primary health 
care, basic education, and microcredit, and a number of other critical 
development programs.
  The International Organizations and Programs account, which includes 
funding for the United Nations Development Program, is $25 million 
below the administration's request. At this level, UNDP could not hope 
to be funded at anywhere near the $100 million it received last year.
  Underfunding UNDP threatens U.S. leadership in this critical 
organization and hurts UNDP's efforts to address some of the world's 
development issues around the world.
  This bill does not include the Wye River Agreement aid package. This 
aid package is a critical component of advancing the Middle East peace 
process and preventing violence in the region.
  We all have such high hopes for Prime Minister Barak's ability to 
jump-start the peace process that it would be foolish of us to turn our 
backs on the commitments we made at Wye.
  I think it is very clear that the bill does need some serious work. 
But it is important, my colleagues, to pass it today, send it to 
conference; and there we can fix what we believe is wrong.
  I fully expect that we shall increase the level of funding for the 
full range of our important foreign assistance programs, and I will 
fight hard with my colleagues for the Wye aid package and ensure that 
there are no killer restrictions on our international family planning 
programs.
  If these problems are not fixed before the final version of the bill 
is sent to the White House, the President will veto it; and we are very 
concerned that all the good things in this bill will not become a 
reality.
  So, my colleagues, for now the right thing to do is to vote for this 
bill, move the process along, and let us hope that we can correct these 
inequities which I have mentioned in the conference and pass a really 
good bill.
  Again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gracious gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey) for her comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Knollenberg) who is an outstanding member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2606, the fiscal year 
2000 appropriations bill for foreign operations, export financing, and 
related agencies.
  As a member of this subcommittee, I want to commend my good friend 
from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) for all of his hard work. Shepherding 
this kind of a bill, an appropriations bill at that, through this 
process is not easy. Yet this man has done it, I think, with diligence 
and impartiality. That speaks highly of the gentleman from Alabama 
(Chairman Callahan).
  I also want to extend congratulatory thanks to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member, who, along with the entire 
subcommittee and the staff, has helped to bring about a bill that has 
been crafted, I think, to do the best for this country.
  As members of this subcommittee, we have all worked in a bipartisan 
fashion to craft this foreign operations bill that reflects our 
Nation's international priorities while adhering to the budget 
constraints that we face today.
  In addition to addressing the need in such areas as child survival 
and international narcotic control, this bill focuses funding on our 
most important foreign aid priorities and maintains the integrity of 
our vital national security needs.
  This bill again highlights congressional concern over North Korea and 
the dangerous activities of this rogue nation. Despite the 1994 Agreed 
Framework and North Korea's commitment to end its nuclear program, 
Pyongyang remains determined to develop weapons of mass destruction and 
the delivery systems that threaten ourselves and our allies.
  In fact, even the administration acknowledges that next month North 
Korea is planning to test a missile capable of reaching U.S. territory. 
If this test proves successful, it will be the first time in our 
history that a rogue nation will have the capability to deliver a 
warhead within U.S. borders.
  The risk to the United States inherent in this capability is 
unacceptable, and this bill takes strong action to address it.

[[Page 18675]]

  The 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea, I believe, has failed, 
leaving Americans less secure today than they were 5 years ago. We are 
now forced to face the dangerous consequences of North Korea's broken 
commitments. Before another dime of U.S. taxpayer money is spent on 
this flawed agreement, North Korea must live up to its end of the 
bargain.
  The U.S. must send a strong signal by conditioning any aid to North 
Korea on real and verifiable proof that it has ended its dangerous 
ballistic missile and nuclear programs.
  The bill also maintains the U.S. commitment to the Middle East peace 
process, as has been noted, and our long-standing ally, Israel. It 
provides resources for the resettlement of former Soviet, East European 
and other refugees in Israel. This refugee resettlement program 
provides initial food, clothing, and shelter to Jewish migrants fleeing 
from areas of distress.
  I am proud of the role that Congress has taken to provide those in 
need with the means to begin a new life in Israel.
  In addition, while U.S. support for peace in the Middle East is 
reaffirmed, the bill contains a historic effort to eliminate the 
region's long-standing reliance on U.S. economic aid.
  I would also like to highlight provisions of this bill that deal with 
the ongoing conflict in the Caucasus. Unfortunately, many Americans do 
not know the history of this small, troubled region of the former 
Soviet Union; but this conflict will continue to have a direct impact 
on the interest of both its neighboring countries and the United 
States.
  I am proud to have worked with the subcommittee to craft a 
productive, positive approach that will facilitate the peace process in 
the Caucasus and reinforce the U.S. role as an unbiased mediator in the 
peace process.
  Despite the lack of broad recognition, each of us has a vested 
interest in the outcome of the Caucasus. U.S. interest can best be 
served through swift and meaningful resolution to the conflicts 
plaguing this troubled region. And that is precisely the approach that 
this bill takes.
  By pursuing meaningful, confidence-building measures between Armenia, 
Azerbaijan, and Nagorno Karabagh and also keeping the administration 
fully engaged in this part of the world, we may finally see this region 
free of bloodshed and conflict and rich with prosperity and 
opportunity.
  The subject of foreign aid often sparks heated debate on this floor. 
While we all have strong opinions about a number of programs, I would 
ask my colleagues not to let heated discussions about details keep us 
from the business at hand. We need to unite behind this fair bill that 
will maintain U.S. leadership and strengthen our influence across the 
globe.
  I ask for Members on both sides of the aisle to support this bill.
  Again, I want to thank the chairman, the staff, the ranking member 
for all of the effort they have made in an extraordinary fashion.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a member of 
the subcommittee.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I want to first start off thanking the 
gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and his staff for working 
with us in a bipartisan way. And a special thanks to my ranking member, 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who has certainly shown 
her leadership and allowed me to participate in the process adequately.
  This bill before us today, this foreign operations bill, I am told 
sometimes takes a day and a half and hours to complete. As my first 
year on this subcommittee, I found that working with the chairman and 
ranking member and working with the two sides to be quite enjoyable as 
well as educational.
  While I support the bill and have in committee, I always said that it 
was underfunded. And we said that from our side of the aisle. I say to 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), although we respect his hard 
work, we believe it is underfunded.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) in his earlier remarks 
stated that this country still provides less foreign aid around the 
world than any of the other developed GA countries in the world. We can 
do better.
  But I want to commend our chairman and ranking member for increasing 
our appropriations to Africa for the first time, a continent with over 
750 million people who are in dire need.
  Some of the poorest of the poorest countries, as said by Mr. 
Wolfensohn earlier this week as we had breakfast with him, President of 
the World Bank, debt relief, yes, they need it. But it is not a 
panacea. What they need is education and health services and other 
kinds of attention paid to their country so that their people and their 
children can come up into the 21st century.
  It is important that as we move this foreign operations bill forward 
we let everyone know that, yes, it is a good bill and it was worked on 
bipartisanly, but it does still need more funding.
  We are very concerned about the $200 million that was cut from full 
appropriations from the IDA account, which again is money that goes to 
the poorest of the poorest nations so that those children and those 
nations can be educated, can have the health services that they need.
  We are concerned about the Smith amendment that will be coming up 
this afternoon. It is unfair. We hope that it will not be attached to 
this wonderful bill that we have worked out to date.
  HIV-AIDS, a curse as we move to the 21 century, devastating the 
African continent today, India tomorrow, the U.S., and countries around 
this world. Will we do our part as American citizens, the finest 
country in the world, to provide the assistance, the education, the 
treatment, the research that we know to get rid of this dreaded 
disease?
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for 
his leadership and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the 
ranking member, for her concern and her leadership as we work in a 
bipartisan way.
  This Congress can work on good legislation bipartisanly when we work 
together and commit to doing that. Thanks to the staffs. Thanks to our 
ranking member.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gracious gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. 
Kilpatrick) for her comments and I tell my colleagues that it has been 
a pleasure working with a Member of Congress who has grasped this 
complicated system of legislation that we have here in the United 
States Congress in a very short period of time, never forsaking her 
principles, but at the same time understanding and working toward 
bipartisan agreement on every issue that she can.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman) the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing and Related Programs.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the efforts of the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan) the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs for 
especially operations, and his staff and the members of the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations for their efforts in drawing 
attention to the critical economic situation affecting our friends in 
the Balkans.
  Most of us are proud of the cooperation and joint efforts we have 
made to provide funding and support for the regional programs that aid 
those most in need. The economic challenges facing that region have 
only been exacerbated by recent events in Kosovo.

                              {time}  1715

  As the NATO forces continue their efforts to stabilize the peace in 
Kosovo, it is also imperative to look beyond the end of the conflict. 
We need to work to find programs that will help restore the economic 
foundation of these nations and, more importantly, to help restore the 
economic foundation that will enable the refugees to rebuild their 
lives.

[[Page 18676]]

  Permit me to draw my colleagues' attention to a particular effort 
that has demonstrated great potential to help restore the economic 
foundation to these front-line Balkan states.
  The Rochester Institute of Technology started a program 2 years ago 
called the American College of Management and Technology. Located in 
Dubrovnik, Croatia, this college has enjoyed great success in 
introducing new training and educational opportunities for the 
residents of the front-line states in tourism and management.
  The program has been at capacity since it began. It focuses on a 
cooperative work experience that places students with world renowned 
organizations. This cooperative experience objective is to facilitate 
the infusion into the workforce of people who are educated in American 
economic values and work ethic, and through them speed the shift to 
contemporary entrepreneurial practices and, in turn, enhance the 
economic growth of the region.
  Building upon the successes in their program, the ACMT has plans to 
expand the program to provide support to young refugees from Albania, 
Kosovo, Montenegro and Macedonia, thereby giving them a brighter future 
and the ability to help rebuild their homeland states. I would like to 
commend the college for its efforts in establishing that program. It 
truly merits Federal support.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the distinguished gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, to comment on this 
fine program.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I thank the gentleman from New York for his kind words. 
I would encourage USAID to review proposals to fund a Federal 
partnership with the college that would allow for the expansion of this 
program to address some of the training needs of the refugees from 
Kosovo, Montenegro and Macedonia.
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for his support of this initiative. 
I would hope that in conference with the Senate on the fiscal year 2000 
bill, we would carefully review their proposal for a $2.5 million 
program that would help the economic recovery of this region.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I can assure the chairman of the 
Committee on International Relations that I will do the best I can to 
bring this proposal to the attention of AID.
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the distinguished gentleman for his assurances 
and support.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased to note in this bill that there is 
full funding of the administration's request for international 
narcotics control, and in particular the report language supporting the 
badly needed supply plane for the dedicated Colombian National Police 
antidrug unit so that they can maximize the use of the Black Hawk 
utility helicopters soon to be delivered to them.
  I also note that the committee is critical of the intelligence 
service in Peru in the INL account, but it should be noted that little 
if any money has gone to that particular entity in their fight against 
drugs. It would be a mistake to overlook the fact that Peru in the last 
few years has reduced coca production by nearly 60 percent to end their 
long-held world leadership in coca production.
  With regard to narcotics eradication, I note that the Senate bill has 
follow-on funding for the mycoherbicide drug eradication initiative 
that I believe holds a long-term potential to save billions of dollars 
and thousands of lives. I hope that in conference we will support the 
$10 million provided by the Senate for that program in fiscal year 
2000.
  Again, I want to commend the chairman and ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs for their outstanding work on this measure.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise in a moment of passion, passion for the greatest aid that this 
country gives countries in need all over the world, and that is the 
passion I have for the United States Peace Corps.
  Peace Corps volunteers serve at the invitation of host countries. 
Guess what? Countries want more Peace Corps. About 6,000 volunteers are 
currently serving in about 80 countries.
  Last year, in this country, 150,000 U.S. citizens inquired about 
whether they could serve in the United States Peace Corps. For my 
friends on the other side of the aisle who are supply siders, this is 
very simple. The demand is there and the supply is there. What stands 
between that demand and that supply is the budget of the United States 
Congress and how much we will appropriate to the Peace Corps. Guess 
what? What we have appropriated is not enough.
  I thank the chairman of the subcommittee. The gentleman from Alabama 
is a good listener. He is producing a good bill, it is a work in 
progress, and we are going to make it better. He has done a better job 
than our colleagues in the other house.
  I just got out of a cab in D.C. I came from a Peace Corps good-bye to 
the director, Mark Gearan. The cab driver said, ``I'm in the United 
States because I had two teachers in Ethiopia, Peace Corps volunteers. 
The gift I'm going to give back is my son who is an American citizen 
who is going to serve in the Peace Corps.''
  On behalf of returning Peace Corps volunteers who are now Members of 
Congress, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and myself, we ask that you try to 
add more, at least what the Peace Corps asked for and what they need.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend the 
gentleman for his comments and for his hard work, especially in Central 
America, and also commend Mark Gearan who is retiring as the head of 
the Peace Corps. I think Director Gearan has done an outstanding job.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. 
Hill).
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time. Let me echo my comments on the fine work the gentleman 
from Alabama has done on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for a counterdrug 
initiative that would be funded through the State Department Bureau of 
International Law Enforcement Affairs. This initiative uses naturally 
occurring mycoherbicides to eradicate illicit drug crops at their 
source. It was supported in the Senate Foreign Operations bill. I know 
that the gentleman from Alabama is familiar with this program.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes, I am.
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mycoherbicides are safe and they do not kill 
other crops as do the chemicals that are currently being used in 
countries in Latin America. I ask that the gentleman from Alabama take 
into account the positive impact this initiative will have on the 
environment as well as our war on drugs as he considers this issue in 
conference.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HILL of Montana. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes, I am aware of the potential of this program to 
fight narcotics. As the gentleman knows, with my support Congress 
provided $10 million for this purpose in the emergency supplemental 
bill earlier this year. I am hopeful that the State Department will 
soon obligate those funds so that this important research can be 
undertaken expeditiously.
  Mr. HILL of Montana. I thank the gentleman from Alabama.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), a distinguished member of the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs.

[[Page 18677]]


  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to commend the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) and other members of the Subcommittee on 
Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the 
Committee on Appropriations for the bipartisan, collegial spirit 
evident during our hearings and the subcommittee markup. As a new 
member of the subcommittee, I feel privileged to have worked with such 
a fine group of members.
  We all know this is a very difficult budget year and I am grateful to 
the gentleman from Alabama for his evenhanded approach to drafting the 
Foreign Operations bill. Although I would have liked to see additional 
funding to be provided for Africa in the bill, at the very least 
funding for Africa was maintained at a freeze. Many of my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle will agree that for us to maintain our position 
as a global leader, we must continue to lead the world in assisting 
those countries that need the most help.
  I am concerned, however, about three particular areas of this bill, 
the Development Fund for Africa in the Development Assistance section 
of the bill; the Africa Development Bank; and the Africa Development 
Fund. I am most disappointed that the bill does not fulfill the 
administration's and my request to reinstate the Development Fund for 
Africa as a separate line item as it was several years ago. Many 
nations on the continent of Africa are making unprecedented progress 
toward democratic rule and open markets and with the Development Fund 
for Africa included as a separate account, funding would be assured to 
remain focused on the long-term problems and development priorities of 
our African partners.
  Although there have been numerous concerns in the past about 
management of the Africa Development Bank, I know that strides have 
been made. I feel it is unwise to completely zero out funding for the 
bank at this time when they are working diligently to address the 
management problems.
  I am encouraged that the Africa Development Fund received a level 
allocation from last year. However, the Africa Development Fund helps 
the poorest of the poor countries, and I had hoped that the committee 
would have provided a higher number.
  I cannot stress enough how much I have enjoyed working this year on 
this Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs and I look forward to future work with my colleagues as we 
address the problems and concerns of the developing world.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama for his outstanding job 
and the gentlewoman from California, and I want to encourage all of my 
colleagues in light of these amendments to follow the gentlewoman from 
California on these votes.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill. I 
thank the gentleman from Alabama and the gentlewoman from California 
for their diligence and their efforts on our behalf.
  I have an amendment which would withhold funding for the introduction 
of our Armed Forces into hostile situations unless the situation 
represents a clear threat to our strategic national interest. This 
amendment reflects the foreign policy that successfully guided our 
Nation through the Cold War. Based on a set of six firm principles, 
this policy was designed by President Reagan's Secretary of Defense 
Caspar Weinberger. The rule today does not allow me to offer this 
amendment, but I will ask that it be printed in the Record.
  Just 1 month ago, Air Force Chief of Chief General Michael Ryan 
explained to Congress that while the Air Force could meet our Nation's 
emergency needs, its short-term operations tempo had to be greatly 
reduced. This is one of many reports of degradation in our force's 
readiness that are common because of the widening gap between our 
Nation's global security obligations and the resources provided to meet 
these obligations. Every Member in this body knows that under this 
administration, we are increasingly asking our men and women to do more 
with less.
  Fortunately, this Congress recognized that our forces are stretched 
to the limit and are on the brink of exhaustion. We recently took the 
much needed step of increasing our budget to address the services' long 
list of critical unfunded requirements. We must also review and scale 
down an American foreign policy which is increasingly expansive.
  There is no doubt that the United States is the anchor for the 
world's democracies. We proudly accept this responsibility and seek to 
promote the American ideal of freedom in every corner of the world. 
Unfortunately over the past decade, fulfilling our security obligations 
has become confused with a policy of policing the world. It is not the 
responsibility of the United States and her forces, nor should it be, 
to extinguish every political flare-up around the globe.
  This administration continues its attempts to reduce our force 
structure, it increases our military's operational tempo and 
involvement around the world. Over the past 8 years, our forces have 
endured a rate of deployment never before experienced in our Nation's 
history. Our men and women in uniform have been called to arms for 
``operational events'' no less than 26 times since 1991 as compared to 
10 times in the previous 30 years. The number of missions is almost 
countless. From Somalia to Haiti, Rwanda to Bosnia and most recently 
Kosovo, this administration has placed American men and women in harm's 
way without a defined objective. This fly-by-the-seat-of-our-pants form 
of diplomacy is extremely dangerous, particularly when the lives of 
Americans are at stake.
  Secretary Weinberger wisely taught this Nation that American idealism 
does not always reflect our national security. While we seek to 
undermine political oppression and overthrow political tyranny, we 
cannot, in every instance, commit American force. We simply do not have 
the resources and, quite frankly, it is not our place. This policy is 
also counterproductive because it discourages our allies and others 
from paying their share and playing their part.
  Secretary Weinberger provided us a model that would prevent seemingly 
reckless military deployments. I believe it should be dusted off and 
used again by this administration and administrations to come. The 
Weinberger Doctrine calls for the engagement of our forces only: In 
defense of our own vital interests; with a clear intention of winning; 
with defined objectives; with continual reassessment of the conditions 
and our goals; with the overwhelming support of the American people and 
the Congress; and as a last resort.
  To many Americans this may seem elementary. In fact, most Americans 
believe these six premises compose the guiding principles that 
underscore our current foreign policy. As all of us know, this is 
unfortunately not the case.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not offer the amendment today, but I am 
committed to returning the Weinberger Doctrine to American foreign 
policy, and I intend to offer it in the future. I encourage all of my 
colleagues to review this doctrine, support it, and would urge the 
administration to adopt it.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the amendment I would have offered, as 
follows:

                  Amendment to H.R. 2606, as Reported

                 Offered by Mr. Hayes of North Carolina

       Page 116, after line 5, insert the following:


 adherence to a consistent policy with respect to the introduction of 
           united states armed forces into hostile situations

       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be made available for the 
     introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities 
     or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities 
     is clearly indicated by the circumstances unless such 
     introduction meets the following requirements:
       (1) The introduction of Armed Forces adheres to the 
     ``Weinberger Doctrine'', the philosophy of former Secretary 
     of Defense Caspar Weinberger, which states--

[[Page 18678]]

       (A) such introduction of Armed Forces should take place 
     only if the vital national interests of the United States are 
     in jeopardy;
       (B) the commitment to introduce the Armed Forces should be 
     framed around clearly defined political and military 
     objectives;
       (C) prior to such introduction of Armed Forces, there 
     should exist a reasonable assurance that the President will 
     have the support of the people of the United States and their 
     elected representative in Congress for such introduction;
       (D) such introduction of Armed Forces should be a last 
     resort;
       (E) such introduction of Armed Forces should be done 
     wholeheartedly and in a manner by which the Armed Forces have 
     an overwhelming superiority so that a swift victory is 
     virtually certain; and
       (F) the President should continually reassess and, if 
     necessary, readjust the commitment to introduce the Armed 
     Forces if conditions and objectives invariably change after 
     such introduction; and
       (2) The President, after the mission of the Armed Forces 
     has been defined and the Armed Forces have been introduced, 
     allows senior general officers of the Armed Forces to carry 
     out the mission in an unhindered manner.

                              {time}  1730

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), a new Member to Congress, but a great 
champion for our country.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this 
time to me and appreciate her kind words.
  Mr. Chairman, in this bill we should be supporting international 
family planning and opposing efforts to gag or block international 
family planning because those efforts will surely lead to more 
unintended pregnancies. Accordingly, I rise to oppose the Smith 
amendment and to support the Greenwood-Lowey amendment.
  The amendment to be offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith) would gag foreign nongovernmental organizations in the private 
actions they take as private organizations to spend private money to 
pursue their goals. The amendment to be offered by the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is unnecessary, at least as it affects United 
States money, which is already prohibited from these uses, as 
Greenwood-Lowey would continue.
  It is wrong to stifle public debate in this way. It is 
micromanagement. The real target is family planning.
  The amendment to be offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith) would make it harder to conduct family planning, to avoid 
unintended pregnancies. It is a mistake; it should be opposed. 
Greenwood-Lowey should be supported.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his important 
statement, and I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to take this opportunity to 
express my strong support for the Seeds of Peace International Camp, 
located in my congressional district and its related programs. This 
innovative program takes Arab and Israeli teenagers from the Middle 
East to a small camp in rural Maine to teach them communication 
teamwork, conflict resolution skills. Since it opened in 1993, more 
than a thousand young people have graduated, and 400 more will be 
completing the program this summer. I have been to this camp and met 
with these children, and I can unequivocally say that this camp 
deserves this body's full support. The cultural connections and 
friendships forged in Maine will last a lifetime.
  Seeds of Peace is a small but growing force of hope amidst the hatred 
and despair that has for all too long mired relations between the 
nations of the Middle East. While the current peace process is 
critically important to achieving peace in the region, Seeds of Peace 
will create an environment that will sustain a lasting peace because it 
will mend differences in fostering understanding where it counts most, 
between individuals.
  I am pleased that, year by year, this innovative and desperately 
needed program is gaining political and financial support. I strongly 
support public funding for the International camp and its other 
programs as they are clearly one of the best uses of our foreign aid 
dollars. I am pleased with the report language contained in this bill 
supporting this program.
  I thank Chairman Callahan and Ranking Member Pelosi for their support 
of this program which gives these future leaders the tools they need to 
forge a lasting peace in the Middle East. Thank you.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Brown) for the purpose of engaging in colloquy with the 
distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I will yield an additional 1 minute to 
the gentlewoman from Florida.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy 
with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). I want to take a moment 
to raise the issue of American prisoners being held overseas.
  I want to commend the chairman for including language in this report 
that required the Secretary of State to report on whether American 
citizens have not been able to receive fair trials in Ecuador as well 
as the evaluation of whether foreign assistance to Ecuador has an 
impact on the lawfulness of the Ecuador justice system.
  As the gentleman is aware, Mr. Chairman, I have visited Ecuador three 
times in the past 2 years, and the disregard for fair or even speedy 
trials have become a crisis in this country. I am very disturbed that 
many people, especially Americans, are asked to pay bribes to ensure 
innocent finding. One American in particular, Mr. Jim Williams of 
Jacksonville Beach, has had very little chance at justice since he was 
imprisoned almost 3 years ago. His family have struggled to help Mr. 
Williams get a fair trial, but they have faced a maze of corruption in 
addition to unreliable policy and a justice system that does not 
function.
  This is a very complicated problem that affects many Americans in 
Ecuador. However, a big part of the solution involves the United 
States. I hope this report will help our government understand the 
limitations of the Ecuador justice system as well as the far-reaching 
impact of our drug policy on countries like Ecuador. With limited 
resources and corruption in judiciary, I look forward to learning the 
results of this study and thank my colleague for its inclusion in this 
report.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for 
her concern about Mr. Williams' plight in Ecuador, and I certainly 
share her concerns. We have expressed our discontent with the 
administration's handling of the Williams case. I have met with the 
Williams family. We need a quick, fair judicial resolve, to this issue; 
and I certainly will support the gentlewoman in any endeavor that we 
can undertake to make certain that this gentleman receives a fair trial 
in an expeditious manner.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Alabama.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the gentlewoman that the 
gentleman from Alabama has been attentive to this issue. Indeed, we 
visited Ecuador and spoke to the authorities there, the U.S. counsel 
there, about this subject. So when the gentleman says he is looking 
into it, as my colleagues know, indeed he is.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Radanovich).
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize and address 
the continued contributions made by the Republic of Croatia. Croatia 
emerged from years of oppressive Communist control in 1991 and approved 
a new constitution and elected a parliament. Croatia's modern 
parliamentary democracy is charged with guaranteeing fundamental human 
rights, freedom of expression and respect for private property. Croatia 
has also been a loyal and

[[Page 18679]]

valuable ally of the United States, as we have recently witnessed 
during the Kosovo crisis. Having a reliable partner in the strategic 
and volatile region of southeastern Europe can only help to prevent 
future crises and aggression.
  Croatia deserves commendation for its clear desire to stand with the 
United States and the West, as evidenced by its support of U.S.-NATO 
policy in the Balkans including S-4 and Operation Allied Force.
  People, few people, realize how helpful Croatia was during NATO's 
Operation Allied Force. Croatia closed its oil pipelines to Yugoslavia, 
which was later recognized as a key element in Milosevic's decision to 
surrender. Croatia opened its airspace and its ports for NATO's 
unrestricted use. Croatia also emerged as one of the most vocal 
advocates for stability in southeastern Europe during the negotiations 
and on the newly launched stability pact for that region.
  Croatia meets all the requirements for partnership for peace 
especially regarding defense related cooperation, perhaps even more so 
than some of its current members. Croatia should be evaluated for 
membership in the partnership for peace at the earliest possible 
opportunity. I believe that the United States should work closely with 
Croatia to ensure that every opportunity is provided.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a member of the Committee on 
International Relations and a champion on human rights throughout the 
world.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from California an 
additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for five 
minutes.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California for 
yielding me this time.
  First, I would like to just say that the chairman and the ranking 
member and the entire Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing and Related Programs have done an incredible job of trying to 
put together an equitable bill under really outrageous conditions where 
they have been told that they have a funding limit which constitutes a 
$2 billion reduction over the administration's request; a $700 million 
reduction over this year's appropriated level; and many, many billions 
of dollars in reductions over what funding levels were several years 
ago. So, I have no argument with the bill that they have presented, 
given the cards that they were dealt.
  I am here to urge support for the bill and an aye vote on final 
passage, but I do have to say that two things could make me change my 
mind if the bill came back from conference committee: one, with 
inadequate funding levels, without some relief from the conditions 
under which the Committee on International Relations were required to 
put this bill; and, secondly, were the amendment to be offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) to be adopted.
  In either one of those cases, I would think that at conference when 
the bill comes back from conference we should take a second look at 
this question, and my hope is that the administration, working with the 
appropriators, will deal with some of the critical shortfalls that do 
exist in this bill.
  And at the same time I have to say the bill fully funds the Camp 
David countries, Israel and Egypt; it provides a partial funding for 
Jordan under the Wye request. It is our understanding that the Wye 
request and the appropriations which I consider critically important 
will be dealt with at the time of the conference committees, whether 
they come from the 150 or the 050 account; but somewhere in the context 
of all of this, before this Congress leaves this year, we think it is 
very important that that should be funded. The increase in funding for 
child survival programs even in the context of the severe limitations 
is badly needed; the same with UNICEF.
  So I think there is a lot of important provisions in this bill. There 
are a lot of deficiencies. The gentlewoman from California has touched 
on a number of them. I would like to see more money in the refugee and 
migration assistance account, Peace Corps is underfunded, a number of 
other provisions; but I will not belabor that at this point.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. As my colleagues know, I think the gentleman from 
California is a super individual and I have expressed that to him on 
many occasions. But let me remind my colleague the only way we can 
balance the budget, the only way we can save Medicare, the only way we 
can save Social Security is to cut back on spending, and that also 
means foreign affairs, foreign aid.
  So I appreciate the gentleman's philosophy.
  Mr. BERMAN. Reclaiming my time, I say to the gentleman from Alabama I 
think he is super too, but I have to say if America is going to 
maintain its leadership in the world, a number of things have to 
happen. If we are going to continue to try and promote democracy and 
respect for human rights and development of human potential around the 
world, we have to put resources into this. I do not believe for a 
second that funding the foreign assistance at the level the 
administration has requested will in any way hurt our ability to 
continue to balance our budget, save Social Security, reform Medicare, 
and do the other things we need to do. This is small potatoes in the 
context of the whole budget, and let me just add one thing.
  The problem is we get ourselves into a cycle. Originally, the 
Committee on Foreign Operations was given an incredibly low allocation 
of $10.4 billion. The chairman with his valiant efforts, I assume, all 
of a sudden that level was $12.6 billion. That is much better, but our 
colleagues keep lowering, dashing our expectation so much.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. First of all we 
cannot resolve this issue over whether or not an additional increase in 
foreign aid would jeopardize Social Security and Medicare. We just want 
to make certain it does not. But I will be happy to sit down one 
evening with the gentleman for as much as 3 or 4 hours to discuss this 
issue as to whether or not foreign aid ought to be increased even at 
the expense of jeopardizing Social Security and Medicare. I think it 
would make an interesting conversation, and I would invite the 
gentleman to sit down with me one evening in the near future for 
several hours to discuss this issue.
  Mr. BERMAN. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's offer. I 
plan to take him up on it. We can go either way in terms of this 
conversation.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) for her tremendous efforts on behalf of all the 
peoples of the world. She really does do a great job serving as ranking 
member on the Committee on Appropriations, and let me just say I have 
appreciation for everything that I have heard today about the 
bipartisan efforts, and I understand the limitations that my colleagues 
were working within.

                              {time}  1745

  However, that does not ease my pain nor satisfies my criticism of 
what is not happening for Africa.
  This bill completely eliminates funding for the highly indebted poor 
countries, the initiative that provides debt relief to countries that 
desperately need it. The governments of heavily indebted poor countries 
have been forced to make drastic cuts in basic services such as health 
and education in order to make payments on their debts. This 
administration requested $120 million. This bill allocates $33 million 
and zero for PIP pick.
  As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Domestic and 
International Monetary Policy of the House Committee on Banking and 
Financial

[[Page 18680]]

Services, I am working to improve the HIPC initiative. I have 
introduced H.R. 2232, the Debt Relief and Development in Africa Act of 
1999. This bill would relieve the debts of sub-Saharan African 
countries and target the savings from debt relief to HIV/AIDS treatment 
and prevention, health care, education and poverty reduction programs. 
I am also a cosponsor of H.R. 1095, the Debt Relief for Poverty 
Reduction Act of 1999 which would expand the HIPC initiative.
  Also, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill also cuts funding 
for the African Development Fund which provides low-interest loans to 
poor countries in Africa and completely eliminates funding for the 
African Development Bank, which provides market-rate loans to 
qualifying African countries.
  Furthermore, the bill cuts refugee assistance by $266 million below 
this year's budget. Well, I guess if we take out the money for Kosovo, 
we cut it by $20 million below this year's level. There are 6 million 
refugees and internally displaced people in Africa today. Sadako Ogata, 
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, is complaining.
  So if I was the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), I would be 
happy because Israel and Egypt got its funding. Africa still lags far 
behind, and every year I must get up and do this until Africa is 
treated fairly.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks and 
for her leadership on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services 
on all of the issues relating to debt relief and AIDS.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to applaud the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) for her tireless work against the scourge of 
HIV/AIDS, a disease which has not only plagued and crippled American 
society but the global community as well. Nearly 33 million people 
worldwide are infected with HIV/AIDS. Ninety percent of them live in 
Africa, Asia, and Latin America. However, 90 percent of the resources 
spent on prevention and care are devoted to people in industrialized 
countries. The funding provided in this bill is just a drop in the 
bucket compared to the funding needed to address this deadly crisis 
developing in these countries.
  I am encouraged that the committee has provided $141 million for 
international HIV prevention and care, a $20 million increase over last 
year's funding level. As such, I hope that in the future, we will make 
an even stronger commitment to this fight.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has 3 minutes 
remaining; the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time to close.
  I want to thank all of the Members of the House who have spoken on 
this bill that we have worked so hard on. I am so pleased with the 
interest in the bill. Our differences are largely not partisan on this 
bill, and we have very few differences today, except for the funding 
level.
  I wanted to take just a moment to talk about that because my 
distinguished chairman keeps bringing up the subject of Medicare and 
Social Security, and I want to point out to our colleagues that this 
bill is about, as we have heard, about $12.8 billion, $12.6.5 billion. 
That is about less than 1 percent of our national budget. And if we 
take out what we have in there for export finance and trade financing 
and guarantees, then it is even less than that, because that is not 
foreign assistance, that is assistance to the U.S. manufacturers.
  So we have a very, very tiny percentage of our national budget which 
we use to prevent war, to prevent the spread of disease, to prevent 
environmental disasters. To me, it is a small price to pay. Indeed, as 
our Chairman has said, it is the least we can do. In fact, we should do 
much more.
  We are the lowest of all of the industrialized countries, the lowest 
in relationship to our GDP in assistance, bilateral assistance to other 
countries. That is not what the American people want. And there is not 
going to be any saving of Social Security or risking of Medicare or 
Social Security because we spend a little bit more money preventing 
more disease and environmental disasters. Indeed, those are investments 
which will save money in the end.
  Mr. Chairman, we are a great country. The world looks to us for 
leadership. Certainly, the developing world does. We can prevent many 
problems that we know are predictable. We are not making them up; we 
know they are preventable if we invest wisely.
  Once again, I want to return to what President Kennedy said: My 
fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America can do for you, but 
what we can do working together for the freedom of men. Imagine the 
possibilities if we could invest in microlending and in debt 
forgiveness in a manner that is appropriate to our capacity and our 
leadership role in the world. Imagine if we could cooperate with the 
countries of Africa as they emerge into democracies.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that this is a good investment. I think the 
American people want us to do it, and I point out it is less than 1 
percent of our entire budget, a good investment for peace and security 
in the world.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill if it does not have the 
Smith amendment in it.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  I will close by saying that the basic argument that I have heard 
tonight is not over the contents of the bill, but for the lack of money 
that some think ought to be included therein.
  I might say that the opponents on that argument make good points, 
that maybe it is not enough money. But in my opinion, it is enough 
money, and I do not think it is going to be detrimental to me at all to 
go back and explain to my constituents that I was the one who proposed 
a bill to cut foreign aid. I apologize to the President if he wants $2 
billion more. He is not going to get it.
  So yes, this vote tonight, finally, on the passage of this bill, Mr. 
Chairman, is a vote to cut foreign aid, if we want to cut it, well then 
vote ``yes.''
  If one does not want to cut it and one thinks it ought to be more, 
then vote ``no.''
  But the real question in this bill is whether or not we are going to 
cut the President's request, whether or not we are going to cut last 
year's appropriation, whether or not we are going to preserve this 
money to pay for Social Security needs, for Medicare needs, for other 
areas such as tax reduction, or even balancing the budget and paying 
off the debt. That is what the final passage of this bill is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, I would recommend to my colleagues that they will have 
an easy explanation when they go back to their districts and people ask 
them, when Sonny Callahan brought a bill to the floor of the House to 
cut foreign aid, how did you vote, I should think all Members of 
Congress would want to say, I voted for the Callahan bill.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the National 
Conference of Black Mayors, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors held 
their annual conventions in Denver and New Orleans, respectively. At 
these conventions, over 100 mayors from around the country signed a 
petition calling on EPA to provide utility energy providers with 
maximum flexibility and lead time necessary to avoid higher energy 
costs to municipalities and local communities, including industrial and 
residential consumers.
  Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, EPA finalized a rulemaking last year 
which forced states, including Michigan, to submit State Implementation 
Plans (SIP's) that meet mandated reductions of oxides of nitrogen 
(NOX) emissions. One element of the rule would force local 
utilities to control NOX emissions at unprecedented levels. 
The reductions are of a magnitude that will require capital intensive 
technology with likely significant pass-through costs to energy 
consumers, including citizens, municipalities, and local communities. 
As rural and urban communities seek investment to spur economic growth, 
the shadow of higher energy costs could have significant adverse

[[Page 18681]]

effects on brownfields redevelopment and rural/urban revitalization 
generally. Further, these higher costs will erode the benefits of lower 
energy costs realized from deregulation.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, the EPA compliance deadlines are so stringent 
that electric utilities could be forced to shut down generating plants 
to install the necessary control equipment within a very short time. 
This could result in temporary disruptions of electricity supply.
  Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Court of Appeals, just this past month, issued 
a stay of the EPA NOX SIP call pending the agency's appeal 
of the court's decision to strike down EPA's National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5). The 
future of the agency's NOX SIP call is uncertain. 
Nonetheless, the mayors' petition represents a common-sense plea to EPA 
that, should the agency move forward, that it do so in a way that 
allows for compliance in the most cost-effective manner possible.
  I insert the petition in its entirety, along with the names and 
cities of supporting mayors to be inserted in the Record.

         Petition--EPA Ozone Transport NOX SIP Call

       As part of its Ozone Transport initiative, the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized a 
     rulemaking forcing States to submit Implementation Plans 
     (SIPs) to meet mandated reductions of oxides of nitrogen 
     (NOX) emissions in the Agency's effort to control 
     inter-state ozone transport impacts. The rule focuses on 22 
     mid-eastern States, with the likelihood that EPA will expand 
     the application of the rule to several additional States.
       Several States have joined in litigation challenging the 
     EPA rule on grounds that it is contrary to congressional 
     intent, an abuse of Agency discretion and disregards 
     traditional Federal/State relationships. EPA has even taken 
     the unprecedented step of threatening to impose its own 
     Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in the absence of 
     acceptable State action. Several additional States are 
     considering whether to file an amicus brief in support of the 
     Complaint. The U.S. Court of Appeals recently stayed EPA's 
     NOX SIP Call pending appeal of the Court's 
     decision setting aside EPA's new Ozone and Particulate Matter 
     standard.
       One element of the rule would force local utilities to 
     control NOX emissions at levels unprecedented to 
     date. The reductions are of a magnitude that will require 
     capital intensive technology with likely significant pass-
     through costs to energy consumers. The unavoidable 
     consequence will be higher energy costs to municipalities and 
     local communities, including industrial and residential 
     consumers alike. As rural and urban communities seek 
     investment to spur economic growth, the shadow of higher 
     energy costs could have significant adverse effects on 
     Brownfields redevelopment and rural/urban revitalization 
     generally.
       The EPA compliance deadlines are so stringent that electric 
     utilities could be forced to shut down generating plants to 
     install the necessary control equipment within a very short 
     time. This could result in a temporary disruption of 
     electricity supply.
       Significant NOX emissions reductions will 
     continue to be realized under existing mobile and stationary 
     control programs as the Clean Air Act continues to be 
     implemented thus minimizing the need, if any, for such 
     potentially disruptive requirements as called for in the EPA 
     NOX rule. This is especially true for local areas 
     in the mid-east that are dealing effectively with ozone 
     compliance challenges. Any new control programs, before being 
     implemented, must be weighed against the potential adverse 
     implications for local rural and urban communities.
       Accordingly, by our signatures below, we collectively call 
     on EPA to reconsider the NOX rule in light of 
     these concerns. In light of the Court's stay of the 
     NOX SIP Call, at a minimum, we urge EPA to provide 
     maximum flexibility to and address lead-time needs of utility 
     energy providers so as to minimize potential adverse economic 
     consequences to local rural and urban communities. Further, 
     we call on EPA to restore balance and cooperation between 
     states and EPA so that States can comply with the rule while 
     protecting their rights to determine the best methods of 
     doing so.
       Finally, we direct that copies of this Petition be provided 
     to the President, the Vice President, Members of Congress, 
     Governors and other local officials as are appropriate.


                         state, city, and mayor

     Alabama
     Moses--Walter S. Hill
     Arkansas
     North Little Rock--Patrick H. Hayes
     Marianna--Robert Taylor
     Sunset--James Wilburn
     California
     Alameda--Ralph J. Appezzato
     Fairfield--George Pettygrove
     Fresno--Jim Patterson
     Inglewood--Rosevelt F. Dorn
     Modesto--Richard A. Lang
     Turlock--Dr. Curt Andre
     Westminster--Frank G. Fry
     Florida
     Eatonville--Anthony Grant
     Gretna--Anthony Baker
     North Lauderdale--Jack Brady
     South Bay--Clarence Anthony
     Tamarac--Joe Schrieber
     Titusville--Larry D. Bartley
     Georgia
     Augusta--Bob Young
     Dawson--Robert Albritten
     East Point--Patsy Jo Hilliard
     Savannah--Floyd Adams, Jr.
     Stone Mountian--Chuck Burris
     Guam
     Santa Nita--Joe C. Wesky
     Yigo--Robert S. Lizama
     Illinois
     Brooklyn--Ruby Cook
     Carol Stream--Ross Ferraro
     Centreville--Riley L. Owens III
     DeKalb--Bessie Chronopoulos
     East St. Louis--Gordon Bush
     Evanston--Lorraine H. Morton
     Glendale Heights--J. Ben Fajardo
     Lincolnwood--Madeleine Grant
     Robbins--Irene H. Brodie
     Rockford--Charles E. Box
     Sun River Terrace--Casey Wade, Jr.
     Indiana
     Carmel--Jim Brainard
     Fort Wayne--Paul Helmke
     Louisiana
     Boyce--Julius Patrick, Jr.
     Chataignier--Herman Malveaux
     Cullen--Bobby R. Washington
     Jeanerette--James Alexander, Sr.
     Napoleonville--Darrell Jupiter, Sr.
     New Orleans--Marc Morial
     St. Gabriel--George L. Grace
     White Castle--Maurice Brown
     Maine
     Lewiston--Kaileigh A. Tara
     Maryland
     Seat Pleasant--Eugene F. Kennedy
     Massachusetts
     Leominster--Dean J. Mazzarella
     Taunton--Robert G. Nunes
     Michigan
     Detroit--Dennis Archer
     Garden City--James L. Barker
     Inkster--Edward Bevins
     Muskegon Heights--Robert Warren
     Taylor--Gregory E. Pitoniak
     Minnesota
     Rochester--Charles J. Canfield
     Saint Paul--Nori Coleman
     Mississippi
     Fayette--Roger W. King
     Glendora--Johnny Thomas
     Laurel--Susan Boone Vincent
     Marks--Dwight F. Barfield
     Pace--Robert Le Flore
     Shelby--Erick Holmes
     Tutwiler--Robert Grayson
     Winstonville--Milton Tutwiler
     Missouri
     Kinlock--Bernard L. Turner, Sr.
     Nebraska
     Omaha--Hal Daub
     New Jersey
     Chesilhurst--Arland Poindexter
     Hope--Timothy C. McDonough
     Newark--Sharpe James
     Orange--Muis Herchet
     New York
     Hempstead--James A. Garner
     Rochester--William A. Johnson, Jr.
     White Plains--Joseph Delfino
     North Carolina
     Charlotte--Pat McCrory
     Durham--Nicholas J. Tennyson
     Greenevers--Alfred Dixon
     North Dakota
     Fargo--Bruce W. Furness
     Ohio
     Columbus--Greg Lashutka
     Lyndhurst--Leonard M. Creary
     Middleburg Heights--Gary W. Starr
     Oklahoma
     Muskogee--Jim Bushnell
     Oklahoma City--Kirk D. Humphrey
     Tatums--Cecil Jones
     Oregon
     Tualatin--Lou Ogden
     Rhode Island
     Providence--V. A. Cianci, Jr.
     South Carolina
     Andrews--Lovith Anderson, Sr.
     Greenwood--Floyd Nicholson
     Tennessee
     Germantown--Sharon Goldsworthy
     Knoxville--Victor Ashe
     Texas
     Ames--John White
     Arlington--Alzie Odom
     Beaumont--David Moore
     Bedford--Richard D. Hurt
     Euless--Mary Lib Salem
     Hurst--Bill Souder
     Hutchens--Mary Washington
     Kendleton--Carolyn Jones
     Kyle--James Adkins
     North Richland Hills--Charles Scoma
     Port Arthur--Oscar G. Ortiz
     Waxahachee--James Beatty
     Virginia
     Portsmouth--Dr. James W. Holley III


[[Page 18682]]

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Callahan and 
Ranking Member Pelosi for their work in crafting this important 
appropriations bill. Given the limited resources available to them, I 
think they should be commended for their work in bringing this bill 
forward.
  I will support this bill but grudgingly, because I believe the 
reductions it makes in foreign aid are too deep. And I believe we 
should be asking other parts of the federal budget to share the burden 
we are placing on this bill.
  But instead, we are increasing spending in other areas, and asking 
foreign aid to pick up the slack. We are asking this budget to bend 
further and further, and I'm here to say: this budget can't bend any 
further.
  Mr. Chairman, as a fiscal conservative and a senior member of the 
Budget Committee, my number one priority in Congress has been to get 
our financial house in order. In past years, I have supported 
reductions in our foreign aid budget because it was consistent with our 
overall efforts to reduce federal spending and eliminate 30 years of 
deficit spending. We were trying to rein in spending in every other 
portion of the budget, and the foreign operations bill took a hit like 
everything else.
  But I rise today to say that we have picked on the foreign aid budget 
too much and for too long. I believe every area must play a part in our 
effort to control the growth of federal spending. But even as we 
increase spending on agriculture, defense, and other appropriations 
bills, we are once again decreasing funding for foreign aid. And, I, 
for one, do not understand why that is.
  This year's agriculture appropriations bill increased discretionary 
spending from $13.69 billion to $13.94 billion. This year's defense 
appropriations bill increased spending from $250.5 billion to $266.1 
billion. And this year's transportation appropriations bill increased 
spending from $47.2 to $50.7 billion. Yet, we are decreasing foreign 
aid spending from $13.4 billion to $12.6 billion.
  As a former Peace Corps volunteer, I can attest to the difference 
foreign assistance makes in the lives of people around the world, and 
the important role it plays in enhancing international trade and 
helping maintain national security.
  I know it is easy and most often popular to vote to cut foreign aid. 
But the simple fact is, this bill's $12.6 billion in foreign assistance 
represents just 0.7 percent of the federal budget. That is what we are 
debating here today.
  Foreign aid is used to promote health, nutrition, agriculture, 
education, and other noble goals. Foreign aid is truly one of our 
nation's greatest international investments. It's not a handout; our 
aid is intended to help the poorest nations rise up and become self-
sufficient, so they will no longer require our assistance.
  I support this bill, but hope we end this destructive trend of 
reducing foreign aid budgets.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the Chairman, Mr. 
Callahan, for including in this legislation the report language 
regarding the Office of Private and Voluntary Cooperation described 
below.
  This legislation provides $48,000,000 for the Office of Private and 
Voluntary Cooperation including $8,000,000 for cooperatives. This fund 
enables United States cooperatives and credit unions to share their 
self-help business approaches with developing and market transition 
countries. Congressman Bereuter and I recently sent a letter to the 
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) supporting 
this important office and its funding for US cooperatives.
  In addition, the Committee notes that in Central America, US 
cooperatives in countries hard-hit by Hurricanes George and Mitch. The 
Committee encourages USAID to fully utilize the expertise of U.S. and 
indigenous cooperatives in this region, especially in the expansion of 
cash crops such as coffee and sesame.
  U.S. cooperatives have been working overseas for more than three 
decades. They are at work in the villages of Africa, Asia, and Latin 
America. In Central and Eastern Europe, they are helping to achieve a 
free market, democratic way of life--one that cooperatives and uniquely 
to help other achieve.
  Cooperatives have the advantage of keeping economic benefits within a 
community. Profit is not siphoned off by outside interests, because the 
co-op's members are its owners, and the co-op exists to fill a need in 
a community that is not being met to other businesses.
  Electric and telephone co-ops meet rural consumers' needs for power 
and telecommunications not satisfied by private businesses. Farm co-ops 
help in the production and marketing of commodities. Housing co-ops 
give low-income people the opportunity to own their own homes. 
Cooperative insurance protects individuals and small businesses from 
risk. Credit unions serve people of limited income not reached by 
commercial banks, and extend credit to micro entrepreneurs who 
otherwise might not be able to secure funding.
  Cooperatives promote democracy by allowing members to jointly own 
their business. They share capital, elect a board of directors, and 
receive the benefits of ownership through better service and patronage 
refunds based on use. Co-ops teach people how to resolve problems 
democratically. Many individuals who received their education in 
democracy from cooperatives have gone on to become political leaders in 
their nations. In emerging democracies, co-ops help throw off the 
shackles of a non-market economy. Their members develop the skills of 
entrepreneurship and learn market values.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my appreciation to Mr. 
Callahan for including this critical language in the legislation before 
us.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2606, the 
Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs 
Appropriations Act for FY 2000. I'd like to thank Chairman Callahan and 
Ranking Member Pelosi of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and 
Related Programs Appropriations Subcommittee for including $13 million 
in funding for the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998.
  The Tropical Forest Conservation Act expands President Bush's 
Enterprise for the Americas Initiative--EAI--and provides a creative 
market-oriented approach to protect the world's most threatened 
tropical forests on a sustained basis. The bill was overwhelmingly 
approved by the House last March by a vote of 356 to 61, passed the 
Senate under unanimous consent and was signed into law on July 29, 1998 
as P.L. 105-214.
  The Tropical Forest Conservation Act is a cost-effective way to 
respond to the global crisis in tropical forests, and the groups that 
have the most experience preserving tropical forests--including the 
Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International and 
others--agree. The Administration is strongly in support of this effort 
as well. It is an excellent example of the kind of bipartisan approach 
we should have on environmental issues.
  I commend Chairman Callahan, Ranking Member Pelosi, and the members 
of the Subcommittee for providing the necessary funds to begin to 
implement this legislation that preserves and protects important 
tropical forests worldwide in a fiscally responsible fashion.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the debt restructuring 
section of the Foreign Operations appropriations bill. This is $87 
million less than the President's request, and $41 million less than 
the FY 1999 level. This bill does not provide the proposed $50 million 
U.S. contribution to the Highly Indebted Poor Countries Initiative 
Trust Fund.
  There are 41 countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia that are so 
heavily indebted that they can barely function. The people there suffer 
from malnutrition, illiteracy, and lack of health care. Many of these 
debts were incurred in the 70's when we encouraged them to borrow 
heavily. Recession in the 70's dropped the price of oil, mineral and 
agricultural products; interest rose. These countries will remain in a 
vicious, losing cycle of perennial indebtedness just paying off 
interest unless we essentially allow them to file for bankruptcy and to 
rebuild their economies. These countries desperately need debt relief.
  Jubilee, an impressive coalition of churches from around the world, 
together with food assistance groups, have worked to call the world's 
attention to the extreme situation in these heavily indebted poor 
countries and have asked that the U.S. recognize the crippling effect 
that paying interest has on these countries.
  Additionally, HIV/AIDS stalks Africa. Thirty million people in the 
world are infected with HIV/AIDS--the vast majority live in these 
heavily indebted countries. While nearly every region of the world has 
been affected by the pandemic, Sub-Saharan Africa has been ravaged by 
the disease, suffering 11.5 million deaths since the epidemic emerged, 
with a projected 22.5 million more in the next ten years. In some 
countries, 30% of all working adults now have AIDS or carry the virus.
  Debt relief is essential. I ask my colleagues to vote against this 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to lend my strong support for 
the FY 2000 Foreign Operations spending package.
  Mr. Chairman, everyone in this chamber knows that funding America's 
overseas commitments is not one of the most popular things we do in 
this body. With tight federal budgets, people back home often ask whey 
we spend this money, and many people do not realize that this 
appropriations package is one of the smallest this Congress will 
consider out of the 13 bills. That being said, I would like to praise

[[Page 18683]]

the work of Chairman Callahan and the Foreign Operations Subcommittee 
for bringing to the floor a commonsense package that stretches the 
taxpayers money and continues the Republican Congress' commitment to 
slowing foreign assistance.
  One of the areas I am very concerned about in this bill deals with 
America's strongest and most reliable ally in the Middle East, Israel. 
H.R. 2606 proposes $960 million in economic aid to our friend in the 
Middle East. Mr. Chairman this is almost $120 million less than the FY 
99 level which leaves me with some concern, but nonetheless, this is 
important funding to help insure stability in Israel's economy, and 
this approach by the committee will eventually lead us down the 
glidepath of a phaseout of economic assistance.
  H.R. 2606 also helps to provide for the security of Israel. Mr. 
Chairman, this bill provides for a $60 million increase over FY 99 for 
military assistance to a total of $1.92 billion. While I am pleased to 
hear that the new Israeli leadership is eager to step up efforts in the 
peace process, it is clear that we cannot have peace in the Middle East 
without a strong and secure Israel. These funds for Israel are 
especially important when the United States is still concerned and 
engaged with threats by Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran and international 
terrorists in the region. Chemical and biological weapons have already 
been used in the region, and several enemies or terrorist groups in the 
region are waiting for the opportunity to disrupt the peace process or 
commit outright acts of aggression towards Israel. These funds will 
reduce that threat for our ally and for American interests in the 
Middle East and around the world.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a responsible bill that meets our overseas 
commitments and ensures that America's allies are engaged as active 
partners in U.S. foreign policy. I thank the Chairman for his attention 
to the needs of our friends in Israel, and I ask that members support 
this measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to 
consider the amendments printed in part A of House Report 106-269. 
Those amendments may be considered only in the order printed in the 
report. The amendment printed in part B of the report may be offered 
only at the appropriate point in the reading of the bill.
  Each amendment printed in the report may be offered only by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.
  During consideration of the bill for further amendment, the Chair may 
accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that 
he has printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. 
Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part A of 
House Report 106-269.


           Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following:


 limitation on funds for foreign organizations that perform or promote 
                                abortion

       Sec.  . (a) Section 104 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(h) Restriction on Assistance to Foreign Organizations 
     That Perform or Actively Promote Abortions.--
       ``(1) Performacne of abortions.--(A) Notwithstanding 
     section 614 of this Act or any other provision of law, no 
     funds appropriated for population planning activities or 
     other population assistance may be made available for any 
     foreign private, nongovernmental, or multilateral 
     organization until the organization certifies that it will 
     not, during the period for which the funds are made 
     available, perform abortions in any foreign country, except 
     where the life of the mother would be endangered if the 
     pregnancy were carried to term or in cases of forcible rape 
     or incest.
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) may not be construed to apply to the 
     treatment of injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal 
     abortions or to assistance provided directly to the 
     government of a country.
       ``(2) Lobbying activities.--(A) Notwithstanding section 614 
     of this Act or any other provision of law, no funds 
     appropriated for population planning activities or other 
     population assistance may be made available or any foreign 
     private, non-governmental, or multilateral organization until 
     the organization certifies that it will not, during the 
     period for which the funds are made available, violate the 
     laws of any foreign country concerning the circumstances 
     under which abortion is permitted, regulated, or prohibited, 
     or engage in any activity or effort to alter the laws or 
     governmental policies of any foreign country concerning the 
     circumstances under which abortion is permitted, regulated or 
     prohibited.
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to activities in 
     opposition to coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
       ``(3) Application to foreign organizations.--The 
     prohibitions of this subsection apply to funds made available 
     to a foreign organization either directly or as a 
     subcontractor or subgrantee, and the certifications required 
     by paragraphs (1) and
       (2) apply to activities in which the organization engages 
     either directly or through a subcontractor or subgrantee.''.
       (b) The President may waive the provisions of section 
     104(h)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to 
     population assistance to foreign organizations that perform 
     abortions in foreign countries), as added by subsection (a), 
     for any fiscal year.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 263, the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  Does the gentlewoman from California seek to control the time in 
opposition?
  Ms. PELOSI. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman, and I ask unanimous consent to 
yield 5 minutes of that 10 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Greenwood).
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) will 
control 5 minutes of the time in opposition.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this on behalf of myself, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Barcia); the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick); the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen); the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Shows); the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar); and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  Let me begin by telling Members what this is not about. The amendment 
before us is not about family planning funding. The bill before us 
provides up to $385 million for international family planning programs. 
If the amendment passes, this amount will remain exactly the same, $385 
million for family planning. The amendment does not cut that amount by 
one penny.
  Second, the vote on this amendment is not about some of the cartoon 
illustrations that have been conjured up in some of the faxes and 
fliers being put out by pro-abortion organizations. This amendment 
already has a track record. It is substantially identical to the 
antilobbying provision of the Mexico City Policy, which governed all 
U.S. foreign family planning programs from 1984 until 1993.
  During those 9 years, the antilobbying provision was interpreted 
according to a rule of reason. We gave population assistance to 
literally hundreds of organizations during those 9 years, and we never 
cut off funding to a single organization because an officer of the 
organization gave a speech. Not even once. In fact, during the whole 9 
years, only 2 organizations were ever denied Federal funding under the 
Mexico City Policy, and it was because they themselves refused to agree 
not to perform or actively promote abortion except to save the mother's 
life or in cases of rape or incest.

[[Page 18684]]

  That is what this vote is really all about. The question is simple: 
Do we want our chosen representatives in foreign countries to do family 
planning and only family planning, or do we want them working overtime 
trying to topple pro-life laws in those countries?
  Mr. Chairman, in over 100 countries around the world, the lives of 
unborn children are still protected by law. But in country after 
country, we find that the biggest U.S. population grantees are also the 
most prominent advocates--sometimes the only prominent advocates--of 
legalizing abortion on demand.
  Mr. Chairman, the abortion promoters never tire of reminding us that 
they promote abortion with what they call ``their own money,'' but this 
argument deliberately misses the point.
  First, it ignores the fact that all money is fungible. When we pay an 
organization millions of dollars, we cannot help but enrich and empower 
all of that organization's activities, all that they do, even if the 
organization keeps a set of books that says it uses its money for one 
thing and our money for something else.
  Even more important, this argument totally ignores what it means to 
be an agent of the United States in a foreign country. When we choose 
our representatives abroad, we have a right, and I would submit we have 
a duty, to ensure that certain minimum standards are met.
  I would just point out to my colleagues that overwhelming numbers of 
Americans support the rights of unborn children, and we do not want our 
agents acting in such a way as to promote something that we find so 
offensive, the killing of unborn children on demand.
  Mr. Chairman, if the United States decided--and I just say this as an 
example--to give a grant for an antismoking campaign directed at 
children in a developing country, it might decide not to give the grant 
to a tobacco company that also planned to run pro-smoking 
advertisements in that same country, even if the company promised to 
use its own money for the cigarette ads.
  Mr. Chairman, it is exactly the same way with abortion and family 
planning. If the reason we fund family planning programs in a foreign 
country is really to provide contraceptives and counseling in order to 
reduce the number of abortions in the country, then we are well within 
our rights if we choose not to run the program through an organization 
that is also working hard to increase the availability of abortion in 
that same country. Everyone has a right of freedom of speech, but 
nobody has an absolute and unconditional right to represent the U.S. 
overseas or to receive multimillion dollar subsidies in exchange for 
that representation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1800

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the very 
distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the assistant 
minority leader.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment. It is a death sentence for 
thousands of women and children worldwide.
  This debate is not about abortion. Under current law, not one penny 
of U.S. funds can be used for abortion. This debate is about improving 
the health of women and children and saving lives.
  Each year around the world 600,000 women die in childbirth. Access to 
family planning in the developing world would reduce unintended 
pregnancies by 20 percent, thus reducing abortions, saving the lives of 
more than 120,000 women who would die in childbirth every year.
  U.S. family planning aid saves the lives of children. It allows 
families to choose how many children they want and when they will have 
them. Improved birth spacing can improve the chances of infant and 
child survival by 20 percent.
  If this amendment passes, millions of desperately needed funds now 
dedicated to family planning would be diverted. More mothers, infants, 
and children will die. I desperately urge my colleagues to oppose this 
wrongheaded amendment.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Smith amendment. As was just said, 
every day around the world 1,600 women die in post-partum hemorrhaging. 
They bleed to death. That is 585,000 women every year. It is a 
holocaust. Many of these women leave behind orphaned children. These 
women die because they become pregnant when they are too young, too 
old, too weak, or too soon after their last pregnancies.
  Every day thousands more infants and children die because they are 
born into families who cannot afford to feed them or to provide medical 
care for them.
  For the past 30 years the developed nations of the world have worked 
together to stem this awful tide of premature deaths. The program was 
initiated in 1969 by President Nixon.
  International family planning has brought reproductive health care to 
poor, underdeveloped communities across the globe, and where they have, 
the death toll has plummeted. It is a good, wise, compassionate, and 
enlightened program.
  But the Smith amendment threatens that program. It threatens those 
women and those children. It does so because the reality is no matter 
how hard local agencies try to provide family planning services to 
women around the world, some women will become pregnant when they 
cannot bear another child, and they will seek abortions.
  The Smith amendment says to these medical clinics, if you provide 
that abortion, we will take away your contraceptive funds. That is 
exactly, precisely, and frankly the opposite of what is needed. Where 
women seek abortions, we should promote contraception, not take it 
away. The Smith amendment ironically will increase, not decrease, 
abortions, and it will undermine our international effort to stem the 
tide of infant and child mortality.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished whip of the 
majority party.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Smith-Barcia 
amendment. Under no circumstances, under no circumstances should 
American taxpayers underwrite pro-abortion activities in foreign 
countries. Today an increasing number of Americans are growing weary of 
the abortion on demand policy in our land. There is a growing sense 
that this practice has hardened our hearts and torn the very moral 
fabric of this great Nation in two.
  After almost three decades, American attitudes towards abortion are 
becoming less permissive. In fact, a recent survey for the Center for 
Gender Equality showed that 53 percent of American women believe that 
abortion should be illegal under all circumstances, or allowed only in 
cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. That is up 8 percent 
from only 2 years ago.
  During this time, when American views on abortion are changing so 
drastically, it should not be the policy of the United States to 
undermine abortion laws in other countries. Over the last 6 years, the 
U.S. Government has provided over $3 billion of taxpayer money to 
population control organizations overseas. Many of these groups are the 
largest abortion providers and promoters in the world.
  This amendment does not cut population control funding to these 
organizations by one cent, even though many of us would like to do so. 
This amendment simply prohibits American aid from going to groups that 
violate existing foreign abortion laws, or lobby to change the laws in 
approximately 100 countries that currently restrict that practice.
  Mr. Chairman, in a Nation founded on freedom, we must continue to 
trumpet the reality that all of our rights

[[Page 18685]]

add up to nothing if we do not protect the most important of them all, 
the right to be born. While we are struggling with this truth at home, 
we definitely should not be undermining abortion laws abroad.
  I just urge my colleagues to support the Smith-Barcia amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Smith 
amendment to the foreign operations bill.
  Over the last 40 years, the world's population has doubled, and at 
the rate we are going it will double again by the year 2050. The number 
of people on Earth will increase by 78 million a year. It is 156 
congressional districts. Think of that.
  We must ask ourselves, if we continue to grow at this pace, who will 
be taking care of these children? What will happen to them? The answer 
is that they will face water shortages, famines, global warming, infant 
mortality, and political and economic instability. Supporting family 
planning services gives the children of the world a chance for the 
quality of life that we want for our very own children; a quality of 
life, by the way, that is threatened equally when the population of our 
globe expands to the extent that it is anticipated.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Greenwood compromise 
and in opposition to the Smith amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Greenwood compromise represents a new bipartisan 
consensus on family planning. I will note that the Greenwood amendment 
has a requirement that the Smith amendment lacks. The Greenwood 
amendment requires recipients to certify that their programs will 
reduce the incidence of abortion. We know from our experience in 
Central Asia that family planning reduces unintended pregnancies and 
abortion.
  We all want fewer abortions and we want family planning. The 
Greenwood compromise is the way to get there. I urge Members to join 
with CARE, the American Association of University Women, and the League 
of Conservation Voters who have endorsed the Greenwood compromise.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me. I intend to vote for the gentleman's amendment.
  I want to point out to my colleagues that on page 8 of this bill, it 
says that none of the funds made available under this heading may be 
used to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family 
planning, or to motivate or encourage any person in the practice of 
abortions.
  I just wanted to make the bill's position clear on abortion.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the very 
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), a member of the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith amendment 
and in strong support of the Greenwood-Lowey compromise amendment.
  The proponents of the Mexico City policy claim it simply cuts 
abortion funding. What they do not tell us is that abortion funding 
overseas has been prohibited since 1973, as our chairman has said. This 
amendment would cut abortion funding from its current level of zero to 
zero.
  What this amendment will really do is destroy our international 
family planning programs. One of the most important forms of aid that 
we provide to other countries is family planning assistance. No one can 
deny that the need for family planning services in developing countries 
is urgent.
  The aid we provide is both valuable and worthwhile. The Smith 
amendment would defund family planning organizations that perform legal 
abortions with their own money, and it would also impose a gag rule on 
non-governmental organizations and multilateral organizations that 
provide U.S.-supported family planning aid overseas.
  The Greenwood substitute specifically and carefully addresses my 
colleagues' concerns, so please vote for the Greenwood substitute.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me, and for his leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith amendment restricting 
international family planning funding.
  The Smith amendment is at odds with our tradition of free speech. It 
would impose a gag rule with respect to a single issue. It would deny 
women and family planning organizations the fundamental right to lobby 
for redress of grievances, and it holds foreign non-governmental 
organizations to a standard which we could not and hopefully would not 
impose on U.S. organizations or on American women.
  The Smith amendment would preclude USAID from working with many 
organizations that provide effective voluntary family planning and 
women's health services, and often in places where women have few 
alternatives. The result would be an increase in unintended 
pregnancies, maternal and infant deaths, and unsafe abortions.
  I repeat that family planning reduces abortions. The Greenwood-Pelosi 
amendment would prevent abortion funding, require adherence to the laws 
of the country in which the NGOs operate, and deny funding of abortion 
as a means of family planning. So I would ask this body strongly to 
vote ``no'' on Smith, ``yes'' on Greenwood.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to offer my 
support for the Smith amendment, and ask that my colleagues vote for 
the Foreign Families Protection Amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, until its removal in 1993 by President Clinton, the 
Mexico City Policy prevented foreign organizations from using American 
tax dollars to perform or encourage the termination of a child's life 
through abortion. Since 1993, over three billion American taxpayer 
dollars have been given to international population control groups. 
Many of these organizations provide and promote abortions, considering 
abortions a reasonable and convenient means to achieve their objective.
  That is why I support the Foreign Families Protection Amendment to 
the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. The amendment renews the 
Mexico City Policy that was in effect from 1984 to 1992. The Amendment 
will also prohibit funds from being given to organizations which lobby 
to change abortion laws in other countries.
  In keeping with my responsibility to uphold the Constitution, I 
cannot agree to lend U.S. financial support to organizations in other 
countries that seek to deny others their inalienable right to life. I 
would urge my colleagues to search their consciences and protect the 
rights of unborn children who have no voice to speak for themselves.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the Foreign Families 
Protection Amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, the Mexico City Smith amendment has changed 
drastically over the years. All it does now is it prevents subsidizing 
lobbying activities in foreign countries. It is called the Foreign 
Families Protection Amendment.
  As millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars flow to developing nations for 
the purpose of population control, it is critical that we refrain from 
paternalistically injecting our own penchant for abortions into these 
Nations. With the degree that we in this Nation disagree on the subject 
of abortion, it is not, at the very least, appropriate that we refrain 
from providing U.S. taxpayer funds to organizations that lobby for 
abortions overseas.
  Where are the multiculturalists now who suggest that we respect 
developing

[[Page 18686]]

cultures when their beliefs do not agree with ours? Apparently, if 
these beliefs are not pro-abortion, that creed holds no meaning.
  Mr. Chairman, United States taxpayers who hold such conflicting views 
on abortion should absolutely not be forced to subsidize those lobbying 
activities. Support the Smith amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am very, very pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), a leader on issues of 
family planning throughout the world and a champion of poor women and 
poor families.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) for her leadership and for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith amendment, which if 
it should pass, would be surely vetoed by the President, as he has 
vetoed it in the past. It has no chance of becoming law.
  If Members support additional restrictions on family planning, they 
should support the bipartisan Greenwood compromise, because it has the 
possibility of actually becoming law.

                              {time}  1815

  The Smith amendment is unnecessary because U.S. law, the Helms 
amendment of 1973, already prohibits the use of United States funds to 
either perform abortion or to lobby for or against abortion rights. The 
real target is and always has been family planning services and those 
organizations most qualified to deliver them.
  The Smith amendment's ban on speech is nothing more than a gag rule 
that will punish foreign organizations for engaging in public policy 
debate, for petitioning their government, for being involved in the 
democratic process, rights that would be protected under the First 
Amendment in our country.
  The Smith amendment is constitutional solely because it applies only 
to foreigners outside of the United States.
  Instead, I ask my colleagues to join me and many others in a 
compromise. Instead of telling other countries what they can and cannot 
do, let us respect other countries' laws. In the Greenwood compromise, 
these countries would be disqualified, any foreign nongovernmental 
organization, from being eligible for U.S. population assistance if it 
provides abortions in violation of that country's laws.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the unnecessary, because it is 
already law, the anti-family planning, and the undemocratic Smith 
amendment, and to support the Greenwood compromise.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) has expired. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) 
has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) 
has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GREENWOOD. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, who is entitled to close this debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. Under this circumstance, the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Smith) would be entitled to close the debate.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell), who I think of when I think of the 
conscience of this House.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
for that very generous introduction.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) if he 
would enter into a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Sure. I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman's knowledge, does the 
United States give money to Israel?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Yes, it does.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Does Israel permit abortion?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Israel does permit abortions.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, would not the logic, then, of the 
amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey, is not about fungible 
money, mean that we should vote to cut off all aid to Israel?
  Does the gentleman not believe, then, that the logic he is putting 
forward to this House, namely, that all money is fungible; that if we 
give money for some purposes which are good, but some of the recipients 
which receive that money use it for other purposes, including abortion; 
then that premise justifies cutting off all assistance, and that that 
premise would lead you to cut off all aid to Israel.
  I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California for yielding to me.
  Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, we faced that back in 1984 when 
the Mexico City policy was first crafted, that there is only one 
government per country, whereas there are a multitude, a myriad of NGOs 
to whom we could provide money. And if a certain NGO said it wanted to 
promote abortion and lobby to bring down the right-to-life laws, we 
could find another NGO that wanted only to do family planning.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time to suggest that the 
logic of the gentleman from New Jersey puts him into this corner. I 
know the gentleman's amendment avoids it, but the logic that he 
presents to us is, if we give money and it is intended for a good 
purpose, but, since all money is fungible, if some of it ends up for 
abortion, then we should not give any money at all.
  The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that there is awfully important work done 
by family planning. The underlying bill, the chairman's mark, does not 
include this language. We should not support the Smith amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New 
Jersey for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the Smith 
amendment, and I ask my colleagues to vote for it and vote in 
opposition to the Greenwood amendment.
  This is much clearer this year, and it is pretty straightforward. If 
my colleagues think taxpayer dollars should go to fund organizations 
that are going to try to overturn pro-life laws in foreign countries, 
then they do not want to vote for the Smith amendment. If my colleagues 
think that it is an inappropriate use of the taxpayer dollars of 
working Americans, vote for the Smith amendment; vote against the 
Greenwood amendment. It is not confusing this year. It is very 
straightforward.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) to close.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith amendment 
that would protect foreign countris from U.S. taxpayer dollars being 
used to undermine their laws on abortion.
  Congress has repeatedly banned the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for 
abortions within our own borders, except when the life of the mother is 
endangered or in cases of rape or incest. This amendment continues to 
guarantee that American taxpayer dollars are subject to the same test 
when the money is used to assist foreign countries.
  Money is fungible. Any organization that is involved in international 
family planning efforts and performs abortions and lobbies to weaken 
abortion laws should not receive taxpayer dollars.
  The international population control groups are active and powerful. 
Some of the groups are actively trying to lift restrictions on 
abortions in over 100 countries, including Ireland, Brazil, Mexico, and 
Sri Lanka. We should not be funding their lobbying efforts. But if we 
continue to subsidize their other programs, we will be doing exactly 
that.
  This amendment will not decrease the amount of money available for

[[Page 18687]]

international family planning. It does not limit funding for 
organizations that perform abortions only in cases where the mother's 
life is endangered or in cases of forcible rape or incest.
  The Smith amendment does not limit the ability of the staff of 
international population control groups from lobbying on their own time 
as individual citizens, but they would be limited from doing so as a 
representative of an organization that receives U.S. funds because 
these organizations are seen as our representatives.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to protect our taxpayers' dollars. I urge a 
vote for the Smith amendment and against the Greenwood amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the 
amendment offered by Representative Smith that would prohibit U.S. 
population assistance funds from being made available to foreign 
organizations that perform abortions. This amendment also prohibits 
these funds from being used to change the abortion laws of foreign 
countries and for any activities that violate the abortion laws of 
foreign countries. I believe that this amendment is tantamount to a 
global gag rule on abortion.
  This amendment prohibits overseas non-government organizations 
(``NGOs'') that receive government funds from providing education or 
even engaging in discussion about abortion services. The NGOs are also 
prohibited from lobbying the foreign government or encouraging the 
citizens to lobby their government with respect to abortion law and 
policy.
  We value freedom in this country, and freedom of speech is one that 
we hold dear. We also value the freedom to petition our government when 
we disagree with certain policies. In other countries, we advocate the 
cause of democracy, and freedom of speech is an important component of 
a democratic government.
  When NGOs travel to other countries with the purpose of advocating 
certain programs, such as family planning information, we should not 
support a gag rule that limits the ability of that organization from 
providing that information.
  Family planning and reproductive health information is crucial to 
women in developing countries. Without this information, many women, 
are at risk for death due to pregnancy and childbirth. Information 
about abortion service simply provides these women with the option of 
exercising a choice for their reproductive health.
  This global gag rule also prevents these organizations from providing 
abortion services when necessary. These organizations often use their 
own funds and this restriction impinges on the free speech rights of 
these organizations. It is unconstitutional to treat a U.S. 
organization in this manner.
  I strongly oppose any form of a global gag rule and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment. We must support efforts to 
increase family planning around the globe, and this amendment simply 
imposes a restriction on the rights of women to choose.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228, 
noes 200, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 349]

                               AYES--228

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Chenoweth
     Jones (OH)
     McDermott
     Peterson (PA)
     Rahall
     Skelton

                              {time}  1842

  Messrs. RODRIGUEZ, STRICKLAND and ENGEL changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think at this point it is my understanding, and the 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may be able to confirm this, 
that the procedure is going to be that we are going to now bring up the 
Greenwood amendment, which has a total of 20 minutes

[[Page 18688]]

debate, at which time we will then vote on the Greenwood amendment.
  After the vote on the Greenwood amendment, we will then roll votes 
for at least 2 hours in order that Members will have the opportunity to 
go and have dinner, or to do what other business they need to do, and 
then return and vote on the rolled votes at approximately 9 or 9:15 
p.m.
  Is that the Chairman's understanding as well?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2, printed in Part A of 
House Report 106-269.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Greenwood

  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 106-269 
     offered by Mr. Greenwood:
       At the end of this bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following:


   restriction on population planning activities or other population 
                               assistance

       Sec. ___. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available for population planning activities or other 
     population assistance under title II of this Act may be made 
     available to a foreign nongovernmental organization unless 
     the organization certifies that--
       (1) it will not use such funds to promote abortion as a 
     method of family planning or to lobby for or against 
     abortion;
       (2) it will use such funds that are made available for 
     family planning services to reduce the incidence of abortion 
     as a method of family planning;
       (3) it will not violate the laws or policies of the foreign 
     government relating to the circumstances under which abortion 
     is permitted, regulated, or prohibited; and
       (4) it will not engage in any activity or effort in 
     violation of applicable laws or policies of the foreign 
     government to alter the laws or policies of such foreign 
     government relating to the circumstances under which abortion 
     is permitted, regulated, or prohibited, except with respect 
     to activities in opposition to coercive abortion or 
     involuntary sterilization.
       (b) The limitation on availability of funds to a foreign 
     nongovernmental organization under subsection (a) shall 
     apply--
       (1) to funds made available to an organization either 
     directly or indirectly as a subcontractor or subgrantee; and
       (2) to activities in which the organization engages either 
     directly or indirectly through a subcontractor or subgrantee.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 263, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).

                              {time}  1845

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) seek to 
control the time in opposition?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield 
5 of those 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) 
for her to control.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, the Greenwood-Pelosi 
amendment, is one that all of us on both sides of the aisle can easily 
vote for.
  Under current law, let me just reiterate, no U.S. funds are used to 
perform abortion. I want to repeat that. No U.S. funds can be used to 
perform abortion under current law or to lobby for or against abortion. 
We already know that.
  I want to point out that the Greenwood-Pelosi amendment reiterates 
the ban on the use of U.S. funds to lobby on abortion and, in addition, 
it adds that no U.S. funds may be used to promote abortion as a method 
of family planning.
  The Greenwood-Pelosi amendment makes clear that organizations 
receiving U.S. funds for family planning services must be committed to 
using those funds to reduce the incidence of abortion.
  We all know that it has been very clear, looking at Russia and other 
states of the former Soviet Union, that abortion was relied on 
previously as a primary method of birth control. And now with the 
advent of contraception, the abortion rate has plummeted 25 percent. 
The number has dropped by 800,000.
  So I ask this body to vote for the Greenwood-Pelosi amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Greenwood 
amendment.
  Sometimes in Congress it is hard to tell one bill from another. We 
just passed the Smith-Barcia foreign families protection bill. The 
Greenwood amendment looks very much like it.
  As we wade into this, we need to recognize that this is not just 
another pro-choice, prolife debate. Because that is really not the 
issue. And the issue is not cutting funding for family planning abroad, 
because we certainly support family assistance abroad. The bill we have 
passed does not cut that.
  The main issue here today is will we force American taxpayers to 
undermine the values of families and other countries and to try to 
change their laws.
  Approximately 100 countries already have laws restricting abortions. 
These are countries like Ireland, Brazil, and Mexico.
  Now, we can debate and argue about whether or not we like the way 
they restrict abortion. But, hopefully, all of us would agree that we 
should not ask American taxpayers to fund an organization that is 
working to change those laws when here at home we have not agreed about 
that issue.
  That is really the crux of the issue. Because while we talk about 
funding, we need to understand how the Greenwood amendment would fund 
these activities.
  The Greenwood amendment would allow our taxpayer money to go to 
organizations that lobby to change or undermine laws restricting 
abortions. The way the amendment is written, it says these funds cannot 
be used for those purposes. That is kind of like giving soft money to a 
political party and telling them not to use that to support candidates.
  We are supporting the lobbying to undermine organizations abroad if 
we vote for the Greenwood amendment.
  I have got the wording here. And so, if we need to debate it, it is 
constantly use funds to promote abortion while it would allow 
organizations to receive this funding who promote abortion and lobby 
against the laws.
  There is a clear distinction here if we read it. And I ask my 
colleagues on both sides of the prolife, pro-choice issue to vote 
against the Greenwood amendment and allow the Smith-Barcia foreign 
families protection amendment to stand.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to just acknowledge the statement of the 
gentleman that giving this amendment to the groups is like giving soft 
money to a candidate.
  Does that mean that he then is opposed to soft money in campaigns? I 
hope it does.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey) a distinguished leader and a member of the Subcommittee on 
Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to address my colleague. Because the 
Greenwood substitute specifically and carefully addresses the concerns 
of my colleague about abortion without destroying our international 
family planning programs.
  It says explicitly, no U.S. funds may be used to lobby on abortion, 
for or against, that no U.S. funds may be used to promote abortion as a 
method of family planning; and it prohibits any recipients of U.S. 
international family

[[Page 18689]]

planning assistance from using U.S. or private funds to violate 
abortion and advocacy laws in the countries in which they operate.
  In other words, if abortion is illegal in a country, an organization 
cannot use its own money to perform abortions. And if a country 
prohibits advocacy on abortion, an organization cannot use its own 
money to advocate on the issue. If an organization violates either of 
these requirements, it loses its U.S. assistance, period.
  This substitute is very clear that the U.S. respects the laws of the 
nations in which we have family planning programs and respects the 
ability of those nations to enforce their laws.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Greenwood substitute.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, it is not the same old 
debate.
  First of all, remember, the Smith language has never ever become law. 
The Greenwood language this time includes a new requirement that the 
Smith language does not include. The Greenwood language requires that 
an organization certify that the funds will be used to reduce abortion.
  I think every prolife Member of this body ought to be voting for 
Greenwood. It requires certification that the money will be used to 
reduce the incidence of abortion.
  How can he do that? Well, in Central Asia, where abortion was the 
only method of family planning under Soviet rule, once women were given 
access to family planning, abortion rates plummeted, plummeted. So 
under this bill, if they receive this money, they will have to be 
willing to certify that they are going to go after those populations 
that have essentially no choice in family planning but abortion.
  Support the Greenwood amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my 
good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia).
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, we should not spend American dollars for 
activities that we cannot similarly spend within our own borders.
  We have, as a Nation, established a policy in which we prohibit the 
use of Federal dollars to pay for abortions because of the value that 
we place on each human life. We should and must demand that any 
international organization receiving our dollars follow the same 
limitations that we impose upon ourselves.
  The Smith-Barcia amendment, which this House has already passed, uses 
precise language to prevent taxpayer funding of organizations that 
engage in any activity or effort to alter the laws or governmental 
policies of any foreign country concerning abortion.
  This amendment now before us would only serve to dilute and confuse 
this pro-child, pro-family statement. We should not hide behind any 
``shades of meaning'' interpretations. Instead, we must be explicit 
about our goals.
  The Smith-Barcia amendment retains the amount of funding available 
for international population assistance but we ensure that the money 
goes only to those organizations who do not perform abortion.
  We know that there are some organizations which claim that they are 
assisting in only family planning activities, not abortions, even 
though the end result of what they are promoting is in fact an 
abortion. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
Greenwood amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, the Greenwood amendment ensures that 
organizations receiving U.S. assistance do not use those funds to 
perform abortions, promote abortions, or to lobby for or against 
abortions.
  I am baffled why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would 
oppose this amendment and oppose programs which have increased 
childhood survival rates, reduced maternal death rates, and improved 
women's reproductive health in the developing world.
  It is estimated there are 75 million unwanted pregnancies worldwide, 
mostly in developing countries. The reproductive health services we 
need to preserve will dramatically reduce these unwanted pregnancies by 
providing family planning services and will, therefore, reduce unwanted 
abortions.
  If my colleagues really support reducing abortions and reducing 
unwanted pregnancies, vote ``yes'' on this amendment. If they want to 
eliminate family planning altogether, say so.
  Do not mask it in some other argument. Just tell us that, and then we 
can debate on those grounds.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just 
to respond briefly.
  Mr. Chairman, in the previous amendment we made very clear to all our 
colleagues--all of the sponsors of the amendment, and there were 
several--that we were not reducing family planning by one penny. Our 
amendment says we have got to get out of the promotion of abortion 
overseas. Regrettably, many of the so-called family planning 
organizations in some countries are the primary engine trying to topple 
right-to-life laws. That is cultural imperialism. It certainly puts the 
unborn and their mothers at risk. And as Planned Parenthood has said, 
and I can give Members the quote, ``When abortion laws are liberalized, 
the number of abortions skyrocket.'' That is their word, skyrocket. So 
if we want more abortions, liberalize the laws.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform the Committee that the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) has 3 minutes remaining, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has 5 minutes remaining, and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has 3 minutes remaining.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right, the entitlement to 
close this debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, my friend from Pennsylvania is one of the 
great Members here to try to work out different compromises. I commend 
him for that, and in many pieces of legislation we can. When we get to 
the issue of abortion, it is very difficult to divide a baby, 
particularly if you believe, as I do, that it is a human life and it is 
either going to be alive or dead.
  For many of us, this is a very deeply held position. We believe, as 
my colleagues heard in the earlier debate, that this is directly 
fungible money, that these organizations have hidden goals to them, and 
while I respect very much my friend from Pennsylvania's attempt to come 
up with compromise language, there are just too many loopholes in this 
language, it is too duplicative in other parts, and I believe that it 
would not in fact stop international abortion funding. I do not believe 
in the end that we can split a baby.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the Smith amendment and in support of the Greenwood-Pelosi amendment. 
The Greenwood-Pelosi amendment ensures that U.S. funds for family 
planning will continue to be made available to foreign countries and 
the U.S. will not interfere with the laws of those foreign countries. 
These provisions embrace our Nation's attempts to create healthy and 
prosperous communities around the world.
  Family planning is a necessity, Mr. Chairman, within our country and 
around the world. Providing education on methodologies which may harm a 
woman's pregnancy, ways to avoid needing an abortion, prenatal care, 
and how to care for babies are all necessary components of family 
planning.

[[Page 18690]]

  I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the gentlewoman from 
California and all of my colleagues who are here today to stand up for 
responsible foreign policy and making sure that the essentials of 
family planning are available to the women and families that need it 
throughout the world. I encourage my colleagues to join me in 
supporting the Greenwood-Pelosi amendment and defeating the Smith 
amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment, because this amendment respects the laws of other countries 
and it respects the women of other countries.
  Now that we have passed the Smith amendment, we have three choices 
before us: We can either outlaw sex, which is probably not going to be 
particularly successful, it certainly has not in the countries that we 
are talking about; or we can turn our back on illegal abortions and we 
can accept the women of Third World countries being consigned to the 
poverty, the desperation, the suffering, the exploitation that 
overpopulation entails; or we can do what the Greenwood amendment does, 
which is to say there is an alternative to abortion, and, that is, 
responsible family planning.
  That is what our country has done. That is why we are successful. 
That is why we are a first world country, because we have been able to 
control overpopulation because we have been able to empower women to 
control their lives.
  Vote for the Greenwood amendment. It is the responsible thing to do. 
It is the only responsible thing to do.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I rise in support of the Greenwood amendment. I do so for the 
following reasons:
  Listening to the debate, I think that it is important to make a 
couple of points. One of our colleagues said that we should have the 
same limitations on the organizations overseas that we have in the 
United States. Indeed, if we tried to put this gag rule on any 
organizations in the United States, it would be unconstitutional. I 
think we should treat the international organizations the same way as 
we treat those in the United States, and, that is, with the freedom of 
speech.
  Secondly, I am very baffled, I will join my colleague from Colorado 
in using the word ``baffled,'' by the comments of some of our 
colleagues. If indeed our colleagues agree that abortion should be 
permitted in case of rape, incest and life of the mother, why then 
would we say that there should be no conversation about this subject in 
case of rape, incest and life of the mother for women who need to 
terminate a pregnancy overseas and organizations who are striving to 
reduce abortions with family planning?
  Mr. Chairman, if we want to reduce abortions, we know the best way is 
to fund family planning. The gentleman from Pennsylvania offers a fine 
alternative. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, the House has just made a very strong statement in 
favor of women and children around the world by passing the pro-life 
Foreign Families Protection Act offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Barcia), the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Shows), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and myself. I believe if we 
stand firm now, we have a chance not only to make a statement but also 
to make a difference. Even though the Greenwood amendment, the pending 
amendment, does not alter our amendment one iota--the two would lay 
side by side, I do urge my colleagues not to dilute the pro-life, pro-
family, pro-child message by passing the amendment now pending.
  Mr. Chairman, the Greenwood amendment is an empty shell. I say that 
with all due respect to my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania. It 
has a tremendous amount of surface appeal, but that is all it has. Its 
supporters try to portray it somehow as a pro-life amendment.
  Look at it. I have had Members come up and say, ``What's wrong with 
this? It looks like a right-to-life amendment.'' But I would say again 
with all due respect that they, the Members offering this amendment 
today, are the leadership of the abortion rights movement here in this 
Congress. They are certainly entitled to their deeply held opinions, 
and we can respect those opinions. But I think we should be skeptical 
about whether their amendment is really a pro-life amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, if I ever stand up on this floor and suggest to Members 
that I am offering a pro-abortion amendment, I hope that my colleagues 
would be equally skeptical, and I hope that they would look at the fine 
print. I make the same strong recommendation in this case. When the 
leadership of the abortion rights movement say they are offering an 
amendment with all kinds of seemingly pro-life language in the 
amendment, we need to read the fine print.
  The fire print says this, Mr. Chairman: There is nothing whatever in 
the Greenwood amendment that would alter current policy, which today 
provides millions of dollars to foreign nongovernmental organizations 
that are aggressively working to overturn the laws of other countries 
on abortion.
  If we go back and look at history, the reason for the Mexico City 
policy--and we have only offered half of that policy in the previous 
vote, the President has a waiver for the performance part but not on 
the promotion part--was that the current policy was found to be so 
infirm. It was not doing the job. Foreign nongovernmental organizations 
were setting up shop in one country's capital after another and then 
they would network and begin trying to topple the right-to-life law. I 
believe that is cultural imperialism, especially when we are the major 
donor in many cases to those various nongovernmental organizations.
  Under the Greenwood language, U.S. taxpayers would still subsidize 
foreign pro-abortion organizations. You just have to flip on and go 
through the Internet. Bring up the Irish Times. There was a piece just 
the other day about how the Irish Family Planning Association is going 
to be spearheading a big effort to undermine the pro-life laws in the 
Republic of Ireland. That is happening all over the world.
  The gentlewoman from Connecticut pointed out earlier that this has 
never been law, but it was the policy under the Reagan and Bush years. 
We provided a maximum amount of money for family planning, we were the 
major donors during those years, but we had a fire wall between family 
planning (contraception) and abortion, believing that the latter 
destroys the life of an unborn child.
  The language in the amendment of my good friend from Pennsylvania is 
actually weaker than current law, because he restricts lobbying only 
when it is a ``method of family planning.'' Planned Parenthood has said 
in their statements that there is no such thing as a birth control 
abortion. They would say it is a health abortion. Roe v. Wade says 
``health,'' includes emotional and mental health. So we have a 
situation where virtually any abortion would be permitted and no 
lobbying would be precluded under my friend's amendment.
  Again, I think it tries to look like a pro-life amendment. I looked 
at it and had to look at it very carefully. I do hope we will vote it 
down and I hope that in conference the real McCoy, not the counterfeit, 
will be accepted.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, my good friend, and he is my good friend 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), said that he hopes that his 
language remains in the conference committee report. It is a false 
hope. It

[[Page 18691]]

is an ardent hope, but it is a false hope. It will not and it has not, 
year after year, this year being no exception. It received 228 votes, 
but it will not remain in the conference committee and it will not 
become law.
  So the question before us now is what will remain in the conference 
committee? If we adopt the Greenwood amendment, we will have some 
restrictions that we should all support. What are those provisions? The 
organizations that receive these funds have to certify, as my language 
does, that they will not use funds to promote abortion as a method of 
family planning or to lobby for or against abortion. We all support 
that. Every Member of this House supports that notion. It says that 
they will use these funds that are made available for family planning 
services to reduce the incidence of abortion as a method of family 
planning. We all, 435 of us, stand for that premise. It says that these 
organizations must certify that they will not engage in an activity or 
effort in violation of applicable laws or policies of the foreign 
government, or alter the laws or policies of such where pregnancy was 
carried to term. In the case of rape or incest, it is with that 
exception. And it says, the funds appropriated for family population 
planning activities must only be made to organizations that agree not 
to violate the laws of any foreign country. So why would all 435 of us 
not vote for something that all 435 of us believe in?
  The gentleman from New Jersey said his legislation makes a statement 
and it does. He said it will make a difference and it will not. It will 
not become law. So if you want to make a difference, then you vote for 
what is left. It is a compromise. It is wise, it is fair, it is 
something in which we all believe.
  And so the only reason, Mr. Chairman, to vote against this amendment 
is to make the statement that we are so divided by our ideology that we 
cannot work together and stand together on the basis of our shared 
intentions. That is what is left to fight about.
  The gentleman from New Jersey said this language looks like it is 
pro-life language. It is pro-life language in the way that most 
Americans think of. This supports the notion that we care about the 
585,000 women, mothers, sisters, daughters who hemorrhage to death 
because they do not have the availability of family planning. It 
supports the life of the tens and hundreds of thousands of children who 
die of starvation and for lack of medical care. That is the pro-life it 
is for. That is why we should all vote for it.
  I urge my colleagues to get together and do the right thing.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support 
of the Greenwood Amendment that prohibits U.S. funds from being used to 
promote abortion as a method of family planning. This amendment also 
prohibits the use of U.S. funds to lobby for or against abortions in 
countries where abortion is illegal. I support this amendment because 
it continues to support the notion of international family planning.
  This amendment requires that non-governmental organizations respect 
the laws of foreign countries where abortion is illegal. But unlike the 
Smith amendment, it does not prohibit these organizations from 
performing abortion services when necessary.
  This amendment does provide restrictions on abortion services in 
other countries, but the restrictions refer to governmental activities 
that would undermine the sovereignty of a nation to determine what laws 
should govern its citizens.
  This amendment does not encourage a global gag rule that restricts 
all discussion of abortion. The funds given to these NGOs must be used 
to reduce the incidence of abortion as it encourages other methods of 
family planning.
  This amendment does not discourage these organizations from using 
their own funds to promote education, but simply places a restriction 
on the use of U.S. funds.
  I support this amendment because I understand that many Members are 
uncomfortable with the U.S. government funding abortions overseas. This 
amendment offers a compromise that would allow these private NGOs to 
use their own funds. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Greenwood/
Lowey amendment. For 19 years, I have come to the floor in support of 
international voluntary family planning.
  During this time, in spite of Congressional intransigence, 
international family planning programs have evolved, and in return, 
countless infants and mothers have been saved and their lives and the 
lives of their families are healthier and more productive. Family 
planning is not simply about providing women in the developing world 
with health options. It is about empowering women to take charge of 
their lives and in return improve the lives of their families.
  I find it ironic that some Members who oppose international family 
planning seek to increase funding for child survival programs. If 
babies do not survive birth, they will never benefit from child 
survival programs. Further, if these children that we seek to help, are 
not born to healthy mothers and into a healthy family, their chances 
for survival are greatly reduced.
  Family planning services are a standard part of other health services 
in the developing world because some of the greatest health crises 
facing these populations unfortunately, originate with the transmission 
of infectious diseases. HIV/AIDS infection continues to increase.
  Earlier this year, AIDS became the number one killer in Africa, only 
eighteen years after it was first recognized.
  In the past six months, HIV/AIDS has reached epidemic proportions in 
Russia, In Moscow, there has been a twelvefold increase of reported 
cases in comparison to last year. Maternal deaths attributed to AIDS 
has left 8.2 million orphans across the world. 8.2 million orphans!
  If people are truly interested in helping children in the developing 
world, they would support international voluntary family planning. 
Because there is no vaccine for HIV/AIDS, the only way to try to slow 
the spread of HIV/AIDS is through education and the distribution of 
contraceptives, and these services are part of family planning 
programs.
  Providing extensive child health programs without providing 
reproductive health services would be like building a house without the 
foundation. If children in the developing world never reach the point 
of being able to benefit from child health programs, these programs are 
useless.
  This amendment is basically a compromise. Send this amendment to 
conference. Let the conferees decide whether this amendment will lead 
to adoption of the conference report on this bill. I have confidence 
they will be where the American people are--overwhelmingly in support 
of family planning services for all women.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 221, 
noes 208, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 350]

                               AYES--221

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern

[[Page 18692]]


     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--208

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Chenoweth
     McDermott
     Peterson (PA)
     Skelton

                              {time}  1930

  Mrs. NORTHUP changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. DUNN and Messrs. SANDLIN, BISHOP, and NETHERCUTT changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gillmor) 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. 2606), 
making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and 
related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________